```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5687-S5689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, we are about to be engaged in a debate in 
this Chamber on welfare reform, an issue which has failed the 
recipients, has failed the American taxpayer, and on which I think men 
and women of good will on both sides of the political aisle agree we 
must undertake some major structural reforms. I think that we can do so 
in a bipartisan fashion.
  It was in this context during the recent April recess that I spent an 
entire morning at one of the busiest welfare offices in Las Vegas, the 
West Owens District Welfare Office. May I say, Mr. President, to my 
colleagues, it was an educational opportunity, and if my colleagues 
have not previously done so, I would urge each of them to avail 
themselves of this opportunity.
  I first sat in on a welfare eligibility interview, a process that 
lasts for approximately 1 hour. I observed this process from the 
beginning to its conclusion.
  In the Owens Welfare Office, eligibility workers sit in very small 
interview rooms, somewhat affectionately referred to as the ``chutes.'' 
The eligibility worker has a desk literally surrounded on all sides 
with shelves full of various forms and regulations that deal with the 
nearly 20 different programs a person in need of welfare assistance may 
be eligible to receive. The client comes into the interview room from 
the reception area, sits across from the eligibility worker's desk, and 
the interview process begins.
  Now the interview I observed, contrary to some of the stereotypical 
images that are often projected, was of a young Caucasian woman. She 
was married, living with her husband and two children. Her situation 
represents the prototype of the kind of problem that many people in 
America face who seek welfare assistance.
  She and her husband had moved to Nevada from California, and 
currently both are working. Although their jobs pay above the minimum 
wage, they are still unable to provide for their family of four. Her 
employer structures her workweek so that her hours do not exceed 20 
hours per week, and so she is ineligible for the medical benefits which 
her employer pays for those who work full time. One of her children has 
a preexisting medical condition, so medical care is a necessity. Her 
husband's employer provides no medical insurance. She also needs to pay 
for the cost of child care, and her child care cost is more than 50 
percent of the gross hourly wage that she makes each hour.
  Following this eligibility determination interview, I sat down to a 
very frank discussion with eligibility workers concerning the areas of 
the welfare system that they believe need reforming.
  Let me say, Mr. President, I had anticipated the thrust of the 
comments would be that you all in the Congress need to provide more 
money; the system works. In effect, I thought I might be hearing a 
defense of the status quo, because these are eligibility workers, the 
committed and dedicated people who choose, in terms of their own 
educational background and their work experience, to provide care to 
others. So these are highly compassionate, sensitive people who see the 
travail of life before them every day.
  To my great surprise, they are as enraged and as frustrated and as 
angry as are the American people and each of us who, as Members of 
Congress, have had a chance to look at this system that has failed so 
abysmally. Their suggestions and comments to us, I think, are extremely 
worthwhile for us to consider. They are the people that are on the 
front lines. They know the nuances of the system. They know how the 
system is ripped off. And they also know of its shortcomings in 
providing help to those who all of us in this body would acknowledge 
are in genuine need of help.
  As one of the underpinnings of the welfare system, I think all of us 
can agree, whether we position ourselves in the political spectrum to 
the left of center, to the right of center, or in the middle, that we 
want a system that encourages people to work.
  Most of us in America have a work ethic that is part of our 
background. It is part of what our parents shared with us. And, for 
whatever measure of success we may have achieved in life, it is the 
presence of that work ethic that contributed to that success.
  But a person who is on welfare, who gets a job, who achieves that 
first rung on the job ladder, oftentimes is confronted with a horrific 
choice. Immediately that individual may be cut off from all medical 
care, all child care assistance, and that individual may, in fact, find 
herself in a more disadvantageous position than before she attained 
employment.
  That part of our system, it seems to me, ought to be fundamentally 
changed. We ought to be encouraging and rewarding those people like the 
young applicant whose interview I observed, who is going out, getting a 
job, and trying to help herself and her family.
  Our present system provides all of the disincentives by not providing 
transitional help for her, so she can get a little better job, that 
pays a little bit more, so that she is able to provide for herself and 
her family. That, it seems to me, ought to be one of the structural 
incentives that any welfare reform ought to encourage.
  The welfare system is replete with conflicts, both indefensible and 
maddening. It is the sort of thing that encourages the American public 
to react as it does when the word ``welfare'' is mentioned.
  I would like to talk about a few of those, if I may, Mr. President.
  One of the key policy problem areas the eligibility workers brought 
to my attention is how the term ``household'' is defined for 
determining the eligibility of individuals living together at one 
residence for different welfare assistance programs.
  One of the most egregious examples of how policy and effect conflict 
is the Food Stamp Program definition of ``household.'' Assume with me 
for the moment that two families have the same number of family 
members, and the same income. Applying the ``household'' definition can 
mean a family where everyone is a legal citizen is ineligible for food 
stamps, while a similar family with one member, who is an illegal 
alien, is eligible for such assistance.
  Let me be more specific.
  Let us assume family A and family B both have a total monthly 
household income of $1,200, and each parent individually earns $600. 
Family A's two working parents are both legal citizens. Family B also 
has two working parents, but one is an illegal alien.
  [[Page S5688]] Under the present system, in determining eligibility, 
the eligibility worker looks at the household members, and finds two 
working parents who are legal citizens. The worker must count family 
A's full $1,200 monthly income. Since family A's total household income 
is more than the monthly gross income allowed for food stamp 
eligibility, which is $1,066 for a two-person family, family A is 
ineligible.
  However, with family B, the eligibility worker looks at the household 
members, and does not count the $600 income from the illegal alien 
parent. Only the half of family B's gross monthly household income 
earned by the legal citizen parent is counted. Family B's gross monthly 
household income is only $600 a month, well under the maximum allowed.
  Family B, with the illegal alien, receives food stamp assistance. 
Although technically the illegal alien member of family B does not 
directly receive food stamps, it is the member's presence as part of 
the household that allows for this incongruous and indefensible result.
  Why, I would ask, are we penalizing the two-parent working family 
whose members are legal citizens by denying eligibility for food stamp 
assistance, while allowing a two-parent working family with an illegal 
alien family member to receive assistance? Would it not be fairer to 
determine a family's eligibility for assistance by looking at the total 
income of the household rather than by who is in the household?
  That is whether the individual parent is illegal or a legal alien. 
This is a situation that must be corrected.
  On the other hand, the Food Stamp Program specifically requires 
welfare offices to report any illegal alien who tries to apply for 
benefits. However, there is no similar requirement for the Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children Program. Why? It makes no sense as a 
matter of policy.
  Throughout this country, people are justifiably angry about illegal 
aliens who have access to our Nation's welfare system. We can and we 
ought to, at the very least, require all of our welfare assistance 
programs to provide information and to report illegal aliens to the 
Immigration Service. We have all heard from INS that there is simply 
not enough staff and funding available to investigate every alleged 
illegal alien, and that priority decisions
 must, by necessity, be made. But we are creating an atmosphere where 
those who test the welfare system feel relatively safe in attempting to 
defraud it. If we do not want illegal aliens to receive benefits they 
are not entitled to, we need to ensure adequate resources are available 
to prevent it from occurring.

  Another area of policy conflict occurs with young teenage parents. We 
require young teenage parents under 20 years of age to participate in 
education and training programs or lose their eligibility for AFDC 
assistance. But once that same young parent turns 20, she continues to 
be eligible for AFDC benefits, while no longer being required to 
participate in any education or training program or to work.
  So what kind of an incentive do we create for those mothers not to 
participate in education or job training programs and not to work?
  Millions of American women in this country are single heads of 
households who get up every morning, get their kids ready to go to 
school, get themselves out in the job force, and yet we provide no 
assistance for these women. And the welfare system, as it is currently 
structured, provides assistance for those who neither seek employment 
nor participate in job training programs. Again, this is a policy 
conflict we ought to correct.
  The eligibility workers also pointed out to me the difference in 
treatment under the Food Stamp Program between disabled seniors living 
on limited incomes and homeless people. Disabled seniors who usually 
have a house many times are eligible to receive only $10 a month in 
food stamp benefits. I was told by one eligibility worker that she 
actually sees seniors with cases of obvious malnutrition, something she 
said would just break your heart, but she is unable to provide more 
than $10 under the system the way it is currently structured.
  On the other hand, a homeless person gets expedited service, has 
benefits available in 5 days, and is able to get the full benefit of 
$115 a month. It seems to me there is a dichotomy here that is 
irreconcilable. In the one instance, everyone agrees the deserving 
senior, who currently gets only $10 a month, desperately needs more to 
survive, and yet she is not provided that assistance.
  Another example of a policy and an effect in conflict occurs when an 
unmarried man and woman live together. Each person is considered 
separately to determine eligibility for food stamp benefits, even if 
the woman is pregnant with the man's child. It is only after their baby 
is born that the man and woman are considered to have a child in 
common, and are then treated as a married couple, and are no longer 
eligible for separate individual benefits.
  Also, couples who were married, who divorce, but continue to live 
together can be certified as separate persons for food stamps as long 
as they do not have a child in common. We ought to be encouraging, as a 
matter of public policy, people to be married and to raise their 
children as a family. Allowing this aberration--two people living 
together, previously married, divorced, and now able to receive welfare 
assistance--clearly is a disincentive we must correct.
  Intentional welfare fraud can also result in a conflict between 
policy and effect. If a person receiving aid to families with dependent 
children benefits is discovered to have committed an intentional 
welfare fraud, the fraud sanction is to reduce benefits by up to 10 
percent or to eliminate the AFDC benefit. The same family may then be 
eligible for more food stamps and a higher housing allowance because of 
the reduced AFDC cash benefit, a benefit which was reduced as a 
consequence of their intentional fraud perpetrated upon the system.
  That creates the situation in which there is essentially no penalty 
for this person, because the reduction in AFDC cash benefits is likely 
to be offset by increases in benefits from other programs.
  Under the Food Stamp Program, the penalty for fraud is either a 10- 
or 20-percent reduction in benefits. However, the reality of this 
situation is when someone commits a fraud, the welfare system basically 
ends up paying such people to pay the system back for the previous 
fraud from one program, by increasing that person's benefits from other 
programs. It makes absolutely no sense at all, Mr. President.
  I have long been a supporter of strengthening our ability to enforce 
the payment of child support from irresponsible parents. It came as a 
surprise to me to learn that the Food Stamp Program, that I have long 
supported as an essential part of our safety net program, does not 
require--does not require--its recipients to participate in efforts to 
try to retrieve unpaid child support payments. All Federal welfare 
assistance programs must require its recipients to cooperate in State 
and Federal efforts to recover outstanding child support payments. We 
need to use every available option to bring delinquent parents back to 
the reality of their financial responsibility for their children.
  The eligibility workers also brought to the table suggestions for 
ways to help eliminate these policy conflicts.
  First, they suggest more standardization of eligibility requirements 
for all welfare programs. This would particularly help to prevent a 
fraud penalty reduction in benefits in one welfare program resulting in 
an increase in benefit eligibility in other programs, the net effect of 
which is to provide no net income loss or penalty for the individuals 
seeking to defraud the system.
  They also suggest the penalty percentage reduction be made more 
flexible to allow for differences in the degree of frauds. 
Additionally, the eligibility workers would like to see fraud penalties 
follow the person. By that, Mr. President, we mean that under the 
current system, an individual who is identified as having perpetrated a 
fraud in one State can collect and apply for benefits in another State.
  If a person commits a welfare program fraud in one State, and then 
moves to another State, the person's fraud penalty from the first State 
should follow the person to the second State for collection.
  Also, all welfare programs should require their recipients to 
participate in 
[[Page S5689]] State and Federal efforts to collect delinquent child 
support. As I stated before, we need to avail ourselves of all options 
available to ensure child support payment is enforced. When I 
reintroduced my child support enforcement legislation, my new bill will 
provide all welfare program recipients cooperate in child support 
enforcement efforts, as a condition of their receipt of assistance.
  I want to reemphasize how much each of us can learn from the 
practical knowledge these frontline eligibility workers have about how 
the welfare system works, where the problems are, and what the possible 
solutions are to address them. They are not defenders of the welfare 
system status quo. They see both the positive and the negatives of the 
current welfare system, and they are just as frustrated with the 
welfare system as are the public and Members of Congress.
  The welfare system must be substantially changed, and on that we can 
all agree. We can all agree too that there will always be people who 
will need the safety net welfare assistance provides at some time in 
their lives, and we must ensure the net is there for them.
  But as the Senate begins its deliberations on welfare reform, we need 
to heed the lessons learned by these eligibility workers. As we make 
the necessary changes, let us always remember to work to ensure the 
current policy conflicts are not carried forward. Let us not create 
more unintended consequences when we change the system.
  I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________
```