Date: 1987-12-16
Speaker: TOM DOWNEY (democrat)
Chamber: H

and CHARLES RANGEL. The measure amends title IV of the Social Security Act by establishing a grant program. using funds from the AFDC Program. to conduct demonstration projects to reduce current AFDC housing costs by constructing and rehabilitating permanent housing for rental to families who would otherwise be homeless. Current usage of AFDC funds for housing for homeless families has become impractical. and outrageously expensive. In cities like New York and Washington. DC. a single hotel room" for a family of four can cost as much as $3.000 a month. These costs are subsidized by the AFDC Program. Moreover. the "Welfare Hotels" are dangerous places where prostitution and drug dealing are often known to take place. -They are clearly not the proper environment for homeless families with children. Yet these hotels are the only places available in some cities for homeless families. Our cities would rather use AFDC funds for the construction or rehabilitation of permanent* housing for these families. but the Social Security Act disallows this more logical use of funds. Our provision does not ask for a wholesale change in the Social Security Act. We ask only that the AFDC Program fund temporary demonstration projects to test the theory that the Federal Government can save money by using funds to establish safe and inexpensive housing instead of squandering money on dangerous and exorbitant emergency shelter. The demonstration project in the welfare reform bill will not solve the problem of homelessness among families. but it is a major first step. Another section of the bill under consideration today incorporates a bill I introduced earlier this year. This provision increases the maximum dependent care deduction allowed under the Food Stamp Act of 1977. In the 98th Congress and again in the 99th Congress. I introduced legislation to amend the Food Stamp Act to separate and raise the excess shelter and dependent care deductions. The excess shelter deduction was enacted to allow food stamp households. paying in excess of 50 percent of their monthly net income for shelter to deduct the difference up to. the cap from their net income to calculate food stamp benefit levels. Any shelter costs not covered by the deduction were paid with income considered available to supplement the food stamp benefits and purchase other essentials. Because the deduction cap was so low. recipients with very high shelter costs were forced to choose between "heating or eating." The dependent care deduction was created to allow unemployed and workingpoor adults to work by financing part of their day care costs. But. under the coupled deduction formula. 75 percent of all child care costs incurred by food stamp recipients could not be deducted. I was pleased that the substance of my proposal to separate the two deductions was included in the Food Security Act of 1985. The Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act. which passed earlier this year. raised the excess shelter deduction to a level more realistic for food stamp recipients. The dependent care deduction. however. continues to be insufficient. The Food Security Act set the per household dependent care deduction at $160 per month in crder to be consistent with the deduction allowed under AFDC. One key difference remains between the two deductions: under AFDC. the deduction may be taken per dependent. while the food stamp deduction is for the entire household. The legislation which I introduced on March 26. H.R. 1843. eliminates this inequality by allowing food stamp recipients to deduct up to $160 for the care of each dependent. The House welfare reform proposal incorporates this provision and goes even further by increasing the deduction to $200 per month per dependent under 3 years of age and $175 per month for older dependents. This is a responsible and necessary action to aid an important segment of those in need and I am pleased that it was included in the House bill. As increasing numbers of food stamp recipients move into training programs and jobs. many more households will be able to benefit from the deduction. Assured that their dependent care needs can be addressed. the transition will undoubtedly be an easier one. and the successes will be much more far reaching. Other provisions of .H.R. 1720 are also worthy of praise. Its efforts to provide quality education and training programs will assist participants in finding meaningful. longterm employment. By targeting teen parents and longterm welfare recipients. the bill will serve first those most in need. The bill provides necessary incentives to work by allowing participants to earn more than under current law before their benefits are reduced. It improves enforcement of child support orders and guarantees day care and health coverage. It supports families by requiring all States. beginning in 1990. to permit twoparent families in which the principal earner is unemployed to qualify .for benefits. Finally. it encourages States to increase their welfare benefits by increasing Federal matching funds. While I believe that the bill as a whole does not. and. given the current political climate. can not. go nearly far enough. it clearly moves us in the right direction toward our related goals of creating avenues for selfsufficiency for welfare recipients and bringing our children out of poverty. I urge the bills adoption.