Congressional Hearings
THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.W 36
Congress: House of Representatives
CHRG-115hhrg33363
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| hswm00 | H | S | Committee on Ways and Means |
[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-HR01
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-363 WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
DEVIN NUNES, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois MIKE THOMPSON, California
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas RON KIND, Wisconsin
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
TOM REED, New York LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JIM RENACCI, Ohio TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania SUZAN DELBENE, Washington
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota JUDY CHU, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
JASON SMITH, Missouri
TOM RICE, South Carolina
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
David Stewart, Staff Director
Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska, Chairman
JASON SMITH, Missouri DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan JUDY CHU, California
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
TOM REED, New York
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of February 15, 2017 announcing the hearing............. 2
WITNESSES
Elizabeth Kneebone, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program,
Brookings Institution.......................................... 6
Mark Partridge, Professor, Swank Chair in Rural-Urban Policy,
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development
Economics, The Ohio State University........................... 21
William Leavy, Executive Director, Greater West Town Project,
Chicago, IL, accompanied by Linda Thomas, Director of Client
Services, Greater West Town Project, Chicago, IL............... 35
Tammy Slater, CEO, Goodwill Industries of Greater Nebraska....... 51
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Question from Congressman Danny Davis of Illinois to William
Leavy and Linda Thomas......................................... 82
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Affordable Rental Housing........................................ 85
Charles Bruner, Ph.D., statement................................. 88
Enterprise Community Partners.................................... 90
Goodwill Industries International................................ 93
THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Adrian Smith
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Welcome to the first hearing of the Human Resources
Subcommittee of the 115th Congress.
We have a good mix of new and returning members on the
subcommittee this session, and I am honored to serve as the
chairman of this important subcommittee.
I would like to take a moment to introduce the members on
our side of the dais: Mr. Smith of Missouri; Mrs. Walorski of
Indiana, a new member of the Ways and Means Committee; Mr.
Reichert of Washington, a past chair of this subcommittee; Mr.
Reed of New York; and Mr. Rice of South Carolina.
On my left, we have the ranking member for the 115th
Congress, Mr. Davis of Illinois. Mr. Davis, would you care to
introduce your members of the subcommittee?
Mr. DAVIS. I would indeed. Let me, first of all, though,
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing in
particular. I certainly look forward to working with you, and I
think we are going to be a very productive team.
I am honored to serve as the ranking member of this
subcommittee, and I am proud to introduce the following
Democratic members of the Human Resources Subcommittee: Mr.
Lloyd Doggett of Texas, who has been on the committee and is a
senior member of the Ways and Means Committee; and, of course,
I am fortunate to be working with two members of this committee
and two new members of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Ms.
Terri Sewell of Alabama, who represents a vast area that is
called rural America--as a matter of fact, much of her district
has been called the Black Belt of the South; and Ms. Judy Chu
of California, who is not here at the moment but with whom I
have had the opportunity to work on issues as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are all indeed proud to be here,
pleased to work with you and other members of the committee,
and look forward to a wonderful time.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, and likewise. I
appreciate the conversations we have already had and I think
some priorities that are certainly timely, and I appreciate the
opportunity to work together.
It is great to work with all of the members of this
subcommittee so that we can help more Americans escape poverty
and move up the economic ladder.
As we all know, the Ways and Means Committee plays an
important role in designing policies to improve the lives of
Americans across this country. Together, members of this
committee work to improve our Nation's healthcare system,
modernize our Tax Code to make American business more
competitive, improve trade so U.S. companies can sell goods
abroad, and, in the Human Resources Subcommittee, help more
families access opportunity to move up the economic ladder.
This task is more important than ever.
While the total number of individuals living in poverty has
fallen from its recent peak in 2010, poverty rates and, even
more troubling, child poverty rates remain much higher than
they were prior to the recession. In addition, a larger share
of working-age adults are in poverty than ever before, as fewer
men and women today are employed than in the past.
Today's hearing represents our first step to address this
issue in the 115th Congress. Before we can identify ways to
foster greater opportunities, we have to first understand what
the challenges look like across the country. That is why the
focus of our hearing today is on the geography of poverty.
This felt like the right place to start as I thought about
the challenges in my own district, where many locations aren't
just rural but also remote, and that of the ranking member's as
potential bookends of the same story. People often think of
poverty only as they see it in cities, not realizing poverty
today is more common than ever in suburban and rural areas.
People also underestimate poverty in rural and remote areas,
not knowing rates of poverty in these areas have for decades
been higher than in urban areas.
Our instinct might be to think rural Nebraska and urban
Chicago are so vastly different, they have nothing in common.
But what we are charged to do in this subcommittee is to find
ways for individuals and families to succeed. And those
challenges are universal, even if they require different
solutions.
Fortunately, the members of this subcommittee bring
substantial expertise to bear, as together we represent a wide
range of constituencies from virtually all four corners of this
country. This diversity will be an asset as we explore ways to
reduce poverty, as I know what works in one area may not always
be what works in another. It is important we realize and
respect the differences between the constituencies we
represent, as too often Congress proposes national, one-size-
fits-all solutions when local flexibility is truly what is
needed.
Clearly, the centerpiece of any poverty-fighting strategy
must be employment. We must make sure Federal policies support
and reward work and make sure employment pays for those
struggling to get ahead.
It is also important we get incentives right so everyone
benefits when someone moves from welfare to work, from the
State agency running the program, to the business owner hiring
the employee, to the individual seeking to improve his or her
own life.
We should also avoid the tendency to focus solely on
inputs, like dollars spent or people served, and instead ensure
we focus on outcomes. By prioritizing results, we can empower
local communities with the flexibility they need to design
solutions which have real impact on improving the lives of
families and their community.
I look forward to hearing from our expert panel of
witnesses today, and I know their insights will lay the
groundwork for our efforts to help more Americans find jobs,
escape poverty, and move up the economic ladder.
I now yield to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Davis,
for the purposes of an opening statement.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And before I
begin, let me just thank you for your altering of protocol to
allow Ms. Linda Thomas to sit in with her coworker. And she has
done so much work in this area, and it is just wonderful for
her to have the opportunity to be here.
Poverty and lack of opportunity have consequences, not just
for individuals and their families but also for their
communities. Seventy percent of homicides in Chicago occur in
just 20 neighborhoods. The poverty rate in these 20
neighborhoods is more than twice as high as the poverty rate
nationally, and unemployment is 6 times higher.
I see firsthand that low-income Chicagoans desperately want
good jobs with wages that support their families, but these
workers often lack the education, skills, and training needed
to access those quality jobs. If they are returning citizens,
they face significant hurdles to employment and supporting
their families. Even for those who are qualified, there remain
job shortages across dozens of industries.
A new report found that in 2015 about 43 percent of black
men age 20 to 24 in Chicago's west-side and south-side
neighborhoods were neither working nor in school.
At first glance, the poverty I see in Chicago might look
different from the struggles Chairman Smith sees at home in
rural Nebraska. Although the faces might look different,
although the challenges and experiences that brought people
down might be different, we have much more in common than we
think.
Wherever you live, the first step out of poverty is a good
job. It sounds simple, but there are a lot of steps needed to
make that happen. The research is clear: The first job matters.
Good jobs lead to other good jobs.
Workers need basic education and a way to acquire the right
skills for good jobs, whether that means on-the-job training, a
specialized training program, or higher education. They may
need an employer who is willing to take a chance on someone who
doesn't have much experience or has made mistakes in the past.
They need to be reliable employees, and that means they
need a way to get to work. If they are parents, they need child
care and paid leave so they can work and still care for their
families.
The Federal Government has a choice. We can invest in
lifting up those communities and those families. We can provide
the funding for workforce development so that when we measure
program outcomes the outcomes will be good. We can update the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the child
support enforcement program to give parents opportunities to
get the skills and credentials that good jobs require. We can
make sure working parents have safe, quality child care
available during the hours they work.
And we can stop insulting people by suggesting work
requirements for programs that offer struggling families food
or basic health care. Instead, we can acknowledge that parents
are trying to support their families, but they can't find jobs
or the jobs they do find don't pay.
We need to do that everywhere in the country, from the city
streets of Chicago to Chairman Smith's country roads.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am honored to serve as
the ranking member of this subcommittee, and, indeed, we look
forward to the continuation of good work. And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Davis.
And, without objection, other members' opening statements
will be made a part of the record.
I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table here
today. We certainly appreciate you sharing your time and
expertise and insight as you do share your statements here
today.
First, we have Ms. Elizabeth Kneebone, a Fellow at the
Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
After Elizabeth, we will have Mr. Mark Partridge, a
Professor from The Ohio State University. I even said ``The''
Ohio State University.
Then we will have Mr. William Leavy, the Executive Director
of the Greater West Town Project in Chicago, Illinois,
accompanied later by Linda Thomas, Director of Client Services
for the Greater West Town Project.
Thank you for being here.
Last, but not least, certainly, Ms. Tammy Slater, CEO of
Goodwill Industries of Greater Nebraska, where she serves 55
counties in Nebraska and operates 8 retail stores, 7 of which
are in my district.
And I am not sure all 55 of your counties are in the 75
counties of the Third District, but thank you for being here.
Thank you all for being here. We are kind of a family here,
wanting to know more of your insights and experiences and
expertise.
So, Ms. Kneebone, please.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH KNEEBONE, FELLOW, METROPOLITAN POLICY
PROGRAM, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Ms. KNEEBONE. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Davis, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the
opportunity to testify today.
This morning, I am going to spend some time giving a brief
overview of the changing geography of poverty, including its
growth into new and different areas. I will talk about some of
the factors that have led to the shifts we have seen in recent
years, some of the challenges that have accompanied those
trends, and, finally, some of the implications for efforts to
effectively address poverty across different kinds of
communities.
Let's start with the numbers. The 2000s saw poverty grow
rapidly in the U.S., and even with the declines we have seen in
recent years, by 2015 we still had 43.1 million people living
below the Federal poverty line, or 13.5 percent of the
population. That is almost 6 million more people than before
the recession began in 2007 and 11-1/2 million more people than
in 2000.
When we think about poverty in the United States, we often
think about it in the urban context or as a rural challenge,
because that is where it has historically been concentrated,
and as poverty grew in the 2000s, it continued to grow in those
places. But it grew at an even faster pace outside of them.
So, between 2000 and 2015, in big cities and in rural
communities the poor population grew by about 20 percent. In
smaller metropolitan areas, it grew at twice that pace. And the
fastest pace of growth actually took place in suburbs of our
major metropolitan areas, which saw their poor population grow
by 57 percent. All told, suburbs accounted for about half of
the total increase in the Nation's poor population over that
time period.
Now, poverty rates remain higher in cities and in rural
communities, but today more poor people live in suburbs. In
2015, 16 million people in suburbs lived below the poverty
line--3 million more than in big cities, that is 6 million more
than in smaller metropolitan areas, and 8 million more than in
rural America.
So why does that happen? What caused these historic shifts?
Well, in some cases, it is because more poor people moved to
the suburbs for any number of reasons: following job
opportunities, which continue to suburbanize; shifting trends
in where affordable housing is located within regions; or just
following the amenities that the suburbs offered.
But more so and an even bigger part of this puzzle was
actually the downward mobility of long-term suburban residents
over time. Part of that is because of the two economic
recessions we saw in the 2000s, particularly the severity of
the Great Recession. But it is not just about downturns; it is
also about structural changes in the economy that have led to
the growing prevalence of low-wage work. And that saw the
typical household income fall even before the Great Recession
hit.
So why does it matter that all of these forces together
have pushed poverty up and into more and different places?
Partly it is because the places that have seen poverty grow
fastest often were not built nor are they now equipped to deal
with the levels of need which they are seeing today. Many
suburbs don't have the kinds of infrastructure, like public
transit, or support services, like a robust nonprofit safety
net, that cities have been able to evolve and develop over
decades.
And overcoming those gaps is challenged by the fact that
suburbs stretch over a really fragmented jurisdictional map.
There are several jurisdictions, many of them quite small, that
make up the suburbs and are just too small on their own and
lack the capacity to marshal responses at the scale of need
that they are seeing today.
Also, they lack resources, partly because resources have
lagged this rapid change in the geography of poverty, both in
terms of philanthropic support and in terms of Federal and
government investments in places. Some of that is because of
the lack of capacity in these places. They are not able to
compete to effectively bring resources into their communities.
Some of it is by design, by the way that these funding sources
were designed, with a different geography of poverty in mind.
Clearly, more resources are needed to deal with the scale
and reach of need that we see today, but even just marshaling
and more effectively using the limited resources we have will
require that we get to a more effective scale so we can help
more people in more places.
There are communities across the country that are already
finding ways to do this. Often it is through collaboration,
whether it is suburbs coming together to work across suburban
jurisdictional boundaries, suburbs working with central cities
to address shared challenges, or suburban communities joining
with their rural neighbors to work on common issues.
All of these sorts of strategies and models share a desire
and effort to get to that better scale, to use these limited
resources more effectively and in ways that can help more
people in more places. But they are fighting an uphill battle
to do that in the current context.
So the way that the Federal Government could be a strong
partner here, could align resources more effectively to support
these types of strategies and help scale up these types of
responses would be: one, to explicitly incentivize
collaborative strategies that cut across jurisdictions, that
cut across policy silos; that could, number two, catalyze
regional capacity to try and help overcome some of these
capacity gaps in these communities through these more
regionally scaled entities and efforts; and three, finally,
allowing for more experimentation and evaluation to show what
can work at the regional level and across different types of
communities to connect more people and places to opportunity.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Kneebone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Ms. Kneebone.
And I didn't mention earlier, though, that oral statements
are limited to 5 minutes. I appreciate your cooperation there.
And, certainly, all of your written statements will be included
in the record.
So thank you, Ms. Kneebone. Mr. Partridge, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARK PARTRIDGE, PROFESSOR, SWANK CHAIR IN RURAL-
URBAN POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Davis, and other members. I am Mark Partridge. My views reflect
my research and not those of The Ohio State University. Today,
I will discuss the diversity of rural poverty in rural America
and describe ways to reduce poverty and its harmful effects.
Much of rural America struggles from low commodity prices
and fierce foreign competition, yet portrayals of the death of
rural America are misleading. Dating back to 1970s, net
migration in and out of rural America has been about zero with
urban America.
In reality, there are three rural Americas. It is very
diverse: one, fast-growing, high-amenity regions near lakes,
oceans, and mountains; two, metro-adjacent rural communities
with access to urban jobs and services; and, three, remote or
extractive-based communities.
Rural America's industrial structure is becoming closer to
urban America. So can we show Figure 1?
For example, Figure 1 shows the shift from the farm
economy. From 1969 to 2015, the rural farm employment share
declined from 15 to 6 percent.
Rural poverty rates are greater than urban rates. 2014
urban and poverty rates were respectively 15 and 18 percent.
But rural poverty receives relatively little attention. One
reason is distance from media centers. Another is that it is
hidden and rarely concentrated in poor neighborhoods.
Poverty greatly declined from 1959 to 1973. Poverty,
though, is very geographically persistent.
Next figures.
Figures 4 and 6 from my written testimony show the 1979 and
2015 county poverty rates for the lower 48 States, and the maps
look very similar is my point. High-poverty clusters exist in
central Appalachia, the Black Belt, Mississippi Delta, Rio
Grande, and Western Native American reservations.
Children are disproportionately in poverty. One-fourth of
rural children and over one-fifth of urban children are
afflicted. Fewer opportunities for poor children perpetuate an
intergenerational poverty cycle.
Rural policy won't succeed by the next election or save
every struggling town, yet two broad approaches are available.
First are people-based policies that directly support the poor,
including education and training. The second is place-based
policies in which poor locales receive more aid. Examples
include infrastructure and firm attraction.
But promoting prosperous rural communities requires
building from within. Communities possess many entrepreneurial
and human resources. Research finds the fastest growing U.S.
firms exist everywhere, from small towns to large cities.
Also, higher shares of small businesses and self-employment
support faster future growth. Self-employment and other small-
business multipliers are double those of regular employment.
There are many reasons. Small businesses buy more inputs
locally, more profits remain local, and small-business
development promotes a virtual cycle of promoting even more
business formation.
Small businesses can be fostered by reducing regulatory
compliance costs. Another is improve small-firm financing.
Small-business programs should be expanded through community
colleges and State extension programs.
The best predictor of future regional growth is the initial
level of education. Yet rural America is less educated. Young
talented adults from the countryside have long been captivated
by bright city lights, but rural communities possess many
charms--quiet, safe streets, sense of community and same
lifestyles. Once former rural residents marry and have
children, rural life becomes attractive. Thus, attraction
efforts should be on enticing families in 30s and 40s back to
rural communities.
Rural communities can compete by promoting safety,
recreation, and a clean environment. Yet good public schools
are paramount, not only for the children, but the parents that
are attracted by quality schools are much coveted.
Deficient rural public services harm the poor. Fortunately,
there are low-cost ways to improve service delivery.
Governments can provide seed funding for rural counties to
share personnel and resources, for example. To build capacity,
Congress should fully fund Federal-State regional development
organizations and create new ones--for example, the Appalachian
Regional Commission, ARC.
Yet poor funding hampers the ARC's efforts. Still, the ARC
has accomplished much with modest resources. It provides bridge
loans and seed grants for infrastructure and other programs,
but it mainly brokers regional collaborations that cannot be
done by one poor community.
Other policies should be expanded regardless of residents.
For one, the Earned Income Tax Credit provides employment
incentives. Early childhood education is also valuable, as is
workforce training, access to transportation, mental health
provision, and child care. They should be tailored to account
for world differences. Accessibility is problematic, and
services are stretched as many communities are struggling
economically and are afflicted by drug crises.
In sum, with long, steady, patient effort, rural poverty
can be greatly reduced, producing tremendous benefits for
families, communities, and the American economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Partridge follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Mr. Partridge.
Mr. Leavy, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEAVY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER WEST
TOWN PROJECT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; ACCOMPANIED BY LINDA THOMAS,
DIRECTOR OF CLIENT SERVICES, GREATER WEST TOWN PROJECT,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Mr. LEAVY. Thank you. My name is Bill Leavy. I am the
executive director and founder of the Greater West Town
Community Development Project on Chicago's west side.
My agency is very honored to have been asked by Chairman
Smith and especially Congressman Davis to testify today to
deepen public understanding of the extent and impact of poverty
in urban communities and to share our experience using
community-based job training to combat poverty at the
individual and community level.
Our experience has shown us that intensive occupational
skills training in partnership with local industry is a highly
effective way to get people into quality career-track jobs and
help them lift themselves out of poverty.
I am very honored to be with Linda Thomas here today, our
director of client services. She is here to answer specific
questions you have about our program and the challenges we
face.
Greater West Town is a community-based economic development
initiative dedicated to expanding education and economic
opportunity for the low-income, primarily minority community
residents of the greater west side of Chicago.
We achieve that mission by providing comprehensive
workforce development and educational services through a model
community-business partnership strategy that links the
employment and training needs of neighborhood job seekers to
local economic development efforts and the workforce needs of
area companies.
Greater West Town services include occupational skills
training in the high-growth industries of woodworking and
shipping and receiving, job placement support services, and,
very importantly, an alternative high school for youth that
have dropped out in our community.
Greater West Town's programs are focused also to help meet
the needs of local employers for the skilled and motivated
workers they need to stay and grow in the area while competing
successfully in the global marketplace.
Greater West Town's target populations include ex-
offenders, welfare-eligible single parents, homeless,
dislocated workers, high school dropouts, and teen parents.
More than 1,800 graduates of the woodworking and shipping and
receiving programs have been placed in jobs with area
companies.
Our targeted community areas have historically been--I am
going skip this because Danny has covered the poverty in our
neighborhood so well. Danny, I couldn't do it any more or any
better.
I think my only point that I would like make is that there
are major racial barriers in the labor market, and we need to
admit them and deal with then. Unemployment rates for black men
are disproportionally high. In Chicago, black men are twice as
likely to be unemployed as Latinos and three times as likely to
be unemployed as whites. So it might be controversial for you
guys, but it is there. If you look at the numbers, it is
jumping off the page at us.
And, of course, a major barrier to finding jobs in our
community--so many ex-offenders come back into our community.
Our communities are disproportionately receiving ex-offenders
as they leave prison. And, of course, our high-school dropout
crisis is a huge, huge problem and barrier to economic
opportunity. Our neighborhood high schools have reported
dropout rates of up to 50 percent.
Our occupational skills training is a proven and highly
effective model that provides employment opportunities to high-
need populations. The program is designed and operated in
collaboration with local employer partners. Our employment
strategy, training strategy combines a bridge program with
basic skills remediation, and that leads to a hard skills
program, an occupational certificate program. And it is by
getting folks into that occupational certificate program that
we get them access to higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs.
Greater West Town meets employer needs by providing
trained, dependable, motivated workers. And we give employers
special value-added labor force development services that the
companies cannot provide or undertake on their own. Many local
firms credit our programs for their manufacturing success and
cite it as an important factor in their decision to remain in
Chicago and expand operations.
We continually upgrade our instruction with input from our
business partners to ensure industry relevance and to make
smart investments in cutting-edge technologies and training.
Our commitment to support our program participants that
ensure their success means that we continually assess
participants' needs and provide responses in a timely manner.
Recently, Greater West Town has expanded its focus on
networking with other community-based agencies to help provide
for fundamental needs such as child care, housing,
transportation, and food security.
Greater West Town's services are in more demand than ever,
but resources to support our work are shrinking.
And I think I am out of time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leavy follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. All right. Thank you, Mr.
Leavy.
Ms. Slater.
STATEMENT OF TAMARA SLATER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF GREATER NEBRASKA
Ms. SLATER. Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to
testify on the challenges and opportunities of serving people
in rural Nebraska impacted by poverty.
My name is Tammy Slater, and I live in Doniphan, Nebraska,
a town of 850-plus people. I am the chief executive officer of
Goodwill Industries of Greater Nebraska, located in the third-
largest city of Nebraska, Grand Island, with a population of
50,000. We are 1 of 157 autonomous Goodwill organizations in
the United States and 1 of 4 Goodwills serving Nebraska. Last
year, all Goodwills collectively connected 312,000 people with
employment in the United States and Canada.
Each local Goodwill organization has an assigned territory
that provides services with our geographic area in response to
the community's needs. Goodwill Industries of Greater Nebraska
services promote independence and access to the community, help
people become successfully employed, support goals of wellness
and recovery, facilitate group classes to teach responsible
behavior, and provide safe and affordable housing.
Our Goodwill mission is to serve Nebraskans experiencing
intellectual or developmental disabilities, severe and
persistent mental illness, substance abuse disorder, behavioral
health challenges, and acquired brain injury. Each year, we
serve more than 1,600 people in central and western Nebraska
with an array of services. We help people earn jobs and advance
their careers with specialized services to meet their needs.
Our service territory, as Chairman Smith referenced,
includes 55 counties and is about 54,000 square miles. Of the
counties we serve, 30 percent have a population of 3,000 or
fewer.
The challenges of poverty, as we all know, from lack of
stable housing, adequate nutrition, effective health care,
reliable transportation, quality child care, appropriate
education, and job training, are common to both rural and urban
areas. How we respond to these challenges may be different
because we do have sparse population, limited local resources,
and scarce employment opportunities.
Education and job opportunities are scarce, as I said, for
people in rural Nebraska, which is a major roadblock to lifting
people out of poverty. In 2015, rural employment was still
below pre-recession rates, and earnings are generally lower in
rural areas than those in urban.
Many of the individuals that we serve require comprehensive
services. So partnerships with State and local agencies are
important to address the complex needs of people living in
rural Nebraska. Community partnerships, such as our public
schools, United Ways, areas churches, local Salvation Army
posts, help us to build a network in order to help. Government
partners in health and human services, like corrections, voc
rehab, and Social Security, among others, help people living in
rural communities get and keep their life on track.
Though partnerships are crucial to success, it is tougher
in rural areas because there are fewer community organizations,
and we struggle to continue services due to the long distance
between communities, which are expensive to maintain.
We at Goodwill are grateful for our social enterprise that
create jobs and help fund services. Our team members work to
understand our neighbors in the communities we serve and how we
equip them to overcome poverty.
One of those neighbors is Peter. When Peter was referred
from Nebraska Vocational Rehab to Goodwill, which that is where
we get our referrals, he was unemployed, he was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety and
depression, a narcissistic personality disorder, and receiving
Social Security. Peter was also on probation for a felony, and
his employment retention was beyond poor.
Peter was able to access an array of services from our
Goodwill, including comprehensive benefits planning, behavioral
health day services, and our behavioral health employment
program.
Together with Peter, the team working to support him,
including Goodwill staff, the local probation, his counselor at
Nebraska VR, and his family members, he has had a great result.
He has been employed for over 1 year, continues to work with
our behavioral health and benefits planning. Peter is just one
example of the complexity of those we serve every day.
I thank you for this opportunity to share our experience.
We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in hearing from the
field and are very happy to serve as a resource. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Slater follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you, Ms. Slater.
Thank you very much to all of our witnesses, again, for
sharing your expertise and this perspective that I hope we can
all share. And we are going to go down the line here with the
question-and-answer and just describe our districts a little
bit.
Obviously, I mentioned earlier that, you know, we have
rural parts of America and remote parts. And, obviously, if
someone has a commute in the city for various reasons, there
can be significant commutes in rural and remote America as
well. Sometimes I describe parts of my district in terms of the
distance from a Walmart, maybe even a McDonald's, and it runs
in the hours. And so it can be very different.
And yet, when it boils down to it, many of the needs are
similar to even that of the inner city. And, of course,
sometimes the commute times of city life would have something
that no one in rural America would want to tolerate. But I
think that hopefully we will see programs, though, with
flexibility and the intent to help people in a very authentic
way.
But, Ms. Slater, again, thanks for being here and certainly
describing the district and your work and sharing some of the
stories that you did and certainly some of the clients you
serve. And it can be obviously challenging to address poverty
and the economic needs of the many communities across our
district because of distances even from organizations like
yours, even though you are pretty well spread out across the
district.
Although our unemployment rate is lower and high school
graduation is higher than in many States, I know there are
still many people struggling to find work and make ends meet. I
especially appreciate the story you tell about Peter in your
testimony and how, by coordinating services and helping him set
goals, he has been able to overcome some of the difficulties he
has faced and now has been employed for over a year.
At the Federal level, we are thinking about ways to provide
more flexibility, coupled with strong accountability, to make
sure that your organization and those like it can customize
services and benefits so you can help more people like Peter
succeed in the workforce.
As we think about our efforts, what should we make sure you
are able to do or do more of for you to be successful as an
organization? What are some of the key factors in what you do
which helped Peter be successful, find a job, and stay
employed?
Ms. Slater.
Ms. SLATER. Chairman Smith, when I think about that
question, the most important thing is it is not just one
service. When I talked about the variety of services that we
offer at Goodwill, getting a job, yes, is the main focus
because we all know that a job gives us purpose in life, but it
is the whole package.
Again, someone has to, first of all, be able to understand
and know what their barriers are and how can we help them. If I
think about Peter, with a mental illness, again, being able to
have people understand that illness and how do they now learn
to cope with that disease, whatever that may be.
Then, once they understand that, what also is important is
giving them structure to their life. Because, again, now that
they have this barrier or a mental illness to deal with, the
structure of how to cope with that, how important medication
is.
But then, also, how do we then teach them possibly new
skills or for them to understand what their skill set or
abilities are, and how do we help them understand that to then
match them with a proper job.
Then the other challenge becomes partnering with employers,
because we all know, you hear it across the United States every
day, it is tough to find employees. But, again, if we are then
bringing someone forward as a potential employee, what is their
openness to work with someone that may have some special needs
or a mental illness or other barriers that make it possibly
more difficult for them?
It has to be collaboration. I hope that was strong in my
message. It is not just one of any of us. It is all of us
coming together and making sure we understand what each of us
bring to the table.
So, Chairman Smith, the first answer would be flexibility
to be able to reach out to the proper services that will meet
that individual's needs.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Kneebone, would you be able to reflect on this at all,
given your insight?
Ms. KNEEBONE. Just to echo what Ms. Slater said, with the
flexibility being key, especially as you see some of the more
effective models being ones that are able to bring multiple
programs together, multiple partners to the table. That also
often brings with it a big administrative burden, a lot of red
tape, that puts a strain on the providers and takes resources
from the actual mission.
So I think the ability to allow for more experimentation
and figure out how, with accountability, we can allow for more
flexible strategies that work over different kinds of
communities, that would be key.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. All right, and very well. Thank
you.
I now recognize our distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Davis, for questions he might have.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank all of you who have come to share with us this
morning.
Each one of you talked about a lack of local resources for
addressing some of the key challenges of poverty--skill-
building, supports like child care, health care,
transportation, and housing.
Could targeted Federal investment make a real difference in
the kind of communities you have studied?
Perhaps, Ms. Slater, I will start with you.
Ms. SLATER. Yes, I believe so, because, again, the Federal
support directs how it trickles down to the State and the
region. So, again, it is back to the flexibility and really
acknowledging the lack of services in some of the areas.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Leavy.
Mr. LEAVY. Danny, I think, for us, we have been through a
lot of iterations of different job training programs. We even
been around since CETA, practically, you know--Job Training
Partnership Act, Welfare to Work Act, the American Recovery
Act. But the point is that most of these programs don't really
allow you to do the intensive kind of training we actually do.
We may have to cobble together resources from a whole bunch
of places to get enough money to get the basic skills
remediation, to get the work maturity training and this very
expensive occupational skills training, where our shop--you
have been there. I mean, this is an expensive operation, but it
gets people real skills, and people can really get quality jobs
and get a foothold on the career ladder. It is an investment
that is not being made and needs to be made.
So, again, in the old days, the Job Training Partnership
Act used to train tons of African American men in Chicago for
jobs in the city. That was almost all wiped out when we went to
a voucher-based system with WIA.
So, again, we need to put some of the money in job training
that we used to have during CETA days, and we used to make a
real, real commitment to skills training and lifting people out
of poverty. It can be done. I mean, we are a model. It can be
done, and Linda and I do it. But we need much, much, much more
consistent resource and commitment to comprehensive training
and getting industry--I am talking too much. Okay, I will be
quiet.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Partridge.
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I mean, I think the answer is yes, and I think they
described it well.
One of the things, though, I want to point out is,
especially in rural communities but even in urban communities,
there are these scattered programs and, you know, duplicate
services and all sorts of issues. And so that was one of the
reasons why in my testimony I discussed expanding regional,
State, Federal development organizations, like the Appalachian
Regional Commission. They exist on paper like in Ms. Sewell's
district, but it doesn't have any--I don't think there are any
resources.
And so what they would do is, they have--like, the
Appalachian Regional Commission only has a $100 million to $150
million budget; however, they are fantastic at being the broker
who leads the efforts that brings everything to the table to
help with the collaboration that the previous two spoke about
that is needed for this.
So I think that would be one of the ways that a relatively
small amount of money could have a lot of payoff.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
Ms. Kneebone.
Ms. KNEEBONE. I think that point really speaks to
addressing the capacity issue, because targeted Federal
investment absolutely could make a big difference in these
places, especially if it embraces these more wholistic,
crosscutting strategies that recognize the complexities that
are facing poor people in poor communities.
But if we want that funding to be able to reach into some
of these communities we are talking about, in places where
poverty has grown rapidly more recently, we have to overcome
that capacity gap. And having these quarterback-type
institutions that can play that role and more effectively
marshal all those resources is a critical step.
So any sort of funding, I think, should explicitly
recognize and target resources to that type of backbone
capacity-building and that sort of entity.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
And quickly, Mr. Leavy, I have always been intrigued by
your ability to work directly with local employers, where you
know that you are training people for what they need. How did
you accomplish that?
Mr. LEAVY. Without going into a lot of history, I mean, we
understood that race was a big variable. On the old west side
of Chicago, where my dad worked--and he worked at a
manufacturing company and he lived in the neighborhood, took
the bus, blah, blah,
blah. When that neighborhood changed to African American,
those local companies had extreme difficulty in absorbing and
training the local workforce, and we can see it 20 years later.
So we went to partner with the Industrial Council of
Nearwest Chicago, and these are our local employers. Let's work
together, let's create a program that is going to open the
doors for our community residents, brown and black, and is
going to get you the workers you need. And we actually sat down
and planned the bloody thing with our neighborhood small
businesses in woodworking and shipping and receiving with the
help of the Industrial Council.
The key to that was the employers have some sense of
ownership and involvement. And employers got to meet our
community people during training. They got to see their
dedication. They got to see the quality of our people. And
racial stereotypes were overcome, attitudes for ex-offenders
were overcome.
And they were setting the standards for training, so they
owned it. It is way more than just, you know, I have a company
that I am going to take a job order from and steal. No. These
guys are involved and they own the program design and they
owned its success. And you probably heard from them. We got our
funding cut, and these employers, they went to the mat for us.
So they own this thing.
And they are 99 percent white small-business owners from
the industrial corridor. And it is great when our participants
go on a field trip, a tour to a local company; they go in and
look at whatever the company is, and they see, oh, there is my
neighbor working. So they get the confidence that these guys
are giving our people, black people, a fair shake and some
opportunity. And, conversely, the small-business owner sees the
hard work, the diligence of our trainees.
And, of course, the credibility of our staff and the
training institution itself kind of brings the community and
business together. These guys have been doing this for 25
years, and----
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Great.
Mr. LEAVY [continuing]. They have got quite a reputation in
the employer community.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Very good. Thank you. Thank you
for your answers there.
Now we will go to Mr. Smith of Missouri.
Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Chairman Smith. It is an
honor to serve on your committee. And I like the ring of
``Chairman Smith,'' by the way.
I want to thank the panel for being here today. In fact,
these issues are extremely important. I have spoken with the
chairman and the members of this committee of my personal
background and interest in poverty. I grew up in a very
working-class family. And I represent an area in southeast,
south-central Missouri which is part of the Mississippi Delta,
and we have some very interesting dynamics of our own that we
deal with.
It is the largest congressional district in the State of
Missouri, just under 30 counties. It is roughly 20,000 square
miles, so it is very rural. Our largest populated community is
a town of 38,000 people, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
And I want to give you some interesting statistics about
our congressional district. According to the Economic
Innovation Group, I represent the 14th most economically
distressed congressional district in the country, out of 436--
14 out of 436, which is absolutely not good. It is also one of
the most conservative congressional districts in the country.
The Economic Innovation Group report on distressed
communities estimates that 49 percent of adults in my district
are not in the labor force, and the poverty rate is 20 percent.
These numbers are not much different than the city of St.
Louis. In St. Louis, 42 percent of adults are not in the labor
force, and the poverty rate stands around 22 percent. So we
have more people out of the workforce in our district than the
city of St. Louis.
And that is much different, though--Ms. Kneebone, according
to your testimony, I think these are interesting facts for the
State of Missouri. The picture is really different in the
suburbs of St. Louis. Just 6 miles from the city of St. Louis,
it is 36 percent adults who aren't working, and the poverty
rate is only 6 percent. The city of St. Louis, the poverty rate
is 22 percent. In my rural congressional district, it is 20
percent.
All that, in my opinion, says that rural southeast and
south-central Missouri experiences poverty in similar numbers
to the city of St. Louis, and both are far worse than the
suburbs of St. Louis, which the poverty rate is 6 percent.
We know that employment is the single largest determining
indicator of poverty, but we continued to see factories close
for the last several years. In many cases, we see our good-
paying factory jobs go overseas because of economic hardships
and burdensome regulations. These factories can't keep their
doors open, and that means that we are losing good jobs.
We had one employer in Butler County, Missouri, in my first
year in office that cited that the reason that they were
shutting down their doors and eliminating roughly 500 jobs was
because of unnecessary and burdensome regulations that they
couldn't comply with and was moving to Mexico. This is a real
problem and something that has to be changed.
When nearly half of adults in my district aren't working
and are out of the labor force entirely, our communities are
deeply in trouble.
Mr. Partridge, with many rural areas declining in
population, who is staying behind? Are these areas becoming
wealthier as those who remain have good jobs and choose to
stay, or are they becoming poorer as those without means are
unable to leave?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
I think the answer to that question is it depends. Because
if we are talking about a rural district--very, very, very
rural districts where people left, what is left behind is often
relatively wealthy farmers that are very big. So, in that
sense--then you have other districts where you have brain
drain, where the talented people leave, and that leaves behind
a workforce that is less educated and it is just going to be
less dynamic. There is going to be less business formation and
so forth.
So it really depends on the setting. There is just a lot of
diversity.
Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. So just a lot of barometers and
issues.
You have been doing a lot to improve the economies of rural
areas. Could you give us some examples of what maybe you have
done for people in their 30s and 40s to help grow the economy
in rural areas?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Well, what I have done is I have tried to
point out that when people--especially in the last 15 years,
there has been a lot of emphasis on attracting young people
with really cool downtowns and so forth, and rural communities
can't compete on that. They are just not going to do very well
on that basis.
However, they can compete on being family-friendly and
having a really nice environment and lifestyle for certain
people. So, in that sense, people in their 30s and 40s are no
longer looking for cool bars; they are looking for a place to
send their kids and be safe. That is where rural communities
can thrive.
Mr. SMITH OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Thank you.
And next we have--yes, Ms. Sewell. Sorry. Go ahead.
Ms. SEWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, panelists. This is the first subcommittee
hearing as a new member of Ways and Means that I get to
participate in. And I have to tell you that I am very excited,
Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Davis, about the opportunity
to be on this subcommittee.
My district is the Seventh Congressional District of
Alabama. I grew up in this district. It is a district that
includes the city of Birmingham, which is the largest city in
the State of Alabama, but it also includes Selma, Alabama,
which is my hometown, and many rural communities around Selma.
The median income for a family of four in my district is
$34,000, and 22 percent of the families in my district live in
poverty.
It is affectionately called the Black Belt of Alabama
because of the very rich soil. That used to be very agrarian
and agricultural. It is where a lot of the Cotton Belt of
Alabama, back in the day, used to exist. Now it is filled with
a lot of rural communities that are struggling.
I often say that what we lack in the Seventh Congressional
District in terms of economic prosperity we more than make up
for in heart, in fight, in spirit. What we need are better
opportunities, more resources, a hand up, not a handout.
Having said that, I was very intrigued by what you were
talking about, Mr. Partridge, in terms of regional
collaboration. The Appalachian Regional Commission, which you
cited, has done some great work across the 13 States that it
encompasses, with relatively limited resources when you think
about the fact that they have to deal with 13 States.
In fact, my district doesn't get a lot of resources from
the ARC. Many of the collaborative regional resources that we
receive come from the Delta Regional Authority, which has a
very limited budget. It is one-tenth of what ARC is. Yet it is
literally the lifeline for so many of the communities I
represent.
Can you talk a little bit about the regional collaboration
and what we can do as lawmakers that are not in the position of
providing appropriating dollars but, rather, authorization of
different social net programs that can be effective in reaching
communities like so many of us represent?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you, Ms. Sewell. I think you really
described a lot of the issues well.
So when you get down into central southern rural Alabama,
you have a lot of counties. They lack resources. There are many
disparate Federal--you know, Economic Development
Administration, USDA Rural Development, Department of Labor
workforce training, and so on--all these disparate groups. And
these counties just lack things like even an economic
development coordinator or one without a lot of training who
knows how to write these very complex grants.
And so that is one of the key things that ARC has done, is
it is a Federal-State, so it is flexible, it isn't one-size-
fits-all, but they are really kind of a leader. And they have,
like, how to do grant-writing, to bringing all these disparate
counties together to work collaboratively, because if you get
jobs in one county, people commute and take them, it helps the
whole region.
So, in that sense, what I view these organizations as doing
is they are the broker. They are the ones who can bring
everybody to the table with relatively modest resources.
Ms. SEWELL. What do you suggest we would do on the
authorization side when it comes to workforce development?
I would like to get you, Mr. Leavy, involved as well. You
know, one of my passions is workforce development, because here
is what I know for a fact. So many of the folks that I
represent want better opportunities. They want jobs. The
problem is finding those jobs. In rural America, a lot of those
manufacturing opportunities have really dried up. And so, when
you finally do get an opportunity, people haven't worked in
those manufacturing jobs for generations.
My biggest example is Wilcox County, which is the poorest
county in the State of Alabama. It is in my district. And we
got--I am the only Democrat in Alabama, but I have very good
working relationships with my Republican colleagues. And we
were able to convince the Governor to give us a $150 million
manufacturing opportunity in the poorest part of my district.
It is a copper manufacturing facility. Here is the problem: We
are now busing in people from other communities, Tuscaloosa, to
come and take these jobs, because we have had generations of
people who haven't had an opportunity to work.
Now, given this great opportunity, how do we bring folks up
to speed when it comes to workforce development?
Mr. LEAVY. Okay. I will take a shot at that.
What happens is, when people are out of the workforce for a
long time, they don't trust the employers, they don't trust the
system, they are kind of hanging back, they are not willing to
make the effort, because they are afraid to fail. So you have
to get them started in baby steps, and you have to have
institutions that can engage them credibly.
And if they are engaged and if they believe in the training
institutions and they start putting forth the effort, then you
can see these folks can learn just like anybody else can learn.
Okay. So it is a--we call it work ethics, okay? And we
train for it on the shop floor every day. I mean, Linda's shop
is a workplace, and you have to come on time, and you have to
respect your fellow workers, and you have to follow the boss's
instruction. So you get work ethics training every day on the
job. And that is an essential part of getting people to
understand that this can work for them, okay, and getting used
to the workplace disciplines.
So you have the workplace disciplines; you have basic
skills remediation. And then people say, oh, hey, if you pass
this, if you do that, you are going to get to run that machine,
you are going to drive that forklift. People can see progress,
okay? And these folks can learn it. They need to get motivated
and believe it is possible for them.
Ms. SEWELL. Chairman Smith, thank you so much for allowing
him to answer that question.
I think it just goes to the need that we can try to explore
in this committee, workforce development strategies that will
work across the board for people dealing with poverty issues in
suburbia, in urban, and in rural.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman SMITH. Right. That is absolutely--and, certainly,
for the answers to the questions, that is very relevant.
Mrs. Walorski?
Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank
you for holding this important hearing. I am absolutely
passionate about this issue.
And I am so glad each of you are here. My district is
northern Indiana, and so we are 2 hours from Chicago and have,
in the past, on some other committees I have been on, looked at
best practices and places and things that are happening in
Chicago that really are, I think, a standard right now of where
we are looking.
I want to give a shout-out to our Goodwill in Indiana, the
Goodwill Industries, and what they have done in our district,
our State, as they have been able to, you know, hone in on this
issue of collaboration, which I want to come back to, Ms.
Slater, in a second and talk about that.
I think it is incredible that all of your research, all of
your findings, and other experts that we have had speak to
Congress over the last couple of years--it is so apparent to me
that all the work that we are doing--when we look at
traditional approaches from government, which has been increase
funding, increase funding, increase funding, and when you start
looking at the numbers of people in poverty, where they are
coming from, where they are moving from, it just becomes so
important, in my mind, to do the kinds of things you are
talking about, which is connecting people to this equation.
It still takes people on the front lines to coordinate. It
takes people on the front lines to be able to honor human
dignity and to make sure that we are looking at all the seeds
of the problem and we are actually doing something to make sure
that there is an economic ladder out of poverty in this
country, the greatest country on the face of the Earth.
And I am so convinced that the solutions to our very
problems are right here within the kinds of research that you
have all done and the kind of things that you have moved along,
that we are moving the dignity of people along as well, that,
you know, we are equipping a nation. We are doing it, using
each other in collaboration.
And I think, Ms. Slater, to your point, my district is very
much a case study like what you are talking about in Nebraska.
I am 2 hours from Chicago. We are urban; we are rural. We have
all the same kind of makeup that, you know, a lot of these
small rural areas are.
I am terrified that if we don't come together and fix this
in a bipartisan way that rural America will not recover and
that we are going to be groping for bigger issues later if we
don't come together and solve this now.
But I am so convinced about this issue of collaboration.
And I am working on a bill right now as we approach TANF.
Can you just talk about some of the best practices that you
have used in your community to collaborate on the front line
and why that is going to be important as we look at, you know,
tangible assistance to needy families in the real quick future
here?
Ms. SLATER. Sure. Thank you very much.
Truly, the thing that comes to mind that you just
summarized is it is about people. It is about people working
together that are there to actually serve the people we are
seeing every day.
And so, truly, it becomes--and I think it is one of the
advantages, maybe, of the rural community, is we know each
other. It is asking for help. It is actually acknowledging what
your core is and what cores come from other agencies.
The other thing that I think is a plus in the rural
community, but not unique, is the fact that if there is an
individual with a barrier in a small community, everybody in
town knows that. They talk about it. They know Tammy at
Goodwill, and they will call and see if we can be of
assistance.
But it is really about the whole relationship and trying
not to make it the competition that sometimes it becomes but
what are we really good at. And that is one of our best
practices, is we have a lot of diverse programs, but at the end
of the day, what are we the best at. So if something else comes
along, we have learned to say ``no'' and to extend a hand and
offer something that we may know about to someone else.
Mrs. WALORSKI. That is incredible.
Ms. SLATER. Because you cannot be good at everything.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Absolutely. And that is a great point.
I just have a question for all of you in this last minute
here. One of the things in my community that is a plus, both on
the rural and the urban side, is the benevolence of my
community and the private dollars in regional coordination that
are beginning to flow into our own community from our own
people--private dollars, community foundations that are really
understanding this.
I guess, Mr. Partridge, let me just address that to you; it
is your research. Do you see that emerging now in this country,
where we are looking at partnerships, even financially, so it
is not just a one look at a government but we are looking at
resources inside our communities as well?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. I think you exactly described it right, in
the sense that, you know, a lot of this has been promoted--you
know, attempts for collaboration have been promoted by just
things haven't been working. And a lot of it is that problems
are a lot bigger than what one community can handle.
However, at the community level, as you suggested, I mean,
the best way is to--every community has great resources. They
have entrepreneurship that is untapped. They have human
resources that is untapped. And as I noted in my testimony, you
know, just the multiplier effects of new jobs created,
spillovers from small-business creation and local
entrepreneurship are just rather remarkable.
And so, in that sense, building from within is, I think,
the best strategy, and the kind of collaboration you are
talking about is the way to go.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Chairman
SMITH. Thank you.
And next we have Mr. Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for the hard work that you do. And it sort of
seems removed just a little bit, as we are in this formal
setting, from the reality of the topic that we are discussing,
doesn't it? I always sort of get overwhelmed by that thought.
But I was thinking back to one of the first hearings that I
had when I was chairman and working with Mr. Davis as the
ranking member, and I shared my story. There are a lot of
stories here, and you have a lot of stories, a lot of stories
out there in the audience today, too, listening. And as I
shared my story, after the hearing Mr. Davis said to me, ``You
know, you and I could have grown up in the same neighborhood.''
And sometimes we forget that we all come from different places,
we all come from areas in our life where we struggle.
And Sandra Collins was one of those people from the
Goodwill Industries organization in the Seattle area. She
testified not too long ago when I was the chairman of this
subcommittee. What a success story for Sandra. Sandra was
homeless. She had two teenage daughters and was addicted to
meth. She had a criminal background. She had no high school
diploma, did not have a driver's license when she first
connected with the Goodwill.
But, as she was giving her testimony, she got news that she
was just about to be promoted to supervisor. So Sandra is still
working at the Goodwill in the Seattle area and is now the
manager. So we are proud of her and proud of the work that
Goodwill Industries does all across the country, and we need
every one of your efforts.
So Ms. Sewell was concerned about people coming in to
populated areas and taking jobs, and I am concerned about some
of the rural areas having the opportunity to come into those
areas and get jobs. But we have to balance that, I know.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Partridge, are there any programs
that--you know, because sometimes people have to make those
decisions to relocate to find a job. What are we looking at as
far as programs to help people relocate, not necessarily to
take all the jobs but to participate in the workforce?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Well, thank you for the question, Mr.
Reichert.
I think you really hit upon--one really important issue is
that, in the past, the key way that Americans did economic
opportunity, reached it, was by migration. We were probably the
most mobile society in the world for generations. And in the
last generation, that has really changed. Young Americans are
much less mobile than before.
So one of the ways that poverty can be reduced is taking
people from places that there are a lack of opportunities and
moving them to places where there are opportunities. And one of
the problems is they are relatively poor, they lack resources
for that. They don't have a network, you know, to find a job.
Their skills might have been okay for where they are at, but
they are not necessarily good in an urban environment.
So I would encourage efforts to, at least on a pilot basis,
to try to look at helping migration of workers to where there
are more opportunities. However, it is just a little bit more
complex than saying, ``Here is some money, go move,'' because
of these other issues about the lack of job networks and the
lack of training for the kind of jobs that would exist in urban
areas.
Mr. REICHERT. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Leavy, I wanted to touch on one of your comments as you
rolled off the statics about unemployment between Black men,
Hispanics, and Caucasians. And I was reading your statement,
and you used the word ``controversial'' in your comments, but
it is not used in your statement. And I don't see anything
controversial about it. I just wanted to point that out.
Because people are people, in my opinion, and we are here to
help.
So let me just further state very quickly that I think it
is sad that the 50-percent dropout rate--I mean, that is just
an unacceptable number, and I think that is one of the things
we have to address.
I am an old cop, 33 years on the streets in King County. I
worked with people on the street in drug addiction, alcohol,
homeless, all the time. One of the things we need to do--and I
am very high on prevention. What do we need to do to get these
young people to graduate so they don't start already behind the
curve?
Mr. LEAVY. Well, we have actually--we started an
alternative high school for dropouts in Chicago because the
dropout rates were so severe----
Mr. REICHERT. But it is still 50 percent. We need to do a
lot more.
Mr. LEAVY. They have been--it has been--it has been--I use
the term, schools had and are still reporting, neighborhood
schools had and are still reporting the dropout rate in Chicago
has improved a little bit. Okay? I will give you that. And
there has been a lot of intervention on dropouts and special
programs for dropouts, some of which reasonably work in the
city.
So we are a lot better on the dropout front than we were 10
years ago. And we did a lot of research on that and got some
bills passed with Senator del Valle at the State level to deal
with the re-enrollment of dropouts. So there is a commission in
Illinois for the re-enrollment of dropouts, and we got the
issue in the public attention, and so we have made some serious
progress.
There are still tons of at-risk kids. And we run an
alternative school in the heart of the west side, and our kids
are pretty alienated sometimes and pretty tough. And putting
together, again, the programs that can engage them and
discipline them and challenge them is a hell of a lot----
Mr. REICHERT. I would like to engage further with him at a
later time, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. Chu.
Ms. CHU. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
I represent a very urban/suburban district in Los Angeles
County, which has 10 million people. And, Mr. Leavy, the work
that you do is in an area that is very similar to this.
In L.A. County, we have a very, very large homeless
population. In fact, the most recent count revealed that there
are approximately 43,000 homeless individuals living in
shelters or in the streets.
Now, you have done a lot of work with similar urban/
suburban populations in Chicago. How could Federal antipoverty
programs best assist homeless populations in places like L.A.
County and Chicago?
Mr. LEAVY. I am trying to get Linda to talk. She is the
expert in--she provides all the intensive support services to
the very high-need folks. And we have, what did we say, 22
percent homeless and near-homeless in the training program.
So tell them a little bit about the transitional work and
how it helps the homeless.
Ms. THOMAS. So we, through our city dollars, have come
across what we call transitional jobs training funding, where
we can work with our clients to provide additional services. We
try to help our customers become self-sufficient and to be able
to attend training without worry.
And so we are able to create jobs within the program and
give them a weekly stipend to support them with their needs. We
are able to address their ability to secure housing and their
ability to get to training and their ability to have clothing
and doctors appointments so that they will have a positive
outcome through our transitional jobs training funding.
Ms. CHU. So, for this homeless population, what elements of
what you have talked about are the most important? For
instance, how important is accessibility to quality housing?
Ms. THOMAS. For the homeless population, if I don't have
secure housing, I will not do well in the job. Before I can
take on employment, I have to make sure I have secure housing,
I have to make sure that I have transportation to get to that
job every day.
So, when they are in the training program, we are going to
immediately on day one start to look at those resources that
are out there to make sure this person will have secure
housing. Because we have a lot of people, they are homeless
with a roof, so they are going to a cousin's house today, they
are staying with a friend tomorrow.
And so we are going to work with an agency that is going to
help them move into housing where it is secure, so when I start
my new job, I can go to work not worrying about where am I
going to live tomorrow or will I get back to the shelter in
time to get a bed.
So those are the ways that we work strongly to help out
with the homelessness, for housing.
Ms. CHU. Yeah.
And, in fact, to follow up, in L.A. County, we have higher-
income neighborhoods located right next to low-income and poor
neighborhoods. And, in fact, poverty is found in pockets and
separated, oftentimes, just simply by a neighborhood.
So how did we get into this situation, and how can we
reduce this inequality between the neighborhoods that are
located right next to each other?
Mr. LEAVY. Wow. You know, Danny knows, you know, you have
the west side, Austin, and then you have Oak Park, and you have
a serious dividing line. Oak Park is a pretty liberal,
progressive place. They have PADS programs, and they try to
keep themselves accessible to the low-income folks in the city.
And, you know, I am not sure how you integrate across those
barriers. It is a voluntary thing in Oak Park. I live in Oak
Park, and they are just very progressive folks out there.
In terms of your question, you know, how do you create
cooperation across community boundaries, neighborhood
boundaries, I mean, Chicago is extremely racially segregated.
And you have neighborhoods on the south and west side that, you
know, folks on the north side will not go in. And you have
pockets of wealth and affluence on the north side.
And you need community development--most of our development
resources traditionally are--I talk about in my longer thing.
You talk about triage. You are putting resources for those most
likely to succeed. You are not making the investments in the
high-risk areas, in the high-poverty areas where you have
multigenerational poverty. I mean, everybody wants to pick a
winner, and everybody is afraid to waste money on what might be
a loser.
And, again, this is an attitude that, you know, we see in
job training, we see in education, we see across the board--we
see in housing and urban development sometimes. So this triage
attitude is something that we really have to get our head
around and fight against.
What is happening in our training program--because the
labor markets are improving and some people are moving ahead
and some people are getting jobs, but those left behind are
really desperate, are really sinking. Okay? That is the
problem. We are separating more.
You talk about income inequality. We talk about it, you
know, on the cosmic scale when Bill Gates and those guys have
all the money, but it also happens in our communities. We are
segregating the rich and the poor even more, and we need to
figure out how to fix that. Clearly, jobs are part of that, and
people investing in jobs for low-income people is clearly a
part of that solution. But, again, I think there are more
economic development issues involved here than I am prepared to
mouth off about right now.
Ms. CHU. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Rice.
Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Interesting hearing. It seems to me that the way you deal
with poverty is you have to do what you can to make sure people
have opportunity on the one hand, and then on the other hand
you have to do what you can to make sure they take advantage of
that opportunity. And it seems like, mostly, today, we are
talking about the second part of that equation, trying to get
people to take advantage of opportunities that they have.
My district, I got seven counties in South Carolina. I have
Myrtle Beach, a big popular tourist destination, and employment
rates are pretty low there. But if you go inland, I have 3 of
the top 10 poorest counties in the State. They were very
agrarian and textiles, tobacco and textiles. So you can guess
what has happened to them in the last 40 years, right?
Agriculture doesn't employ as many people, and certainly not
tobacco. Tobacco is a fraction of what it used to be. And
textiles, those jobs are all gone. There are a lot of empty
factories in Marion County, South Carolina.
So, on the one hand, you know, the first part of the
equation, trying to do what you can to make sure people have
opportunity--and we haven't talked much about that today. But
things like tax reform, regulatory reform that Jason Smith was
talking about earlier is so important and a lot of the reasons
why a lot of these companies that used to be in Marion County
have left. And I put that on Washington, D.C.
And that is why I am so very happy that this committee is
now working on tax reform and the House is working on
regulatory reform, because I think the first part of that
equation--I mean, you can train people all you want to, but if
there are no jobs available when they get out, it doesn't help
very much, does it, Mr. Leavy? So, I mean, you have to get
them----
Mr. LEAVY. Believe it or not, a trained workforce can be an
incentive for a company to come into an area----
Mr. RICE. That is true. That is another part of it.
You know, there is a program in the Florence-Darlington
Technical College; they have a program for computerized digital
machining. And they can take 80 kids a year, and it is a 2-year
program. And they have two problems: One, they can't get 50
kids a year to sign up for it; and, two, if they do get them to
sign up for it, most of them don't finish. They get through 1
year. Well, the reason they don't finish is because the
companies are so hungry for these kids that they hire them
before they finish their program. So, in other words, we have
this opportunity, but we can't get people to take advantage of
the opportunity.
And I believe most people would rather work than be on
government programs. I think if you rely on the government to
provide for your livelihood, you will always live in poverty. I
think the government is incapable of providing for you. But we
have 80 different means-tested government programs, many of
which are designed to help people to move to work, to move to
take care of--and they are not working for a large number of
people.
There are still significant numbers of people who would
rather be on government programs than actually go out and take
that computerized digital machining class and go to work and
make $60,000 a year.
How do you fix that, Mr. Leavy?
Mr. LEAVY. Well, I mean, we deal with it every day.
Opportunity plus effort equals success, okay? People have to
make the effort to take advantage of the opportunities
presented to them. And do they see and believe and is the
opportunity real for them? Their perceptions are a lot. And I
live in this every day.
In Linda's programs, she is able to get and engage and
discipline her people, and the people are enthusiastic, and she
has credibility and trust, and the people march through the
program and they go out in the labor market and they do well.
Okay. And my high school used to be that way, but it is not so
much anymore. In our high school, West Side Academy, we are
having an issue of student engagement and motivation----
Mr. RICE. Okay. I need you to wind down, because I want to
ask somebody else too.
Mr. LEAVY. What?
Mr. RICE. I want to ask somebody else too, so wind up, if
you can.
Mr. LEAVY. I will tell you about the West Side Academy some
other day. But, you know, it is a question of credibility and
trust, and are they perceiving this thing as really working,
are they believing in it. And if they believe in the leadership
of that school, that school can discipline them, can draw them
out, can challenge them. Okay? And they will see it as a
benefit to them in their lives. They have to have credibility
with those kids, and you can get them to do what they need to
do.
Mr. RICE. Mr. Partridge, how do you get them to take
advantage of the opportunity?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you.
One of the things that I have always thought about poverty
is that not only do we have to train workers in places where
there is a lot of high poverty, there has to be also the
opportunity so the person has the incentive to go for 2 years
through a training program so they can get a job. And so, in
that sense, it is a chicken/egg problem that, you know, there
have to be jobs to have incentives for people to get the
training so they could actually get a job. So you are
absolutely right. It is a chicken/egg issue.
And one of the things that you raised is the general
macroeconomic environment has not been very favorable for the
lower half of the income distribution. And, you know, any
efforts there--manufacturing was an old mainstay for that
group. And any efforts there to build up that part of the
economy, I think, would have very large positive effects.
Mr. RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rice.
Mr. Curbelo.
Mr. CURBELO. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
this hearing.
I think you always hear politicians talk about the middle
class, and, indeed, the middle class is important. It is the
engine of the American economy. But that is also where most of
the votes happen to be. In poor communities, there aren't as
many votes. Yet we are here because you care about this issue,
Mr. Chairman, we care about this issue, and certainly our
witnesses do.
So I thank you all for coming.
Ms. Kneebone, I want to talk to you about suburban poverty.
I represent a largely suburban district. And you discussed the
migration of poverty from the urban cores out into the suburbs,
and of course this is a major concern for me.
I think one of the aggravators or the factors that
contribute to this phenomenon is the lack of transportation out
in the suburbs. Most urban cores have fairly sophisticated
public transportation grids, but as low-income individuals move
from the urban cores out to the suburbs, does that lack of
access to public transportation aggravate their circumstances?
Ms. KNEEBONE. That is a real challenge for suburban
communities across the country, particularly for the poor
residents, because as both jobs have shifted away from downtown
and poverty has grown more in suburbs, those aren't often
happening in the same places. So the distance between where
jobs are located and where poor people can afford to live has
grown. And we have seen the number of nearby jobs for poor
residents fall across the country in urban, suburban, and rural
communities.
So the fact that suburbs often don't have public transit
systems or, when they do, they are not connected suburb to
suburb where a lot of these job opportunities are growing does
exacerbate that mismatch. It makes it much harder to connect to
those employment opportunities that can give them a path out of
poverty and also makes it more incumbent on them to own a car
and have to deal with the high costs of maintaining a reliable
car that would actually be able to get them to where the job
opportunities are.
Mr. CURBELO. So, given that infrastructure investment is a
priority for the new administration and for many of us here in
Congress, you think there is an opportunity to use some of that
poverty data to more effectively make these investments.
Ms. KNEEBONE. Yes, absolutely, both in terms of how we
think about where to make transportation investments, in terms
of roads versus transit options, you know, where those dollars
go, how they are deployed, but also in terms of thinking about
where housing is around those networks, where we can take
advantage of density around those transit hubs to increase
access to opportunity both through affordable housing and
through transportation.
Mr. CURBELO. Thank you.
Dr. Partridge, I should get you on the record about the
great theft of 2003, when The Ohio State University robbed the
University of Miami of a college football championship.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, the year before, we defeated
Nebraska in Pasadena. But let's set that aside, because there
is very little time.
I do want to ask you about education. And we have built
this idea in our society that every young person has to go get
a 4-year degree at a traditional university like The Ohio State
University, like the University of Miami. And, in many ways,
our Tax Code supports that idea.
Do you think that the lack of an acknowledgement of the
diverse paths that there are to success, to getting educated,
to acquiring the skills needed to obtain a quality job, that
the lack of recognition is aggravating poverty in a lot of
communities?
Mr. PARTRIDGE. Thank you for the question.
In some cases, yes, that there is a segment of the high
school population that just is unaware of the opportunities.
And you are right, many high school curriculums look like a
pre-college training program, and so there are fewer of those
opportunities.
I think, you know, besides curriculum reform and providing
better information to students--that is one of the things that
the economists found. If you give the students information,
they will make better decisions. Besides that, one of the areas
I think is just fantastic in terms of investment and in terms
of the role they play in communities and broader communities is
community colleges and technical colleges. They are on the
ground doing the workforce training, but, even beyond that,
they have more of a regional footprint that brings people
together in a collaborative process.
So, in that sense, investment in technical colleges and
community colleges would have a large payoff for the population
that we are talking about.
Mr. CURBELO. Okay. Thank you very much.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
Again, thank you to all of our members here today and
certainly to our witnesses. Your expertise is valuable, and we
could probably extend this for a few more hours just in
discussion. With that being said, though, you will have the
opportunity to extend your remarks for the record. The record
will be held open for 2 weeks. And so, if you wish to respond
in more depth to some of these questions, you will have the
opportunity to do so.
And, with that, I say thanks again, and the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions for the Record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brady, Kevin | B000755 | 8164 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 1468 |
| Davis, Danny K. | D000096 | 7927 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1477 |
| Kind, Ron | K000188 | 8216 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 1498 |
| Larson, John B. | L000557 | 7866 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 115 | 1583 |
| Thompson, Mike | T000460 | 7806 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1593 |
| Crowley, Joseph | C001038 | 8068 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1604 |
| Tiberi, Patrick J. | T000462 | 8102 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 115 | 1664 |
| Nunes, Devin | N000181 | 7826 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1710 |
| Sanchez, Linda T. | S001156 | 7844 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1757 |
| Higgins, Brian | H001038 | 8088 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1794 |
| Marchant, Kenny | M001158 | 8766 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 1806 |
| Reichert, David G. | R000578 | 8212 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 1810 |
| Buchanan, Vern | B001260 | 7885 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 1840 |
| Roskam, Peter J. | R000580 | 7926 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 1848 |
| Smith, Adrian | S001172 | 8040 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NE | 115 | 1860 |
| Jenkins, Lynn | J000290 | 7950 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 115 | 1921 |
| Paulsen, Erik | P000594 | 8003 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MN | 115 | 1930 |
| Chu, Judy | C001080 | 7837 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 115 | 1970 |
| Reed, Tom | R000585 | 8090 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NY | 115 | 1982 |
| Sewell, Terri A. | S001185 | 7792 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | AL | 115 | 1988 |
| Schweikert, David | S001183 | 7802 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 115 | 1994 |
| Renacci, James B. | R000586 | 8106 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | OH | 115 | 2048 |
| Kelly, Mike | K000376 | 8708 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 2051 |
| Meehan, Patrick | M001181 | 8125 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | PA | 115 | 2052 |
| Noem, Kristi L. | N000184 | 8147 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 115 | 2060 |
| Black, Diane | B001273 | 8153 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TN | 115 | 2063 |
| DelBene, Suzan K. | D000617 | 8374 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 2096 |
| Walorski, Jackie | W000813 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2128 | |
| Holding, George | H001065 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | NC | 115 | 2143 | |
| Rice, Tom | R000597 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | SC | 115 | 2160 | |
| Smith, Jason | S001195 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 115 | 2191 | |
| Curbelo, Carlos | C001107 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 2235 | |
| Bishop, Mike | B001293 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 2249 | |
| Doggett, Lloyd | D000399 | 8181 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 303 |
| Johnson, Sam | J000174 | 8159 | H | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 603 |
| Levin, Sander M. | L000263 | 7997 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 683 |
| Lewis, John | L000287 | 7902 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | GA | 115 | 688 |
| Neal, Richard E. | N000015 | 7967 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 115 | 854 |
| Blumenauer, Earl | B000574 | 8116 | H | D | COMMMEMBER | OR | 115 | 99 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.