<DOC>
[DOCID: f:42530.wais]
FEDERAL HIRING FROM THE WELFARE ROLLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 24, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
42-530 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1997
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Civil Service
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
CHRISTOPHER COX, California DC
PETE SESSIONS, Texas HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
George Nesterczuk, Staff Director
Ned Lynch, Senior Research Director
Caroline Fiel, Clerk
Cedric Hendricks, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 24, 1997................................... 1
Statement of:
Hantzis, Steven, national executive director, National
Federation of Federal Employees; Robert Rector, senior
policy analyst, welfare and family issues, the Heritage
Foundation; James Riccio, Manpower Development Research
Corp.; and Charles G. Tetro, president, Training and
Development Corp........................................... 79
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas.................................... 152
Koskinen, John A., Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget; James B. King, Director, Office of
Personnel Management; Diane Disney, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel, Department of
Defense; and Eugene A. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Department of Veterans' Affairs,
accompanied by Joyce Felder, Associate Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources, Department of Veterans'
Affairs.................................................... 17
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brickhouse, Eugene A., Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Department of Veterans' Affairs, prepared
statement of............................................... 43
Disney, Diane, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Civilian Personnel, Department of Defense, prepared
statement of............................................... 34
Ford, Hon. Harold E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.............. 4
Hantzis, Steven, national executive director, National
Federation of Federal Employees, prepared statement of..... 83
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, prepared statement of............. 154
King, James B., Director, Office of Personnel Management,
prepared statement of...................................... 25
Koskinen, John A., Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, prepared statement of............... 20
Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida:
Letter dated April 30, 1997 to James King................ 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 51
Rector, Robert, senior policy analyst, welfare and family
issues, the Heritage Foundation, prepared statement of..... 93
Riccio, James, Manpower Development Research Corp.:
Information concerning schedule of Federal awards........ 147
Prepared statement of.................................... 115
Tetro, Charles G., president, Training and Development Corp.,
prepared statement of...................................... 122
FEDERAL HIRING FROM THE WELFARE ROLLS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Civil Service,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Mica, Morella, Cox, Sessions,
Pappas, Norton, Cummings and Ford.
Staff present: George Nesterczuk, staff director; Ned
Lynch, senior research director; Caroline Fiel, clerk; and
Cedric Hendricks, minority professional staff member.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of
the House Civil Service Subcommittee to order. This morning's
hearing will deal with Federal hiring from the welfare rolls,
an important subject, and a proposal by the President and this
administration.
First, however, I would like to take just a moment and
welcome to our subcommittee a new ranking member. As some of
you may know, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania had served since the
begining of this session as ranking member, and has transferred
to the Transportation Committee. But we've had the honor of Mr.
Cummings serving on this panel during the past year, and he's
moved to the ranking position, Elijah Cummings from Maryland.
I'm delighted to have him move in this important position of
responsibility and would like to welcome him as the ranking
member. I don't think that he's all signed and sealed yet until
there's approval from the full committee, but we're delighted
to have him on board. I know he shares our interest in the
welfare of those who are employed by our Federal Government and
also has a very keen interest in serving the people of his
district and the people that we represent from our American
family.
So with that, Mr. Cummings, you're most welcome to join us
and serve as ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
honored to act as the ranking member on the subcommittee with
such important, such an important constituency. Decisions that
we make as a collective body have broad and meaningful
implications for thousands of Federal employees and retirees in
my congressional district in Baltimore and across the Nation.
I pledge to work with you, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan
fashion and the various groups that are here today so that we
represent Federal workers and retirees who have dedicated their
lives to the service of our country.
I've tried to pay particular attention to legislation
affecting Federal employees. The Baltimore area is home to
thousands of Federal employees and retirees. I'm a member of
the Federal Government Service Caucus, which is a group
concerned with the issues facing Federal employees. And I am
committed to the fair and equitable treatment for Federal
employees and retirees.
Mr. Chairman, the President is to be commended for
committing the Federal Government, the Nation's largest
employer, to the goal of moving Americans from welfare to work.
By challenging agency and department heads to focus their
recruitment efforts upon welfare recipients, they have
identified more than 10,000 job opportunities which can be
dedicated to this initiative. This represents our fair share
toward the achievement of his larger goal of moving 700,000
adults off the welfare rolls and into the workforce over the
next 4 years.
The President has issued a similar challenge to the private
sector as well as nonprofit and religious organizations across
the Nation. As they respond in kind, sufficient jobs should
become available to make welfare reform work. I did not support
legislation which became law last year because, among other
things, it abandons our poor families and children who need us
the most.
I believe in reforming our current welfare system,
including putting an end to waste, fraud, and abuse. I've
always believed that we must reward work and put an end to a
welfare system that perpetuates dependency. However, we must
reform our welfare system with compassion. We must continue to
provide food, clothing and shelter for our most defenseless
citizens, our children.
However, I believe that every effort must be made to ensure
that those individuals who will soon lose their safety net that
food stamps and Medicaid provide, have the means to support
themselves and their families.
I recognize that some concerns have been raised about how
realistic the goal is that the President set for Federal job
opportunities. One is raised that the launching of a targeted
hiring program to fill 10,000 jobs at the same time we are in
the midst of an ongoing effort to reduce the Federal workforce
by 272,000 positions does present a conflict.
What must be remembered, however, is that despite the
downsizing, there are positions which become vacant that are
being filled every day. In fact, last year the Government hired
58,000 permanent and 140,000 temporary employees. Whether there
are a sufficient number of Federal job opportunities at the
entry level remains to be seen, but what is important is that
we put forth the effort to find them.
Other concerns have been raised about the negative impact
this initiative could have on the current Federal workforce.
Based on what I presently know about how this program will be
managed, no current employees will be displaced, and all
existing priorities and preferences will be respected. I plan
to fully explore this issue with the witnesses representing the
administration. I want to be assured by them that my
understanding is correct.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe, as does my colleague
Congresswoman Norton, that we in the legislative branch of
Government should also commit to providing jobs for welfare
recipients. She has introduced a bill urging individual Members
to do so. I support her bill. And I have someone working in my
district office that was once on welfare. In fact, she has
worked for me for many years, even before I became a Member of
Congress. She is an outstanding employee. There is more than a
paycheck that comes with employment. It is self-esteem and
self-respect that extend to the children and the family.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your scheduling this
hearing so that we might learn more about the President's
initiative. I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's
witnesses, and I want to thank you again for your very kind
words.
Mr. Mica. I thank you. And, again, welcome you as ranking
member.
We also are privileged this morning to have with us a new
Member of the panel recently appointed. And I would like to
recognize Mr. Harold Ford, Jr., from Tennessee, and delighted
to have you serve with us on this important subcommittee, and
we welcome you.
Normally the chairman leads off with a statement, but this
being Mr. Cummings' first opportunity as a ranking member and
your first meeting with our subcommittee, I would like to
recognize you at this time and welcome you.
Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank our
ranking member, Mr. Cummings and to Ms. Holmes Norton and to
all of my other colleagues on the committee.
Let me begin by thanking Mr. Waxman of the Democratic
Steering Committee for providing me with an opportunity to join
this very important committee as we grapple and wrestle with
some of the tough issues of the day. I'm delighted to see this
panel here.
I will refrain from long opening remarks or comments out of
deference to allowing those who have come to speak to have an
opportunity to speak. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, my ranking member.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr.,
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.002
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and welcome. And as I always say, that
whether you're a freshman or ranking member, you have a full
access to service and all of the information and opportunity to
participate. So we're delighted to have you and look forward to
your service.
I will begin with my opening statement now and then
recognize Ms. Norton. We haven't forgotten you, Ms. Norton, but
I wanted to defer to our new panelists, and we will get to you
next.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, today's hearing is called for
the purpose of examining President Clinton's directive to
Federal agencies to hire as many as 10,000 former welfare
recipients for civil service positions in the next 4 years. We
recognize the importance of assisting former welfare recipients
to become self-sufficient. That's an important goal. But we
also have a responsibility to ensure fair and equitable
treatment for thousands of current and former Federal
employees. That's one of our most important responsibilities on
this subcommittee.
Our subcommittee's oversight of the civil service requires
us to make certain that in implementing the President's plan,
Federal agencies did not compromise the basic tenets of the
merit system. The taxpayers must also be assured that the high
standards for experience and integrity in public service and
employment are maintained.
There are three basic concerns that I'd like to address
today in our hearing. First, should Federal employment provide
a solution to resolve the social welfare problem? Sort of a
basic question in again, our role as Federal employers and
representatives of the people. The administration's initiative
appears to fly in the face of extensive experience that we have
learned to date on this panel. Federal agencies have been
involved in Welfare-to-Work Programs for nearly 30 years and
have vast experience in this area.
That experience, as witnesses will demonstrate today,
teaches that making the welfare-to-work transition a success
requires intensive training, demanding supervision, a high
level of discipline and also a firm commitment on the part of,
both, the people making the transition and their employers.
This can be a laborious and extensive proposition. In such
States as Wisconsin and Oregon, where welfare caseloads have
been reduced substantially, the President's approach may be
simply irrelevant to these success stories.
My second area of concern is for the thousands of capable
and dedicated public servants who have been separated from
their jobs and are currently awaiting re-employment on priority
placement lists. We have tens of thousands of temporary
employees in our Federal workforce that are hired each year
without the right to participate in the retirement system.
The subcommittee has received many letters from
individuals, and I, as Chair, have also heard from many folks
in Federal employment who worked as long as 8 years as
temporary employees; for example, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation. During the resolution of our Nation's banking
problems, a lot of these folks put in a tremendous amount of
service. They never became eligible to enter the retirement
system. Yet that particular benefit is, in fact, being proposed
to be extended to welfare special hires. The President's plan
could create some serious inequities among Federal employees.
I received numerous letters, but let me read, if I may,
from this particular letter from a Social Security employee,
not to be identified, which illustrates the dilemma we face.
``As a temporary employee hired by the Social Security
Administration, I have no benefits. You lose your life
insurance, and health insurance is limited to 18 months. Also,
you're dropped from the retirement rolls.'' And, this
individual said, ``I have 21 years of Federal service, and my
contributions to the retirement fund is stopped. Sir, you are a
Federal employee. How would you assess this situation I now
endure?''
So these are questions that are posed to me. And, again,
just one example that I've received which illustrates the
dilemma we face.
After many years of bipartisan efforts to reform the
management of Federal agencies, we've entered the reinvention
era 4 years ago. We've reduced the number of managers and
supervisors in the workplace. We've reinvented jobs to get rid
of some of the occupations and moved to greater reliance on
technology. For example, out of nearly 2 million jobs, fewer
than 300 positions are now at the GS-1 level, where much of the
welfare-to-work hiring is to occur. That's my understanding.
The Department of Defense has drawn down over 200,000
positions since 1989, and may lose another 100,000 positions in
the next few years. Between 1994 and 1996, Federal agencies
spent close to $3 billion paying buyouts to almost 130,000
Federal employees, 92 percent of whom retired with tax-
supported pensions to supplement that golden handshake that we
provided. So these situations do raise some various--very
serious questions.
In response to the administration's demands last year,
Congress extended the $25,000 buyouts into fiscal year 1998. So
here we are in a situation where we're buying out people's
jobs, we have folks by the thousands that are in temporary
positions, we're limiting benefits, and then we're hiring folks
from the welfare rolls onto the Federal payroll. So it raises,
again, many questions that need to be addressed.
OPM reports that about 27,000 employees were involuntarily
separated by reductions in force in 1993. Because of the
administration's insistence last year, we continue to pay the
$25,000 buyouts to reduce or reinvent the current workforce.
After all these initiatives to reform, reduce, and reinvent the
Federal workforce, how can we justify the welfare hiring
program? It's likely to cost about $200 million per year in
salaries and benefits. Simple math can get you to that
startling figure. In fact, I think it's close to a quarter of a
billion.
Why are we placing such a prominence on efforts to hire new
unskilled employees when recently RIF'd employees still, in
fact, need jobs.
I look forward to exploring these questions and receiving
response from the administration and others involved in this
proposal because it does, as I said, pose some very serious
questions that should have a firm and adequate response before
we move forward.
With those long remarks, I don't have a lot of folks on my
side, so I took a little of their time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica, and the
letters referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.008
Mr. Mica. I'm delighted to recognize Ms. Norton, who does
such a great job on behalf of the people of the District of
Columbia. Welcome. You're recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. They were
not long, but they did raise important points, and I trust that
this hearing will clarify some of those points. I regret that,
because of an obligation at 10 o'clock, I'm not going to be
able to stay after my opening statement. But this is an issue
of considerable moment that in a real sense challenges us on
the question of whether we really know how to make public
policy, because we are going to be called upon to reconcile
sometimes competing goals. And I believe that it can be done,
that appropriate safeguards can be put in place.
Mr. Chairman, you have called this hearing soon after the
President's announcement of his directive to hire 10,000
welfare recipients. You deserve our appreciation for initiating
a hearing so soon that will bring out both the advantages and
the potential problems of the President's directive. We should
not expect that efforts to hire people not normally within the
preferred labor pool would be without problems. Yet Congress
has asked private employers to do exactly what the President is
asking our own agencies to do.
If it may be difficult for us, it will also be difficult
for the private sector. It is hard to argue that the Federal
Government, the largest employer in the country, should be
excused from hiring welfare recipients while even small
businesses are exhorted to do so. If we simply catalog
potential problems, we will be doing no more than writing the
future testimony for private employers who want to avoid the
same responsibility.
At the same time, if the President's directive is to work,
some of the problems inherent in his initiative need to be
explored so they can be eliminated. Potentially among the most
serious are displacement of employees who have not resorted to
welfare or of others who we have promised priority placement,
and the grant of benefits otherwise unavailable to some Federal
employees.
These issues are further complicated by the ongoing
downsizing and reinvention of government. Yet if the President
can avoid unacceptable repercussions, such as displacement of
present or future employees, he will be doing the right thing.
As we hold this hearing concerning the Clinton initiative,
the Congress must also be prepared to do what is right. To
encourage Members of the House to employ welfare recipients, I
have written a bill that arrives at the same place as the
President does, yet avoids the problems, in part because unlike
our Federal agencies, each Member is a small employer with an
uncomplicated workplace.
In March, I introduced H.R. 1046, which would help
facilitate and encourage Members to hire welfare recipients in
their DC, or district office by increasing the staff allotment
from 22 to 23 within Members' present budgetary allocations.
Thus H.R. 1046 would neither add costs for the Government nor
displace other employees or potential employees.
Some Members have already hired welfare recipients, as the
ranking member has indicated he has, but others may feel
constrained by the limit on the number of employees each Member
may now hire. Under current rules, House Members are limited to
22 staff in their Capitol Hill and district offices combined.
My legislation would increase the maximum to 23 staff, but only
if a Member has reached the maximum of 22, and only if the 23d
is a full-time worker who was a welfare recipient at the time
of hire.
Members would continue to be able, and indeed would be
encouraged, to hire welfare recipients within their 22 staff
member allocation, as some do now. At the present time, Members
whose districts are spread over many miles, or who need their
full complement for other reasons should not be barred from
doing their part to help make welfare reform work when they
have the funds but lack the authority to hire.
As Members, we have the ability to allocate or reprogram
available money, depending on the needs of our offices. Many
Members have the funds available and indeed return money each
year. My bill removes the potential barrier to hiring welfare
recipients. H.R. 1046 also conforms to the spirit of the
Congressional Accountability Act, where we seek to apply the
laws we enact to congressional Members, in this case as
employers, as we have the laws or the obligation would apply to
other Americans. H.R. 1046 provides Members with the
flexibility to lead by example and to act in the spirit of the
new welfare reform law.
The Congress that was serious about welfare reform last
year must be serious about making the reform work this year.
That, of course, is what the President is seeking to do. His
effort has pitfalls, but they can be avoided if we or he
include the necessary safeguards. Ours has no pitfalls.
In the end, it is the Congress that argued that welfare
reform would be successful. It is time for us to prove it and
help the President do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank you, Mrs. Norton.
And we'd now like to recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pappas.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from these witnesses this morning. And as
someone who before coming to Congress served as chairman of my
county welfare board for over 10 years, I have a deep
appreciation for those that have found themselves on public
assistance and look forward to hearing what these folks have to
say. And I thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Mica. I thank you.
And there being no other Members present, we will include
the opening statements, without objection, as part of the
record.
I would like to call on our first panel this morning, and
introduce them.
Our first panel today is headed by John A. Koskinen, who is
a very frequent witness on this panel. And he serves as the
Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and
Budget. Welcome back.
We also are pleased to welcome this morning the Honorable
James B. King, who is recently reappointed by the President to
serve as Director of the Office of Personnel Management. He
served with distinction the last 4 years, and we enjoyed
working with him.
Welcome back, Mr. King.
Also, we have with us another frequent witness from the
Department of Defense, the Honorable Diane Disney, who serves
as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian
Personnel, and who represents, in fact, the Government's
largest employer.
And we have two additional panelists, the Honorable Eugene
A. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Administration at the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, who is accompanied by Joyce
Felder, the Department's Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Human Resources.
I welcome our panelists. As most of you know, this is an
investigations and oversight committee and subcommittee, and it
is customary that we swear in our witnesses. So if you will
please stand, and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. And the record will reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Mica. I would like to welcome our panelists and
witnesses today. And we're going to start by hearing the
administration's justification for this proposal from Mr.
Koskinen, Deputy Director for Management at the Office of
Management and Budget. Welcome. And you're recognized, sir.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN A. KOSKINEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; JAMES B. KING, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; DIANE DISNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; AND EUGENE A. BRICKHOUSE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY
JOYCE FELDER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HUMAN
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Mr. Koskinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always enjoy
having the opportunity to discuss significant issues with you
and your subcommittee. I particularly appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the Federal Government's role in one of
the most important issues facing America today: welfare reform.
With your approval, I will submit my prepared testimony for the
record and briefly summarize it here this morning.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Koskinen. Welfare reform has been a priority for the
administration and Congress. As the President recently
announced, by working with State and local governments, we were
able to move 2.8 million people off the welfare rolls in the
last 4 years. That represents 20 percent of all people on
welfare in 1993. In 4 years we helped move as many people off
of welfare as had gone on it in the previous 25 years.
But we must do more. Last summer, Congress passed landmark
welfare reform legislation. This provided a new framework for
moving an additional 2 million people off the welfare rolls by
the year 2000. But, as the President has noted, reform didn't
end with the granting of waivers or with the signing of the
bill into law. For reform to take hold and last, we must move
people off of welfare and into the workforce.
That's why, since signing the bill, the President has urged
employers to play a part in this next, critical phase of
welfare reform. We have a growing economy that is creating
200,000 jobs each month. The President is asking corporate
America to provide opportunities for those who want to make
better lives for themselves and their families by finding
employment.
The President recognizes that the Federal Government is
itself a major employer. And, as an employer, it has a role to
play in helping move people from welfare to work. That's why he
asked the Vice President to head up the effort to have the
Federal Government, as an employer, do its fair share.
On April 10, the Vice President presented agency plans that
could result in the hiring, during the next 4 years, of more
than 10,000 people coming off the welfare rolls. These plans
were put together by the agencies and were the product of
consultation with personnel specialists, government unions, the
National Partnership Council, and front-line managers.
These plans were put together in just 30 days, and they are
likely to go through some refinements and improvements. Some of
the jobs provided through the plans will be permanent. Some
will be temporary. But each of them will give welfare
recipients who want to change their lives new skills and
experience that will help them hold jobs and move into new
ones, in Government or in the private sector.
Today, you'll hear directly from some of the agencies about
their specific plans. So, I would like to present a brief
overview.
First, let me explain how we determined the Federal
Government's ``fair share'' of jobs. The President's goal is to
move 2 million people off of welfare by the year 2000. The
average size of the welfare family is 2.8 people. So, those 2
million people translate into about 700,000 adults needing to
move into the workforce.
The Federal Government now employees about 1.5 percent of
the Nation's workforce, and it's appropriate that we take the
responsibility for hiring that percentage of people coming off
of welfare. This translates into about 10,000 jobs.
Second, let me explain how this is possible--even as we
downsize. As we downsize, we are still hiring to fill
vacancies. Last year, in fact, we hired about 58,000 permanent
and 140,000 temporary employees. So, when you put it in
perspective, a goal of hiring 10,000 welfare recipients over 4
years is reasonable.
Third, I'd like to stress that the bottom line of this
effort is commitment, starting with the President and the Vice
President and extending throughout the entire Federal
Government. It's about completing the job of welfare reform.
The President and Vice President see an opportunity for the
Federal Government to galvanize the national push to take the
next steps in welfare reform.
And finally, I would like to explain what the President's
program is not. It is not a new preference program. There is no
new category of work being set aside for welfare recipients,
and there will be no displacement of those who might enter the
government through veterans' preference or other such programs.
Welfare recipients will go through the same tests and
procedures as any other prospective employee. Further, it is
not a make-work program. Jobs provided through this initiative
will be real jobs, providing welfare recipients with real
skills, and the Federal Government with real results.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral statement. I'll be
happy to respond to any questions you may have. And, on behalf
of the administration, I look forward to working with you and
all in Congress to keep welfare reform moving forward. Thank
you.
[Note.--The ``Federal Welfare-To-Work Commitments--A Report
to President Bill Clinton by Vice President Al Gore, 1997'' can
be found in subcommittee files, or can be obtained by calling
(202) 632-0150.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koskinen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.011
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimony and would now like
to recognize the Director of OPM, Mr. King, for his statement.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you
for this opportunity to speak on behalf of President Clinton's
welfare-to-work program. I would, with the committee's
approval, like to submit----
Mr. Mica. Mr. King, I'm not sure if your mic is on. We
can't hear you too well.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, that's the kindest thing anyone has
ever said to me.
Mr. Mica. When I can't hear you audibly, I become
concerned.
Yes, that's a good idea. Thank you.
We have interagency cooperation here.
Mr. King. I would never use Mr. Koskinen's mic.
Mr. Mica. The question is how many people does it take to
change a mic?
Mr. King. It depends whether they're from OPM or OMB.
Mr. Koskinen. We'll just adjourn to the outside hall for a
minute.
Mr. Mica. This interagency conflict must stop. Go right
ahead.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was asking that I
might submit my full statement for the record and give a brief
summary of my----
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, the President and Congress agreed to end
welfare as we have known it, and President Clinton has set a
goal of moving 2 million people off of welfare in the next 4
years. The President has asked the private sector to hire
Americans who are leaving welfare, and he believes that the
Federal Government, as the Nation's largest employer, has an
obligation to provide opportunity and leadership in this area.
We at the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, are working
with the National Performance Review staff, the White House
Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget
and other agencies in this initiative, Mr. Chairman. We have
convened meetings at which the officials of the National
Performance Review, the Office of Management and Budget and the
Department of Labor and other agencies briefed Federal
personnel directors on welfare to work.
OPM has provided written guidance to the agencies on hiring
options for these programs. We are working to involve the
Federal Executive Boards and the Federal Executive Associations
at the local level.
OPM is developing a program to track welfare hires
governmentwide, and we will use modern technology to get job
information to people who often have not had access to it in
the past.
We at OPM have identified 25 positions that have been
targeted for the possible recruitment of welfare recipients in
fiscal year 1997. We will consider welfare recipients for every
position for which we recruit outside the agency. These will
include temporary, term, and permanent positions, often at the
entry level, such as clerks, laborers, and custodial workers.
Mr. Chairman, we are not creating jobs. The jobs exist. We
are creating opportunity. We do not start with stereotypes
about the people we hire. Some may have more skills and
experience than the stereotypes would suggest, Mr. Chairman.
For example, approximately 42 percent of welfare recipients
have high school equivalent degrees, 16 percent have attended
college, and 70 percent have recent work experience. But we
recognize that some will need training and basic work habits
and skills. Others may need child care and transportation
assistance.
I believe we can learn a lot from programs such as the
STRIVE program that's operating in New York, Boston, Chicago
and Pittsburgh that has prepared some 14,000 people for entry-
level jobs in the past 5 years. Strive reports that about 35
percent of a typical class quits after the first 3-hour
orientation.
A nationally respected private sector program in Kansas
City reports that about 50 percent of the 1,500 welfare
recipients placed in jobs in the past 2 years are still at that
same job. That statistic calls to mind a glass of water that is
half empty or half full, depending on how you perceive it. A 50
percent success rate may be a good one when we consider the
obstacles that many of these Americans have faced during their
lives.
Also, Mr. Chairman, a 50 percent success rate shouldn't
just be counted on the initial job entry. We're talking about
starting a career. And that entry-level job may not be the
career the individual chooses, so they have moved on to bigger
and better things.
As we reach out to these women and men and bring them into
Federal jobs, we must welcome them and at the same time make
clear our expectations. We may offer them part-time or
temporary jobs in some cases, knowing these can be important
milestones and lead to a better job later on.
As OPM Director, I am fully committed to maintaining the
merit system principles. We will continue to support and
enforce the Veterans' Preference Act. We must continue to
fulfill our legal and moral obligations to displaced Federal
employees. Understanding and supporting all of this, I believe
we can meet the President's welfare-to-work goals.
We are not proposing special hiring. We are proposing to
bring new people into the pool of those who apply for Federal
jobs and then treat them like anyone else.
The key is opportunity; not make work, not a guaranteed
career, but an opportunity to compete and learn and make it in
the world of work. We look forward to working with the Congress
to meet this important goal.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to respond to any
questions from you or any other Members of the subcommittee,
and I do thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. King. We will withhold questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.017
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize now Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel, Diane Disney.
You're recognized.
Ms. Disney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee
members.
I think we need some more interagency cooperation here.
Mr. Mica. These mic's are not going on.
Ms. Disney. Are we all right now?
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Ms. Disney. Well, I'm very pleased to be here today to
describe the efforts of the Department of Defense to support
the President's welfare-to-work initiative. And as my two
colleagues, I would like to submit my written testimony with
your permission and just provide a summary.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Disney. Thank you.
DOD is committed to taking an active role in this effort;
in President Clinton's words, demanding high performance from
workers, but going the extra mile to offer opportunity to those
who have been on welfare and want to do something more with
their lives.
Over the past decade, as you know, the Department has
reduced its active duty ranks by over a third and its civil
servants by more than 27 percent. The Department plans to
eliminate another 90,000 civilian positions over the next 5
years for an overall reduction of 35 percent.
This planned drawdown constrains but does not curtail
opportunities for additional employment, as DOD continues to
hire some 20,000 civilians for permanent positions each year to
meet essential needs and another 23,000 for temporary slots.
The Department of Defense is deeply committed to its
workforce, as demonstrated through attention to quality of
life, training, and transition programs. Successes in these
areas include the innovative Troops to Teachers program,
Partnerships in Education, and Partnerships in Vocational
Rehabilitation. These and similar programs evidence
considerable experience in reaching out to disadvantaged
populations.
Within the defense community, welfare-to-work positions
will be available in all of three concentric circles: the
Department's civil service workforce, the nonappropriated fund
activities, and the contractor environment.
Our initial surveys indicate that DOD should be able to
provide about 1,000 civil service positions for this program
over the next 4 years at the rate of 160 to 330 a year. Eighty-
five percent of the projected civil service vacancies are in
General Schedule positions, primarily in clerical areas. The 15
percent in wage grade positions will fall mostly in the areas
of laborer and maintenance worker.
The Department recognizes the importance of the welfare-to-
work initiative; however, requirements from several other
constituencies must be honored. First the Department must honor
the employment preferences required by law for both the
veterans and military spouses.
In addition, there's a long-established hiring preference
for DOD employees facing job loss through no fault of their
own. For the past 3 decades, this Priority Placement Program
has enabled DOD to retain its investment in human capital while
enabling talented individuals to retain employment. President
Clinton has expanded this concept to provide preference as well
to all Federal employees facing job loss.
To determine the probable impact of these requirements, we
examined hiring records by type of position, grade level, and
hiring preference. Collectively, these suggested that
approximately 10 percent of the General Schedule positions and
30 percent of the wage grade positions would be filled by
individuals other than welfare recipients once they became
available. The difference stems from the higher representation
of preference-eligible veterans among those who qualified for
wage grade positions. Therefore, the Department expects welfare
recipients to be able to fill about 900 of these civil service
positions over the next 4 years.
Supporting the Department's core operations, there are
approximately 150,000 nonappropriated fund activities (NAF).
These are at facilities nationwide, located in military resale
and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) activities, such as
post exchanges, military clubs and bowling alleys.
Unlike their civil service counterparts, NAF positions are
not funded with congressional appropriations of taxpayer
dollars. Instead they're supported by funds generated through
the MWR and resale activities. They differ as well in their
hiring rules.
For many years, NAF employees have worked with State
employment service offices to find individuals to work in
positions such as those I've just identified. The high
percentage of wage grade equivalent positions here makes it
likely that about 73 percent of the openings identified will be
filled by welfare recipients. It's also noteworthy that the
positions here are more likely than their civil service
counterparts to be part-time.
Finally, the Department of Defense relies heavily upon
contractors for a wide range of goods and services. As partners
in the defense economy, contractors provide items as diverse as
airframes, ships, and medical supplies and services ranging
from construction to food preparation. We do not intend to
establish a requirement or an incentive for contractors.
Rather, the Department will encourage its contractors to
support this vital initiative because of its inherent value.
Combining these three major elements of the defense
community while accommodating people with legal and regulatory
hiring rights would yield nearly 2,900 positions over the next
4 years. A third of these would be civil service positions; a
quarter would be in nonappropriated fund activities; and the
balance would be located with contractors.
Given this committee's charge, the remainder of my remarks
will focus on civil service positions. DOD does not have many
positions at the GS-1, wage grade 1, and wage grade 2 levels.
As of December 31, 1996, we employed about 4,400 people in
such positions, about half in permanent slots, half in
temporary ones. Typically the level 1 positions in both
categories are temporary, and in great part, because of the
prevalence of temporary status, occupants of level 1 positions
tend not to receive buyouts. Indeed, no more than a dozen have
received a buyout in any given year.
The Welfare-to-Work Program will focus on areas where there
is an employment need. This could result from an unexpected
departure, additional work, or a changed mission. In any event,
the participants will be hired individually. Even under the
best of circumstances, moving from welfare to work presents
major challenges. Therefore, the Department will develop
mechanisms to provide the necessary workplace and skills
training and take steps to help the recipients address the
constraints that have kept them unemployed in the past.
In response to your written question, I must note that over
the past 7 years, our number of supervisors has fallen 29
percent, a rate that is only slightly higher than that for the
civil service workforce as a whole. Therefore, we anticipate no
problems in this area.
The Welfare-to-Work participants will receive the same
consideration as other employees at the same grade level for
available opportunities for continuing education and training.
They will also be subject to the same requirements as all other
employees. Indeed, our objective is to ensure that they become
integral parts of the defense workforce.
In Joint Vision 2010, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff points out America's enduring goals, including providing
for the well-being and prosperity of the Nation and its people.
Within the Department of Defense, we believe that helping to
end welfare as we knew it is an important step toward achieving
those goals. Therefore, we're committed to doing our part to
encourage welfare recipients and all other disadvantaged
populations to become productive members of our society.
That concludes my remarks. I thank you again for this
opportunity to present the overview, and we will be pleased to
answer questions.
Mr. Mica. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Disney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.024
Mr. Mica. We will defer questions, and I'll now recognize
Eugene A. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Administration,
the Department of Veterans' Affairs. You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Brickhouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit my
written statement for the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Brickhouse. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased
to appear before you today on behalf of Secretary Jesse Brown
to testify about VA's welfare-to-work initiative. Our purpose
as a Department, and our primary goal for the welfare-to-work
initiative, is to serve veterans. In developing VA's plan, we
identified work that needs to be accomplished and positions
that could be filled by entry-level applicants.
Although VA is restructuring and streamlining, we have been
able to identify 400 potential opportunities in fiscal year
1997 and the potential of 400 more in fiscal year 1998. These
opportunities are at grade levels 1 and 2 and include such jobs
as receptionist, file clerk, laborer, and food service worker.
Although employment in these and similar occupations has
dropped by 5,000 since March 1993, we continue to have
significant numbers of employees, approximately 17,500, in
these occupations. And while we are reducing overall employment
levels, VA still has employees who leave each year and must be
replaced. In the jobs which provide most opportunities for
welfare recipients, the regular turnover rate is from 15 to 25
percent.
The entry levels for these positions require little or no
experience, and we believe that welfare recipients will have no
difficulty qualifying for them. In addition, many veteran
candidates will meet the minimum qualifications by virtue of
their military service.
We are, as you know, a Department which exists to serve
veterans. Therefore, we think it only proper that VA's targeted
recruitment strategy has two important elements that focus
specifically on hiring veterans. First, we will recruit
candidates from among the graduates of our Compensated Work
Therapy Program and our Vocational Rehabilitation and
Counseling Program. These programs provide clinically based job
training and vocational rehabilitation to veterans and are
already successful in moving veterans from dependency to self-
sufficiency.
The second key element is a local community-based
recruitment effort targeting veterans through a broad array of
community-service organizations, including Veterans
Organizations.
In hiring candidates, we will use all available appropriate
hiring authorities. We will continue to meet all Title 5 and
Title 38 requirements, including veterans preference, as well
as adhere to rules governing re-employment for separated
Federal workers. This means that no veteran and no employee who
has been RIF'd will be disadvantaged by the welfare-to-work
initiative.
For welfare recipients who secure VA employment, a key
component of success is training. VA has already developed
training guidelines for these new employees and their
supervisors. In addition, local facilities will have full
authority to work with other Federal agencies and community
service organizations to provide group training and coaching
experiences.
Local VA facilities will provide access to a variety of
human and social services to support welfare recipients'
successful transition into the workplace. For example, each VA
facility already operates an employee assistance program which
provides counseling and referrals for a range of problems that
might affect job performance.
With regard to child care, we will be encouraging expansion
of sliding-scale fees of child care centers associated with VA
facilities.
The Department is also looking at costs and options for an
appropriate transit subsidy policy.
We also agree with your assessment that workers at the GS
and wage grade level 1 require extra efforts in supervision and
training. VA is well prepared to meet these requirements. With
regular turnover in the types of jobs to be filled under the
initiative, we already have in-house instruction programs for
new employees in these occupations.
We expect that former welfare recipients will fill entry-
level jobs, and we believe those jobs would continue to be
needed and have high turnover and will be difficult to fill,
rather than those eliminated from other initiatives.
In addition, given current funding and budget levels, our
facility managers simply cannot afford to develop make-work
positions. They have real work to be performed and need
committed staff to fulfill these tasks.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, VA has one mission and one mission only; that is,
service to veterans. Welfare-to-Work can help support that
mission by bringing into focus opportunities for veterans to
participate in the dignity of work, and they put to use the
training they have received through established VA training
programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and I understand Ms. Felder will not
have any opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brickhouse follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.031
Mr. Mica. I would like to recognize now the gentlelady from
Maryland, Mrs. Morella, who's joined us.
Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to ask
unanimous consent that an opening statement be included in the
record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.034
Mr. Mica. And Mrs. Morella also announced at this time that
House Concurrent Resolution 13, a joint resolution, I guess it
is, that you've introduced in opposition to the proposal to
delay Federal retirees' COLAs, will be heard next Tuesday
immediately following the subcommittee's hearing on the DC
Retirement Proposal, probably about 4 o'clock. I'm sorry that
we've had to put that off a week, but we will hear that
immediately following our DC Retirement Proposal hearing.
Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Tuesday afternoon in room 2154, Rayburn.
Mrs. Morella. I will mark that in big letters on my
calendar. And thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman in
pursuing that.
Mr. Mica. And thank you, it is a very important issue
before this subcommittee and before the Congress, and we thank
you for your leadership and bipartisan cooperation on that
important issue.
Mrs. Morella. I thank you for having this hearing. And I'm
going to have to be excused to handle two bills on the floor
for the Science Committee.
Mr. Mica. We recognize the double duty that our Members
sometimes serve.
We have finished our panel and our comments from Members. I
would like to begin now with several questions. This proposal
to hire some 10,000 welfare recipients on our Federal payrolls
does raise a bunch of questions.
One of the questions that recurs, and I don't know what the
status of the administration's proposal is and how far they
developed this working with OPM, but we have had some reports
that some of the requirements as far as complying with the
merit system might be changed; that, in fact, there may be some
fast-track access to employ these welfare recipients.
Mr. Koskinen, could you tell us the status of any of those
proposals, or Mr. King?
Mr. Koskinen. I think Mr. King is the better responder.
Mr. King. Well, the measures that OPM will take to ensure
that this will advance merit and all that entails will include
competitive aspects from whether they are permanent and time
limits are accepted, veterans readjustment employment, student
employment, special appointment for readers, interpreters,
special assistants, special appointment for the severely
handicapped persons, and other appropriate agency-specific
authorities. And these authorities encompass all competitive
aspects of the merit system principles which include applying
veterans preference and displaced employee entitlements. And
the worker trainee are filled by TAPER appointments, which
require public notice and the application, again, of veterans
preference and a priority referral of displaced Federal
employees.
Mr. Mica. What percentage of positions would you anticipate
would fall into those exceptional categories?
Mr. King. Right now, in the Federal Government as a whole,
about 70 percent of the positions are what would be considered
competitive, if you would. The rest come under the other
special authorities.
Mr. Mica. So this would be under existing authorities that
would create no new openings or exceptions, you are saying?
About 70/30 percent?
Mr. King. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And in this, what we haven't
done, we have used are all existing, and what we are
emphasizing is using existing and not creating anything new. As
you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that the authority that is being
talked about in the training was first instituted by President
Nixon, and it is counting that authority that has been around
now for almost 30 years and continuing to use it.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't point out
that at grade levels 1 and wage grade 1 and 2, there is an
assumption built in that the individuals applying for those
positions will, in fact, have little or no skills. So that is
an understanding we had and it has been on the books from the
beginning. And so I thought that might be helpful.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate that. It is my understanding that
the Vice President, on April 10, presented plans and that in
the meantime, each agency has been responding on how they would
implement this. Have all the agencies presented their response,
Mr. Koskinen?
Mr. Koskinen. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. They
all have presented plans.
Mr. Mica. So these will be meshed together by who? By OPM?
And is it accepted or are we setting up new rules?
Mr. Koskinen. No, these are not plans that they are asking
for waivers or changes, as Mr. King emphasized. These are their
plans in terms of how they plan to use the existing hiring
authority to hire the number of welfare people they think they
can hire. No one was assigned a quota. These were all numbers
that the agencies independently said were numbers they were
confident over the next 4 years they could hire under existing
authorities and existing programs.
Mr. Mica. Have you shared those totals with the
subcommittee?
Mr. Koskinen. I don't know if we have, but we would be
happy----
Mr. Mica. Could you do that? I think that is important,
because when we are discussing buyouts, when we are discussing
downsizing, when we are discussing RIFs, and the administration
has plans from these agencies to employ welfare recipients or
former welfare recipients, we need to see what their proposals
are, how this fits into the larger scheme.
Now, in the area of buyouts, how many buyouts did we do
last year and what are anticipated this year, Mr. King?
Mr. King. Well, our total----
Mr. Mica. From last year, 1996?
Mr. King. What I have, I can get a disaggregate for the
record, but nondefense agencies did pay out about 36,000
buyouts.
Mr. Mica. 36,000 last year. What do you anticipate?
Mr. King. No, no, it ended, as you know--this was acting on
the information we have in--the last full report we have from
across Government was the end of the fiscal year, and that was
1996.
Mr. Mica. Two-year total.
Mr. King. Yes, that is over the period, the life of the
buyouts and the anticipated buyouts; 36,035 is what we have.
Mr. Mica. Is that civilian Defense, too?
Mr. King. No, Defense had about 92,500, rounding up.
Mr. Mica. 92,000 over a 2-year period, it came to 128,500.
Ms. Disney. It is 92,000 since we have had the buyout
authority of 1993.
Mr. Mica. So yours is over 3 years and you are talking
about over 2 years.
Mr. Koskinen. I would stress that those numbers are
predominantly, if not totally, the buyouts used under the first
buyout authority under the Workforce Restructuring Act, and as
the chairman knows, we have had a lot of conversation back and
forth, but that buyout ended as of decisions made in the spring
of 1995 with some carryover for a 2-year period thereafter.
Mr. Mica. What I am trying to get at is some round figures
as to what we are buying out.
Now, the other thing that we do not want is the agencies
coming back to us, or reports to this subcommittee where a
position has been bought out that it is filled by a welfare
recipient. Is there any protection to make certain that this is
not going to occur?
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at--I got a
disaggregate of the numbers for the record. The fiscal year
1994 was 14,531 on the non-DOD. It was 18,203, fiscal year
1995, non-DOD. And 3,300. But I think, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Mica. But my point is, though, you are going to have
some feathers of Congress ruffled if we are buying folks out
for $25,000, and they are being replaced with a welfare
recipient, or that we have, as my first line of questioning,
are we bringing folks in in some extraordinary fashion to fill
slots?
So, we have to be concerned that we are not creating any
great exceptions, that people whose position has been bought
out is not going to be filled by a welfare recipient and that
we have some rhyme and reason across the agencies in the manner
in which this is conducted.
This is a hard sell from any standpoint when we have got
thousands and thousands of people who have lost their jobs and
try to explain to them that we are filling the position with
welfare recipients.
Mr. Koskinen.
Mr. Koskinen. Those are two important questions and I think
the answer should be clear. First of all, as Mr. King has
noted, there are no new programs or exceptions being created to
hire welfare recipients. They will, in fact, apply as any other
American citizen will apply for the jobs. That should be clear.
I hope it is understandable to everybody.
Your point about buyouts is a good question. OPM has the
detailed numbers, but the experience that the vast majority, if
not all of the buyouts, were at levels of GS-8 and above,
generally, managers and senior people able to retire. The
expectation and most of the agency plans are that welfare
workers, to a large extent, will be hired at the very low end
of the wage grade. Whereas virtually no buyouts have been
given.
Mr. King. Of the thousands that have been bought out, we
have records of 503 of employees at the wage grade that we are
talking about or GS-1.
Mr. Mica. Do we have any plan to make certain that those
positions--again, if you all come back here and these positions
are filled with any of these folks, the dome will be raised a
few inches.
Mr. Koskinen. The limitations on the first buyout program
was that agencies, in fact, could not buyout someone and
replace--there were protections against replacement. The second
buyout program is limited, as you know, to an overall decline
in agency FTEs, so, in fact, the agencies are not going to be
growing as a result of hiring welfare people if we are engaged
in a second buyout program. A number of agencies are not
engaged in that program.
Mr. Mica. Mr. King just testified that 500 would be
possibly in this range. That is 5 percent of the 10,000 figure,
so we just want to make certain that, again, we do not put
ourselves in that situation or expose ourselves.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, but I think it is interesting to
note, as Mr. Koskinen said, the average was a GS-11, roughly,
that we bought out that is about $38,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to think--well, as long as it is done fairly, we
certainly would not be replacing a $38,000 individual with a
person coming in an entry level at around $13,000.
Mr. Mica. That is right, but you told me there are about
500 positions that will fall into the category.
Mr. King. No, Mr. Chairman what we are talking about here
is skill mix. The skill mix is that we may be deciding that
something is going to be removed, but we need someone with a
different set of skills to come in. An entry level at this
level has little or no skill, by the way, whether they are
coming in--this program is an existing program, Mr. Chairman. I
don't mean to be contentious. I get excited.
Mr. Mica. I thank you. I just have one more question. I am
running over my time, but on our priority placement program in
DOD, and we have a re-employment priority list, how many folks
do we have that are waiting for Federal employment, former
Federal employees that have been RIFed or that have lost their
position? Ms. Disney, what kind of numbers are we looking at
there?
Ms. Disney. When we look at the three grade levels that we
are talking about here, GS-1, wage grade 1, wage grade 2, we
have about 830.
Mr. Mica. And what is the total that are waiting for
placement?
Ms. Disney. That are waiting for positions at any level,
approximately 18,000. What we did was look for carefully at how
many had been placed in these positions through priority
placement, through veterans preference, through spouse
preference in the past couple of years in order to discount the
figures as mentioned earlier.
Mr. Mica. Well, I want to get back to these numbers and
issues, but I have taken more time than I should. I will now
recognize our ranking member for an extended period. You are
recognized, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. First of all, I thank you all for your
testimony, and I want you to, first of all, understand that my
questions come from a perspective that I literally live in an
area which probably has about 50 percent black male
unemployment. And I would guess about 20 percent, somewhere
between 15 and 20 percent female African-American unemployment.
I am wondering where are these jobs? Where are they? In
other words, all of these jobs--I mean are they going to be in
Mr. Ford's district? Are they going to be in the District of
Columbia? Where would most of these jobs be?
Mr. King. They are nationwide. They are nationwide, they
are located where the Federal Government is. Eighty-six percent
of Government jobs are outside of the Washington metropolitan
area, so that you could almost pick a location, go from place
to place, and we can give you the numbers, if you would like
that, on a disaggregate basis of where these positions are
located.
Mr. Cummings. I would like to know, I guess one of the
things that I am concerned about is that I don't want us to be
in a position where we are painting a picture that is a 10,000
rosy job picture, when in fact it is not. And that is why I
want to ask you some of these other questions. Don't get me
wrong, I want to see people employed. It is very important to
me. But I also--I want to make sure that we are saying that we
are providing jobs, that there are, in fact, jobs. Because I
think one of the worst things we can do is make a promise of
something that really does not exist or that is not what it is
supposed to be.
You all talked about, one of you talked about training.
Tell me about what kind of training you are planning on
providing these welfare recipients. There have been a lot of
recent articles in various papers throughout the country that
talk about the intensity of training that is necessary for
people, many of whom have never had a boss, many of whom,
unfortunately, have been in situations where maybe they never
saw somebody get up and go to work every day, and that is real.
And I am just wondering, talk about that training, because you
don't want to put people in positions where they are destined
for failure.
Mr. King. First of all, they are real jobs and I will give
you, if you would like, for your own office or for the
committee, we will give you a WorldWide address where most of
the jobs are published. And I think if the chairman and this
committee's bill goes through on veterans preference and the
RIF regulation, H.R. 240, it says all jobs will be published.
On the Web you will see every Federal job published. We have
made this available to the State organizations and the other
organizations that will actually interface with welfare
recipients so that they will see all of the jobs that are
available, period.
Again, we are not stereotyping. We are using, where the
worker trainee would come into being, an existing authority
that has been there for years that is an intake for those
folks, and I am using virtually a quote, ``those with little or
no skills.'' There is opportunity there. And those jobs turn
over, I think, on an average when I was looking at them I think
my average attrition rate was about 18 percent.
So if you just take the number of jobs at that entry level,
and we are not talking everyone is at entry level. Again,
avoiding the stereotype, at an 18 percent turnover, that would
be in a 4-year period we are talking about. We are talking
about 18,000 jobs turning over. They turn over. Folks move on
to other careers. They may enter and move on, promote upward,
stay in an agency or go somewhere else to work.
Once they go into a job, the agency itself takes over the
training because it is agency-specific. And I think if you
talked to VA or you talk to defense or you talk to any agency,
when you bring in people you know when they are coming in they
have little, few skills, and you work within the ethos of your
own agency so the training responsibility is taken over by that
agency. They have been doing training because they have been
intaking people at the GS-1 and the wage grade 1 and 2 level
for years. They are familiar with that and that is one of the
things that I was talking about, so that it is a decentralized
system and it is a job specific.
Mr. Cummings. Other than the Net, how do you get this word
out? Because the people that I know don't access computers.
Mr. King. Every State employment office has been notified,
and at this time I am being told that they are wired in. They
all have the equipment to wire in.
Mr. Cummings. So in other words, it would go through the
social service agency.
Mr. King. That's correct, the agencies who actually touch
the people. I am not being naive and suggesting that a welfare
family has a PC with a modem at home. It is the folks that the
agencies are interfacing with that are looking for jobs. What
we want to do is broaden our recruitment, broaden and deepen
our pool of applicants for these jobs that we know are real,
that are necessary to be filled, and for which we must hire
someone. And we would like to give these folks an opportunity.
And that's what this does.
Mr. Koskinen. Let me add, because the Congressman has
focused on an important issue that goes to the heart of what we
are talking about. Congress and the administration decided last
year that we needed to change the culture of our approach to
welfare. We need not to consign people to welfare and assume
they will always stay on welfare. What we needed to do was, in
fact, to reach out to them and encourage them and move them
back into the workforce.
What we are talking about here, and the private sector
companies have the same experience and as the Congressman said
you have people who are unemployed on welfare often anxious to
work who do not have access normally to the employment pools
because employers do not have a history of reaching out to
those communities and affirmatively encouraging them to work in
their enterprises.
What the President has done is challenged the private
sector and the private sector companies to work with all of us
to, in fact, change that set of assumptions. And what we are
talking about here, and I think the Congressman has his focus
on exactly the right point, is not creating new jobs, not
changing the standards for jobs, but reaching out to a
constituency that historically we have not reached out to, in
fact, advise them of the jobs and encourage them to apply for
those jobs.
We're creating over 200,000 new jobs a month in this
economy, but many of those jobs are not available to people
because there is not an outreach program, so I think, as you
will see in the agencies and with OPM work, the major focus of
this program is not creating new jobs. The major focus of this
program is reaching out to people we are now encouraging to
enter the workforce and making available to them the
opportunity to apply for those jobs. It won't be easy. The
Congressman is right. We ought not to hold out a will-o-the-
wisp. Many of them will not succeed.
But we need to recognize that the glass will either be half
full or half empty. We can look at those who didn't succeed or
look at those who did who otherwise would not have been offered
the opportunity. And that is the core of what we are talking
about here. We are talking about energizing Federal agencies
and private sector companies to reach out to a core of people
who historically they haven't reached out to offer them
meaningful employment.
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this, talk about benefits,
what do you anticipate with regard to benefits? We are talking
about, in many instances, temporary jobs. Our experience in
Maryland has been that State government has hired a number of
temporary employees. They don't have any--when Christmas comes,
they don't get paid. They have no insurance benefits. A child
gets sick, no kind of leave whatsoever.
And I am just trying to figure out, we are talking about
moving people from welfare to work, I am just wondering exactly
how that works, especially when I hear all of this temporary
jobs. In one of your statements, it talks about the census
jobs, which we know are temporary. Someone mentioned part-time
jobs. In other words, I am trying to make sure that whatever
picture you are painting, I want to make sure that I have an
accurate understanding of what it is. In reality.
Mr. King. Your question goes to really this training coming
in through the worker trainee authority, because if you are
brought in that way, you are treated as a permanent employee.
And that means you are treated like every other Federal
employee who is hired as a permanent, there is no exception
made.
Mr. Cummings. So, therefore, across the board are you
saying that people will, whatever the benefits at the
appropriate levels are for other employees----
Mr. King. They will receive the same. In the category. I
think that says it.
Mr. Cummings. The reason why I ask, in Maryland I have some
concerns, I have talked about it many times, that we have
certain agencies that will bring people in and these people in
many instances are placed in a position where they do not have
any benefits. So the State gets off pretty good, because they
have got a whole group of people over here who are getting
benefits which do cost money and then they can bring in folks
to replace them or whatever who don't have any benefits.
Therefore, it enures to the benefit of the State to have
people who are basically called temporary employees with no
benefits.
Mr. King. There is one other thing in the training though,
we should understand. The only thing that is unlike and where
these folks are treated differently from other employees is, if
you were a regular permanent employee coming in, you would have
1 year of probation. Basically, these folks have 3 years of
probation before the permanent job is offered and available to
them.
Mr. Cummings. That is the only difference.
Mr. King. That is if they are coming in under the worker-
trainee authority, there is a 3-year oversight period before
the job is offered finally. And so your rating, then, is
important as you progress.
By the way, just as a quick aside on your State issue, I
think it is interesting to note, to add a bipartisan touch to
this, that the State of South Carolina, under the leadership of
its Governor, has determined that it is important that welfare
to work be appropriately covered, so in instances there they
have provided free child care, transportation stipends, where
people needed uniforms, they bought them uniforms. So the State
has been extraordinarily supportive on their end of individuals
who are trying to be a success in this workforce, and who have
no basic resource to get into this mainstream, as you
suggested. So I think the States have a role to play, but that
is not my role in speaking to this. I am merely responding to
an article that I read.
Mr. Cummings. In a recent article in the Washington Post,
they state that about 40 percent of the jobs that President
Clinton is hoping to offer would be in the Department of
Commerce, and that they are temporary jobs and they are needed
because of the census. And I was just wondering, again, I am
going back to my point trying to paint the picture as it
actually is and not as we want to make it appear. These jobs
will be over by 2000; is that right?
Mr. Koskinen. Yes, the point is that I think it is
important, and I think all of our testimonies note, that some
of these jobs will be permanent and some will be temporary and
people need to understand that. But even in temporary jobs for
people who have not held jobs before or have a difficult
employment history, to have a job for 6 to 12 to 18 months, now
have a resume that shows that you have work skills and are able
to hold a job, it is important. We should not overemphasize
that everyone who fills these positions will be permanent.
As Mr. King noted, they will fill positions in the same way
that other Federal employees fill them, and if they have
benefits, they will have benefits in the training program. If
they are in positions that don't have benefits, then they will
not have benefits here either.
Secretary Shalala announced with her plan and other
agencies understand it, that these initiatives now, as we look
at them in terms of how to deal with new employees, will apply
across the board. As she said, what we need to do is look at
our low-income workers, not whether they are just coming off of
welfare or not, but let's see what our programs are for all of
the people who work for us at very low-graded wages. People
making $12,000 or $15,000 or even $18,000 a year with families
are obviously going to have a very difficult time making ends
meet, and we have to look at what are our relationships and
provisions and support for people in those grade levels and
wage levels wherever they came from.
Mr. Cummings. I agree with you. I think just to have the
opportunity to work, to develop new friendships and working
relationships, certainly helps one's self-esteem, no doubt
about it. And probably will enable them to go on and do some
better things, but I am just wondering do you agree with the
Washington Post number that 40 percent is accurate?
Mr. Koskinen. Forty percent is the commitment by Commerce,
and it is tied primarily to their census. And so as you say,
the 2000 census and at end of the census, the bulk of those
jobs will go away, both for welfare workers and others who are
hired. There is 2,000 people that are hired as part of the
census operation.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. You raised a number of
questions and points that we need to get additional information
on the administration's plans, because the reason people are on
welfare is they do not have the education, they do not have the
job training skills, they do not have available day care. And
if we are not prepared--and you are going to get into this
program to address some of the fundamental problems--we are not
doing the right thing.
So, we are going to ask you for written testimony. And
please keep this subcommittee posted on what your plans are in
those areas as this proposal moves forward. With those
comments, I yield to Mr. Pappas from New Jersey.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King, I am
wondering if you would be the one to clarify for us the overall
pool of potential Federal job vacancies that the 10,000 would
fit into?
Mr. King. I can--you mean the types of jobs?
Mr. Pappas. No, just the number.
Mr. King. The logical number that would turn over? First of
all, the 10,000 were designated by the agencies themselves and
sent forward, I believe, through OMB. They were identified by
each agency.
Mr. Pappas. No, what I am saying is out of how many job
vacancies within the Federal workforce would the 10,000--excuse
me, we have been told that it is a small number out of----
Mr. King. Last year we hired, in the Federal Government,
58,000 permanent full-time new hires, and 142,000 temporaries.
That is while we were downsizing.
Mr. Koskinen. And that was just last year. This is a 4-year
program. You are talking about a goal of hiring 10,000 over a
4-year period. The 58,000 permanent and 144,000 temporary hires
was our experience last year.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you. My next comment, I guess it is not
so much a question, is for Ms. Disney. In your written
testimony, you indicate that there will probably be over the
next 5 years approximately 90,000 civilian positions
eliminated, and the Department of Defense continues to hire
20,000 civilian personnel a year.
Within my district, there is a facility called Fort
Monmouth, and I would like to forward to you, and not pose the
question to you here, but a letter that I sent with another
Member from my region of New Jersey trying to get some
clarification as to how folks who are being in one sense, the
position is being eliminated, yet the function shifting from I
think the Department of the Army to the Department of Defense
and their inability to apply for those positions. So I would
like to forward that to you, and I appreciate your assistance
in getting that clarified.
Ms. Disney. I look forward to it. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pappas. The other comment, I want to agree with the
gentleman who questioned you folks earlier, besides welfare
recipients not having the training or the access to learning
what positions may be available, many of them have just not had
an orientation to work, have not had any opportunity to have
good work experience.
In New Jersey, there is a program which I don't know if you
folks are aware of it is called the Community Work Experience
Program. And we in my county found it very helpful to many
welfare recipients in that they were given an opportunity to
work, if you will, in quotes, for a county agency and were
given the opportunity to report to work on time, to just gain
some work experience. And this was not an effort to displace
employees that we had. We did not reduce the workforce in an
effort to save money. It was really an effort to help those
that wanted some experience and could then be given a letter of
reference as they were really entering the job market. Is there
any kind of a program that we have in the Federal Government
that is similar to that?
Mr. King. Under this authority, no. What it is, though,
again, is the operating assumption of little or no skills on
the part of employees entering these two lower grades. We use
numbers a lot, and I have done it, so forgive me. When we talk
about 42 percent, for example, have high school or high school
equivalency, that is 800,000 people. That is a pretty good pool
of talent that can be hired above a GS-1 or wage grade 1. Those
are not the only jobs.
So what we are saying is that even for people of very
humble circumstances who are motivated, there is opportunity
through this training program as an entry. That entry level,
the commitment to all of the organizations who are hiring at
that level understand the folks that they will be working with,
who they will be, and will try to organize programs around
them. I don't believe it is any surprise. I yield to the
operating agency. VA has had probably as much experience as any
organization in the Federal Government, and I will yield to VA.
Ms. Felder. Mr. Pappas, the question you raised about the
training for welfare recipients, I think, as we have begun to
look at developing plans and programs, we have learned, and I
think Mr. King referred to this earlier, these are going to be
local, community-based programs. The actual implementation will
occur at the local level.
The local facilities are going to work with their
communities. In fact, here in Washington, we have already had a
presentation by the State of Maryland. So we are aware that the
local welfare jurisdictions will be looking at ways of
transitioning their own people from welfare to work. And as a
part of that, there will be training. There will also be access
to community resources such as the one you just described. And
the VA, as an organization itself, already has a tradition of
doing two kinds of training. There is one, training that we
provide as a part of our rehabilitation of veterans so that we
can move dependent veterans back into the workforce and we have
a program called our compensated work therapy program. And as a
veteran benefit, these people are given the opportunity to have
work experiences, to go through training and counseling.
And then they are moved into paid employment as a part of
our service to veterans. And as a part of our own organization,
because we have a workforce which has in it a lot of entry
level jobs, we do traditionally have a development orientation
kind of program. And we would anticipate moving the welfare
recipient into these programs and that they would be mentored
where that is necessary.
Generally, we are only looking at hiring one or two or
three at a facility. And that number can be incorporated into
our normal workforce and given special attention when
necessary. But we do intend to provide them the training and
support that they will need and to work with the local
communities to identify resources available to them.
Mr. Pappas. We have found through the CWEP program, where
some of these welfare recipients have worked in a sense for
nothing, many of them have been actually hired as vacancies
have occurred, so our experience has been very, very positive.
And I guess my last two comments is following up on that,
which I had mentioned to you, Ms. Disney, is that there are
many very loyal Federal employees who are either being
displaced or are soon to be displaced. And I just hope that we
will take great steps, important steps, to keep a balance
between what we are trying to do to help those who are not
employed and those that may find themselves unemployed.
And my last comment is that this is the Federal
Government's part in this effort to assist those that seek
gainful employment, but I also think it is important to keep in
mind actions that we take with regard to reducing taxes, I
think, could help the private sector in creating new jobs that
would be more permanent and I think have a better and more
secure future for those that would gain that employment. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. I would like to recognize
now the gentlewoman from the District, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I would like to let Mr.
Ford go ahead of me since he heard all the testimony, and then
I would go after him.
Mr. Mica. All right, Mr. Ford, you have been here and heard
it and welcome again to the panel. This is your opportunity for
questioning. You are recognized, sir.
Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to my
colleague, Mr. Cummings, and the panelists, we will take all
the jobs that you want to create in the city of Memphis. My
colleague didn't know where the jobs would be created. We would
certainly want them there.
Let me ask a few questions. All of the Members have spoken
to some of the issues that concern me as well. But in reality,
we are talking about, if I am not mistaken, about 100 Federal
agencies that have at least expressed an interest or
willingness to participate. And we are talking about 10,000
jobs. So certainly we are only talking about each agency
nationwide creating 25 jobs per agency over a 4-year period, if
I am not mistaken. Am I correct in that analysis or that
calculation?
Mr. King. I think what you are hearing is from the major
executive agencies. We have focused in the conversation first
on a GS-1, which is probably one of the smallest percentages of
all the Federal job classifications as far as actual employees.
And then wage grade 1 and 2, which is fairly small, but still
significant. But it pales in comparison.
Let me set the context, if I am correct. Those jobs would
be, again, for those folks with little or no skills. What we
want to do and what we wanted to make very clear--and we
emphasized this--is that we wanted to provide opportunity.
I think Mr. Pappas was kind enough to indicate where in his
community they were working on those skills that would prepare
people to enter work. It is interesting to note that 70 percent
of our group of 2 million have had previous work experience.
That is almost 1\1/2\ million of the 2 million that are going
to go forward.
So, we are not--what we are saying is there are a number of
jobs available. We don't want to stereotype. What we did say to
the agencies, I believe the President said, and I yield to Mr.
Koskinen on this. The President asked the agencies, what would
be the level that you could best look at at these particular
levels that provided opportunity for those with few, if any,
skills? And that is really what you are seeing, if I am not
mistaken.
Mr. Koskinen. Probably there are over 100 agencies, but a
number of them have very few people. We focus the 10,000 and
the surveys are basically the 22 largest agencies, and if you
look at what percentage of their workforce this is on average,
it is six-tenths of a percent of their workforce. So agencies
are talking about 50 to 2,000 people over a 4-year period would
be their commitments with the exception of Commerce, as we
talked about, with about 4,000 because of the decennial census
and the Defense Department, which, of course, is larger, but
its percentage is the same. It just has a larger number of
people as a result. It is half of a percent to six-tenths of a
percent is the average that agencies are talking about and that
is over 4-years.
Mr. Ford. I stress also, underscore the point that my
ranking chairman said, Mr. Cummings, and I am not being
critical, but really trying to ferret out some of the germane
issues. In terms of the temporary and permanent employee
status, in terms of I have heard Mr. Secretary you talk a
little bit about exposing workers to the rigors and habits of
work and perhaps providing some experience so they can put on a
resume and at least provide them with some job-related
experience. How is that compatible in terms of the
implementation strategy for this moving people from welfare to
work? How do you sort of reconcile those two different strands
of thought?
Maybe I am not being clear. If you are hiring some folks to
expose them to the rigors and habits of work, and you are
hiring some folks for permanent employee status, how do you
convey that to workers? And I guess it speaks a little bit to
what Congressman Cummings has spoken about. I don't see how the
two of those reconcile and perhaps you can explain that to me a
little better or maybe one of the panelists can elaborate on
that point.
Mr. Koskinen. As everyone in the private sector has
discovered, as well, probably the concept of what is a
permanent job has changed a lot over the last 20 years and if
you look at particularly the employment experience of young
people or people entering the workforce in the private sector,
they move on in very short periods of time.
Mr. Ford. I understand that certain people move on, but it
seems that the approach of the Federal Government is that some
folks we are hiring for permanent and other folks we are hiring
for temporary.
Mr. Koskinen. And the agencies all look at what their needs
are as we have tried to stress, these are all real jobs. They
are real openings. Some agencies, as with Commerce with the
census, has real openings in the census board that are
temporary. They will run from 6 to 18 months or longer, but
they are temporary in the sense that there is a beginning and
the middle and an end. That is a temporary program.
Other agencies will have vacancies, some of which will be
in temporary jobs, others will be permanent and it is up to the
agency to figure out where is the work that needs to be done
and what are the programs and the positions that are open? So
that we have not limited them to one program or another.
We have said here is what we need to do, how many jobs do
you think over the 4-year period can you comfortably commit you
can hire? Most of the agencies are focusing that effort where
they can on permanent positions, but it depends on what their
situation is.
Mr. Ford. In closing, let me say I know my colleague from
New Jersey made the point about lowering taxes and, hopefully,
being able to invigorate job growth and other opportunities. I
am going to salute this administration, salute our President
and those of you here. So often, those of us in Congress, and I
was not here in the 104th Congress, we showed a lot of courage
and temerity to poor people to say that we can be tough and
eliminate a guarantee to poor children.
So I salute this President for stepping up to the plate and
creating some jobs and some opportunities and I would hope that
the private sector would pay attention. I am a proponent of
private sector and small business and I would hope they pay
attention to the travails and advantages and disadvantages and
the strengths and weaknesses of this plan and would look to the
Government for leadership in these areas. And with that, I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Ford, and I recognize now Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me indicate that a real sense that what the
President proposes to do is unavoidable. The question is when
would you do it? Would you do it after public pressure or do it
on your own initiative, because you can't go around the country
saying you all have to hire the welfare workers and have the
biggest employer up here exhorting, but doing very little. So
you would have been slashed about the head and shoulders if you
had not moved up and we ought to all recognize that there was
no way for them to avoid what they have done. And I commend you
on doing what you have done.
My concern is more to avoid perverse effects which often
occurs with even the best of intention and the best of efforts.
And, therefore, I am interested in the existing workforce and
priority placement which I fought hard for in the 104th
Congress, and with displacement, which I think is inevitable in
the way in which some of the welfare reform will be carried
out.
I do not have a problem with the temporary nature of the
jobs. Hey, you know, we're not trying to manufacture some
Cadillacs here. We are trying to give people, at the very
least, a work history. So that if you can say you worked for 6
months in the Federal Government as a census taker or whatever
you give the person to do, and I got satisfactory or
outstanding in that, and I was a GS-2, you got something that
you can go to town with. And these are folks that are starting
with nothing, so I am not worried that you are not providing
him a lifetime guarantee of a job.
We have to really face what we are facing in the workforce.
Being on welfare is the functional equivalent of having a
criminal record today. I mean, maybe all you have had is a
child, but the fact is, with two similarly situated people
before an employer, the likelihood that he will go for the
welfare recipient, not welfare worker, but the welfare
recipient over somebody else is not very likely. And so, I
regard this as kind of giving people a push or a start since it
is so difficult to go straight from welfare and get a job at
all.
At the same time, the Federal workers are a largely white
collar workforce. You don't have to work with what some other
sectors do. This was going to be difficult under the best of
circumstances. So I am not discouraged by the difficulties.
What did we expect? That when we flood the market or try to
flood the market with hundreds of thousands of people who never
had a job, it would be easy or we shouldn't have to try to
struggle to find what the problems are and eliminate them?
Most people get off welfare themselves within 2 years. So,
what we're doing here may make it easier to stay off of welfare
because you have a work history and all kinds of problems that
we can't deal with, like some of the people who will have child
care and other kinds of things that are not going to come with
this initiative.
My first question is about the 10,000 number. Could you
describe to me where the 10,000 number came from?
Mr. Koskinen. We started without a number. The Vice
President asked the agencies to develop their plans. People
then began to come back and ask what number overall are we
shooting for, and we kind of, consistent with Congressman
Ford's point of view, was that the Federal Government had to be
a leader. It had to be out saying we will do our fair share. It
is going to be tough and difficult, but the vast number of
these jobs will be in the private sector and that is
appropriate.
And as I noted in my testimony, if you look at the goal of
moving 2 million off of welfare into the workforce, and look at
the average size of the welfare family, that means you have
about 700,000 people who will need to find jobs. The Federal
Government employs about 1.5 percent of all people in the
United States and therefore 1.5 percent or 10,000 people would
be in effect our fair share.
But we were doing those calculations while the agencies
were doing their plans, and there is some slight difference in
terms of what the final calculations turned out to be. But it
turns out that, in fact, about 10,000 is the number of jobs
that agencies feel comfortable they can fill over the next 4
years, either on a temporary or permanent basis.
Ms. Norton. Well, it is a nice round number, but my concern
is while it is a good fair share number, some of the questions
raised here go to the realism of the number in light of the
nature of the workforce, and, of course, the literally
unprecedented times in which we find ourselves.
The Federal Government has been growing all of my life as a
native Washingtonian, and I never expected to see the day when
we would really be cutting the workforce. I realize the
difficulty here and I believe the number has to be adjusted as
necessary as time goes on. I hope it will be adjusted upward,
but I would hate to see us fail to meet it or meet it in a way
that brought us great criticism, but I think you have done
right to set a number that is not minimal and that is in
keeping with the size of your workforce.
I am concerned about displacement for two reasons. We
simply don't want to send the message to people at lower levels
of the workforce that the way to get a job with the Federal
Government is to get on welfare. Nor do we want to displace
people who would ordinarily go out to get a job even at the
lower levels. And I recognize this is difficult to do. But
this--we are already seeing displacement of Mr. Cummings, and I
read in the paper about some displacement that has gone on in
Baltimore in the hospitality industry. It is almost natural and
the only way to avoid it is, in fact, try to keep it from
happening. Particularly, if there is a number and an agency is
supposed to meet anything or try to meet it.
What I would like to know is if you have thought through
what safeguards exist or you would be willing to put into place
to keep displacement from occurring or to keep a situation from
occurring where people at a certain level of the workforce find
that they simply can't get a job unless they have been on
welfare, which, again, is not the message that I know you want
to send.
Mr. Koskinen. Well, we are not proposing that people on
welfare will move to the top of the queue. These are vacant
jobs. Last year, we had a total of 200,000 positions that had
to be filled in the Federal Government. Nobody is being
displaced. By definition, these jobs are open.
The welfare recipients will apply with others interested in
those jobs, and as noted, both the Defense and the Government,
generally all of the existing priorities and preferences will
be protected. So veterans preference will be protected, and
those who have priority placement rights will be protected.
As I was saying to Congressman Cummings, what we are doing,
and what we are asking the private sector to do, is to reach
out to a different constituency. We are advertising vacancies
to encourage people who otherwise did not know of the vacancies
or didn't view them as appropriate or relevant to them to focus
on these vacancies as jobs they can fill.
Ultimately, we have all benefited from the economic impact
of the programs that Congress and the administration have put
in place. These programs have allowed us to generate over 12
million new private sector jobs since 1993. Our unemployment
rate is lower than it might otherwise be, and the economy is
more vibrant. But ultimately, what we're talking about here is
not creating special jobs, not displacing Federal workers. We
are saying we have jobs, can we reach out to a constituency, in
this case welfare workers, and encourage them to apply on an
equal footing with others who are available to apply.
Ms. Norton. I recognize that there are already remedies in
place for abusing existing legal entitlements such as veterans
preference and priority placement. I am less sanguine that for
people walking through the door there would not be
displacement. The examples that were reported from Baltimore
happened to simply be people walking in the door and, of
course, there are some incentives that are involved.
Mr. King. Did that happen at a Government agency?
Ms. Norton. No, no these were in the private sector. And
the point is to get the early warnings now of how this operates
or may operate in particular settings.
Now, if in fact it is as you say, that there are very
limited 1's and 2's in the first place, and many of these
workers or recipients will be inclined to be in the lower
levels, what I am saying is that you could get to the point
where people want to, in fact, with every good reason to meet
their goals for people in this lower level to be welfare
workers and the perverse effect would be you didn't go on
welfare, you could have gone on welfare, you went out here and
you got your own job, but you found out that every job at your
level in the Federal Government is going to go to a welfare
recipient.
Mr. Koskinen. You have to be careful with it. It is a very
important question. We are not obviously suggesting to the
business where the bulk of these jobs are going to be filled
that they should only fill jobs with welfare recipients where
there is absolutely nobody else in the country applying for
that job. What we're saying is that we need to expand the group
of people to whom we reach out, that we need to, in fact, if we
are going to require welfare recipients to work, we need to
give them a fair opportunity, not a special opportunity, but a
fair opportunity to know where those jobs are to be able to
apply for them.
Ultimately, somebody will have a job. Theoretically, you
could argue any time a welfare worker has a job that means
somebody else doesn't have that job, but as I say, it seems to
me the perverse result would be that if we said that our
process is going to be that the only job a welfare worker is
eligible for is a job that we could establish no one else is
interested in.
Ms. Norton. Well, my only warning is that this is a zero
sum game. This is not an expanding workforce. And one of the
things I think you should do is to monitor, especially the low
level jobs and see who, in fact, is getting them. Obviously, I
am not arguing for not giving these jobs or large numbers of
them to welfare recipients. But, again, when we try to do
something good, an unintended consequence could result, and
something that we would not endorse.
There is some concern among employee organizations about
this. Less, I think--I don't think there needs to be a great
deal of concern. I think the protections are in place. Have you
met with all of the employee organizations?
Mr. Koskinen. We have had meetings. Mr. King chairs an
organization called the National Partnership Council, which has
the heads of the four largest employee organizations. We had a
full presentation of this program with them with a set of
Federal managers so they are well-acquainted with what the
nature of this program is. And specifically, these same
questions have come up there, and I think they are comfortable
that we are not providing special jobs or special benefits for
people who come off welfare to the Government as opposed to
anyone else who comes into the Government.
Mr. King. But the concerns were legitimate, and they were
very profound, to the point, and very well taken, as you well
know.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, one more
question. It really comes with the experience I had with a
temporary employee. You may even remember it. Just a few years
ago, there were stories in the paper about a man who scrubbed
out the Lincoln Memorial, had seven children, dropped dead on a
very hot day, literally from overwork. He had been working
around the clock.
And because he had been a temporary employee at the Park
Service for 7 years and had never been made permanent, he had
no benefits. Ultimately, literally, I went on the floor and was
able to get the other side to agree to what was no more and no
less than a special bill for the wife and seven children. By
the way, they've now bought a house. And that's one story that
turned out all right.
And, of course, there were promises made about how to deal
with temporary employees, and I know that there has been an
attempt to try to deal with temporary employees. Nevertheless,
I do note that it appears that some temporary employees would
not get at least some of the benefits that welfare recipients
would get, and I wish you'd clarify that for me.
Mr. King. Whatever authority and whatever circumstances the
individual is hired under, everyone will be treated the same.
Ms. Norton. So that what; what? So that, for example, a
welfare recipient simply gets what anybody else gets?
Mr. King. Welfare recipient, as far as we're concerned, is
an American citizen. But they have been in many ways--because
of the situation, have been--not had the opportunity to be even
aware of the kinds of things that we're talking about. And this
is an opportunity to join that pool of candidates for
employment.
Within that pool, we have talked about just really one
authority. There are several authorities that are available.
You can use any one of those authorities to come in. You can
come in as just a regular citizen and apply for a job at any
level, and be competitive, and be tested, and compete within
that and get the same benefits.
I think the emphasis has been on people who were really
just starting out and had no real work record and no
educational background. What we're talking about, by the
numbers that we're looking at, are overwhelmingly people who
have enough basics, but we are talking about those who are the
exception, not the rule.
Ms. Norton. Well, it is the worker training program where
you could convert to civil service status, are there benefits
at that level----
Mr. King. Yes.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. That there are not now?
Mr. King. The assumption on coming in is that you will be a
permanent employee.
Mr. Koskinen. If you're in that program. That's not a
program just for welfare recipients. That's a program that
applies across the board. Those in that program will have
whatever benefits that program provides. Those who are hired in
other programs will have the same benefits that employees in
those areas have.
As we discussed earlier, one of the things we need to focus
on when we look at the status of temporary employees is not
whether they're temporary welfare employees or temporary
employees. The issues about temporary employment are
appropriate--as I said, Secretary Shalala noted that one of the
things this initiative is having as a positive impact is
agencies looking at how our lower graded employees, whether
permanent or temporary, are and how are they faring, and what
additional support and resources can we and should we provide
to them.
So the goal here is not to have a special welfare program.
The goal here is to have a special outreach program to
encourage welfare recipients to apply for jobs. They'll apply
on the same basis as others. The existing preferences will
apply. And to the extent that we focus on the status of
temporary employees in the Federal Government, if there are
issues raised about that, we should address those. We should,
in fact, make sure that we're providing the same support and
benefits for people in similar classes within the Government.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, as I have
finished my questions, that I think the questions you have
raised and the questions the Members have raised have been very
legitimate questions. We've raised them, however, at the outset
before there is any experience. And I hope that those who have
testified have heard the questions, because I believe that the
chairman will want to hold a hearing in the near future when
there has been some experience to see if some of these problems
have been avoided. And I should think you would want to monitor
this program very carefully, because if you succeed, you will
encourage the private sector. If, in fact, problems develop,
you will have the opposite effect. I congratulate you on
trying.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your questions.
A number of points have been raised today. Let me just
follow, if I may, on the gentlelady's line of questioning. You
did describe that these folks, many of these folks, or you did
testify today that many of these folks would be temporary
employees, I think, probably the Census Department, some of
those jobs, many of those----
Mr. Koskinen. Yes.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. That we're talking about. What
concerns me, too, is that we aren't really addressing the
problems or the needs of welfare recipients even in this
program. Then, in fact, they won't have health care benefits.
Most--many of these folks are single mothers with dependent
children. They need day care. They need transportation. They
need education. So it creates the same dilemma that you see in
the private sector that we're doing in the public sector. We're
offering part-time, low-paying jobs with no benefit, no
opportunity.
And the alternative in my State, I come from Florida, and
they get $7.75 an hour equivalent--multiply that out, that's
about $300 a week times 50 weeks is $15,000--and health care
benefits if you stay on welfare versus what's a GS-1 make,
$13,000 entry?
Mr. Koskinen. Give or take a little, yes.
Mr. Mica. Yes. Or temporary positions with no benefits.
We want to monitor this program. We don't want to say we're
doing something when we're not. Of course, providing some work
experience is better than none, but are we providing an
alternative? What would your choice be if you get no benefits
and more money versus working and less benefits? So we need to
monitor this very carefully.
I'm also concerned, now, Ms. Disney, you said that one-
third of the positions you thought would come from private
contractors. Is that----
Ms. Disney. Well, slightly higher than that, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Well, I have no problem. We're asking and we've
been involved in this for 4 years of moving Federal employees
into the private workforce, RIF'ing them and putting more
contracting positions in and privatization. Is there a
directive going out now to all the private contractors? I think
I had heard they were asking the private contractors to pull
their fair share.
Mr. Koskinen.
Mr. Koskinen. Yes, we have not made a requirement in any
procurement regulation. What we have done is encouraged all
Government procurement officers to advise contractors that this
is a nationwide effort, that the administration and the
Congress are committed to hiring welfare workers, and that
everyone ought to pull their fair weight, and that we are
encouraging. But it's moral assuagement more than anything
else. We're encouraging Federal contractors to look hard at
their ability to hire welfare recipients.
The advice we've reminded them of is any employee training
due, to the extent they train new employees for the jobs they
are performing, those costs are acceptable costs for
reimbursement if you're on a cost reimbursement contract. But
basically we have not required it. We have simply stated this
is a goal. We're asking all private sector companies to
participate, and we expect that Federal contractors will pull
their fair share.
Mr. Mica. Well, the other final caution is Mr. King, who's
talking about maybe 500 positions, Ms. Disney is talking about
800 positions that would fall into these categories for which
there may be buyouts, have been buyouts overall. And, again, I
caution you. If we hear instances where there had been buyouts
of these positions filled by these folks, again, it's going to
raise a tremendous ruckus.
One final point per chairman's prerogative, Veterans'
Administration representative, and the point of buyouts, I was
accosted yesterday by Mr. Everett from Alabama, I guess he's
with the Veterans' Committee, about buyouts and issuing buyouts
to a veteran agency employee who had a sexual harassment charge
against that individual. That is not what we intended. So Mr.
King is gone, but we need to have some very specific guidelines
that prohibit the awarding of any buyout to any Federal
employee who has some type of charges pending against them, not
that they may not be entitled to it, but if they are, and we
want due process here.
But it is not pleasant for me as Chair of this subcommittee
to find out that these instances where there may be individuals
who violated personnel ethics and codes and responsibility, and
then be awarded a buyout. So we need to make sure we're all on
the same frequency and this is properly approached.
Do you want to comment?
Mr. Brickhouse. Mr. Chairman, you're correct. That did
happen in our agency. I might add that, and I'm not making
excuses, but the person who took advantage of the buyout took
advantage of it before charges were brought. So these
allegations weren't confirmed, if you will, and he retired and
took advantage of it.
But I might add you make a good point. We will look at
that. We will monitor that, and we understand.
Mr. Mica. Well, these things do happen, but they can't be
repeated. Mr. King is gone, and I direct staff to make sure he
gets a letter to this. And then we are held responsible. With
that, I'll yield to the ranking, Mr. Cummings.
[The letter referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.035
Mr. Cummings. I just have a few questions. First of all, I
want you all to understand, I agree with Ms. Norton. I think it
is very important that we do this. As a matter of fact, it's
imperative. The question becomes, I guess, let's make sure we
do it. And I think a lot of the concerns, as she stated, that
we have voiced here are the kind of things that we hope that
you all will be looking out for.
Other than the private contractors, trying to encourage
them to hire people who are on welfare, and other than
President, I guess, using his position as a bully pulpit to try
to get the various corporations, some of which he mentioned in
his State of the Union Address, to hire people off of welfare,
what else is being done with regard to the private sector?
Because I think so often we look to Government to do certain
things, and 10,000 jobs is very nice, but the private sector is
where the jobs are. I'm just trying to--I just wonder what else
is being done, if anything, to try to get those companies to do
the--to help us out on this.
Mr. Koskinen. Well, as you noted, we have five companies
that have agreed to take a leadership role, and they are United
Airlines, Sprint, Monsanto, United Parcel Service, and Burger
King.
Next month, the President will host a meeting at the White
House with business leaders from across the country to not only
encourage, but to hopefully get more of them committed not only
to work in their own companies, but in their industry groups,
because I think this is not going to be--will not work if it's
a one-time initiative or exhortation. We need to have continued
followup and dialog.
I think thus far our experience is that the private sector
is responding privately. Over the last 20 years, people have
lamented the problem with the welfare system, the inability on
welfare to find jobs in many cases, the stereotype that they're
not interested in jobs. I think now we all have a chance and
opportunity to, in fact, see if we can change that culture.
So at that White House meeting next month, the President
will not only be exhorting the private sector, but hopefully
signing them up for major commitments on their part to assert
leadership in the private sector.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. King, I think it was you that said you
identified 25 positions at OPM.
Mr. King. Right.
Mr. Cummings. I was just curious. How did you come to the
conclusion that those, you know, those jobs were appropriate
for people coming off of welfare?
Mr. King. We did operate on the assumption that a number of
the folks that would be coming to us may have little experience
and few skills, and therefore we identified those positions at
a career entry level that would meet those criteria, and our
hope is that we will work and create a climate in which people
will apply. If we have a deep pool, we can select the best
candidates from that pool.
Mr. Cummings. My friends from the VA, we in Baltimore, of
course, we have a VA hospital, had a lot of interaction with
the VA Hospital, and one of the things that they continuously
complain about when we try to get them to hire people from the
Baltimore area, people who live in Baltimore, because it's like
a large percentage of their employees do not live in the area,
and a lot of these people will be the very folks that we're
talking about, but their constant complaint is that they--I
think it's Dennis Smith----
Mr. Brickhouse. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Mr. Brickhouse. He's the director of the hospital.
Mr. Cummings. His constant complaint is that they RIF so
many people that they are worried about taking care of the
RIF'd people who are standing there on the sidelines.
I'm trying to put all this together to make sure what we
hope happens happens. And that's my concern. I--I really want
to see this, this effort be successful. But when I hear things
like that--and one of the other things that I hear is that
people in my district, the first thing they ask me, and I'm
sure Ms. Norton probably hears the same thing to some degree,
most people ask me, can you get me a Government job? I don't
know why that is, but that's the first thing they ask. I mean,
if nine people ask me about a job, at least four of them are
going to say, well, can you get me a job with the city of
Baltimore?
In other words, I guess there is a feeling that that brings
a certain level of security. And so, you know, people in my
district would be happy to take some jobs at the VA, I mean,
because it's a--it's kind of a clean-cut job, and they probably
would really like that. But you know what we found is that,
like I said, in my efforts, they've been hitting a brick wall,
and I just want you to address that.
Mr. Brickhouse. Well, first of all, Congressman Cummings,
we do have some potential candidates to be hired in the
Baltimore area. I have a list of all of our facilities.
Mr. Cummings. Good. We'll have to talk right after this.
Mr. King. As long as it's under the context of the merit
system, this conversation is totally on the up and up.
Mr. Brickhouse. Mr. King, we understand the merit system,
and we follow it.
I might add that, to answer your question a little further,
though, we have in the VA over 240,000 employees. And I will
admit to you we are in the midst of RIF'ing people, as we
mentioned earlier to Mr. King and Mr. Koskinen, though
primarily those RIFs are at higher level employees and not down
at the wage grade or the GS grade. And as you very well know,
in some of those areas, for example, we do have consolidations.
In other words if we have two hospitals within 15 minutes of
each other, why do we need two pharmacy staffs, if you will?
But most of those are targeted, in my estimation, at senior
levels.
I think, as I have mentioned earlier, we targeted 400 jobs
this year and 400 jobs next year because we have such a large
turnover in those types of jobs in the VA. So I think, as you
have mentioned, though, we will continue and we do have some
avenues to hire some of these people, but at the same time my
belief is that we will still be conducting RIFs because of some
of those consolidations and some of those positions that we do
not need in some of those facilities, if you will.
Mr. Cummings. Just one last question. When we have this 40
percent of the people going into the proposed positions with
Commerce and Census, again I agree with Ms. Norton, it is
important to establish a track record, employment record. I'm
just wondering, though, is there any aim at sort of trying to
guide folks?
We know that's going to come to an end, and our objective,
of course, is to keep people employed. And we also know that
people have limited time that they can be on welfare, pursuant
to legislation. And some of them will probably--once they get
these jobs will probably maybe, I don't know, run out of their
time or close to it. And I guess all I'm asking you is there
any--are you giving any consideration to trying to make sure
that people are at least steered in the direction of some kind
of other employment so that--so that we don't--and I understand
that this is a program, you're trying to do something for
people that is no preferences, understand all of that. But
still, the Government will have taken these people in and in
many instances will have trained them, will have invested in
them, and will have placed them in a position whereby we
definitely are, you know, cutting into this whole welfare
situation. The question then becomes do we allow them to fall
off a cliff without giving them some kind of guidance? That----
Mr. King. Once they come onto the payroll and they are
employees, we have historically bent over backward to
accommodate our employees, whoever they are and wherever they
are. I would have to yield to the Chair, who has provided
enormous personal leadership in this area, when we talk about
soft landing for Federal employees, the attempts that were made
when we knew we were faced with downsizing to have voluntary
departures from Government so that we didn't force people on to
the street, so that we are concerned.
That's--I can't think of any agency here as I'm looking at
the people here, I actually know their conduct and the work
that they have done to help people through that.
I think Ms. Norton made an excellent point that here we are
in Washington where we view Government as the business, and
yes, it is huge. But two-thirds of the jobs in this
metropolitan area are in the private sector. The eastern-
Silicon Valley, the largest communication complex in high
technology, is 5 miles from where we're sitting.
I mean, the world is changing as we're talking, and what we
would like to do, as we're saying, is we want every American to
be part of that world and that future. We think we can
contribute in the way we're speaking, and we would like to
think that we continue to support our Federal employees,
whomever they are and no matter what their grade level is, but
there is an equity involved there, and there is a commitment
from all of us.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. And I wish all of you
the very best in what you're trying to do.
Mr. Mica. Thank you Mr. Cummings.
I yield now to Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Well, I thank the panelists.
I have one final question. We're going to have testimony in
our last panel from one of our Members, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
a Congresswoman from Texas, to introduce legislation that would
provide welfare recipients with a 3-point preference in Federal
hiring. Has the administration taken a position on H.R. 1066,
or is there any inclination toward supporting this type of a
measure?
Mr. Koskinen.
Mr. Koskinen. We're not taking a position. As I understand
it, it was only introduced very recently. As I say, our general
approach has been to treat our program not as a preference, but
to treat our program as an outreach program to try to encourage
people to become aware of the opportunities in the Federal
Government and to have a commitment on the part of agencies to
participate in that outreach.
But at this point we have not in response, but really
anticipation of the concerns that might be raised, have tried
to view this not as a preference program. We are trying to view
this primarily as a program designed to fill available slots
with people who are qualified at whatever the level of
qualifications are.
Mr. Mica. And, Mr. King, you went out for a moment, a
personal privilege, when I was lambasting the practice of
giving buyouts to individuals who had some pending personnel
charges against them. I'm not going to ask you to respond, but
we did have an instance that was brought to my attention
yesterday in the Veterans' Administration where an individual
was charged with sexual harassment was getting a buyout. And we
need to make sure--you know the problems we've had in the past
in defending that program, and when you have instances like
that, it doesn't set well on the Hill.
I want to thank you. I think you all have helped, as Ms.
Norton said, at an early stage of helping us look at the
administration's proposal.
We're treading into some new water here. I think we've
raised many serious questions that need to be addressed as they
proceed, and it is very difficult as Chair of this
subcommittee, when I'm involved in unprecedented RIFs, when
we've been involved in incredible downsizing, consolidations,
the buyout program, for me to look these Federal employees in
the face, or former Federal employees, or employees that are
waiting for a position to come back to work with us, who have
dedicated part of their lives, we are--the administration is
proposing to employ welfare recipients or former welfare
recipients in the Federal workplace.
So it raises many questions. We need to work together as
you develop your plans to implement this. And we need to
possibly revisit this with another hearing.
In the mean time I'll excuse the panel, and thank you for
your testimony and participation.
Mr. Koskinen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. And I'll call our second panel this morning. The
second panel today consists of Mr. Steven Hantzis, and he is
the national executive director of the National Federation of
Federal Employees and will present the Federal employees'--
represent the Federal employees' viewpoint on today's panel.
We also have in this panel Mr. Robert Rector, who serves as
the senior policy analyst on welfare and family issues at the
Heritage Foundation, and he'll provide the benefit of his
expertise in studying various welfare issues.
We also have Mr. James Riccio, senior research associate at
the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. in New York, and he
will provide his perspective on the issues facing our
subcommittee.
And the fourth member of the panel will be Mr. Charles
Tetro, who is the president of the Training and Development
Corp. in Bucksport, ME. He has implemented welfare-to-work
training programs for more than to 20 years and should be able
to provide us some insight based on his work.
As I mentioned to our previous panel that this is an
investigation and oversight subcommittee, and it is the custom
and practice requirement that we swear in our witnesses. So if
you will please stand.
Raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. Thank you. The witnesses have answered and
responded in the affirmative, and we're pleased to have this
panel and welcome you as--I think you all are new witnesses.
What we do is allow you to summarize, if you can, or present
your testimony within 5 minutes, and lengthier statements will
be submitted for the record.
Now, I'll recognize Mr. Steven Hantzis, national executive
director of National Federation of Federal Employees.
STATEMENTS OF STEVEN HANTZIS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR
POLICY ANALYST, WELFARE AND FAMILY ISSUES, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION; JAMES RICCIO, MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CORP.;
AND CHARLES G. TETRO, PRESIDENT, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Mr. Hantzis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve
Hantzis, and I'm the national executive director of the
National Federation of Federal Employees. NFFE President James
Cunningham wanted to be here today to present NFFE's views on
this important issue. Unfortunately, President Cunningham is in
California and can't be with us this morning.
At the outset, I would like to make it clear that NFFE
applauds the efforts of the Clinton administration to set an
example for the private sector. Federal employees support the
concept of hiring former welfare recipients and help them make
a better life for themselves through hard work and opportunity.
Our members know very well the value of hard work and
diligence.
However, as supportive as NFFE is of the conceptual under-
pinnings of the President's plan, we have some significant
concerns with the manner in which his plan is being implemented
and the potential impact of the plan's implementation on the
Federal workforce.
NFFE is troubled by the fashion in which this plan was
created. It appears to be another example of policymaking by
headline. The President announced his goal of hiring welfare
recipients to the media and the Nation with no concrete plan in
place to accomplish the task. The administration then required
Federal agencies to rapidly develop and implement this program
with little thought apparently being given to the long-term
effects of their actions. NFFE is concerned that the hasty and
potentially short-sighted method in which the plan was
developed will harm the administration's previous efforts to
reform the Federal Government.
Additionally, NFFE is concerned with what many of the
members have termed the hypocrisy of this plan. To many Federal
employees, the fact that the Clinton administration, after
eliminating over 300,000 Federal jobs, has decided to suddenly
create jobs in order to accomplish the goals of this plan is
outrageous.
NFFE understands that the administration claims that no new
jobs will be created and that these employees will just be
considered for existing jobs that need to be filled. At the
same time, however, the administration has stated that most of
these jobs will be at the GS-1 and GS-2 levels.
According to the Office of Workforce Restructuring at the
Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Government had a
total of 677 GS-1 and GS-2 employees on the payroll as of
September 1996. If no new jobs are to be created, and the new
employees are slated to be GS-1's and 2's, NFFE asks where
these new positions are going to come from?
NFFE is also concerned that former welfare recipients may
be swiftly placed into Federal positions while some
involuntarily separated employees remain on displacement lists.
NFFE maintains that the Federal Government has a responsibility
to first help those employees who have faithfully served their
fellow citizens, and that these employees should be the first
to be considered for all job openings.
There are currently 21,000 employees on the stopper list at
the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, since OPM does not
maintain a governmentwide re-employment priority list, it is
unclear how many Federal employees remain on displacement
lists.
The employees on these lists are hard-working, dedicated
individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their
own. If the administration is going to make extraordinary
efforts to find jobs for any group of individuals, hiring
displaced employees should be their No. 1 priority.
Additionally, there is a question of equity between current
Federal employees and employees that will be hired under this
proposal. It is NFFE's understanding that the employees hired
under this plan will be eligible to convert to permanent career
status after 3 years. If this is true, NFFE is deeply troubled.
Currently there are tens of thousands of temporary
employees working for the Federal Government. These employees
work each day to provide their fellow citizens with the comfort
and security they deserve. However, these workers do not enjoin
a similar peace of mind. They have no retirement benefits or
job security. And although they were recently given the right
to purchase health insurance under FEHBP, they're required to
pay the full cost, which, for many, prevents them from
purchasing insurance.
Fortunately, the plight of these workers only surfaces
after a tragedy like the Colorado fire where 14 temporary
employees lost their lives, or when a dedicated employee like
James Hudson loses his life while performing his job.
Temporary employees deserve to be treated fairly. Allowing
a new hire to convert to permanent status without providing
long-term temporaries with the same opportunity would be a slap
in the face to these workers.
The situation at one agency illustrates potential inequity
in the President's plan. Currently there are thousands of
employees within the Forest Service that have worked as
temporaries for over 10 years. These employees are not eligible
for conversion to career status. In fact, because of the OPM's
new policy on temporary employees, many of these dedicated
individuals are about to lose their jobs.
If the administration is going to allow these new hires to
convert to permanent status, fairness demands, that it
immediately convert these long-term temporaries already on the
payroll to convert them to permanent status.
NFFE is also troubled by the potential drain this program
could have on agency training budgets. In this budget-cutting
era, funding for agency training programs has been stretched to
the limit. In fact, many of our members have expressed concern
that their agencies are no longer able to provide them with the
training they need to excel in their duties. In today's complex
and increasingly high-tech workplace, employees need to be--
need to receive training if they are to perform their jobs at
highly skilled levels.
NFFE is concerned that the need to intensively train these
new hires will have a dramatic negative impact on the ability
of agencies to provide training to its current staff, thereby
reducing the ability of agencies to serve the public. NFFE
urges the Congress to ensure the agencies receive the funding
adequate to provide the new hires with the training necessary
to succeed at their jobs and continue to provide training to
current employees.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a problem that
the administration may or may not be aware of. The average
Federal employee is very disturbed by this plan. It is
important to know that Federal employees are not upset because
they do not want to help these individuals make a better life
for themselves, but rather they're upset because they cannot
understand how, after 4 years of massive downsizing and budget
cuts, the administration can suddenly find the ability to hire
and train thousands of new employees. In discussing the
President's proposal with our membership, the phrase we hear
most often is ``outrageous.''
For the last 4 years, Federal employees have suffered
through the largest job-slashing program in history. We have
watched countless jobs transfer to the private sector
contractors, who overcharge and underperform. They have been
consistently asked to perform an ever-increasing range of
duties with fewer and fewer resources. They have received
minimum pay increases that are far below what they're entitled
to under the law and have been watched with dismay as their
benefits are cut in the name of budgetary savings. Now these
employees watch in amazement as the administration declares it
has the resources to hire, train, and provide benefits for a
new pool of employees. It's no wonder Federal employees are
upset, confused, and demoralized.
The administration needs to do a better job communicating
the details of this plan to employees. These hard-working and
dedicated employees deserve to be told how the administration
will implement this plan, what positions will be filled and
why, what the impact will be upon current employees and agency
budgets, and why these new employees may be receiving
opportunities that former employees are not. American workers
deserve and demand no less.
And this concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to
answer my questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we will defer questions to all the
panelists who testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hantzis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.043
Mr. Mica. I'll recognize Mr. Robert Rector, with the
Heritage Foundation. You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Rector. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here today and to testify about this policy. Unfortunately, I
find this policy is at best irrelevant, and at worst it creates
a pattern of discrimination against American citizens, who have
not been on welfare and Government hiring. It's a very foolish
policy, and it has nothing to do with reducing welfare
dependence.
You know, one would think that if the Clinton
administration were interested in generating self-sufficiency
and reducing dependency, that they would go to those
individuals and those States that have a remarkable track
record in reducing dependency and generating self-sufficiency.
Did they do that? Absolutely not.
Instead what they do is turn to a set of failed, tired
policies and to a set of advisors who have a perfect track
record in increasing dependency and come up with a policy that
is more a press release than an actual mechanism for helping
the poor.
We have a kind of myth here that as the welfare state has
grown and grown and grown since Lyndon Johnson created it, the
dependence is in some way inevitable, and we're all trying to
figure out how to reduce dependence. Well, the reality is we've
known for over 25 years how to reduce dependence. And this city
has basically spent most of that time trying to prohibit States
from operating programs that will get people off of welfare and
into jobs.
The reality is that it's not all that difficult to reduce
dependence, and that if we look at States today, such as
Wisconsin, Oregon, Massachusetts, South Dakota, we can see how
this is done. In particular, if we look at Wisconsin, which has
the leading policy in the Nation, we look at the time since
Governor Thompson took office in Wisconsin, we see that the
overall AFDC caseload has dropped by an astonishing 55 percent,
utterly unprecedented. In inner-city Milwaukee, a depressed
ghetto area, the caseload is down 32 percent, and in the rest
of the State 70--the caseload has dropped 71 percent. Now, how
did they do that? And as we speak, the AFDC caseload in the
city of Milwaukee is continuing to drop at 2 percentage points
per month. How did they do that? Let me just briefly go through
it.
When somebody comes and applies for AFDC in Milwaukee, the
first thing they do is surprisingly counsel them on the
negative effects of welfare dependence. Then they offer them
short-term aid: Is there something we can do to help you not
get on welfare in the first place; exactly the opposite of what
every other welfare office does.
Then they say, look, before you come onto welfare, we're
going to require you to search for a job for 60 hours to
essentially earn your right into entry into welfare. And then
you know what? As soon as you get on welfare, we're going to
make you work for the benefits that you get. And you know what
happens when they do that? Roughly 1 out of 3 of the recipients
coming in and applying for welfare simply turn around and walk
right back out because they have other options. They don't
really need to be on welfare in the first place.
If they do go on and get onto welfare, what they then do is
say, all right, welfare is no longer a free income. You must
perform community service work in exchange for the benefits you
get. If we require you to do 30 hours of work, and you do 15,
we're essentially going to cut your benefits in half. It's
called Pay for Performance. And what this means, both in Oregon
and Wisconsin, is that people who are put under those
circumstances very, very quickly leave welfare because welfare
is no longer a good deal for them. They're no longer getting a
free income for nothing. They must work for their welfare
income, and all of a sudden taking some other job in the
private sector is much more attractive.
Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Oregon have demolished all of
the prevailing mythology about welfare dependence. They have
proven to us that what was said in the past is simply not true.
In the past we've been told welfare recipients want to work,
but there's no jobs available. It's absolutely untrue, and it's
disproved every time you put this type of work in place.
Second, the shortage of day care and transportation means
people can't get jobs. Absolutely untrue. It's not a
significant problem. It's not a barrier to self-sufficiency in
major detail.
Third, radical drops in caseload will cause huge economic
deprivation. Simply not the case. These families are much
better off because they are setting up working role models. And
these kids are going to benefit because the pattern of
dependence is being disrupted.
In reality, there's a revolution going on in welfare all
across the United States as the national caseload has dropped
about 20 percent in the last 2 years. That's the biggest drop
since the Korean water.
We're essentially in the Jet Age of welfare reform. What
President Clinton has put forward here is instead a hot air
balloon from the 18th century. It has nothing to do with
reducing dependence and will have no effect other than possibly
to reward those people who have gotten on welfare by giving
them a Federal job that might otherwise have gone to someone
else who has not been on welfare. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you Mr. Rector.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.062
Mr. Mica. And I'll now recognize Mr. James Riccio. He is
with the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. Is it Riccio?
Mr. Riccio. Riccio.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Mr. Riccio. Thank you.
The President's initiative raises the question of
employment potential of the people to whom this initiative is
targeted, and I would like to comment on what we know from
research studies about the kinds of people Federal agencies
itself are likely to find as they begin recruiting from this
particular labor group.
I think if anything is clear about adult welfare recipients
is that they're a very diverse group. Although they share some
characteristics in common, such as most are single mothers and
do not have advanced job skills, they differ widely in their
preparation for work, the severity of the obstacles they face
in finding and keeping a job, and their actual employment
experience. So it's risky to generalize.
As you've heard, nearly half of all welfare recipients do
not have a high school diploma or GED certificate, and few have
college degrees. Many, but certainly not all, also score quite
low on standardized tests. To the extent that employment
opportunities offered as part of the worker training initiative
require advanced education, credentials and skills, many
welfare recipients clearly would not qualify. At the same time,
about half could be candidates for jobs that required a high
school diploma or a GED. Many would also bring with them a
considerable amount of employment experience.
Despite a mixed educational record, a large proportion of
welfare recipients, more than most people realize, do have a
work history or eventually acquire one. Studies of welfare-to-
work programs illustrate this. For example, the study of the
GAIN program in California, which is the largest welfare-to-
work program in the country, found that as many as 70 percent
of welfare recipients who entered the program worked at some
point within the subsequent 5 years, although they did not all
do so quickly.
Nonetheless, findings from this study and other data
suggest that most recipients are at least capable of starting a
job, even if not immediately. However, job turnover is high.
This is a big problem that even the most successful welfare-to-
work programs have not solved yet.
When welfare recipients do work, the jobs they get are
usually low pay and offer no benefits. For example, the
recipients in the California program who became employed
reported on survey that they earned about $6 an hour on
average, and almost half earned $5 or less. Moreover, only
about one-third or fewer got any paid sick days, vacation days,
or health benefits.
The reasons for job--for high job turnover among welfare
recipients varied, but in many cases are related to the
marginal nature of the jobs themselves. In the California
study, among the people who left jobs, 46 percent left because
the job itself was not permanent. Recipients were either laid
off, or the job came to an end.
In contrast, about 13 percent said they were fired from
their jobs, and 41 percent said they'd quit. The reasons they
gave for quitting resolved around seeking more--more suitable
and better employment, but also, much more commonly, problems
they experienced at the workplace, changes in family situations
and illnesses.
Although most recipients do eventually work, many
experience times in their lives when serious problems such as
family emergencies, physical and emotional illnesses,
disruptions in child care and housing crises make it
exceptionally difficult for them to work at that time.
A number of studies suggest that a substantial minority,
perhaps a quarter, may not reasonably be expected to work at
any given point in time, even if a suitable job and child care
arrangements could be made available.
For many, these problems are likely to be temporary.
However, given the kinds of jobs welfare recipients tend to
hold, these problems can quickly jeopardize their employment.
The lack of benefits such as sick days and vacation days offers
them little flexibility for dealing with these issues and can
lead them to quit or be fired.
Evidence of employer satisfaction with the performance of
welfare recipients is scarce; however, some information of this
kind is available on AFDC recipients assigned to unpaid work
experience or workfare programs in the 1980's. Special surveys
that were conducted with workfare participants and their
supervisors in six States help inform this issue. The jobs
these recipients typically got were entry-level positions, and
in the opinion of the supervisors and the recipients
themselves, the work being performed was important to the
agency and not make-work.
Most supervisors said that the performance of the
recipients was as good as that of most entry-level employees,
and although the programs were small-scale, they offer at least
some evidence that welfare recipients can be productive
employees in Government entry-level jobs.
To summarize, research shows that many welfare recipients
can and do become capable employees and, given the right
opportunity, have little difficulty working productively and
continuously and without unusual levels of supervision.
Others, however, have more difficulty making the transition
for a wide variety of reasons, but can succeed with some extra
assistance and support, and this should be anticipated and
planned for. Still others, but a much smaller group, face
exceptionally challenging employment obstacles.
Finally, it's reasonable to expect that if entry-level jobs
can be made available in Federal agencies, many welfare
recipients would be eager to fill them. If those positions
offered medical benefits and paid sick days, it would be more
appealing, and perhaps job turnover would be somewhat lower
than it usually is for this group because most recipients do
not leave jobs that provide them with such benefits. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riccio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.067
Mr. Mica. And we'll now turn to Charles Tetro, who is
president of the Training and Development Corp.
Mr. Tetro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to be able to speak with this committee today
and testify before you. I'm joined today by three senior
program managers from my own organization in case there were
questions that penetrated beyond my own familiarity. Sandy
Brawders is executive director of our career advancement
services in Maine. Vinceretta Henderson runs our career
advancement services operation in Richmond, VA. And Wayne Tapp
runs the Penobscot Job Corps center. Each of these people run
programs for thousands of people, about 40 percent of whom
historically have been on welfare, so they have a real intimate
knowledge of this subject. I do share that knowledge as well.
Sandy ran the House of Ruth here in Washington, DC, for 8
years, the largest homeless shelter for women in the United
States. So we come to the table with a considerable amount of
experience with this issue.
We also--in summarizing my testimony, as I'm sitting here,
I was realizing, Mr. Chairman, that you summarized half my
testimony better than I could have, and I want to use your
statement and then just focus on one piece I brought with me.
You said, unless we're addressing the fundamental problems,
lack of education, training, day care and the like, then we're
not really doing the right thing as we come to an initiative
like this. And that was a lot of what I had to say in different
words in the testimony that I share with you in writing.
Another thing that I had to say we may not agree about, but
it's something that I also would like to put before this
committee today. And as I'm sitting here listening to the
testimony that's preceded me, it struck me that we all can come
to this issue, I think, with one conviction that we share and a
value that we share deeply, and that is the conviction that
we're a country about opportunity, and we share a value in the
worth of work. Every single one of us is engaged deeply in it.
We value it as a society more than many others do. And so we
sit here today in common in that pursuit.
Where we seem to come apart is around our perceptions of
what happens around the issues of work; why people do, and why
people don't. And as this testimony was coming before you
today, it struck me that one of the reasons we can seem to
disagree so much about some of these issues is that we're
always looking at incomplete pictures. And when we look at
incomplete pictures, we can amplify aspects of what we see,
generalize from those things that we see, and form an opinion
which may or may not reflect the large picture.
The large picture that welfare reform in this initiative is
taking place in is a picture of a whole economy, of a whole
range of labor markets and equations that go beyond labor
market participation. And to simplify that, it seemed to me, as
I looked at the issue of work, that every one of us has three
stark choices to make. We either engage in the legitimate
economy, we're involved in illicit economic activity, or we
become dependent. Somehow or another, we end up in one of those
domains. Most of us in this room have chosen to work and
succeed in the legitimate economy. But if we weren't, we would
face those other alternatives, as many other people do.
When we look at something like the welfare issue, we look
at it and see things that are appearing to be different, but I
think they are somewhat the same. We see a miracle in
Wisconsin, and one that we all ought to look carefully at,
because much of what was shared in testimony today was quite
important.
If we give people good information about how to get
employed, their inclination is to go and get employed. That's
why 75 percent of welfare recipients in the past, with a very
flawed system, sought employment and were employed within 2
years. It's always been a floor in the secondary labor market
system. It's been the place passed the job that you couldn't
find for 75 percent of the people who ended up on welfare.
We also need to look deeply at what seem to be miracles,
and Wisconsin may be one because it has, it seems, much of its
work based on good solid common sense, a set of steps that do
make sense and do seem to indicate that people taking those
steps would get jobs.
But sometimes miracles are posing--are miracles posing as
something else? And they might be magic, they might be sleight
of hand. And we need to really study them to learn what they
have to tell us, because many of us who have worked with these
people see people often with deep problems. And they're perhaps
that other 25 percent of people who are the core problem that
most of us are looking at when we talk about the welfare
problem in the United States. Most of us aren't really thinking
about the person who was divorced and went into welfare and
somehow within a couple of years got a job. We're thinking
about the person who lives in a culture of dependency for whom
work has not been part of their experience nor a part of their
future plans. And I think that when we turn to that population,
we turn with a very significant burden of effort that's
required to make this work.
As my testimony suggests at the end, I think the good news
in this is that we have currently a vibrant economy. We should
worry about times when we don't. We also have much more
knowledge with how to prepare people for work cost-effectively.
It no longer requires long periods of formal education and
classrooms at high costs. It can begin very effectively at work
in workplace settings with workplace-focused learning programs
and with appropriate support can be successful.
And I think that as we look to the future of welfare as we
all want to see it performed, we need to continue to look in
the direction of guiding people into employment and then
providing the performance support that's required to make them
effective once they're there, and that can be accomplished at
much lower cost than the historical approach of pulling people
out, putting them into long-term training education programs
that are unconnected with work, and only after that getting
them connected with the purpose that they originally were
identified to the program to pursue, which was work itself.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tetro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.083
Mr. Mica. I thank all of our witnesses on this panel.
I have a couple of questions. To Mr. Hantzis,
representative of the Federal employees, are you saying ``just
say no'' to this whole proposal?
Mr. Hantzis. Mr. Chairman, the most salient point had to do
with communications here. I believe the Federal workers that we
represent would like to know what it is that's going on prior
to just having bombshells dropped in their lap. And what we
have here is we have a headline that comes forward that says
the Federal Government is hiring 10,000 welfare recipients, and
at the same time the big headline in the Federal workforce is
contracting out, downsizing, RIFs. And so when you throw those
two things together, you have a cataclysmic reaction that is
not very favorable.
Mr. Mica. Well, obviously from what we heard today here all
the plans aren't together, all the specifics are not there. But
if there are positions available--and they are--and with folks
on some of these priority lists--do you have a problem with
filling them in the fashion described today?
Mr. Hantzis. The way it has been described by the first
panel seems very fair and equitable. When you get down to the
street level and the agencies that we work with daily that are
agencies in St. Louis, MO, or somewhere else in the field, I
have to bring to your attention the fact that it's not always
Mr. King's policies that are followed at that level, too.
So, yes, I heard what the first panel said, and I'm very
supportive of what they had to say, but sometimes once it gets
out into the streets, it's a different policy.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Rector, you had talked about the myth of day care.
We're impressed by the testimony you gave us, but we still have
a large number of the individuals on welfare, primarily female,
who are single parents with dependent children. In order to go
to work, they must have some assistance. You say that day care
is available, and that the day care problem that has been
enunciated is a myth. Could you elaborate?
Mr. Rector. Certainly. Any credible study that studies
success rather than failure, which is a policy I would
recommend, would show that, in fact, day care has never been a
substantial problem to employment of welfare mothers that has
been indicated. Particularly in inner-city communities, what
you have there is an absolute abundance of unemployed women who
are taking care of kids, and, therefore, any policy that has
ever had--that has seriously required work does not find an
absence of day care to be a problem.
For example, funding has gone up rather dramatically on day
care in Wisconsin, but it still remains less than 5 percent of
the total. They're not having any problem with it at all.
There's no problem in Oregon. You can go back 15 years in this,
and if you really look at the literature, this is just a myth.
It's an excuse about why we really can't do welfare reform
rather than being based on any factual matter.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Riccio, you had testified that we can succeed
with taking people from welfare to work if they get the extra
assistance and support that they need. We just heard the
comments from Mr. Rector. You also, I think, were here to hear
the testimony of the first panel. It doesn't sound like they
have that support system or assistance in place, which is a
concern to me. Also, the majority of the positions are part-
time, low-paying, no benefits, no health insurance. It doesn't
appear that, from what I've heard preliminarily, that they have
set in place a pattern or a plan for providing this extra
assistance and support for these folks. Would that be your
assessment?
Mr. Riccio. I can't assess independently what would be made
available in terms of the jobs under this initiative, but I
would say that, for some, that kind of assistance will be very
important.
Mr. Mica. But it is essential, you testified----
Mr. Riccio. And for others.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. To make this a success----
Mr. Riccio. It may be for some.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Otherwise----
Mr. Riccio. It may be for some.
Mr. Mica. Otherwise we go from welfare, to a part-time
public job, then back to welfare. Maybe not. Maybe.
Mr. Riccio. I'd say that welfare population is very mixed.
For some people child care is absolutely essential. Others can
make informal arrangements that work out. It's a very mixed
bag. Some people, though, will absolutely need subsidized child
care in order to work, but not necessarily everybody.
If the job is part-time, and the parent is working while
the child is in school, then obviously there's less of a demand
for child care. Jobs that don't provide health benefits or sick
days or vacation days make it very difficult for people to cope
with emergencies that inevitably come up, and if the current
jobs don't provide those kinds of benefits, they may be subject
to the same kinds of high turnover rates we typically see.
Mr. Mica. Is there, Mr. Rector, or Mr. Riccio, any study or
information on when a welfare individual gets a job in the
private sector versus the public sector, are there different
success rates? Mr. Riccio.
Mr. Riccio. I haven't seen studies with convincing evidence
on that. I'd say about 19 percent of the folks that have gotten
employed in the California study were employed in Government
jobs. Most of the jobs are in the private sector.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Rector.
Mr. Rector. Most employment in Wisconsin would be in the
private sector. But it doesn't really matter that much. What
really matters is when the individual takes a job, they're very
apt to lose it again or lose a job. And then what matters is
what happens? Do you now recycle them back into AFDC and let
them sit there for a couple years where you apply some extra
training and stuff and just let the system linger along, in
which case you're not going to have any drop in caseload.
What really matters is that then that individual, you have
to create a push to get them out of welfare, and the way you do
that is to say, look, if you've lost a private sector job, lost
a public sector job, you come back to welfare, you must perform
community service in order to get the benefit. And when I do
that, in Oregon, for example, six out of seven of the people
will just turn out and say, oh, guess what, I found a new job
in the private sector, I'm out of here. They just don't stay on
welfare if they have to work for their benefits. That's the
bottom line, and that's what's caused this caseload reduction.
That's what needs to be done. The rest of this is just--it just
has very little to do with anything.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Tetro, I have been concerned about the
effectiveness of public job training programs. About a year ago
a study was done in my State of Florida, and there's an article
about it in the Orlando Sentinel. It was a State study of job
training and vocational ed programs, and said State and Federal
Government spend about a billion dollars a year on vocational
education programs in Florida. Of those who enter a program,
less than 20 percent complete the program. Of that figure, only
19 percent found a full-time job, and most of them found a job
at minimum wage, and most were out of the job within 6 months.
Ms. Norton is gone, but I just read last week on the way
home in the April 17th, Washington Post, that the DC job
training program ranks dead last in the Nation. They spent $7.3
million in locally raised taxes designated for job training
programs without training a single person. These are not
examples of how we spend public money successfully in training
people for jobs, and it's a great concern for me.
Now, it's my understanding that your firm has been the
recipient of substantial Federal dollars in training folks.
What's your success ratio? I mean, what's it costing to train
these folks? And is this one of the things we should be looking
at?
Mr. Tetro. I definitely think it's one of the things you
could be looking at, and it's one of the strong agreements I
would have with some of the earlier statements made by the
researcher from the Heritage Foundation.
The way interventions occur matters a lot, and our
organization has been researched by many research organizations
over the last 22 years, and I think that one of the things that
has resulted in the success of our organization is that we've
been concerned throughout that time not with maintaining
bureaucratic operations and the status quo, but rather with
finding solutions to problems.
A number of years ago, we realized that the design of our
own organization wasn't as effective as it needed to be, and
long before re-engineering became a topic of conversation, we
re-engineered an organization to reduce the overhead that it
bore by over 40 percent. We automated many of the functions,
and some of the systems that we built right now are being used
in over 300 sites across the country managing some of the
successful initiatives that are underway where people have
taken this kind of work seriously.
We took a program much like the one you just described in
the newspaper over a couple of years ago in Richmond, VA. It
was the one of the lowest job training programs in the United
States, and it was certainly the lowest performing in that
State. And within 1 year we had turned that program around and
is ending its second year in our management right now, and it
will be one of the top one or two performers in the State of
Virginia, which, as you know, has a strong commitment to
putting people to work and to making the idea of work first a
reality for welfare recipients as well. We're implementing that
kind of effort there and as we have for many years in Maine.
I think that the--all these issues bear real close scrutiny
and effort. None of it is simple. Job training programs work
some places and are terrible other places.
All these things, whether they're schools, job training
programs, welfare-to-work programs, welfare recipients,
students, employees, each is a different circumstance than it
was 5 or 10 years ago. There has been a revolution in this
country in the economy, in the way learning can take place, in
the demands placed upon all of us, and in the technologies and
in the knowledge base that's available to us.
And those organizations that recognize those changes, that
are putting that research and knowledge to work, that are
employing new technologies both to manage those processes and
to deliver some of those learning results are the organizations
that are doing the work right and that will be increasingly
relevant.
The organizations that are sitting in the past, the way
most of this welfare bureaucratic apparatus is, are part of the
drag on change, and they're properly criticized for what they
don't accomplish.
But I think what becomes important is to draw these things
out and to tease up the distinctions between what works. And
again, I would agree with an earlier panelist. We ought to be
looking at success. As I mentioned in my testimony, the focus
of most of these bureaucracies is on failure and on the stories
of people's continued failures. That's not the place to look.
The place to look is very--in a very focused way on the results
people are trying to get to.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate your testimony.
Were you trying to get recognized, Mr. Rector, now?
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Mr. Mica. OK. If you would like to respond.
Mr. Rector. Yes. I think the first, most important thing is
to judge by the bottom line. Maine does not have a particularly
successful record in terms of reducing dependence. If you look
at those States that do have successful records in terms of
reducing dependence, they have very deliberately shifted the
orientation away from education and training and on to an
immediate work requirement either through a subsidized job in
Oregon or through community service in Wisconsin.
The reality is, for example, that training programs simply
do not succeed in doing what they purport to do, which is to
raise the hourly wage rate of the trainee by putting them in
better jobs. The Labor Department itself did a massive study on
JPTA, which concluded that it effectively had no impact on the
hourly wage rate.
Those people who run successful programs and really
understand the system understand one thing, that in the current
context, education and training for recipients is often a
mechanism for avoiding the work obligation, OK. Everybody who's
at the ground level in welfare knows that. You give a person,
well, you can either go here and be a Candy Striper in the
hospital and clean up the hospital, or you can go over here and
sit in the classroom for 6 months. The going and sitting in the
classroom is an avenue to prolonging welfare dependence rather
than getting off.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your comments.
Well, I guess, if you could just really quickly summarize,
Mr. Tetro.
Mr. Tetro. Just a real quick comment because I agree again,
ironically. The State of Maine is one of those States that has
left the responsibility of welfare reform in the hands of
welfare bureaucracy. We think that's a mistake in Maine, and we
think it's a mistake across the country, and I included that
comment in my testimony.
I agree we have to focus these programs on performance
results, and the answer is in a workplace-based strategy, not
in a strategy that takes people out of the labor market. And my
final illustration would be this: We were heavily involved
early on in helping Maine's Workers Compensation Reform Program
get underway. And there, as here, the single most important
determinant was, when you intervened, and if you did it
immediately, you had a profoundly positive effect. When they
got in the system, the people were lost in that system and
stranded in that system. Work first is a very beneficial
strategy and is what all look forward to.
Mr. Mica. I appreciate your testimony.
I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I'm just curious about some things, Mr.
Tetro.
Mr. Tetro. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Is all your training, is it on--is it on the
job training?
Mr. Tetro. I----
Mr. Cummings. You disagree with Mr. Rector, and I'm trying
to see where we fit here.
Mr. Tetro. OK. Our work--in our work we run Job Corps
centers, which are residential schools.
Mr. Cummings. Right. I'm familiar with Job Corps.
Mr. Tetro. OK, and that's the preponderance of our work. We
also run career advancement centers.
Mr. Cummings. But isn't that a program just like a
program--I mean, Job Corps trains people, and then hopefully
they go out to work.
Mr. Tetro. Job Corps trains people and is quite successful
as a vocational-career-oriented school system in delivering
those students into work, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Well, I'm confused. You just said you agree
with Mr. Rector, and Mr. Rector said that, and correct me if
I'm wrong, that you need to get people to work, you don't need
the programs. And I'm trying to--I'm confused as to you--then
you agree with them, but the very program you run is a very
program, I take it, that he thinks is a waste of time.
Mr. Tetro. And again I'd say it all really boils down to
what you're talking about. When we're speaking in the precise
ways as we are here, it's confusing.
Mr. Cummings. Yes it is.
Mr. Tetro. Work-based learning is powerful. Job Corps
increasingly does it. It's one of the reasons why as a school
it's successful and increasingly will be successful. Combining
learning with work is a very effective strategy.
What I was agreeing to that he suggested was that getting
people to work as quickly as possible, and I'm saying in
delivering the performance support, learning there is a more
cost-efficient and effective way to do that than our
alternative ways such as taking people and putting them through
long periods of school and separate them from work.
That's not to say that school is bad or that formal
learning isn't any good. That isn't what I'm saying. But I'm
saying that when you're looking at delivering in a very focused
way the result of moving welfare recipients into work, a
strategy that organizes learning and quickly moves people, that
employment status is a very powerful one and works.
Job Corps also works, as do other training programs. We, as
an organization, bring people into training programs and
deliver them out very successfully. Over 71 percent of the
people that come into our programs, all of them are placed at
the end of the programs. We do longer-term followup than the
Government. We're interested in making sure that those people
stick, their employment rates downstream are higher, as one
would want them to be and expect them to be. Our wage recovery
rates outperform the national system quite substantially.
So it's not to say that one shouldn't do programs. It's to
say that, in coming at this, we can be more sophisticated than
to talk in simplistic terms about either this way over here or
that, and need to really look at what the result is we're
trying to create, what the best strategy is to create it, what
resources are available to us, and in combination make choices.
And some of the times those result in long-term programs, and
other times they can be very quick placement kind of
activities.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Rector, I'm fascinated by your comments
about child care. As a father who has two kids and who runs
around and tries to get my children to school and to day care,
and they have to be at a certain place at a certain time by 6
o'clock when I'm in Baltimore or else they charge me more, or--
maybe I'm--maybe--children--I'm just confused. I mean, do you
have children?
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Oh, OK. I was just curious.
I am just curious. It seems to me that that could be and is
a problem when you don't have child care.
Mr. Rector. The--I agree. I mean, I think your perception
is exactly the common perception. In fact, it was my perception
a couple of years ago, that this was a substantial obstacle.
The reality is, though, if you go on the ground in a place like
Milwaukee, it is not.
Mr. Cummings. Who is keeping the kids?
Mr. Rector. Who?
Mr. Cummings. Who is keeping the kids?
Mr. Rector. Grandma, the aunt, several ladies down the
street in a day care center, and they are all mixing together.
And the reality is that there is a whole abundance, perhaps
more so in these intercity communities than anyplace else in
the country, an abundance of people available to take care of
kids.
Mr. Cummings. Was there any analysis as to the quality of
the day care? Because I have a 3-year-old and I know it makes a
difference if the 3-year-old is staying with some lady down the
street, who may have a sixth grade reading level, as opposed to
being in some kind of day care.
And you made an interesting comment, and I want to just
quote these two things up. In your statement, I don't think you
mentioned this, but you said something very interesting in your
written statement. You said studies which compared children on
welfare with children not on welfare show that it is actually
welfare dependence not poverty which harms children. Being
raised on welfare lowers children's IQs, increases school
failure and diminishes a child's future earnings as an adult.
Welfare is a system of child abuse. By radically reducing
dependence, reforms will improve the future well-being of
children.
Mr. Rector. That's right.
Mr. Cummings. All right. So I am trying to put these two
together.
Mr. Rector. I would say I thank you for reading that.
That--the biggest effect in terms of children's development is
the negative image that they got from having a role model in
the home, that there is no role model of a working adult. OK?
Another big advantage is not having a father in the home. Day
care relative to that is just not that big a deal.
If the goal is to have kids in some type of very, very
effective child development program or something like that,
that's a separate policy goal. OK? And maybe that's a laudable
goal. But what we can agree on is that the other goal, of
reducing dependence, OK, is also a laudable goal and that is
even more important in terms of the child's development.
So the first and foremost question is, in terms of reducing
dependence, is there adequate day care out there? And the
answer is, it is in every community it--where I have these
programs I have seen put into effect is, yes, it is not a real
problem. And most of the researchers, particularly Dr. Larry
Meade, who is the No. 1 researcher in this field, has been for
10 years, it has never been a substantial problem.
Now, if you have a separate policy goal--so people can find
day care. They can get into the labor market. If you have a
separate policy goal of saying, well, maybe we ought to look at
whether that's the best day care developmentally and we ought
to have more subsidies to get them into higher quality care,
fine. But that's a different issue. It's an additional issue.
Mr. Cummings. Can we--let's stay there for a moment. Day
care is expensive. And I know maybe, maybe--I mean, even if you
are talking about somebody who is keeping a child as a
relative, I mean, whatever.
Mr. Rector. Uh-huh.
Mr. Cummings. And if you already have a low paying job and
you are paying, even if it is $60--I mean, let's say $60, $70
every 2 weeks, I mean, that's low, low.
Mr. Rector. Uh-huh.
Mr. Cummings. But I am just saying, if you have a limited
budget, I mean----
Mr. Rector. The day care----
Mr. Cummings. Maybe I am in another world or something.
Mr. Rector. Day care in Oregon and Wisconsin is subsidized.
They provide an awful lot of subsidized day care. If you look
in my testimony, Document 5 shows the increase in subsidized
day care in Wisconsin. But the fact of the matter is that as
your caseload drops 55 percent, for heaven's sakes, that
provides the State with just an enormous surplus of funding to
use for all kinds of day care subsidies.
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you----
Mr. Rector. I mean, that's why, even as the other States
have done nothing in comparison to Wisconsin, but they are
beginning to run big surpluses in the AFDC program under the
new system. They actually are ending up with a lot more money,
which can go for day care or can go for a variety of different
things. I would not personally put it into day care. I would
put it into other things, like school reform, but the surplus
funds are there that you can provide subsidized day care.
Now, what they do do in Wisconsin is they do require a
certain copayment, a small copayment from the parent, on day
care, which makes the parent a little bit more prudent----
Mr. Cummings. Sure.
Mr. Rector [continuing]. In how that money is spent. But
they are spending a lot of money on day care and they are
perfectly willing to do that. But they are saving far, far more
money by--in close to a third of the counties in Wisconsin, the
caseload has already dropped over 80 percent.
Mr. Cummings. But you are saying, then, that day care does
help in Wisconsin then?
Mr. Rector. It is an absolutely key part of it. But it is
not that there is a physical shortage of day care and therefore
people can't get work. OK? There needs to be a subsidy to day
care, but there is not a physical shortage of day care that
prevents mothers from taking jobs. And in every situation where
I have seen a serious work program go in, a shortage of day
care has never been a major impediment.
You could go all the way back to a study that we did in the
late 1970's, called the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance
Experiment. It was the biggest controlled experiment on welfare
in the history of this country and the world. It did not find
that a shortage of day care was--way back in the 1970's, didn't
find it was a major impediment to employment.
Mr. Cummings. But on the other hand--well, I am not going
to belabor the point, but Wisconsin provides a substantial
amount of funds for day care.
Mr. Rector. Absolutely.
Mr. Cummings. I mean, you have really--I mean, I think we
agree on that point, I think. But let me go to something else.
If you were--if you went to Baltimore and you made this
statement about lowering IQ, and I am sure you have got the
studies to back it up, I think you would find that you would
run into some problems, because some of the greatest leaders in
our city, unfortunately, when they came up, they were on--they
come from welfare families, and some of the most brilliant
people in our State.
As a matter of fact, one of the--the Secretary of Children,
Youth and Families for the State of Maryland comes from a
welfare family, where all of her brothers and sisters are--have
a Masters or above, and the mother was home. And I am not
trying to defend welfare, because I believe welfare needs to be
reformed. But the mother was at home. You know, like the
``Father Knows Best,'' all that kind of stuff. Apparently there
was some value in a mother being at home with those children to
raise them.
I know our society has changed substantially, but I just--I
am just curious, since you are saying that poverty is welfare
that causes children to have lower IQs and do poorly in life, I
am just wondering, you know, what your reaction is to what I
just said.
Mr. Rector. Well, clearly that doesn't mean that everyone
who is raised in welfare is going to be a failure. Obviously,
we can turn around and in any room find that that's not the
case. On the other hand, I have always--I have--there are
people who have jumped out of airplanes without parachutes and
survived. That's not a policy that I think we would recommend.
OK?
The reality is that statistically it is not a good idea to
jump out of an airplane without a parachute and statistically
it is not a good idea to be--to have a child out of wedlock and
raise that child on welfare. OK? That all other things held
constant, that's going to be a downer for the child. It is
going to reduce the child's probability of success.
Does that mean that there won't be 500,000 kids who are
raised exactly in those circumstances and go on to be brilliant
successes? Absolutely not. But on average, it is a very
negative thing. It is something that we want to avoid.
And I do believe that, in fact, a mother in the home does
have a positive effect. But you need a whole home environment.
What I think that is best for kids is a two-parent family,
particularly for young boys. That father figure in the home is
very, very important, two-parent family, lots of care and love,
a model of self-sufficiency, not a negative image of prolonged
welfare dependence. That's the best model for children to be
raised in. That's where we are all, I think, trying to go in
welfare reform.
Mr. Cummings. I don't have anything else.
Mr. Mica. I have no further questions of the panel. I think
you have provided some interesting testimony, if not
controversial. We appreciate your taking time to be with us and
contribute today.
As you see, we have a tough task in overseeing all of
Federal policy relating to Federal employment, and this is one
element, one question, and one proposal that we must address.
We thank you for providing us your comments and testimony. This
panel is excused.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.088
Mr. Mica. I would like to call our last panel, which
consists of one of our colleagues, Congresswoman Johnson from
Texas. She has introduced a bill, H.R. 1066, that would
provide, as I understand it, a preference for those who are on
welfare for Federal employment. And since her proposed
legislation dealt with this subject, we thought it would be
appropriate to hear her proposal today.
We welcome our colleague. As you know, you are allowed to
submit additional testimony for the record, but we welcome and
recognize you to summarize your proposal. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the
Welfare to Work initiative. Programs which create jobs for
welfare recipients are vital to restoring the family's
stability and financial security. In light of recent welfare
laws, such programs are more important than ever.
I think I will leave the rest of my written testimony for
submission and simply make a statement.
Clearly, in order to reform welfare as we have passed, we
must offer real incentives for people to go to work. And
actually, it is sometimes just a human frailty to choose those
persons who might qualify the same as others, but to choose
those persons that maybe look a little better, dressed a bit
more upscale and perhaps have had a more consistent work
history in the past.
Very, very frequently, those persons leaving welfare and
going to work are persons who have had to go in and out of the
workforce because as soon as their children get sick they have
to quit in order to get health care accessibility. And I have
lots of experience with this in the State of Texas. That is the
State with the largest number of working parents without health
care coverage.
So when they return to the workforce making very low wages
usually, it is very difficult for someone to look at a record
and decide to hire them and give them an opportunity.
I am simply proposing that we add a 3 percent advantage for
those persons who are seeking work. It does not interfere with
the veterans preference. It does not create quotas. It is not
race-based. It is simply making a little further effort to
bring persons from the welfare to the workplace.
We cannot just pass welfare and expect that it is going to
automatically and magically work. We have to take strong steps
to make it work, to make sure those opportunities are there to
put these parents to work. I have visited with them. I have
worked--I have observed over the years that most of the people
that I have talked with want to work, but because of the cost
of health care, because of the wages, most of the persons who
are on welfare because of poverty and opportunities for the
lowest income jobs they cannot support a family.
This is simply an incentive that I ask to be really
seriously considered, to give a little opportunity, a little
extra nudge, to the employer, to offer this opportunity to the
one who is leaving and attempting to go into the marketplace
for work and leaving the welfare system.
We simply, as a country, must do this. We must make efforts
to make opportunities for those people who have not had the
opportunities in the past. Incentives often have died, simply
because of the toil of trying to get into the workplace and
trying to live on very low income wages.
I think that any further plea would be redundant, but I
will answer any questions and I will ask unanimous consent to
submit my written statement to the record.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And without objection, your complete
statement will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.092
Mr. Mica. Could I ask you, first, if you made--I am not
sure when you introduced your bill, but did you propose this
before the President's action in directing the agencies to look
at this, or afterwards?
Ms. Johnson. Well, I came here with this in mind this year,
after visiting around my district and around the State. So the
first year--I am not sure when I actually dropped it in, but it
was certainly before the President's.
Mr. Mica. It was before the President's?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Well, my question, then, is, rather than to set
this into law or a requirement that----
Ms. Johnson. It works in conjunction now.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. The Congress must address, could you
be satisfied or are you satisfied with what the President has
proposed? And we--this is not an easy thing to implement, even
his directive to the agencies, and it is not certainly without
controversy. You missed the first couple of panels here. And it
is very difficult to implement. The timing couldn't be worse
because we are in a time of unprecedented RIFs, downsizing.
Ms. Johnson. It doesn't conflict with the RIFs. It has a
provision in there that allows it not to conflict with those
jobs that are at risk and might be RIFed.
Mr. Mica. Well, they are trying to work through this. The
President has directed it. It is not mandated by law. But that
is not satisfactory to you. You would like to see it instituted
through legislative procedures as you have recommended. And
that's your bottom line?
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I have been in this business 25
years. Bottom lines are determined by the numbers of people on
that committee.
Mr. Mica. That you can get votes?
Ms. Johnson. That's right.
Mr. Mica. I didn't ask you if you had the votes. But you
are not interested in basically taking the President's
proposal? You want to pursue this further, legislatively?
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I feel that it will work in
conjunction with the President's proposal. The reason I feel
strongly about this proposal is because I know from personal
experience and from the experience of observation, if two
people come to apply, and this job will not--there will be no
obligation to hire this person unless there is an opening, and
clearly if a RIF is going on where people have to go into other
areas, those positions will not be advertised until they are
settled. And then if there is an opening, they are advertised
as openings.
If two people walk into a room and one is looking very
well-groomed and very updated in their attire and seem very
familiar with the workplace, that welfare recipient who perhaps
does not have the money to look as well, to have had as
consistent employment, is not going to be the one chosen unless
there is some incentive for sensitivity to give that person a
chance or an opportunity. And that is why I feel very strongly.
I am interested in relieving us of welfare altogether, but
we have to have opportunities and incentives for employers and
employees to be cooperatively surviving together. And one of
the ways we can do this is to get the attention of the
employer, and 3 points is not very much. You know, anything
that causes change is often controversial, and this is a
change.
Reforming welfare was a major change and has caused a great
deal of attention, as well as frustration, questions and
suspicions. But we have a responsibility to make it work and
this, I feel, though small, can have some impact in making it
work.
Mr. Mica. Well, I appreciate the intent of your proposal.
The premise, though, that in Federal employment that someone
who comes in that is dressed or looks better, to my knowledge
employment, Federal employment, isn't conducted or applicants
aren't considered on that basis. I think it is pretty much a
blind assessment of the individual, but based on the
qualifications they set forth on paper.
All things being equal, you would be giving a 3
percentage--or 3 point preference to folks. And we must
preserve that equality and standard of employment in our merit
system so these folks would be picked out.
We heard testimony earlier that we have tens of thousands
of people who have been RIFed or have been laid off and are
even on priority waiting lists to come back on and they have no
preference.
Ms. Johnson. They are given preference in this bill because
it does not compete with those persons who are in the RIF
situation.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, but you have set up a preference for
them then. You address that problem?
Ms. Johnson. Yes. But the preference only begins after the
RIFed employees are taken care of. It does not compete with
veterans. It does not compete with----
Mr. Mica. It may be a nonprogram then because of the
backlog that we have. That may not be the case.
Ms. Johnson. Sure.
Mr. Mica. Again, I just wanted to point out that
difference, as I see it. Everyone should be treated equally,
blindly and fairly in the selection process, but will receive
this preference within the guidelines which you have set forth?
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I have been a
Federal employee in a supervisory position most of my career. I
know what happens in the workplace. I have been pretty much a
supervisor or some senior level person within Federal
Government the majority of my years as an adult, starting at
age 19 as I graduated from nursing, going to work at the
Veterans Administration Hospital and being a head nurse by age
21. I have seen what happens in the Federal workplace.
I simply want to encourage opportunity for those we want to
take care of themselves. I believe strongly that people ought
to be self-sufficient, but I also know from experience that
they cannot be without an opportunity. And these are the people
who have the least opportunity. They are white, they are black,
they are Hispanic, all over this country. And in Texas, the
majority of them are white.
I am not attempting to add another layer of quotas for
minorities, except for the fact that these are people trapped
at the bottom because of their opportunity and income
limitation. I simply plead for a little helping hand to be sure
that we accomplish what we intend when we make welfare work,
and the only way we make it work is to provide opportunity for
work.
And I thank you for consideration.
Mr. Mica. I thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Please don't shut it out. Think about it a
little longer.
Mr. Mica. We have----
Ms. Johnson. I am depending on you.
Mr. Mica. We have opened the opportunity for you to testify
and discuss the measure. Now, I would like to yield to our
ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I just have a few questions, Congresswoman
Johnson. I certainly understand your concern, and I admire you
for your commitment. It is a difficult problem, and I do
understand what you say when you say that you are trying to
help some people who oftentimes are passed over.
My question goes to a little bit earlier somebody said
something here that was very interesting. They said that they
did not want to create a situation where it was attractive to
be on welfare and then--so that you could accomplish some
things. We see that--and I am just wondering--do you understand
the concern?
Ms. Johnson. Yes, sir. That reminds me of somebody saying
the only reason somebody had another baby is because they are
going to get a little bit more on welfare. I think it is the
same false theory.
Mr. Cummings. Well, could you elaborate?
Ms. Johnson. Yes. Very honestly----
Mr. Cummings. I am not saying I agree with it, but I just
wanted you to address that concern.
Ms. Johnson. Sure. I have heard so many times that welfare
recipients have more babies because they will get more money.
Well, in Texas, the most you will ever get for all of your life
in Texas is $56 a month for Aid to Dependent Children. Nobody
can live on that. That is not an incentive.
But when people are trapped at the bottom, they do lose
encouragement. They lose the sense of having an opportunity.
And unless there is some kind of understanding of those persons
in charge of hiring, they are trapped. Unless there is some
opportunity where they can be consciously looked upon as
someone that must be helped to work, they are trapped out of
the system.
They cannot make it independently, and that's what we all
strive for is independence and self-supportiveness. We have got
to do something.
Mr. Cummings. You know, it was very interesting. A little
bit earlier the folks who testified from the Government made a
big deal of saying that the President's proposal is one which
will treat everybody pretty much the same across the board.
In other words, they were targeting people who were on
welfare trying to get them off of welfare, but that if somebody
came in--and I call them, say, the working poor--the working
poor comes in, and they are alongside somebody on welfare, that
they would all be treated the same.
And as you know, there are a lot of people who would never
accept a dime of welfare, no matter what. They just wouldn't do
it. They would dig a ditch before they would do that.
Ms. Johnson. My parents were that way.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, mine were, too. So I am wondering, does
this--and I haven't read your proposal, but does this give an
advantage if over--let's say, for example, our parents came in
and they really hit hard times, couldn't find any other way and
after several years of working hard and doing the best they
could with what they had and then they come in at the same time
someone who has been on welfare comes in, I mean, is that--
would your legislation give them an advantage over somebody
like our parents?
Ms. Johnson. I think to a certain degree, it would. And the
reason why is because initial jobs, the initial effort to get
into the workplace, from the welfare system, is what it
targets. And if there are persons who are already working, then
clearly although they might be making less at that point, it
does still give the incentive to that person leaving the
welfare roll to come into the workplace.
Mr. Cummings. I don't know whether you were here a little
bit earlier--and this is my last comment--when Mrs. Norton was
here, one of the things she talked about was the significance
of having a job, of just getting a job and so that you could
create some kind of work record so that--and it sounds like you
are saying pretty much the same thing, that that is a
significant thing. I guess there is a difference between
someone who has had a track record and someone who has no track
record.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. Because often what happens is that
persons who are working, who are in that category that you
mentioned, will have to stop working and go into the welfare
system if a child gets sick. And when they are in that
situation where they have been off or had to quit because of
that, then they qualify to go to--to use that 3 point
incentive, simply because the other opportunities are not there
if you can't buy them.
If your job is such, and most--and that's where you don't
have insurance is low-income workers. It is rare that poor
children go from birth to adulthood without illnesses. The
risks are higher; the living situations; the food content or
even the knowledge of attempting to eat correctly, the risk of
having to do a number of things that middle and upper income
people don't even have to deal with in getting to school, or
leaks in the home, the illness is much more likely for children
in poverty. Therefore, their parents are often in and out of
the workforce because they do not have access.
Those are the ones that don't have access to health care
because they don't qualify for Medicaid if they are working and
cannot afford--or the companies do not afford them the
opportunity to buy their own insurance. I mean, in Texas, we
are working to try to get opportunities for people to simply
buy their own health insurance coverage. Often, that
opportunity is not offered from jobs.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Well, I thank our colleague----
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. For coming forward with her
proposal. As you know, the administration is having a tough
sale with their proposal just in their directive. So I don't
want to be too encouraging, but we do want you to have a forum
to present your proposal.
Ms. Johnson. Sure. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let
me say that if you like it and don't like the administration's,
don't hold it against me. If it works, you know, you put it
together. But put me in my category of trying to really help
and do the best I can to try to see if we can get this.
Mr. Mica. You have been around a long time.
Ms. Johnson. I know you don't care much for this
administration.
Mr. Mica. A lot longer than both Mr. Cummings and myself,
and you know the process and the consensus building that is
required to make any proposal a law or prevail here.
Ms. Johnson. Well, let me ask this: Are you saying that if
the administration endorses this, it will have a better chance?
Mr. Mica. Oh, certainly, certainly. And we asked them that
question earlier.
Ms. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Mica. And they are noncommittal at this time.
Ms. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Mica. So I think it wouldn't hurt for you to discuss
your proposal with the administration.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. The more support from any corridor you can
generate here, the better.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I will start by asking you and if
you lead the way, I will get the rest of it.
Mr. Mica. Well, I thank you. I will yield on that to our
ranking member who just joined us today. We will work together,
and we do appreciate your willingness to come forward. It fit
in perfectly with the subject and matter under consideration as
the initial proposal by the administration. So we thank you.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. There being no further business to come before
the subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2530.103