[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

DUPLICATION AND INEFFICIENCIES IN FEDERAL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
STIMULUS OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING

of the

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 1, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-57

__________

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

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-677 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government
Spending

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York, Vice DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Ranking
Chairwoman Minority Member
CONNIE MACK, Florida JIM COOPER, Tennessee
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on June 1, 2011..................................... 1
Statement of:
Dalton, Patricia, Chief Operating Officer, Government
Accountability Office; Robert Rector, senior research
fellow, the Heritage Foundation; John Mashburn, executive
director, the Carleson Center for Public Policy; and Lisa
Hamler-Fugitt, executive director, Ohio Association of
Second Harvest Foodbanks................................... 13
Dalton, Patricia......................................... 13
Hamler-Fugitt, Lisa...................................... 77
Mashburn, John........................................... 60
Rector, Robert........................................... 46
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 11
Dalton, Patricia, Chief Operating Officer, Government
Accountability Office, prepared statement of............... 16
Hamler-Fugitt, Lisa, executive director, Ohio Association of
Second Harvest Foodbanks, prepared statement of............ 79
Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, prepared statement of............................. 3
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio:
Map of Ohio.............................................. 96
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Supplemental prepared statement of....................... 112
Mashburn, John, executive director, the Carleson Center for
Public Policy, prepared statement of....................... 62
Rector, Robert, senior research fellow, the Heritage
Foundation, prepared statement of.......................... 48

DUPLICATION AND INEFFICIENCIES IN FEDERAL SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus
Oversight and Government Spending,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan, Buerkle, Cummings and
Kucinich.
Staff present: Gwen D'Luzansky, assistant clerk;
Christopher Hixon, deputy chief counsel, oversight; Mark D.
Marin, senior professional staff member; Michael Whatley,
professional staff member; Jaron Bourke, minority director of
administration; and Claire Coleman and Carlos Uriarte, minority
counsels.
Mr. Jordan. I think we will go ahead and get started. I
might get finished with my opening statement. Hopefully,
Ranking Member Kucinich will be able to join us.
Let me thank you all for coming to this hearing on
duplication, overlap and inefficiencies in the Federal welfare
programs. I will start with an opening statement and hopefully,
Mr. Kucinich will be here. As I speak, he walks in. It is great
to have you with us.
In March, the Government Accountability Office released its
first annual report on duplicative and fractured Federal
spending. The report estimated that conservatively, $100
billion could be saved each year by eliminating duplication,
overlap and fragmentation in numerous Federal programs.
Congress considers the Federal budget on an agency by
agency or program by program basis. The GAO report was the
first attempt at a comprehensive view of Federal spending by
function.
Today, in what will likely be the first of a series of
hearings, the subcommittee will begin taking a more focused
look at GAO's findings, starting with the area of social
welfare programs.
Since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964,
Americans have spent $16 trillion on welfare at the State and
Federal level. Under current administration plans, $10 trillion
more will be spent over the next decade. How much of that
spending will be wasted on duplicative programs, each with
their own overhead, IT budgets, bureaucracy and advertising
budgets. How much of that spending will be wasted on a program
that fails to help the people it is designed to help, the
targeted population while a different program with an identical
mission may be succeeding with less money.
GAO found that the Federal Government spent more than $90
billion on 18 different domestic food and nutrition assistance
programs, more than $18 billion on 47 different programs
providing employment and training and $3 billion on 20
different homelessness programs. The Federal Government also
currently funds 80 programs in 8 different agencies to provide
transportation services to ``transportation disadvantaged
persons.''
While GAO was unable to figure out exactly how much these
80 programs cost the American taxpayers, it was able to
determine that a small subset of them totaled $2 billion
annually. GAO has also concluded that not enough is known about
the effectiveness of many of these programs.
For example, they found that only 7 of 18 Federal food
assistance programs had been associated with positive health
and nutrition outcomes, while the remaining 11 have not been
effective. The President signaled his intent to address Federal
program duplication in his State of the Union Address where he
stated ``We shouldn't just give our people a government that is
more affordable, we should give them a government that is more
competent and more efficient.'' The American people would
certainly agree with that.
Two weeks later, the President addressed the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce reiterating his plan to address duplicative
programs, ``So, in the coming months, my administration will
develop a proposal to merge, consolidate and reorganize the
Federal Government in a way that best serves the goal of a more
competitive America.'' I hope the administration is serious
about duplication and waste.
More than a month ago, I invited the White House Office of
Management and Budget to participate in today's hearing.
Unfortunately, as was the case with the previous full committee
hearing on GAO's duplicative programs report, the White House
of Management and Budget has refused to engage with this
committee on meaningful oversight of wasteful Federal spending.
I think it is amazing, the Office of Management and Budget
refuses to come talk to this committee about the management of
the 70-some different means-tested social welfare programs.
The American taxpayers deserve better than our current
system provides. They deserve a budget system in which all
programs providing in aid can be viewed in full, easily tracked
and evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. They deserve a
welfare system whose goals actually help people quickly reach
the point where they no longer need it and provide for
themselves, one in which multiple departments and multiple
agencies manage programs that waste money through overlap and
inefficiency.
I appreciate the willingness of our witnesses to join us
today for what I think is a very important hearing in these
crucial fiscal times when we are trying to help the very people
in this tough economy who want to be helped.
With that, I will yield to my good friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Kucinich.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.002

Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling
this hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for their presence.
Today's hearing addresses a recently issued Government
Accountability Office report that focused on duplicative
Federal programs and highlighted opportunities to potentially
enhance Federal revenues by reducing inefficiencies and
overlap. In a 339-page report, GAO devoted just 18 pages to
addressing opportunities that may exist for reducing costs and
improving efficiencies of certain Federal programs, most
notably food assistance programs and job training programs. In
both the continuing resolution votes as well as other budget
proposals, these programs, in particular, were targeted for
severe cuts.
GAO's findings are valuable as long as they are not
misunderstood. GAO recommended streamlining, the administration
of multiple programs delivering comparable benefits to similar,
overlapping populations. Reducing administrative inefficiencies
in Federal welfare programs is an important goal that we should
work together to address, but GAO did not find waste, fraud or
abuse in administration and delivery of these programs. GAO
does not recommend delivering fewer benefits to those in need.
In the aftermath of the most economically destructive
recession since the Great Depression, poverty has been on the
rise. According to the Food Research and Action Center, nearly
1 in 5 Americans struggled to afford enough food for themselves
and their families in 2010. In Ohio, my home State, there were
1.7 million people living in poverty in 2009, many remaining in
poverty even though they work full time year round.
As Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio
Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, who is testifying
before us today, will confirm, in the State of Ohio the level
of food insecurity is greater than 13 percent, the highest
level in a generation. This statistic alone shows how dire the
need is and how critical Federal food assistance programs are
in Ohio and nationwide. Our economy is showing positive signs
of improvement but unemployment is still at 9 percent. It is
certainly no time to be pulling the plug on food assistance
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I had a visit from Ms. Hamler-Fugitt and she
gave me these plates which are filled out by people who are
participating in one of the food programs. In my remaining
time, I just want to give these individuals for their voice to
be heard.
``To whom it may concern, the Hunger Center to me is like a
Godsend. Without the Food Center, I don't know how I would
survive every month. Food stamps don't make it each month.
Thank you for your support.''
Another one says, ``I would like thank God for Avon Baptist
Church. God is good and I am thankful for Avon Baptist Church
helping me and my grandchildren at a time of need.'' ``The Food
Center has been so good to me and my family and my
grandchildren. Time is hard and I thank God for the Center.''
``The Food Pantry helped me and my kids have food and some days
I don't know what me and my kids would have done without the
Center. The Center really helps people and their kids.''
Again, this is about the Avon Baptist Church. ``The Food
Bank has been an enormous helping hand to my family and I
greatly appreciate the three course meals that lasts us all
month. It is only by the grace of God that my family and I have
been fed when we have no money at all. The volunteers at the
Food Bank have helped this community the best way they can and
they will be blessed. Thank you.''
``Thank you, Avon for providing nutrition for my family.
May God continue to bless you. Through the hard times, I am
able to get food and clothing here at Avon and also smiles with
good people who really care. I don't know what I would do
without their help. God bless'' and finally, ``Helped me to
feed my family, great help to make it through the month. They
give good food that you can make meals.''
Mr. Chairman, I would ask, with your indulgence, if I could
put this into the record, signed by people, and maybe it could
be transcribed so that these voices of people who are affected
by this program have a chance to be heard.
Mr. Jordan. Certainly. Without objection.
[Note.--The information referred to may be found in
subcommittee files.]
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
that.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.004

Mr. Jordan. I just want to echo too that I have had the
opportunity to visit one of the Second Harvest Food Bank
centers and do appreciate the work they do. The whole focus of
this hearing is to look to do things more efficiently and more
effectively to help the very people you were just quoting.
Mr. Kucinich. If I can, Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous
confidence in your compassion and your quality of heart and I
just wanted to make sure that while we were here discussing
this, that these individuals had a chance to be heard.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Cummings, I am going to recognize Ms.
Buerkle for a quick statement and then we will go to you and
hopefully we can get in our witness testimony before we have to
run to vote.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing today.
When the GAO published its report in March on duplication
in government services, I was very concerned that we were
wasting taxpayer dollars, so I am glad that the committee is
digging into these issues. I think we walk a fine balance.
There is no one who doesn't understand the need for these
services, but we owe it to the American people to make sure
there is an effective and efficient use of those dollars we are
using for the programs. The report covered a very broad range
of programs, so we are going to focus on some of those today.
That report stated that the Federal Government spent over
$62 billion on 18 different domestic food and nutrition
programs for low income individuals in fiscal year 2008. The
GAO report stated these programs showed signs of overlap and
inefficient use of resources. It also mentioned we fund 47
different programs across multiple agencies to provide
employment and training service to help the unemployed get
jobs.
With trillion dollar deficits, we cannot let this continue.
We need to find the programs that work so that they work
efficiently, effectively and reach the people who need their
help. We need to end this duplication and waste and find ways
to get people into private sector jobs which really gives
people back their dignity.
I look forward to the opportunity of hearing from all of
our witnesses today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentlelady from New York.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
courtesy.
In February, the Government Accountability Office issued a
339-page report on potential duplication in Federal programs.
They described areas of overlap in several major programs
including Defense, Agriculture, Energy and Homeland Security.
The decided to focus today's hearing on a tiny subset of these
programs that help some of the poorest and most vulnerable
people in our society, those in need of food, housing,
transportation and job training.
The is targeting these same programs for significant cuts
in their 2012 budget proposals. The Center on Budget and Policy
estimates that two-thirds of the Republican budget's
programmatic spending cuts are to programs that serve people of
limited means. That is $2.9 trillion of a total of $4.3
trillion.
The fact that low income assistance is being targeted in
this way is especially troubling given the Republican ultimatum
last year to force the extension of all President Bush's tax
cuts for the Nation's wealthiest individuals. It is even more
troubling in light of their recent efforts to protect lucrative
tax breaks for oil companies making record profits.
Americans across the country are struggling to overcome the
impact of the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression. According to an October 2010 report issued by the
Congressional Research Service, 3.7 million more people fell
below the poverty line in 2009 compared to 2008. These 3.7
million people were pushed into poverty by a recession they did
not create. In 2009, a total of 43.6 million people had incomes
below the poverty line here in America, more than at any time
since we began tracking this measure in 1959.
The increase in poverty in America has been accompanied by
increased hunger. In fact, in its report in February, the GAO
found that in 2008, nearly 17 million households experienced
insecurity in food, meaning they had limited access to food
during some part of the year. In my hometown of Baltimore, 40
miles from here, 13.3 percent of families with children fall
into this unfortunate category. These are horrible statistics,
but they are the benchmarks against which we measure our
success as a society.
I believe with all my heart that our Nation is better than
this. We can do better and we must do better. Of course we must
strive to eliminate unnecessary duplication and streamline the
delivery of benefits. There is no one on this side of the aisle
or the other side of the aisle who would disagree with that.
I hope the Republican idea of duplicative food assistance
programs is not breakfast, lunch and dinner. We must be clear
about our priorities, insuring that every hungry child is
adequately fed, that every sick person has access to medical
care, and that every family has a safe place to live. This is
the American way.
These efforts not only help our fellow Americans get back
on their feet, but they insure that our next generation is
ready to compete and succeed. The future of our country is in
their hands. Mr. Chairman, protecting the poor should not be a
partisan issue. In his most recent State of the Union Address,
President Obama called for an end to unnecessary duplication in
government programs. I wholeheartedly agree with that.
He also established an initiative called Government Reform
for Competitiveness and Innovation and he included several
program cuts in his budget to help eliminate waste. I applaud
the President's leadership and I strongly support steps to help
streamline government and make it more effective and efficient
for the American people.
I hope we can work together in a bi-partisan way to improve
rather than eliminate services to those struggling to meet the
most basic needs of life.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for your
courtesy and I yield.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.006

Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
We will now have our witnesses proceed.
First, we are pleased to have Ms. Patricia Dalton, Chief
Operating Officer of the Government Accountability Office.
Thank you for your good work on the report. We also have Mr.
Robert Rector, senior research fellow, the Heritage Foundation,
and an expert on social welfare spending and reform. We have
Mr. John Mashburn, executive director, the Carleson Center for
Public Policy. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we have Ms.
Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director from the Ohio
Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks.
Pursuant to committee rule, all witnesses must be sworn
before they testify. Please rise and answer in the affirmative
after I read. Please raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Jordan. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
We will now go right down the row. We allow 5 minutes. You
get the yellow light when it is time to start getting ready to
finish.
Ms. Dalton, you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA DALTON, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR
RESEARCH FELLOW, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; JOHN MASHBURN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE CARLESON CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY; AND
LISA HAMLER-FUGITT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO ASSOCIATION OF
SECOND HARVEST FOODBANKS

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON

Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Kucinich, and Ms. Buerkle. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss GAO's first annual report on duplication in the Federal
Government.
Our report listed 34 areas where there is potential
overlap, fragmentation or duplication. Overlap and
fragmentation can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. We
also identified in the report 47 other areas of potential cost
savings or revenue enhancement. Reducing or eliminating
government duplication, overlap and fragmentation could
potentially save billions of tax dollars annually and help
agencies provide more efficient and effective services.
The current situation of multiple and overlapping programs
evolved over decades. Difficult decisions and sustained
attention by the administration and the Congress will be
required to determine what programs are needed now. This will
be complicated by the fact that data showing the effectiveness
or lack thereof in current programs is often nonexistent or
insufficient. In addition, in some cases, we don't know exactly
what we are spending. Today, I will focus on four areas in our
report of programs that provide assistance with food,
employment and training, homelessness and transportation.
First, the Federal Government spends more than $90 billion
on domestic food assistance provided primarily through 18
different Federal programs. The Departments of Agriculture,
HHS, Homeland Security and multiple State and local governments
work to administer a complex network of programs.
Some of these programs provide similar services to the same
population. For example, six different USDA programs provide
food to eligible children in settings outside their homes such
as schools, day care and summer camps. While having multiple
programs helps ensure that those in need have access to food,
it also increases administrative costs. Complicating any
decisions about streamlining food assistance programs is the
fact that little is known about the effectiveness of 11 of the
18 programs.
In fiscal year 2009, 47 programs spent about $18 billion on
employment and training services. Of these 47, 44 overlap with
at least one other program in that they provided at least one
similar service to a similar population. For example, three of
the largest programs provide job search assistance. Nearly all
programs track outcome information but only 5 of the 47 GAO
identified have conducted an impact study to determine whether
the program is actually responsible for improved employment
outcomes.
GAO has previously recommended to Labor and HHS that those
agencies work together to develop and disseminate information
that could inform State efforts to increase administrative
efficiencies and examine the incentives for States and
localities to undertake such efforts.
In 2009, Federal agencies spent about $2.9 billion on over
20 programs targeted to address the various needs of persons
experiencing homelessness. In some cases, different agencies
may be offering similar types of services to similar
populations. For example, at least seven Federal agencies
administer programs to provide some type of shelter or housing
assistance to persons experiencing homelessness. This
fragmentation can create difficulties for people accessing
services and administrative burdens for providers who must
navigate various application requirements, selection criteria
and reporting requirements.
The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has provided a
renewed focus on coordinating efforts and recently developed a
strategic plan for agencies involved in the fight to end
homelessness. However, once again decisions on how to reduce
its fragmentation and overlap could be hindered due to lack of
comprehensive data. It is exacerbated by a lack of consistent
definition.
Finally, GAO identified 80 existing Federal programs across
8 Federal departments that provide funding for transportation
services for those who are transportation disadvantaged. An
example of the impact of fragmentation in this area is the
Departments of Agriculture and Labor both fund programs that
provide transportation for low income youth seeking employment
or job training.
As in other areas I have discussed today, some actions are
underway. For example, the Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has taken steps to
encourage and facilitate coordination across agencies but more
is needed.
In conclusion, opportunities exist to streamline and more
efficiently carry out programs in those four areas. Careful,
thoughtful analysis will be needed to address some of the
issues discussed in our March report and having comprehensive
information on the programs involved would help facilitate that
decisionmaking.
In our future reports, GAO will followup on these areas as
well as examine other areas in the government for potential
duplication. We also have in-depth work ongoing in several
selected areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That completes my prepared
statement and I would be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.036

Mr. Jordan. Thank you so much.
We will move next to Mr. Rector.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR

Mr. Rector. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am here today to talk about means-tested welfare
assistance, which means programs that are targeted to poor and
low income individuals providing cash, food, housing, medical
care and social services. For example, food stamps is a means-
tested program, social security is not.
The big secret here is that the Federal Government runs
over 69 major means-tested assistance programs. The problem
isn't so much duplication, but the fact there are so many
programs, no one in this city has any clue how much money you
are spending on the poor, absolutely no clue whatsoever.
When you look at the welfare state, it is as if you have a
jigsaw puzzle with 69 different pieces. The way Congress
operated was to look at one piece at a time and only one piece
and then pretend that piece and that piece alone was the only
thing standing between poor people and starvation. It
automatically results in a massive over expenditure. Imagine if
you ran your family budget that way, you never added anything
up. You just looked at each component, one at a time. That is
the way we run the welfare state.
In fiscal year 2011, total spending on these 69 programs
was $940 billion, 75 percent of that was Federal spending, 25
percent was State spending, mainly State contributions required
into Medicaid.
Combined Federal and State means-tested spending is now the
second largest category in government spending overall in the
Nation. It is exceeded only by Social Security and Medicare. It
exceeds the cost of public education. Let me repeat that. It
exceeds the cost of public education and it dwarfs the cost of
national defense.
In the two decades before the current recession, means-
tested welfare was the fastest growing component of government
spending. We never heard that in the Washington Post. It grew
more rapidly than Social Security and Medicare and the rate of
increase dwarfed that of public education and national defense.
Despite the fact that means-tested welfare was at record
levels when he took office, President Obama has increased this
spending by a third, but this is a permanent, not a temporary,
increase in spending. According to Obama's spending plans,
means-tested welfare will not decline as the recession ends but
will continue to grow rapidly for the next decade and will soon
be over $1 trillion a year. He plans to spend $10 trillion over
the next decade at least.
About half of this $950 billion goes to low income families
with children. That is about $470 billion a year. If that
amount of money were divided evenly among the lowest income,
one-third of all families and children, which is about 15
million families, that comes to around $30,000 per family. The
amount of money being put out there simply dwarfs one's
understanding. To look at these programs one at a time
completely misrepresents the type of assistance. There is
virtually no family out there that only gets aid from one
program. They get aid from many different programs.
The means-tested welfare system is a vast, hidden welfare
state about which the public and legislators know virtually
nothing. You can't debate it or make rational decisions solely
on a piecemeal basis. You have to look at the aggregate
spending.
I would also say simply the United States cannot afford to
spend over $1 trillion a year on low income individuals, money
which we will mainly borrow from the Chinese. We have to get
this spending under some type of reasonable constraint. If we
have to continue to spend, we certainly want to assist the poor
but we have to have some reasonable constraint.
I would propose that we take this aggregate spending and
when the recession ends, we should roll that spending back to
the pre-recession level which was already a record level,
already beyond anyone's understanding and then allow it to grow
at inflation for the foreseeable future. That would be a
reasonable compromise that would help us deal with our debt and
our deficit but would continue to provide very generous
assistance to low income persons.
Finally, I would say the biggest problem with these
programs is not that they are inefficient, but that they
generate poverty themselves. Every one of these programs will
reward people for not working and it rewards people for not
marrying and those are the two principle causes of child
poverty. These programs generate need for themselves. The more
money you put into them, the more people in need of aid you
create and therefore, the more need for future spending you
create.
We need a welfare system that changes those incentives and
encourages individuals to work and become self sufficient and
certainly encourages marriage rather than penalizes it. That is
what Lyndon Johnson said when he launched the War on Poverty.
He said, ``I don't want to put people on the dole, I don't want
to put people on government assistance. I want them to become
prosperous and self sufficient. That is what we need to do.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.048

Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Appreciate that good testimony.
Mr. Mashburn.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MASHBURN

Mr. Mashburn. As GAO points out in this report, in light of
the Nation's fiscal outlook, there is widespread agreement that
we need to look at not just near term steps, but at the long
term fiscal sustainability of government fiscal policy and
government programs. However, it should be pointed out that
this just the latest in a long series of studies and reports
over the past three decades regarding the need to reform and
streamline the Federal Government programs to make them more
efficient and responsive.
While a lot of the duplication and overlap exists at the
Federal level, the multitude of Federal programs serving
similar populations are usually administered by a small handful
of agencies at the State level such as welfare, human services
agencies or State work force agencies.
Much like the GAO report before us, Congress in the late
1980's was confronted with the recommendations of the so-called
Grace Commission which President Reagan had established by
Executive order in 1982. The survey was conducted by over 2,000
private sector executives, managers, experts and special
consultants broken up into 36 task forces who submitted a 47
volume report with a two volume summary and made 2,478
recommendations. Presidents Reagan and Bush implemented those
they could administratively via the executive branch but
Congress essentially ignored those requiring legislative
action, the ones that would have saved the most dollars.
The Clinton administration followed up with a National
Performance Review in 1993 which offered approximately 380
major recommendations. Again, the Clinton administration
implemented those that it could administratively in the
executive branch but Congress generally failed to implement
those that had to be done legislatively.
OMB then in 2004 under George W. Bush's administration,
then implemented the Program Assessment Rating Tool, PART, to
rate all Federal programs on their effectiveness, in an effort
to ensure Federal programs were accountable and achieved the
results for which they had originally been established.
PART evaluations then served as the basis for the Bush
administration recommendations for eliminating or cutting 150
programs. Again, implemented or passed legislation to adopt
very few of those recommendations.
In short, the executive branch for three decades under both
Republican and Democratic Presidents have identified Federal
programs, including welfare programs, that should be cut,
eliminated or reformed. Congress, however, has failed to act on
the vast majority of the recommendations. Hopefully, this
hearing marks a different juncture in history.
As we look at the latest recommendations for eliminating
wasteful, overlapping and inefficient government as part of
Federal programs, or as GAO euphemistically puts it, ``creating
efficiencies that could put these agencies in a position to
better assist program participants while deceasing
administrative burdens,'' we should keep in mind Ronald
Reagan's overarching principle as he grappled with the problems
of welfare reform in California in 1968.
``Welfare needs a purpose: to provide for the needy, of
course, but more than, to salvage these, our fellow citizens,
to make them self sustaining and as quickly as possible,
independent of welfare. We should measure welfare's success by
how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.''
When Ronald Reagan testified several years later as
Governor before the Senate Finance Committee in February 1972,
he said out several tenets he believed were necessary for
welfare reform to succeed. They were: Given broad authority to
utilize administrative and policy discretion, the States are
better equipped than the Federal Government to administer
effective welfare programs; a system, whatever it may be
called, would not be an effective reform of welfare, but would
tend to create an even greater human problem; a limit should be
set on the gross income that a family would receive and still
remain eligible for welfare benefits; for all those who are
employable, a requirement be adopted that work in the community
be performed as a condition of eligibility for welfare benefits
without additional compensation; and the greatest single
problem in welfare today is the breakdown of family
responsibility and strong provisions should be made to insure
maximum support from responsible parents.
The TANF block grant for welfare cash assistance was based
on these principles and is one of Reagan's greatest legacies.
The now undisputed success of the TANF block grant is a
testament to the leadership of President Reagan and Bob
Carleson, for whom the Carleson Center is named, who was
Reagan's welfare policy adviser both when he was Governor and
when he was President and Carleson continued his efforts toward
block granting welfare even after Reagan left office.
Under Reagan's vision, welfare reform is not just about
saving taxpayers' money, but moving beneficiaries from
dependence to independence as was often said during debate on
passage of the 1996 welfare reform law.
As Reagan was quoted during an address to the International
Committee for the Supreme Soviet, USSR, September 17, 1990,
``We have found in our country that when people have the right
to make decisions as close to home as possible, they usually
make the right decisions.'' I would note that was before the
Soviets.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mashburn follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.063

Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Mashburn.
They have just called votes but we want to hear from Ms.
Hamler-Fugitt and then we will recess and come back for
questions.

STATEMENT OF LISA HAMLER-FUGITT

Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Jordan, Ranking
Member Kucinich and distinguished members of the committee. I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I represent the Ohio Association of Second Harvest
Foodbanks, Ohio's largest charitable response to hunger. We
provide food, funding, training, technical assistance and Ohio
Benefit Bank services to a network of 3,000 food pantries, soup
kitchens and homeless shelters. Eighty percent of our charities
are faith-based, volunteer-driven, operating on budgets of less
than $25,000 a year. Half of all the food we distribute comes
as a result of Federal and State funding.
Over the last decade, the number of Ohioans in poverty has
grown by a staggering 46 percent and the effects of the great
recession are still with us: deeper poverty, lower fixed
incomes, minimum wages, part-time employment and many are
suffering from long term unemployment.
In the last quarter of 2010, our charities served nearly
2.1 million Ohioans and half of those we served were children
and the elderly, yet every day more hungry Ohioans are standing
in our lines and their limited budgets are now being further
shattered by rapidly rising food and fuel costs. It is bad out
there. Those who were already hanging by their fingertips are
now falling into the abyss and the organizations that we serve
are begging for crumbs and praying for a miracle.
Mr. Chairman, the GAO produced a very balanced report and I
support many of its findings, but there are some real world
realities to these findings that must be highlighted. One,
program overlap does not always mean duplication. Some of these
critical programs already have fixed funding, eligibility and
enrollment caps and cannot respond to increased need,
particularly in a weak economy. Many families who struggle with
hunger are not poor enough to qualify for support. The
consequences of increasing hunger and malnutrition are severe,
including lowered productivity, educational achievement and
astronomical health care costs.
SNAP, the largest USDA program, served nearly 42 million
Americans. One in seven Americans received food stamps in
February. It has the lowest eligibility of all Federal
nutrition programs and the maximum benefits lasts less than
2\1/2\ weeks out of every month.
The GAO reports describes the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program as one of the duplicative programs citing that many
seniors eligible for this program are also eligible for SNAP,
yet seniors with limited mobility and transportation barriers
may not be able to purchase food at a grocery store and
therefore, benefit from both a box of food provided through the
Emergency Assistance Program and CSFP as well as home-delivered
meals.
In Ohio, a fortunate 20,463 seniors receive a 40 pound box
of government food valued at $18.77 a month. The waiting list
for this program is long and many of our food banks report that
seniors in their communities call and ask for the CSFP box of a
recipient that they know has gone into a nursing home or worse
yet, other non-participating seniors will read the obituaries
and if they see the name of someone they know who has received
CSFP, they ask if they can receive the deceased recipient's box
of food. This is hardly a case of people getting too many
benefits. Rather, it shows people do not have enough to eat.
Another example of the real world reality of vulnerable
Ohioans is that one out of every two babies born in Ohio is
potentially eligible for WIC, a modest supplemental program
like SNAP, it is not intended to meet the participants' entire
nutritional needs. In fact, a study conducted by the University
of Cincinnati Children's Hospital found that 65 percent of the
families reported they had run out of formula and did not have
money to buy more and 39 percent of the families studied were
already on WIC and SNAP, yet were at risk of hunger.
All too often these programs do not always reach the poor
because of rules and requirements that are confusing, requiring
families in need to produce multiple documents and
verifications multiple times at multiple agencies, using
precious time and gas money, traveling and sitting in waiting
rooms of agencies that would be better spent keeping a job and
finding a new one and it does not make sense for people with
limited mobility.
We agree with GAO that programs are decentralized, lack
coordination and data sharing, all of which are required to
improve efficiencies and effectiveness. I would like to briefly
share our association's experience in reducing efficiencies and
unnecessary overlap while ensuring that people receive access
to benefits.
Our association met this challenge head on. We implemented
the Ohio Benefit Bank and Internet-Based Application Assistance
Program which streamlines program access and reduces barriers
by providing a single application platform of more than 20
programs. We have joined together nine State agencies and four
Federal agencies and have leveraged public and private
resources establishing yes, over 1,100 not-for-profit and
faith-based and community partners and recruited some 4,300
counselors reaching people where they work, live, play and
pray.
Again, we believe that in order to prevent duplicative
efforts in costs, investments are needed to upgrade and
integrate systems used to determine and maintain eligibility
across all health and human service lines.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity and would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamler-Fugitt follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.070

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.073

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.075

Mr. Jordan. Let me thank all our witnesses.
We will be back in probably 25 minutes. There are 9 minutes
left in this vote, so we have to go vote. I appreciate your
patience.
We stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Dalton, in Mr. Rector's testimony, he
talked about 69 different programs, but I look at some of the
things in your report and you talk about 47 Federal employment
training programs, 18 different food programs. Do we have any
idea what the real number is? Is it 69 or 169, 3,000,000? What
is the number of programs?
Ms. Dalton. We looked at functional areas and tried to
identify as many programs as we could in those areas. That is
where you are seeing the numbers of 20, 40, 82, 47 in the
employment and training area. One of the difficulties is trying
to define what a program is. There is not agreement on exactly
what a program is, so there may be some differences in
definition.
Mr. Jordan. Did you categorize them the way I think we
have, programs providing food aid, housing, social service
programs, education programs, basic cash assistance programs,
vocational training, job training programs, medical programs,
energy and utility assistance type programs and then child care
programs. Did you put them in the same broad categories?
Ms. Dalton. We did very broad categories. In some cases,
for example, employment and training, we would include the full
range of employment and training services. It may be targeted
toward youth or targeted toward adults.
Mr. Jordan. If you had to hazard a guess, what would your
number be? I have been using 70.
Ms. Dalton. Certainly if you accumulated the numbers that
we talked about today, it is in the hundreds.
Mr. Jordan. Hundreds, so more than 70. Would you agree with
the concept Mr. Rector raised that is in the legislation I have
introduced and some Members have co-sponsored, saying it would
be helpful if we at least had an aggregate number of what the
government spends each and every year on the 100-plus means-
tested social welfare programs?
Ms. Dalton. I think it certainly would be good to have a
number of how many programs there are, what exactly are we
spending and what are we getting for that money.
Mr. Jordan. It would be good to know the real number of
programs and the various agencies, the total we spend, the
aggregate number and most importantly, are these things
working. Just for the committee and the record, can you tell
how many are having success with the people they intend to
help?
Ms. Dalton. Certainly in some of the areas, there is some
information about the success of the programs.
Mr. Jordan. Give me a number. Of the 100-plus programs, how
many programs? Is it single digits? Is it 20, 50? What is the
number based on your report and the work you have done, of the
100-plus programs, are actually helping the people they are
supposed to help?
Ms. Dalton. It would be difficult for me to give you a
specific number.
Mr. Jordan. Because you can't give a number? You have no
idea?
Ms. Dalton. No.
Mr. Jordan. No clue?
Ms. Dalton. I know it is not in the single digits, but
beyond that, I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Jordan. Twenty percent?
Ms. Dalton. It is really hard to tell.
Mr. Jordan. Less than 50 percent?
Ms. Dalton. I really wouldn't want to hazard a guess.
Mr. Jordan. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Rector, you talked about the wrong incentives we have.
Not only do we not know how many programs there are or how much
money we spend, but all those programs across agencies, we send
the wrong incentive. I have often said that the welfare system
particularly says to the single mom out there, don't get
married, don't get a job, have more kids and you get more
money. Is that a fair assessment? Is that across the board in
these 100 plus programs sending the wrong message? Elaborate on
that a bit more if you could.
Mr. Rector. All of these programs have an anti-marriage
effect because they are means-tested. The way that works is
that in a means-tested program, the more earned income there is
in the household, the lower the benefits will be. It is
automatic. What is the first way then to have a lower amount of
earned income is not to have a married husband in the
household. If you have a married husband in the household, his
income is automatically counted toward eligibility. So each and
every one of these programs in almost every circumstance, the
family will get less money as a result of being married to an
employed man. The net result has been that basically these
programs have supplanted fathers as bread winners throughout
about a third of the U.S. population.
When Lyndon Johnson started the War on Poverty in 1964, 7
percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today,
that number is 43 percent. Forty percent of the births in the
United States are paid for by Medicaid. Almost all of those are
non-marital births. There is an incentive right there to begin
with.
Basically, for many blue collar families, if the couple is
married and the man does not have a good health insurance
policy, which is quite probable, then the cost of the
childbirth to that married couple will be borne by the couple.
On the other hand, if they separate, then Medicaid is almost
inevitably going to pick up the full cost. From the beginning,
the moment a child is conceived, the State is saying as long as
you don't get married, you are on our dime but if you are
married to a working man, basically, you have to shoulder these
costs.
All of these programs have an anti-marriage effect and most
of them have a very strong anti-work effect and as a result, we
basically have done the opposite of what Lyndon Johnson said we
should be doing. He said, I don't want to put people the dole.
In fact, I was reading this marvelous thing in the 1964
economic report of the President where they were first talking
about the War on Poverty where it actually says, we could wipe
out all the poverty in the United States for $20 billion a
year. We could pick up this money and give it to people and
they would no longer be poor but we are not going to do that
because it would be wrong.
What happened is we completely changed it and then got in
the business of giving people support rather than trying to
make them capable of supporting themselves more effectively. In
particular, we basically displaced marriage in the low income
community. The single, strongest cause of poverty in the United
States today is the lack of marriage. Our society is dividing
into two castes. In the upper part, you have married couples,
children raised by married couples both of whom have a college
education. In the bottom 40 percent of our population is
mothers who are not married and have a high school degree or
less. That is the poverty population and it is about over $300
billion a year in welfare assistance there as well.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
The gentlelady from New York.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our apologies to all
the witnesses for the temporary recess we had.
My first question is for Ms. Dalton and then I have a
question for the entire panel. This is a followup to the
chairman's question.
You talk about measuring outcomes and understanding the
effect of these programs. I think that is so very important
because when we talk about these programs, it is not an
unwillingness on anyone's part to provide what we need for the
neediest but the issue is, this is not our money. This is the
American peoples' money. We must be responsible stewards of
that money. I think we need to understand the impact studies.
You stated that 5 out of the 47 programs have completed an
impact study since 2004 and that in those five programs any
positive effects tended to be small, inconclusive or restricted
to short term impacts. I want to be sure that I understand what
you are saying. Basically, for the vast majority of the 47
employment training programs run by the Federal Government,
using $18 billion of taxpayer money, there is little or no
information about whether or not these programs actually work?
Ms. Dalton. All the employment and training programs, there
is some performance information that is collected. The most
common measure is entered employment, did the person get a job,
but that information alone really doesn't tell you the impact
of the program, did the person get a job, did they retain the
job, are they making a sustainable wage. That is the type of
information really gets at impact. That requires some pretty
thorough study.
You are also trying to see whether or not the particular
program is the causal agent of creating the impact. In these
areas where you have multiple services coming from different
programs, it is difficult to isolate it, but it is important to
know that because then you have a better idea of what is really
working and where do you want to invest your money.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. My next question is for all four of
the panelists.
The GAO's testimony today states the Federal Government
spent about $90 billion on domestic food and nutrition
assistance in fiscal year 2010. This is an update to the $62
billion for fiscal year 2008. That is a 44 percent increase
over 2 years.
I would like to hear from each of you on this. Is this a
temporary increase, is this a result of the financial crisis or
do we have reason to believe that these increases in other
social welfare programs will continue to increase?
Ms. Dalton. Much of the increase is, in fact, due to an
increase in benefit levels that was included in the Recovery
Act. My understanding is that increase will end in November
2013. A large percentage of that increase is due to the
Recovery Act legislation and will recede to prior levels in
November 2013.
Ms. Buerkle. Do we have any idea of the dollar amount?
Ms. Dalton. I can get that for you.
Ms. Buerkle. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Rector.
Mr. Rector. I can get you the exact numbers on that. I
believe that food stamps goes down slightly a few years from
now, but overall, food assistance, I believe, grows at more
than the rate of inflation for the foreseeable future.
Overall, when you look at cash, food, housing, medical care
and social services, there is no decline in government spending
even as the recession ends. I can provide you those numbers but
they in the back of President Obama's budget where no one would
look at them, but they are all there. In fact, all the spending
continues to grow quite rapidly as far out as the President can
project it.
A lot of people regard spending on the poor or welfare
spending like it is a roller coaster that in a recession, it
goes up and in good times, it comes back down. If you look at
the back of my testimony, this is the picture of welfare
spending adjusted for inflation since 1950, since the Korean
War. You don't see too much coming down there. It is more like
the Alps slope, it goes up rapidly or goes up at a moderate
pace. It never comes down. There are only about 2 years in this
entire period where it actually came down.
The nature is that during a recession, this money gets
pumped up--we have pumped it up by 30 percent over the last 2
years--and then it never comes back down. I believe that is
what the Nation simply cannot afford to in the future.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
I apologize, Mr. Mashburn, I am out of time.
Mr. Jordan. Go right ahead.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mashburn.
Mr. Mashburn. As Ms. Dalton mentioned, ARRA, our stimulus
bill, as many call it, increased the SNAP benefits by about 15
percent. In addition, the reasons the numbers might not come
down is it also expanded eligibility and many of those
expansions of eligibility are proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2011 and his new fiscal year 2012 budgets, such as
it eliminates the 3-month time limit on benefits for able
bodied adults without children, so they are just free. They
don't have any limits, so now food stamps are available to able
bodied men who aren't working as long as they don't' have
children.
It increases the household income dollar limits and
disregards the amount of money people can make but the income
disregards, the things you don't count as income, has also gone
up. The EITC used to be disregarded for 3 months. I think the
President's proposal disregards it for 12 months. If you
disregard it for 12 months, you have completely disregarded it.
That is a $5,000 a month benefit and it is not income.
As long as those asset tasks and other eligibility
requirements that restricted the caseload to the truly needy
keep expanding, I don't see how you are ever going to get the
program to fall. Just this month, a man won $2 million in the
Michigan State Lottery. He is eligible for food stamps. He was
on food stamps before and he is still eligible. Michigan has
been trying for 2 or 3 months to get him off, but they are
restricted by the Federal asset test--there is no asset test.
Even though he bought a new house, a new car, the income he
has comes in from the remaining part of his winnings he has
left after the house, the car and everything else, is less than
the eligibility cutoff for his benefits. The State Human
Services Department spokesperson mentioned it is a Federal
policy. We have been trying but we can't do it which is why a
lot of people are proponents of block grants because you can
see the State knew that wasn't right and wanted to do
something. It is the feds that are keeping them from doing the
right thing.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Mashburn.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Food stamp participation has grown by
60.4 percent since February 2008. It is at an all time record
high. Expenditures are up directly as a relation to the economy
and the number of individuals who now find themselves in many
cases working but earning wages that don't lift them or their
families out of poverty. In many cases, it has been the long
term unemployed, many who have been unable, despite their best
efforts, to find employment in their area.
Certainly we are concerned and again, this is a
supplemental program. Individuals who are suffering from hunger
and food insecurity don't first turn to the SNAP Program. They
use five to seven different other coping strategies before they
ever ask for help. They are selling their personal possessions
on ebay, Craigslist and at yard sales; they are sending their
children to the homes of friends and neighbors in order to eat.
The last place they turn is to the public welfare office.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Jordan. The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing and for inviting Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, who
plays such a critical role in providing food to families across
our State, to testify at this hearing.
The statistics she has provided to this committee are
shocking. Yesterday, when I met with her, she showed me this
map of Ohio which I would like to enter into the record with
unanimous consent.
Mr. Jordan. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.076

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.078

Mr. Kucinich. It shows that in Ohio today, 70 of Ohio's 88
counties now have more than 25 percent of the residents
eligible for emergency food. I look at our State and I think of
all of us who serve it. We are representing counties in which
30 to 35 percent of the population is at or below 200 percent
Federal poverty level which is the threshold for eligibility
for food assistance programs.
We share a desire to ensure our constituents in Ohio and
across the country that we are able to put enough food on the
table so the children don't go hungry and the elderly aren't
forced into even more unfortunate circumstances, trying to find
available supplemental food. Families are still struggling with
hunger even as they rely on current Federal food assistance
programs and local resources.
I would like to make a commitment to you today, Mr.
Chairman, to work together to determine how we can best
streamline these programs to eliminate administrative
inefficiencies, but as we have this conversation about finding
program inefficiencies, I am very concerned that we don't
weaken programs' ability to meet needs either by reducing
benefits or cutting eligibility for those who need assistance.
I am letting you know that I look forward to working with
you so that we can ensure that these critical food programs are
protected from further budget cuts and from current levels of
food assistance. Can we do something together on that, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for his focus. Our job is
to make the assistance work better and ultimately help the
people the programs are intended to help and by so doing, you
save money for the taxpayer at this critical time in America's
fiscal situation. That is our focus as conservatives. We want
to help those who need help and by so doing, you save money.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a real weight that is put on us because we have to
make sure that as we analyze these programs in our desire to
streamline them, that we don't inadvertently lowering the
available benefits at a time of highest demand. That is one of
the reasons Ms. Hamler-Fugitt came forward in her testimony
that is so important to people she serves. This, again, is
trying to make sure that people who are hungry have some
resource, somewhere so they are not left out.
We can get an ideology about how this happens, and I might
agree with you on some of those things, but I am concerned that
we stay focused on wherever there are programs that are working
and feeding people that we keep doing it.
I want to say to Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, you said there have
been two problems with food assistance and other service
programs available in Ohio. First, do you not believe they are
adequately funded? That is obvious from your pitch. Is that
right?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kucinich. You believe that some of the different rules
and application processes are causing eligible and needy people
to miss out on benefits for which they are eligible, is that
right?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kucinich. What can we do to make accessing benefits
simpler and more efficient?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. One is that we have to align and
integrate the systems that manage them. I think certainly the
frustration and my own frustration in reading the GAO report is
that we lack data. We lack data because we have antiquated
systems that were developed on a COBOL platform which is more
than 50 years old. IT graduates are not trained in COBOL. In
fact, in our State, we need to bring people out of retirement
to reprogram basic systems. I see the chairman smiling, he
remembers this at the State.
We need to invest in technology that is available. We have
worked on this at the State level. We need to mandate that both
the Federal and the State agencies with jurisdiction over these
programs work together, ensuring that we are not writing
redundant rules and regulations. We need to ensure access
points, but also at the same time, maintain integrity.
In our shop, data equals dollars. It is very clear to me
that is what we are missing. We have undertaken independent
research on our benefit bank. In fact, we have been working
with the Voinovich School at Ohio University to evaluate not
only the impact of integrating programs and service delivery,
but also doing longitudinal studies on those who are
participating in the programs so we can make informed decisions
about where we go.
To blame the poorest of the poor, the hungriest of the
hungry, because of the failure to collect adequate information
is unconscionable.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, you said participation in
your programs is up currently?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. By what percentage?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. We are up nearly 47 percent.
Mr. Jordan. So a few years back when the economy was in a
much better situation, you had much fewer participants in your
program, much less need for your food assistance program?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. It has been climbing, not as drastically
as it has in the past few years as a direct result of the great
recession, but it has been climbing since the onset of welfare
reform. Certainly we saw many folks who left the system, did
not know that other supportive services were available.
Mr. Jordan. Do you anticipate as the economy improves your
numbers going down? Has that been the pattern in the past? Have
you seen in good economic times, you have less and in bad
economic times, you have more participants?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. No, unfortunately, we haven't.
Mr. Jordan. You don't anticipate when the economy
improves--which we all hope it does sooner rather than later--
any less participants in your program?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. I don't. If you look at the data, Ohio
currently ranks 50th out of all States in income growth.
Mr. Jordan. I am going back to the point Mr. Rector made.
Most people assume when the economy improves, there is less
need for social services.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. It would be so if the jobs that are
coming back paid a livable wage, but certainly what we have
seen is surge in minimum wage jobs being created in the State
and over half of the 31,000 jobs that were created over the
last year came in the retail sector were paying minimum wage or
slightly above minimum wage.
Mr. Jordan. You said there has been a higher growth rate in
the last few years but it was growing even in 2005 and 2006. Is
any of that attributable to a broader definition of who
qualifies? How does it work?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. On the Food Stamp Program, we certainly
have made some changes and I would say that some of those
policy changes have brought in more people. It has also been
about education, assuring people standing in our food lines
that the Food Stamp or the SNAP Program was available. We have
been pretty aggressive in our outreach. Our goal is we want
people standing in grocery store checkout lines instead of food
pantry lines, making healthy decisions for themselves and their
families.
Mr. Jordan. Would you agree that it would help if we knew
how many social welfare programs actually exist in the Federal
Government, how much we spend totally and whether those
programs are actually helping the people they are intended to
help?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is good
government.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mashburn, talk to me a bit more about this
whole block grant concept. It seems to me you get the dollars
to the local level to people like Ms. Hamler-Fugitt who will
actually work with the folks on the State and local level. That
makes a lot of sense and how it was used with TANF. Give me the
broader perspective on the block grant concept.
Mr. Mashburn. The block grant concept as far as TANF was
concerned, initially was a bare bones block grant which was you
sent an amount of money to the States, you didn't do a
maintenance effort requirement on the States and in the
negotiations--the Clinton administration and others--there was
a maintenance of effort requirement imposed on the States. Then
the Governors came in and said, if you are going to require us
to keep spending what we are spending, you at the Federal level
have to keep spending what you are spending. You guaranteed
that level at the Federal level, you didn't index for
inflation.
That had a strange effect in that the State bureaucracies
knew they were going to get a guaranteed amount of money and
knew if they reduced the rolls, they weren't going to lose any
of that money. Whatever savings they had, they were required to
spend it on a harder to place population.
That had a lot of the effect and changing the welfare
bureaucracies from basically a caseload enrollment center into
employment agencies, getting people trained, getting people off
the rolls. The work requirement changed the attitudes and the
motives of the recipients, but the funding mechanism through
the capped but guaranteed level of Federal spending changed the
motivations and the economic incentives for bureaucracies
themselves. They didn't have to worry about losing money.
They also weren't able to count of being given more money
like under AFDC where every time you enrolled a new recipient,
you got 80 percent of your costs from the Federal Government.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask one more question for both you and
Mr. Rector.
The first piece of legislation I got passed as a member of
the Ohio General Assembly was time limits for able bodied
adults receiving cash assistance. We argued at the time, and I
think we were proven right, deadlines influence behavior. If
able-bodied adults know there will come a point where they will
no longer be eligible for the benefit, in this case, it was
cash assistance, it influenced what they did. It was amazing no
one got kicked off the program because they found work, they
found opportunities. They had the right incentive in place to
actually find employment prior to the deadline. Deadlines
influence behavior. Deadlines change things.
Do you think we need to move more in that direction with
many of these programs, both Mr. Mashburn and Mr. Rector?
Mr. Rector. That is the basic point about whether these
programs accomplish their goals. The problem is that in 95
percent of these programs, the goal is to give people stuff.
That is the only goal and the government can give away a lot of
things. It has given away $16 trillion since the beginning of
the War on Poverty. When you give people free food or free
housing, they have something they didn't have before.
The problem is that in doing this, we have created a
culture of dependency and the more money you give, the more
dependent people you generate. The work ethic goes down and
marriage disappears as the welfare checks serve as a substitute
for the husband. That is why you can never stop spending in
these programs. The more you spend, the more you need for
assistance you generate.
In all of these programs, you need to basically say, we
want to assist you, but we want to assist you in such a way
that we encourage the best efforts on your part. We are going
to require you to prepare for work or take a job. We are going
to create a welfare system that isn't hostile to marriage. By
the way, we are also going to tell young people that if you
don't want to be poor, the No. 1 thing you can do in the United
States is be married before you have a child. It is more
effective than graduating from high school.
No one ever knows that. Suppose we never told high school
dropouts that dropping out of high school was bad for them. In
terms of the No. 1 cause of poverty, which is non-marital
birth, we never tell anyone about that. We need to create a
system that supports but at the same time encourages positive
behavior.
None of these programs have that objective, except for TANF
perhaps. Therefore, they can succeed but what they are
succeeding in is giving people assistance and making future
generations dependent on welfare.
The other thing we need to be very careful about is
exaggerated statements about need. As I have indicated, and
these figures are correct, we are spending close to $30,000
when you take all these programs together for each low income
family with children. If we are spending that amount of money
and still have all these kids with empty stomachs, I am a
critic of the government but my goodness, that would be worse
than anything I could possibly imagine.
The reality is when we look closer at this, and I agree
that food assistance needed to go up during the recession. It
has gone up but if you look at the USDA data, which has a
survey of food security and hunger, it shows during 2009 of all
the poor people and the poor children in the United States,
only 4 percent of them had any disruption of food intake that
might relate to hunger; 96 percent of poor children did not
experience that; 80 percent of poor adults did not experience
any disruption of food intake at any point during the year. It
is right in these reports which are national surveys. I think
that is good. That is not something I am complaining about.
As we look at spending of the dollar, we have to be
realistic in understanding what the nature of the need is and
not to constantly exaggerate and constantly say all we need is
more money.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask Ms. Hamler-Fugitt one question and
then I will go to Mr. Mashburn.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, what percentage of the people you serve
come from single parent homes?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. We don't track that data, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. Hazard a guess.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Don't track the data.
Mr. Jordan. You sort of have a feeling. Getting to Mr.
Rector's point, is it that we have a system that encourages
people not to be married? I am just curious if that is what you
are seeing in the food side of things versus some of the other
programs?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. I would agree that certainly looking at
the latest census data that has come out on the community
survey, we are seeing an increase in poverty among single
female heads of households. I do want to make a statement that
in welfare reform, there was a lot of work we did at the State
level, as you know, with the Governor's Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives around looking at these issues and
incentives including around family formation. I think to some
degree the States have done a good job.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Mashburn, then Mr. Kucinich.
Mr. Mashburn. I would just point out there is another GAO
report that came in February 2010, Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families. Fewer eligible families have received cash
assistance since the 1990's. When you first look at that, it
sounds like there are a lot of people out there eligible for
benefits that aren't receiving them and the government ought to
do something about it to make sure they receive it.
When you did into the report, they mention you go from 57
million eligible families in 1995 down to 53 million eligible
families in 2005 which is a lot less than the reduction in the
TANF caseload over that period of time. You realize that the
way they count nonparticipation is a person found a job on
their own, the government found them a job before they got on
TANF, there are people not participating because they can
actually make more money in some of the other welfare programs
if they don't take the TANF benefits because TANF benefits
count toward your eligibility and your level of benefits in
other programs like SNAP.
Finally, a lot of the non-participants didn't like the
hassle of having to prove to the taxpayers that they were
deserving of help from the taxpayers because they didn't like
having to go to the job interviews, the work requirements, all
the other stuff so they just said, I won't take TANF. I will
get SNAP or some of these other benefits. Those were counted as
non-participants.
If you have a job and you are not participating, you may in
the income eligibility framework to be eligible for TANF, but
the fact you got a job and you are self-sustaining doesn't mean
the government needs to sign you up for TANF and get you to
quit your job.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Rector, I just want to make sure that I
heard you correctly. Did you say that welfare checks are
substitutes for husbands?
Mr. Rector. In a large part, what welfare assistance has
done is to supplant the role of the male earner in the home.
The numbers are just there.
Mr. Kucinich. You said welfare checks substitute for
husbands? Did you say that?
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Mr. Kucinich. I just have to say that seems like somewhat
of a simplistic formulation. Do you really mean that to be what
you say for the record because if you do, we have to go a bit
deeper into this.
Mr. Rector. Let us go deeper into it. That may be a little
bit crude but yes, I would absolutely say that welfare, not
just cash checks but the whole system, has served as a
substitute for the role of the male breadwinner in the home. In
fact, without that massive level of assistance, there is no
possible way that we could have gone from a 7 percent out of
wedlock birth rate in 1965 to a 42 percent rate today simply
because these low income mothers would not be able to sustain
those children without government assistance.
Mr. Kucinich. These low income mothers, do you want to tell
me a little bit about what these low income mothers should be
doing?
Mr. Rector. I would be very happy to. A lot of people
confuse non-marital births with teen pregnancy. Only about 7
percent of these births occur to girls under 18. It is mainly
young adult women, 19 to 25. Most of these births are
intentional, the mother desires to have a child, the mother
sees having a child as an important role and goal in her life.
The data I am reading now comes from something called The
Fragile Family Survey, out of Princeton University. It is very
important to understanding this phenomenon.
These mothers are actually also quite sympathetic toward
the idea of marriage in the wrong term. They would like to have
a husband, a house in the suburbs, a couple kids and a mini-
van, a dog, very traditional goal. What has happened is that we
have developed a culture where they think it is not important
to be married before bringing children into the world, that you
have children first and then you look to get married.
I am not making this up. I can come to your office and give
you books and books on this, all written basically by liberal
scholars. Our understanding of this has increased greatly.
Mr. Kucinich. So what do you propose? Do you propose that
we don't feed these children?
Mr. Rector. No, that wouldn't work very well.
Mr. Kucinich. What do you propose?
Mr. Rector. What I would propose is that each of these
programs, as I tried to explain earlier, does have a penalty
that if you do get married, you lose some benefits. We ought to
try to soften that a bit.
Mr. Kucinich. How would you soften it?
Mr. Rector. You could either reduce the benefits that go to
the single parent or you could increase the benefit.
Mr. Kucinich. Why would you reduce anybody's benefits in a
period where people are having trouble making ends meet? I
don't interrupt you, don't interrupt me.
Mr. Rector. Fine.
Mr. Kucinich. I want to submit for the record an article
from the New York Times dated March 21, 2011. The headline
says, ``Many low wage jobs seen as failing to meet basic
needs.'' I am going to read just a few quotes from this. ``Hard
as it may be to land a job these days, getting one may not be
nearly enough for basic economic security. Many of the jobs
being added in retail, hospitality and home health, to name a
few categories, are unlikely to pay enough for workers to cover
the cost of fundamentals like housing, utilities, food, health
care, transportation and in the case of working parents, child
care.''
It also says ``A single worker with two young children
needs an annual income of $57,756, just over $27 a hour, to
attain economic stability. A family with two working parents
and two young children needs to earn $67,920 a year or about
$16 a hour per worker. That compares with the national poverty
level of $22,050 for a family of four. The most recent data
from the Census Bureau found that 14.3 percent of Americans
were living below the poverty line in 2009.''
There is one other quote I want to read. ``The numbers will
not come as a surprise to working families who are struggling.
Tara, a medical biller who declined to give her last name, said
she earns $15 a hour while her husband works in building
maintenance and makes $11.50 a hour. The couple live in Jamaica
Queens and have three sons, aged 9, 8 and 6. `We try to cut
back on a lot of things,' she said, but the couple has been
unable to make ends meet on their wages and visit the River
Fund Food Pantry in Richmond Hill every Saturday.''
We have a jobless recovery where the Fed is printing money
out of nothing and giving it to banks, banks not loaning money
to mainstreet so jobs can be created. I have never in my time
seen so many people standing in line to get food even in my own
neighborhood in Cleveland. We have to be very careful about
engaging in sophistry while people are not just struggling to
make ends meet but people are starving.
I respect all the witnesses, you are very kind to be here
and testify but there is a point at which, Mr. Chairman, some
of this testimony is a bit tough to take.
Mr. Jordan. But would the gentleman agree that it is
important for programs to have the right incentives in place
and would the gentleman agree, and I think he would, that many
of these 100 plus programs do encourage the wrong kind of
behavior. We can disagree on what the remedy is but I think the
gentleman would agree that when you have incentives in place
that don't encourage the pursuit of work, maybe encourage more
children to be borne out of wedlock, wouldn't you agree that we
at least need to try to figure out a way to address that?
Mr. Kucinich. I think the purpose of this hearing that
deals with attempting to streamline programs, I think is a
great idea, absolutely. I think we should all agree with that.
When testimony moves from that into value judgments on people,
particularly single women who find themselves in extraordinary
circumstances, I would bet there are probably a number of
Members of Congress raised by one parent families, in
particular single women, who find themselves in extraordinary
circumstances. The mother's first concern is to feed her kids.
That is No. 1, even before the roof.
Mr. Jordan. Would the gentleman answer the question? Don't
you think we do need to at least try to address the incentive
situation in these programs?
Mr. Kucinich. I think we ought to give people jobs. Jobs
create work. There ought to be work, not welfare, for those who
are able to work. That is fundamental. When you have Wall
Street accepting that a certain amount of unemployment is
necessary for the proper functioning of the economy, I think
that is a moral question.
Mr. Jordan. Would the gentleman also agree that when you
have over 100 different means-tested social welfare programs,
we can't determine the exact number, according to the GAO; we
can't determine how many of those programs are successful; and
we don't have any idea what the aggregate cost is or what we
are spending on all those programs, that is a problem as well?
Mr. Kucinich. I think we have to sort out those things
while we keep feeding people.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
I will yield now to the gentlelady from New York.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mashburn, I want to go back to your testimony and the
line of questioning with the chairman. I just have a quick
question.
Do you think if we talk about block grants for food
assistance programs, there should be some requirement and
attach work to it as we did with welfare programs?
Mr. Mashburn. Certainly.
Ms. Buerkle. Why do you think that?
Mr. Mashburn. It provides an incentive for people. It
doesn't rob their dignity from them; they work for some of
their benefits. At the same time, it keeps people from abusing
and gaming the system. As I mentioned earlier, some of the
people don't enroll in the TANF program even though they are
eligible; they enroll in the other welfare programs because
they get more benefits from the other programs. It is because
they don't want to have to go through the work requirements and
all the other hassles, which is mentioned in the report, hassle
of applying for the benefits and complying with the
requirements.
If it is too much hassle to do that, that you don't want to
take TANF, the same situation being in food stamps, if you are
not willing to go through the process to justify the fact that
you need help from the taxpayers and your fellow citizens, and
that is too much of a hassle, in my view, I don't believe you
deserve food stamps to at least go through that process. Work
requirements and other requirements like that, whether it is
community service or something like that, ensures they are not
getting free money from the government, they are giving
something back in return. That does give them dignity as
individuals.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Mr. Rector, I want to go back to the line of questioning
with my colleague, Mr. Kucinich. You were starting to talk to
us about a study done at Princeton. We got into the line of
questioning about how we could not penalize. Going to the
chairman's point, I think we want to make sure everyone gets
what they need, but we also know there are always unintended
consequences. You started to talk about how we can soften that
so we don't discourage single women from getting married.
Mr. Rector. First of all, let me clarify I am not talking
about ripping food away from people in the middle of a
recession. I think everything I was talking about here is long
term and I think I have been very clear that most of these
reforms would have to take place as the recession eases.
You do find you are giving about 75 percent of the
assistance that goes to children, means-tested assistance is
going to single parent households. The welfare state basically
exists to support single parenthood. That is an unintended
consequence.
If you had gone back to the 1960's, at that point, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan warned us about this and everyone said, that
is not going to happen. It was much worse than he ever dreamed
it could be and it is now affecting basically the whole bottom
third of the population. You are giving a lot of assistance now
to able-bodied parents who don't work, you can begin to make
the system more rational by requiring that all able-bodied
recipients in these programs should work or prepare for work as
a condition for getting aid. That would greatly rationalize the
system.
You can also provide somewhat greater assistance, less
discrimination against married couples but let me talk about
the consequence of that. In this Fragile Family Survey, we
actually have data about the mother but we also have data about
the father which is pretty unusual in social science because we
are not very interested in fathers in this country.
The reality is if you take these 40 percent of births out
of wedlock, this is the road to poverty in the United States,
70 to 75 percent of child poverty occurs in single parent
families. If you took these mothers and actually married to the
actual father of the child, not a hypothetical, not somebody I
dreamed up, in two-thirds of the cases, the income the father
would bring into that home would bring the family completely
out of poverty. In many cases, the mother wouldn't even have to
work. This is the strongest anti-poverty weapon in the United
States today.
When you survey these women, you find they are not hostile
to marriage. In fact, they would like to get married but they
actually have this pattern of saying, I want to have a child
first, then I am going to start to look around for a husband, I
will get married later on. We ought to begin to explain that if
you want your child to not be poor, that set of decisionmaking
is probably not the best route for you to go down.
We ought to explain the single largest cause of child
poverty in the United States is having a child without being
married and they might want to look at other options to meet
their own goal, not to meet my social values or your social
values, but to actually meet their own personal goals of which
marriage is a substantial part. Not being poor is also another
substantial part.
No where in the welfare system do we ever provide these at
risk young people, both men and women, with this information. I
think it is a national tragedy.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Mr. Chairman, if I could make a point of
note to correct statements that both Mr. Rector and Mr.
Mashburn made. There are work requirements for both SNAP and
cash assistance. Let me be crystal clear, people who receive
these benefits must work off those benefits and in my system,
thousands of individuals come into a food pantry, a soup
kitchen or a food bank every day and they work hard for those
benefits.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Rector, I live among the people you just
talked about and I think unless you are a woman, and unless you
sit in a woman's place, I think you make some pretty strong
statements talking about women not wanting to be married and
making a choice to have a baby first. I am sitting here and I
can't believe what I am hearing.
Be that as it may, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, one of the things we
are trying to get at in this hearing is whether certain Federal
programs are redundant or wasteful. We must strive to eliminate
unnecessary duplication and streamline delivery benefits but I
hope that the Republican idea of duplicative food assistance
programs is not breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Help us think about this the right way from the perspective
of families and seniors who are eligible for these programs. I
would like to ask you these questions. Are Ohio families you
work with being overfed?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. No, sir, they are not.
Mr. Cummings. Can they take a budget cut as the Republican
majority's budget imposes on food assistance they receive?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. No, sir, they can't. With rising food
and fuel costs, they are making choices about who eats tonight
and who doesn't eat.
Mr. Cummings. Do you deal with the school lunch program at
all?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Yes, sir. We work all of the Federal
nutrition programs through our Ohio Benefit Bank, ensuring that
people know about the programs and helping to streamline the
application process. I also want to say that this isn't only
just the greatest generation, this is the next generation that
we are losing their ability to not only for our greatest
generation to live out their golden years with a little bit of
dignity to be able to feed themselves, but we are sacrificing
our future to allow hunger and malnutrition to exist at the
rates they do in this country.
Mr. Cummings. While rich folks get the tax breaks.
Let me go to something, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. The other day I
was thinking about when I was a little boy. My mother and
father had limited education, and by the way, they worked every
day, Mr. Rector, every day, from sun up to sun down. My mother
was a domestic for $7.50 and car fare. My father was a laborer.
We used to get graham crackers and milk every morning. They
worked hard and they were able to educate, on a domestic salary
and a laborer's salary, seven children, one of whom is a Member
of the Congress of the United States of America today. I think
what Ms. Hamler-Fugitt is trying to say is that we have to make
sure that we take care of our people and we take care of our
children. If I did a rewind, if I took some of the positions
that I guess you are taking, I wouldn't be here today, nor
would my fellow brothers and sisters be achieving the things
they achieve.
Going back to you, Ms. Hamler-Fugitt, are they enrolled in
multiple job training programs, these folks you see or is there
a waiting list for job programs?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Yes. Again, with welfare reform and not
only passage of the Personal Responsibility Work and
Opportunity Reconciliation Act but the Work Force Investment
Act, these were devolved and a lot of what has happened in the
fragmented system is that they were not only devolved to the
States but they were also devolved to the county level were a
county-operated the system. It is the luck of the draw.
Mr. Cummings. A lot of people are trying to train for jobs
that aren't even there, is that right?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. We are seeing record enrollment in
community colleges where people are trying to get new skills
and upgrade their skills, but again, there are limited slots
available to these programs. I would like to speak to one in
particular.
Mr. Cummings. While you are talking about that, I want you
to answer this. Do all homeless individuals have access to
shelter and are they getting two beds for the night because of
duplicative assistance?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. As to the homelessness question, no.
They do not have two beds and in fact, many now find
themselves, if they are lucky, have a family or friend that has
taken them in; we have seen household demographics increasing
substantially because families have lost their homes. The
shelters are full. In the State of Ohio, we have families who
are sleeping in cars at roadside rests in the State of Ohio and
I suspect it is the same in your State.
Mr. Cummings. In the United States of America?
Ms. Hamler-Fugitt. Yes, sir.
Whether there are sufficient job training programs, there
is a program where we are seeing more seniors than ever trying
to re-enter the work force. Despite their efforts of working
hard, thinking they had saved enough for their golden years,
they are attempting to re-enter the work force.
There is a program called the Ohio Senior Community
Services Employment Program that is designed specifically to
help older adults aged 55 and older to access meaningful job
training, on the job training. There are a limited number of
slots. I can tell you from firsthand experiences, we get calls
every day from seniors begging to get into this program and it
pays a modest $7.25 an hour.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. I
see my time has expired.
Mr. Jordan. Just one last question for Mr. Mashburn. If, in
fact, social welfare spending for these 100-plus programs, we
can't determine the exact number, it has steadily increased.
That is true over the 40 some years. If it has always been
increasing, why the terrible results? If all we have been doing
is increasing money for this all along, doesn't it make sense
to look at it differently and figure out if we can combine
programs, make it work more efficiently?
If we keep doing the same thing, we will keep spending the
same amount of money and Ms. Hamler-Fugitt will have more
people coming to her needing food and assistance because
obviously it is not working the way it was supposed to.
Mr. Mashburn. She talked about it devolving to the State
level and the county level. If there are work requirements in
the program in Ohio, it is probably because either the State or
the county has required it.
As far as the money spent, you keep spending the money
unless you start giving people incentives and help them find
jobs so they don't need the system. If you just support them in
their status quo in the system, you don't train them and there
is no penalty for staying, you will have the caseloads you have
plus future caseloads as well which is why the spending keeps
going up.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Dalton, has the GAO ever come forward with
what you recommend? We know the problem, we don't know what we
are spending, we know it is a lot and it has been $16 trillion
over the last 50 years. We know we are spending a lot, we can't
determine the number of programs, we don't know which are
ultimately successful. We do know the food program is working
in Ohio, but we don't know everywhere else what is going on. Is
the GAO going to come forward with recommendations on what to
do?
Ms. Dalton. We are not going to make specific
recommendations. The discussion here has shown that this is
really a policy issue. We do talk about the need for good data,
the need to rationalize the system. It is a system that in all
the areas I discussed, it evolved over time with very good
intentions but now we have 80 programs here, 40 programs there.
There is a need to look at what do we want to achieve, who do
we want to serve and what is the best way to achieve that. I
think those are the three basic questions that need to be
answered to design the programs to achieve those.
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Buerkle has one last question and we will
be done.
Ms. Buerkle. For an organization that receives Federal
dollars, is there no requirement that they track their results?
Does anyone know the answer to that question?
Mr. Rector. I do. Basically, for example, with job
training, there are not requirements and when you do have a
requirement, for example, to run a controlled experiment, the
programs are not very effective. I would also say when you do
have information in the political system, it tends to get
disregarded.
I would reference you all to a report called the 2009
Annual Homeless Assessment Report which is prepared by HUD for
the Congress. I will give you a copy of that. It says very
different things than you just heard here and happens to be a
survey of every homeless shelter in the United States conducted
on a scientific basis.
It shows actually no increase in the use of homeless
shelters over the last 3 years and the average homeless shelter
in the United States on any given night has a vacancy rate of
10 percent. If we are not going to use information like that, I
suspect we could cut these reports out and make things up.
Mr. Kucinich. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Buerkle. Yes, sure.
Mr. Kucinich. Just for a moment. May I ask the gentleman a
question? Are you saying that there has been no increase in
homelessness or just that there is no increase in the use of
homeless shelters?
Mr. Rector. The report shows neither increase which I also
find surprising, but more importantly, it basically shows the
level of homelessness is relatively low and that the homeless
shelters on average on a continuing basis have vacancies.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
Ms. Dalton, you appear to have a comment.
Ms. Dalton. Yes. There are a couple points I want to make
in terms of determining whether the programs are effective and
what they are required to do.
Most of the programs do have requirements to present some
performance information. Whether or not it is the right
information or whether it is integrated is oftentimes not done.
There is a new law that the Congress passed last year called
the Government Performance and Results Act, Modernization Act.
That act is requiring improved performance reporting by Federal
agencies and most importantly, it's targeting coordinated
performance information trying to get information about
programs that work together.
It will be important to implement that act properly. I
think that may at least start us on a path to some quality
performance information.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much. I yield.
Mr. Jordan. Let me thank our witnesses again for a good
discussion.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The supplemental prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J.
Kucinich and additional information submitted for the hearing
record follow:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.081

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.082

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.084

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0677.085