[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IOWA'S WAY TO END WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, during the December recess break our 
colleague, Senator Tom Harkin had an article about Iowa's attempts to 
improve welfare programs.
  I applaud what Iowa is doing, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
Harkin article appear at the end of my remarks.
  What I particularly like is the individual attention and individual 
plan that each person out of work receives.
  That is what we have done in our program for those who are disabled, 
frequently, simply called by its technical title, Public Law 94-142, 
where we have mandated that all young people with disabilities should 
get help from our public schools.
  What the Iowa program does not do and what we have to do, if we are 
going to have real welfare reform of great significance, is guarantee 
job opportunities to anyone who is out of work 5 weeks or longer.
  I have, on several occasions, introduced legislation to do that. And 
one of these years, we will move in that direction.
  I hope we can at least start on a demonstration basis in the not-too-
distant future.
  Senator Harkin has been extremely sensitive to those who are less 
fortunate in our society, and I applaud him for that, and I thank him 
for the contribution he made through his article, which appeared in 
Roll Call recently.
  I ask to insert Senator Harkin's article into the Record at this 
point.
  The article follows:

                     [From Roll Call, Dec. 6, 1993]

                Iowa's Way to End Welfare as We Know It

                          (By Sen. Tom Harkin)

       I've never believed in stringing up a ``safety net'' to 
     catch society's less fortunate. In fact, I think we should do 
     away with the idea of a safety net altogether; it clearly 
     isn't working.
       In its place we should extend a ladder of opportunity. 
     Instead of catching the poor after they fall, why not give 
     them a boost onto the ladder and allow than to catapult 
     themselves into the job market?
       I've always said that the best social program is a job.
       And the way to ensure that everyone has a chance at a good 
     job is to promote independence over dependence and 
     empowerment over paternalism. That's the philosophy that 
     animates the Americans with Disabilities Act, my landmark 
     legislation that is allowing many who were forced to rely on 
     government assistance to join the mainstream of working 
     American taxpayers.
       And that's the philosophy behind Iowa's welfare reform 
     plan, which passed the state legislature last spring with 
     virtually unanimous bipartisan support.
       I firmly believe it is not that our government asks too 
     much of our citizens; it is that our government asks to 
     little. The American people are eager to help when they 
     believe those they are helping are also helping themselves.
       That's why I'm proud of Iowa's revolutionary law and think 
     it should serve as a model for the rest of the country. At 
     the start of the second session of the 103rd Congress, I'll 
     be introducing legislation in the Senate to that effect, the 
     Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act.
       Nearly everyone agrees that the federal welfare program is 
     broken and needs to be rethought. During the 1980s, the 
     program was amended, with some of the most sweeping changes 
     enacted in the Family Support Act of 1988. Yet despite these 
     thoughtful reform efforts, spending on Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC) has increased, as has the number of 
     families and children on welfare.
       In 1980, 3.6 million families received AFDC benefits, at a 
     cost of $19.6 billion, adjusted for inflation. By 1992, 4.8 
     million families were clinging to the welfare safety net, 
     costing taxpayers $22 billion. That's enough to pay every 
     family in Iowa $19,000!
       A welfare system that is 60 years old and was built upon 
     yesterday's economic conditions and demography just will not 
     work today.
       But I think the Iowa plan will work today--and that's why 
     I'd like to make this unique plan a model for the nation. 
     Iowa's plan stresses the idea that government is a contract: 
     The government has a responsibility to offer a hand up, and 
     individuals have a responsibility to grab onto it.
       The centerpiece of Iowa's unique program is the Family 
     Investment Agreement, which requires all families on welfare 
     to enter into an individualized contract with the state. Each 
     family will sit down with a social services worker and detail 
     the steps they will take to move off welfare and into self-
     sufficiency. A specific time when welfare benefits will end 
     is established.
       In return, the state promises to provide the necessities to 
     make it happen--like child care assistance, education, and 
     job training. Welfare recipients also have additional 
     incentives to find employment, such as higher asset limits 
     that allow them to keep more of what they earn.
       Once this contract is agreed to, benchmarks for progress 
     are established. A single mother of three, for example, might 
     need to return to high school to earn her diploma and get 
     additional job training in order to become viable in the job 
     market. She would be offered child care assistance and health 
     care for her and her family.
       In the event this mother refused to hold up her end of the 
     bargain--if she refused to attend classes or fulfill her job 
     training commitment, for example--the state would declare her 
     in default. In that event, full benefits would continue for 
     three months. For the next three months, payments would be 
     reduced, with only the children covered. After the sixth 
     month, benefits would be cut off altogether.
       This is not a one-size-fits-all reform program. Each Family 
     Investment Agreement will take into consideration the unique 
     problems that confront each family. In some cases, benefits 
     will be needed for six months. Other families will require 
     two years. The key is whether the family is making progress, 
     acting responsibly, and keeping its end of the bargain.
       This individualized approach is important because arbitrary 
     uniform time limits called for by some do not recognize the 
     unique circumstances of different families and may 
     unintentionally increase the time some people spend on 
     welfare. An inflexible two-year maximum could well end up 
     being a two-year minimum welfare stay.
       I worked with state and federal officials to secure the 
     waiver necessary to implement this innovative program. The 
     Clinton Administration gave final approval to the waiver in 
     August, and the first Family Investment Agreements will be 
     negotiated and signed early next year.
       One important reason the waiver was needed is the current 
     virtual ban on welfare recipients' acquiring assets.
       We've all heard Poor Richard's adage, ``a penny saved is a 
     penny earned.'' But current federal rules turn that adage on 
     its head: a penny saved is a penny confiscated by the 
     government. Any family that accumulates more than $1,000 in 
     assets or owns a car worth over $1,500 loses benefits.
       That won't happen in Iowa--and it shouldn't be permitted to 
     happen under the federal program modeled on Iowa's that I 
     will propose. Money in the bank is like a rung on the ladder 
     of opportunity. The government should keep its hands off and 
     let families invest--perhaps in a small business--so they can 
     become taxpayers.
       To help them along, Iowa families will be able to 
     accumulate $5,000 in assets and own a car worth $3,000. They 
     can also establish an individual development account of up to 
     $10,000 for long-term expenses such as education, a home, or 
     the start-up of a small business.
       The Iowa program forces families to act responsibly. It 
     also allows them to invest in themselves as they travel the 
     road toward self-sufficiency.
       I choose the words ``self-sufficiency'' carefully. The 
     program is not just about getting off welfare and getting a 
     job. A job by itself is not the answer. A job can be so low-
     paying that somebody can remain below the poverty level and 
     still be on welfare.
       So the issue is what kind of a job and whether that 
     individual can become self-sufficient enough to take care of 
     a family.
       That requires sitting down with individuals, looking at 
     unique circumstances, education, background, and training, 
     and deciding: What are they capable of doing? How soon are 
     they capable of doing it? What support services do they need 
     in the interim to get them to self-sufficiency? How long will 
     it take them to get back on their feet?
       Of course, one key to the success of this program is a 
     well-trained staff at the Department of Health and Human 
     Services. Case managers will work closely with families and 
     therefore must have smaller caseloads.
       The state will also work on economic development efforts in 
     conjunction with welfare reform. Iowa will create a ``one-
     stop shop'' program for work-force development. These centers 
     will bring vocational rehabilitation and other job services 
     together to coordinate job-training activities. This is all 
     designed to enable both sides to live up to the agreement.
       But to make welfare reform a reality nationally, we must do 
     more. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit is important to 
     ensure that work pays more than welfare. Universal health 
     care is also essential because many families remain on public 
     assistance simply because they cannot afford to lose Medicaid 
     coverage.
       Enforcing child-support collections is also a vital move 
     toward breaking the welfare cycle.
       In 1991, the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support 
     said collection of child support fell far short of court 
     awards. Eleven million children have been awarded $15 billion 
     in support payments, but about $5 billion is not paid each 
     year.
       The Welfare to Self Sufficiency Act will address that 
     problem by requiring employers to send copies of W-4 forms to 
     the state child support recovery agency. That agency could 
     then match records to see if the worker owes child support, 
     and business would then be required to garnish the wages of 
     deadbeat parents.
       Taking these steps will help us achieve a larger purpose--
     giving people dignity, hope, and opportunity for the future.
       I look forward to doing away with welfare as we know it--in 
     lowa as well as in the rest of the nation--and moving into an 
     era where work is rewarded and responsibility welcomed.
       We can do that by replacing yesterday's safety net with 
     tomorrow's ladder of opportunity.

                          ____________________