[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E217-E218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  FEDERAL POLICIES ON CITIES AND STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROBLEM OF 
                                POVERTY

                                 ______


                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 30, 1995
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, fixing a broken welfare system is one 
of the most significant challenges this Congress will face. As a newly-
elected Member of Congress, I come to Washington with a background in 
city government. As a former councilmember and former vice-chair of the 
National League of Cities Task Force on Federal Policy and Family 
Policy. I am intimately familiar with effects that Federal policies 
have on cities and States as they grapple with the problem of poverty.
  I am deeply concerned that sweeping budget and block grant proposals 
before the new Congress will have devastating long-term consequences 
for children and families as well as for the Nation's cities. Mr. 
Speaker, as you well know, welfare reform is fundamentally a children's 
issue as two-thirds of recipients are children--70 percent in Texas. In 
my district alone, 51,957 children are living in poverty with 35 
percent of these children being under 18 years of age. In fact, of all 
435 congressional districts, mine ranks 30th for the number of poor 
children.
  Proposals which would convert welfare [AFDC], food stamps, SSI 
disability, or other survival programs for children and families into 
block grants to States would strip these programs of their entitlement 
status and thereby strip State and local governments of their ability 
to respond to increasing needs. In entitlement programs, more Federal 
money flows into cities through AFDC, food stamps, and SSI disability 
programs. This automatic influx 
[[Page E218]] of Federal funds designed to meet the increased need to 
meet the needs of our communities would cease under the block grant. 
Cities and States would be left holding the bag in the almost 
inevitable event that recession hits again and caseloads rise.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has found that if these 
proposals were implemented, today, some 5 million children would be 
denied benefits. Interestingly enough, while the Personal 
Responsibility Act suggests orphanages and foster homes as the solution 
to families that cannot care for their children, it falls far short 
when it comes to funding these facilities. Under the Personal 
Responsibility Act, of the 541,000 children who are currently receiving 
AFDC benefits in Texas, 288,000 would be denied benefits and only 310 
federal orphanage slots would be funded.
  Furthermore, the USDA has recently calculated that the Personal 
Responsibility Act would decrease funding for USDA food assistance 
programs in Texas by over $1 billion per year. That is a cut of almost 
one-third from current levels of funding.
  Despite some claims to the contrary, the facts show that the vast 
majority of AFDC families are clearly not having additional children to 
increase their benefits. In Texas, nearly 72 percent of AFDC families 
have only one or two children. The national average is even higher--73 
percent. Others claim that most poor people are not, and choose not to 
be, employed. The facts, again, prove otherwise. The vast majority of 
poor Americans--four out of five--are children, elderly, ill or 
disabled, or already working full- or part-time at below-poverty wages. 
And for those who are not employed, they are not alone. More than 7 
million Americans from all walks of life were out of work and actively 
looking for jobs by the end of 1994. Another 4.8 million either were 
working part-time because they could not find full-time jobs, or had 
grown too discouraged to continue searching. The truth of the matter 
is, adults, and particularly family heads, want to work. However, as in 
the children's game of musical chairs, there simply are not enough 
seats for everyone.
  An effective welfare reform effort must include major new investments 
in real job creation. The bottom line is that work should pay and 
working more should pay more. Full-time work should provide enough 
earnings combined with earnings supplements such as an expanded Earned 
Income Tax Credit [EITC] to help get families out of poverty. 
Individuals who can work should have access to full-time work and 
community service jobs should be offered as a last report to those who, 
after an aggressive job search, still cannot find work in the regular 
economy.
  Sufficient funds must also be invested in child care, if we are truly 
committed to finding gainful employment for the poor. A survey of 
Illinois AFDC recipients found that child care problems kept 42 percent 
of those surveyed from working full-time--and 39 percent reported that 
child care problems kept them from going to school. These results 
should not be surprising. Census Bureau data tells us that non-poor 
families spend an average of 6 percent of their income on child care, 
while low-income parents are forced to pay roughly a quarter of their 
income for child care. Effective welfare reform must address these 
significant impediments to employment.
  In addition, for welfare reform to succeed, families must be 
guaranteed comprehensive health insurance that they cannot lose. Lack 
of decent health insurance in low-wage employment is a major barrier 
for recipients who are trying to leave welfare for work, but are 
legitimately concerned about their own health, and that of their 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge you to consider what will happen to children and 
families if cities and States exhaust their Federal funding under these 
circumstances. Children facing imminent danger of abuse or neglect 
could be placed on waiting list instead of being removed immediately 
from their homes. Needy mothers and children might be turned away from 
a county or city welfare office simply because AFDC funds for that 
month or year already had been spent. Or in the best-care scenario for 
children and
 families, cities and States would be forced to pay 100 percent of the 
costs of continuing aid to eligible families after Federal funds run 
out. And of course the States would have to deal with the human 
suffering, social problems, and costs of emergency services that will 
result from greater destitution among children and families.

  All of you know that eliminating the entitlement status of these key 
child survival programs will not cause the needs of poor children to 
disappear. The consequences of pending block grant proposals are all 
the more troubling because they are likely to be accompanied by new 
responsibilities placed on States and countries that will deny basic 
cash assistance to as many as 5 to 6 million needy children, including 
up to two-thirds of all children now receiving AFDC. Children born to 
unmarried teenage mothers, those for whom paternity has not been 
established, and those whose parents have received AFDC for more than 5 
years could lose all benefits under this welfare reform proposal.
  This is not genuine welfare reform, but rather welfare punishment. 
What many congressional leaders are calling welfare reform, many 
children will call empty stomachs * * * and Texas will call a fiscal 
disaster. Genuine reform would be lifting poor children and families 
out of poverty and by creating real jobs, providing quality child care, 
good health care, expanding education and training, and strengthening 
child support enforcement--taking the tough and sometimes costly, but 
nonetheless necessary, steps to make the system work in the long-term 
for poor families and for all Americans.


                          ____________________