[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             WELFARE REFORM

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the calls 
for welfare reform. There are numerous problems in the system, one of 
which is outlined in a letter I received recently from the Governor of 
Idaho, Cecil Andrus, to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna 
Shalala.
  In Idaho, June Reid recently experienced the absurdity of our welfare 
system to the tune of $3,341. June is a hard-working single mother 
struggling to make ends meet, while providing her children with a 
loving home. Mr. President, she does this on her own--without 
Government help and without child support. June was being forced to pay 
$3,341 in public assistance money her ex-husband had accepted to 
support one of their children. The State was being forced to collect 
this money because Reid would not go on welfare herself. Mr. President, 
let this be clear, had she accepted public assistance, the State would 
not have had to recover the money.
  This is a perfect example of how the one-size-fits-all approach of 
the Federal Government just does not work. We need welfare reform and 
we need it now.
  This situation was luckily resolved by the decisive action of the 
Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus. I applaud Governor Andrus for his 
commonsense approach to this problem created by the absurdity of 
Federal regulations. While I commend the Governor, I must also commend 
June Reid for her strength and values.
  As the issue of welfare reform evolves, I hope that my colleagues in 
the Senate will look at this situation and prevent the creation of a 
web of regulations. One solution will soon be introduced by my 
colleague, Senator Kassebaum. The proposal would simply relieve States 
of their portion of Medicaid funding. In return, States would have 
responsibility for the basic welfare program, Aid to Families With 
Dependent Children. The savings States would experience from Medicaid 
would be spent on AFDC without Federal strings, regulations, in a 
manner they feel is in the best interest of the citizens of that State. 
There would no longer be a one-size-fits-all program that does not fit 
anyone, and certainly not rural States like Idaho.
  Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will review this situation 
carefully, and see the common sense and logic behind the proposal soon 
to be presented by Senator Kassebaum.
  I ask that the letter and news article attached be inserted into the 
Congressional Record following my statement.
  The material follows:

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                                State Capitol,

                                      Boise, ID, January 28, 1994.
     Hon. Donna Shalala,
     Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: I write to bring to your attention a 
     federal regulation which absurdly and relentlessly works 
     against the working poor who are struggling to keep 
     themselves and their families independent of public 
     assistance.
       A situation was recently brought to my attention regarding 
     Ms. June Reid, a single mother who lives in Post Falls, 
     Idaho, with her two children. Ms. Reid's income is $720 per 
     month (she has been unsuccessful in her attempts to obtain 
     child support), she does not receive public assistance, and 
     she arranges her work so that she is home with her children 
     when they are not in school.
       Several years ago, Ms. Reid's daughter lived for 15 months 
     with Ms. Reid's ex-husband. During that time, her ex-
     husband--unbeknownst to Ms. Reid--applied for and received 
     public assistance for their daughter. When their daughter 
     returned to live with Ms. Reid, the state of Idaho, acting in 
     accordance with federal regulation, requested repayment from 
     Ms. Reid for the public assistance provided to her daughter 
     while her daughter was in the care of her ex-husband.
       Now, it is obvious that Ms. Reid's income makes repayment 
     of the resulting $3,341 debt virtually impossible. Equally 
     undeniable is Ms. Reid's determination to support herself and 
     her children without public assistance.
       These realities collided when the state of Idaho, while 
     following federal regulation, stood in the ridiculous 
     position of intercepting Ms. Reid's tax refunds and forcing 
     her through years of court battles, asking her to repay a 
     debt she financially could not repay, when the state would 
     have forgiven the debt if Ms. Reid would have accepted public 
     assistance (for which she is eligible).
       Lawyers will tell us the state is on solid ground in 
     pursuing repayment from Ms. Reid. Morally, we could not be 
     more wrong.
       I agree with you and the President that we must make self-
     sufficiency more appealing than public assistance. To this 
     end, I submit the following recommended change:
       42 U.S.C. Sec. 654 State plan for child and spousal 
     support:
       ``(4) provide that such State will undertake--
       ``(B) in the case of any child with respect to whom such 
     assignment is effective, including an assignment with respect 
     to a child on whose behalf of State agency is making foster 
     care maintenance payments under part E of this subchapter, to 
     secure support for such child from his parent (or from any 
     other person legally liable for such support), and from such 
     parent for his spouse (or former spouse) receiving aid to 
     families with dependent children or medical assistance under 
     a State plan approved under subchapter XIX of this chapter 
     (but only if a support obligation has been established with 
     respect to such spouse, obligation has been established with 
     respect to the child is being enforced under the plan), 
     utilizing any reciprocal arrangements adopted with other 
     States (unless the agency administering the plan of the State 
     under part A or E of this subchapter determines in accordance 
     with the standards prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to 
     section 602(a)(26)(B) of this title that it is against the 
     against the best interests of the child to do so), except 
     that when such arrangements and other means have proven 
     ineffective, the State may utilize the Federal courts to 
     obtain or enforce court orders for support, provided, 
     however, that the State shall not undertake to secure support 
     for such child, spouse, or former spouse from a person who 
     would be or is eligible for or is receiving aid to families 
     with dependent children benefits under Title A of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) for the period 
     during which such person would be or is eligible or is 
     receiving such benefits and to secure support from such 
     person would not be in the fiscal interest of the state or 
     would not be in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom 
     such person owes support;''.
       Certainly, this is but one way to redress the bureaucratic 
     red tape that keeps well-meaning individuals and families 
     stuck in a system of welfare dependence. It is a constructive 
     step toward welfare reform in general, and one which provides 
     a corrective measure toward this specific example.
       In the meantime, I have returned to Ms. Reid the tax refund 
     money intercepted by the state, and I have ordered the Idaho 
     Department of Health cease in its attempts to collect the 
     remainder of the original debt.
       With best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Cecil D. Andrus,
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____


                      Woman Wins in Welfare Fiasco

                          (By Cynthia Taggart)

       Coeur d'Alene.--On Gov. Cecil Andrus' order Thursday, the 
     state stopped hounding a Post Falls woman to repay $3,341 in 
     public assistance money her ex-husband had accepted to 
     support their daughter.
       The governor also ordered the state Department of Health 
     and Welfare to repay June Reid $1,735 it had applied to the 
     debt last year when it withheld her state and federal income 
     tax refunds.
       ``I'm speechless, I'm amazed,'' Reid said Thursday after 
     her attorney, Norm Gissel, told her the governor's office had 
     called him with the news. ``This made it all worth it. It's 
     not just getting the money back. That's a bonus. It's getting 
     attention to that law that's great.''
       The law required Reid to repay the money because she never 
     went on welfare herself. Had she also accepted public 
     assistance, she wouldn't have had to pay.
       After Andrus read news accounts of Reid's battle with the 
     state agency, he began asking questions, said Scott Peyron, 
     the governor's spokesman.
       ``When he was satisfied he knew the facts, he insisted that 
     the department make it right,'' Peyron said. ``The Department 
     of Health and Welfare is beginning to work now on legislation 
     that can be a state-level remedy.''
       The state sued Reid to recover public assistance money her 
     former husband had accepted while he cared for their 
     daughter. Although eligible, Reid never had applied for 
     public assistance, maintaining that she wanted to protect her 
     family from the welfare stigma.
       The child lived with her father for a year and a half 
     before returning to Reid for three years. Reid also supports 
     her son.
       Under state law, people who take public assistance to 
     support their minor children do not repay the money. Because 
     Reid was not on public assistance but was the child's mother, 
     the state expected her to repay the money her ex-husband 
     accepted to care for the girl.
       When she argued that she had no money and another child to 
     support, Reid was told the only way to stop the growing debt 
     was to join the public assistance program.
       Gissel fought the case for Reid in court, but lost three 
     times. Each time, judges agreed Health and Welfare was 
     following State law Gissel finally decided the law needs to 
     be changed.
       On Thursday, Andrus agreed and said the law also needs 
     changing on the federal level. The state stands to lose 
     public assistance money if it doesn't follow the federal 
     requirement to seek repayment whenever possible.
       ``Nonsense comes in many forms, and this is the latest 
     example of it from the federal government,'' the governor 
     said in a written statement. ``I salute June Reid for her 
     determination to remain at work and not accept public 
     assistance even in the face of this trying and unfair 
     situation.''
       Andrus promised to introduce legislation at the National 
     Governors Association meeting next week to urge Congress to 
     change a law that requires ``states to beat down the doors of 
     people like Ms. Reid who are trying hard to do the right 
     thing.

                          ____________________