[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1601-H1604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DISCUSSION OF WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Baesler] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Speaker, today what I would like to take the 
opportunity to discuss is the proposed welfare programs that we have 
been talking about here in the Capitol and throughout the country over 
the last several months. The question, I think, is why are we 
discussing welfare reform today in the Capitol and throughout the 
country? I think there are four basic reasons.
  Everybody in the country, from whatever community you might live in, 
has seen abuses. They follow people through the food lines and see food 
stamps being used for things they did not think they ought to be used 
for. They know circumstances where food stamps have been sold for cash, 
trafficking in different stores throughout the community. They know 
people who live in section 8 housing who are not supposed to have other 
people live with them, but they know they are there. They report them, 
and nothing has happened. They know there are folks who could work that 
are not working who could do something constructive and are not doing 
something constructive. They know there are folks that all their life 
in all the generations have been on food stamps, poverty, other type of 
welfare programs, and they are frustrated. The public generally is 
frustrated and angry.
  The second reason we are discussing welfare is because most of us 
understand that a welfare system itself breeds a great deal of crime, a 
disproportionate amount of crime. People who commit crime are those who 
are on welfare, more than those who are not.
  A third reason that we are discussing welfare today is because we 
know we have to stop this cycle of poverty, we 
[[Page H1602]] have to stop this generation, or we are going to have 
more and more generations going through welfare and becoming 
dysfunctional in society.
  A fourth reason we have talked about is to save money.
  Now what are we talking about when we talk about welfare?
  Welfare constitutes 13 percent of our Federal budget. Eighty-seven 
percent of the other spending does not constitute welfare. What makes 
up that 13 percent? Housing benefits are 11 percent of the 13 percent, 
food benefits, including food stamps, are 18 percent of the 13 percent, 
Medicaid is 44 percent, almost half, AFDC is about 1 percent of the 
total budget, and SSI is 39 percent.
  Now why is this chart important? It is important because most all the 
discussion taking place here in Washington today, whether it, is 
through the President's program, or through the Republican plan or 
other plans, are talking about only AFDC.
  Now why is that the case? I submit to you the reason we are talking 
about only AFDC is because that is the easiest group to attack, 
basically single mothers with children. I ask, Why shouldn't we include 
as part of our discussion food stamps wherein Kentucky alone we have 
500,000 people on food stamps, we spend almost $400 million a year? Why 
shouldn't that be a topic of our discussion when we are talking about 
reforming welfare?
  Part of the Republican plan does talk about block grants for food 
programs like child nutrition, WIC programs and so forth. We will talk 
about that a little bit later, but that will be very difficult to 
impose on the States because how are we going to guarantee that the 
young person gets their only warm meal in the morning or at noon at 
school? A very difficult situation. Why are we not talking about the 
housing section 8 certificates? Why are we not talking about public 
housing when we talk about welfare reform? And why are we not talking 
about Medicaid, which is one-half? And why are we not talking about 
Social Security insurance, which is rising considerably faster than is 
AFDC?
  I suggest to you all the discussion we are having here in Washington 
today just on AFDC I think is not--it is appropriate, but it is not 
complete, and it is only dealing with a very small portion of welfare, 
and for us to suggest, whether we are Republican or Democrat, that we 
are going to have welfare reform and deal only with AFDC is very 
misleading at the least and a travesty to the public, I think, at the 
most. We cannot just suggest to the public that the only people that 
are abusing and need to be looked at, the only people, the only system 
that needs to be reformed, are those that deal with mothers with 
children, aid for dependent children.
  Now what are the general principles when we talk
   about welfare? I think there are two or three that the public 
generally will agree upon.

  No. 1 is responsibility, whose responsibility? Most everyone will 
agree that the individual has some responsibility for their family, and 
they should have responsibility to do something for any benefits they 
receive, whether it is work, whether it is education, or whether it is 
just to take care of their family proper.
  But there is a second responsibility, the responsibility of 
government. I think also everyone agrees that government itself has 
responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of 
themselves.
  The second word that I think generally describes what people feel is 
accountability. Most people think, if you receive a cash payment, you 
should have some accountability on what that cash payment is used for, 
whether it is in SSI or whether it is in AFDC, and most people feel 
that the government should be able to hold you accountable, to be able 
to, if you do not want to participate in the programs available, then 
the government should have the ability to basically take you off that 
benefit.
  Third, I think most people think work should pay more than welfare. 
What has frustrated the folks is that they look at people out there, 
and they are making money, but those on welfare are doing better than 
they are. Now I guess the working people would say,

       I work every day hard, hard for 20-25 years, and I look 
     over to the next house, and I know people who can work are 
     not working, and they're living better than I do. They drive 
     a better car. They eat better. Their children have better 
     medical care than I do, and I'm trying.

  It is that anger and that frustration that most people want to make 
sure that they can somehow understand it, and that is what welfare is 
directed at.

                              {time}  1600

  The fourth principle is whatever we do in welfare reform, whether it 
is in AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps or whatever, we have to do it with 
the intentions that we want to break the cycle.
  If 5 years from now we have had all this great discussion and all 
this rhetoric, and from this hall and all these other halls we have 
welfare reform, and if it does not allow us to break the cycle of 
poverty, we have done nothing. Absolutely nothing. So what do we do? 
How do we reform it?
  First of all, let's just talk about the administration of it. Today, 
without question, it is the most confusing process in the country to 
administer welfare, including all of these. The major welfare programs 
have different rules on income, deductions, resources, and other 
eligibility criteria, and different application forms.
  We should make the requirements for accessing Medicaid, AFDC, food 
stamps, and public housing all the same. The form that needs to be 
filled out and the information that needs to be verified should be the 
same for all these programs as well.
  Finally, applicants should be able to go to one stop, one place, to 
fill out the forms.
  You say why is this important? I am worried about the fraud. In food 
stamps alone, a major portion of the food stamps that go inadvertently 
and illegally to people is because of the confusion in the forms filled 
out by the individuals and the people processing them.
  Administrative simplification will make it much easier for 
policymakers to turn the goals of the current welfare nonsystem into an 
integrated system. Is there any reason whatsoever that these systems 
should not be integrated? There is none. In certain instances, if you 
receive housing benefits section 8 has absolutely no influence on 
whether or not you receive food stamps or not. That is not correct. 
They are all separate. They should be integrated. The way we do it is 
basically bring the administration together.
  Speaking of administration, I think we are going to have to work with 
the States in making sure we can share some of the savings. There is a 
great deal of discussion on food stamps about the electronic transfer. 
But the problem is basically it will cost the States more money, not 
less. We have got to make sure they share in any savings that we have.
  Let's talk about the program specifically. AFDC. If you look at the 
short list put out by Personal Responsibility Act No. 4, by the 
President's program earlier, every entry, every entry, every line 
except one, deals with AFDC.
  It is important that we reform AFDC, but it is equally important that 
we acknowledge honestly that AFDC does not even cover half the green 
part of this chart. But every line but one just deals with AFDC. It 
think that is unfair, and it is unfairly placing all the welfare 
situation upon single mothers. I think that is incorrect.
  When we deal with AFDC, however, I think we need to step back one 
point. If you look at the proposals before us today, each one of them 
says you are going to work, you are going to work, you are going to 
work. It is not bad in its approach. But what we need to say is who 
would like to go to work today, and what is in your way?
  Often it is not the attitude, but the physical circumstances that 
keep people from working. Let me pose a question. If I am a single 
mother, I have two kids, I want to go to work. I make $5 an hour, maybe
 $5.50. Immediately when I do that, the first question that arises is, 
who is taking care of my children? How much does child care cost?
  The second question arises, how am I going to get to work? I can't 
qualify if I have a car that is valued over $1,500. I probably wouldn't 
have one.
  [[Page H1603]] The third question, if I go to work after a period of 
time I lose my Medicaid card. I don't have any coverage for my young 
children.
  So how is that individual going to work? They are not. And I will 
come back to the child care issue and these other issues later in the 
discussion.
  Before we start making rules today that say everybody is to work 
tomorrow when this program is imposed, why don't we step back and do 
what many of the States have done and pass legislation that would allow 
the States, without asking for waivers, to have longer transition 
periods before the individual would lose their Medicaid card; have 
longer periods before they would lose a portion of their food stamps, 
housing benefits, or whatever other benefits they are getting.
  I would suggest to you if we did that, we will find there are many 
more people going onto the work rolls voluntarily tomorrow than there 
are today.
  Now, after that group, we are going to have to address those folks 
who maybe do not want to go to work. The President's program and the 
Republican program talk a great deal about eligibility, eligibility of 
AFDC children.
  Let's talk about some myths at AFDC just a little bit. Who are we 
talking about on AFDC? Most people think you are talking about the 
momma sitting on the porch that has got three or four kids and wants 
three or four more. That is not the case.
  Most people think we are talking about young ladies, under 20 years 
old, who have got two kids or more. As a matter of fact, less than 8 
percent of the women on AFDC are under 20 years old. Seventy-three 
percent of the women on AFDC have two kids or less. Most people think 
we are just talking about basically most people on AFDC are black, not 
white. In Kentucky, 73 percent of AFDC recipients are white. 
Nationwide, it is about split even-even.
  Most people think they are on AFDC and they want to have more 
children so they can have more payments. In Kentucky alone, you can get 
$200 more for the extra child. I will suggest to you not many people 
have the child just for $200 more.
  So all these myths we have about who we are talking about on AFDC, 
and I am emphasizing it because it is appalling to me that here in 
Congress that the President and the Republican plan basically initially 
are only dealing with AFDC.
  So let's talk about the AFDC programs that are before us. In 
Kentucky, $203 million is spent for the benefit of 211,000 people on 
AFDC. The Federal Government alone is spending 15.5 percent.
  Here are some recommendations that I make, that I have, based 
basically on what both the President's program and the Republicans are 
talking about.
  In order to receive AFDC payments, I believe an unwed parent who is 
under the age of 18 and has a child should be required to live in the 
home of the minor's parents under adult supervision. I do not believe, 
as suggested by the Republican program, if a child is born to a person 
under 18 that there be no benefits coming forth. Who are we penalizing? 
The mother? No, we are penalizing the child.
  Also if new babies are born to AFDC recipients, States should have 
the option of saying they will not increase the benefits if they want 
to. Without question, AFDC recipients should have a requirement, I 
think, to finish the schooling. I think they should have a requirement 
if they are able to work, to work in a limited period of time. And 
there are several other recommendations of AFDC, and I would like to 
come back to a couple of them.
  Recently, it was presented yesterday by the Contract on America plan 
for welfare reform that we were going to block grant the AFDC payments 
to the States, and we were going to try to reduce it from $15 billion 
down to $12 billion.
  Let me tell you what we are forgetting here. We are assuming we are 
going to spend less money on this program by putting more people to 
work. Let me point out to you very clearly, let's assume there are some 
working now, they have their child care payments paid for, help with 
child care. Now we are going to put even another group on. Where is the 
child care coming from? Where is the transitional expenditure coming 
for transportation? Not that the program is not good, but if we try to 
sell to the American public that we are going to increase the rolls of 
AFDC recipients working, and we are not going to increase child care, 
we are selling the American public a bill of goods that will come back 
to haunt us.
                              {time}  1610

  It is not possible, it is not possible for this country or any State 
to increase the number of folks on AFDC working without having more 
money for child care. They say, let us block grant child care. What 
does that mean? If we are just talking about the same amount of money, 
it means that you could very well be, under the plan presented, taking 
child care from those who are the working poor presently. So somebody 
is going to lose. Any program that is passed in this Congress that does 
not acknowledge and provide for additional child care funding is a 
fraud to try to say you are going to work and not have more child care. 
It is a fraud.
  Mr. Speaker, when we deal with it, it is not necessarily bad, we do 
want them to go to work, but when we want them to go to work, let us be 
brace enough to acknowledge it is going to cost some money to do it. 
Transportation, child care, and other changes we are going to have to 
make.
  That is what AFDC is, where most of our effort has been made. And I 
want to reemphasize, that is not welfare reform. That is a portion of 
welfare reform, but it is AFDC reform, Aid for Dependent Children, the 
most defenseless group we have in this country today, and we are going 
to say we are going to have all the welfare reform on their backs 
alone. Should they be required to do something? Yes. Should they be 
required to work if they can? Yes. Should they, if they do not want to 
cooperate, should they be put off the program? Yes.
  We also have to acknowledge there are food stamps, housing benefits, 
Medicaid, all these others, all the people, anybody that abuses it 
should have the same requirement. You should have requirements for food 
stamps to work. You should have requirements for housing benefits to do 
something. And Medicaid, for certain people, to have copayments. But 
that is not what is proposed today. I think that is shortsighted, and I 
think it is selling the public short and, more importantly, I think 
calling it welfare reform, it is not what it is. It is sort of a sheep 
in wolf's clothing.
  Let us talk about SSI--SSI, Social Security insurance. Why should it 
be talked about? First of all, up until last year, there was a great 
hue and cry in the country when people found that folks with alcoholic 
problems and drug addiction problems were
 receiving SSI payments. Last year there was a change where after the 
statute runs out, after 3 years you have to go off. Has some tightening 
up, but no more tightening up. If we are talking about reforming 
welfare on the backs of AFDC mothers, why should we not be talking 
about reforming welfare on folks who have alcoholic problems or drug 
addiction problems? Why should we be paying them a cash payment each 
month?

  We should not. There is no accountability. There was no 
accountability on how that money was to be used. Now you can require 
that you have to have treatment. But unfortunately, in several States, 
Kentucky included, there are very few places that treatment can 
actually be purchased. So once again, the cash payment sets out, and 
once again there is no accountability.
  Let us talk about SSI with other programs, like attention deficit 
disorders. Obviously, there are young people throughout this country 
who deserve Social Security Insurance, but obviously, there are others 
who do not. And if we just ignore that issue and the rising cost with 
the cash payment, then we are not doing justice to the other welfare 
discussions. What can we do with SSI?
  First of all, I think it is suggested that we should have a cap on 
how many SSI payments can go to one family. Second, on the attention 
disorder, deficit disorder for young people, why should not the parent 
have to account for how the money is used? It is a cash payment today. 
You could do what you want to do with it. Nobody comes to check. Nobody 
cares. You send the cash 
[[Page H1604]] payment, and that is it. There is no requirement that 
you even have to get treatment. There is no requirement that you try to 
turn the young person's situation around so they no longer suffer from 
that illness.
  Should there be a requirement for job responsibility on SSI? I submit 
there is just as much requirement to be required of those individuals 
as AFDC. But somehow we want to step back from it. We want to say, no, 
we want welfare reform but we just want this little green portion, not 
the whole portion. I also suggest that we should change the cash 
payment to a voucher which says, particularly in the situation where 
you might have some treatment available to you, says, here is a 
voucher. Here is the situation. You go get the treatment, here, because 
we want to see you get better.
  In Kentucky, $45 million was spent on 153,000 beneficiaries for SSI. 
The Federal Government alone spend $24.5 billion; $10 billion--$10 
billion more than we spent on AFDC. Yet we are saying, welfare reform 
is just AFDC and not SSI, $10 billion. And keep in mind, AFDC is the 
lowest among program which we spend, the lowest amount of any of these 
except the housing benefits.
  Let us talk about the food programs. The Republican contract has 
suggested that we are going to block grant the food programs, which are 
the nutrition programs for, like I said earlier, the WIC Program, 
programs in the schools and food stamps. Let me tell you what happens 
in Kentucky under that scenario. We will lose 33 percent of the money 
we are presently getting, not new money but we are presently getting. 
Basically we are going to tell the State of Kentucky and also other 
States which also likewise will lose; fine, you have an option to make, 
after we block grant it, you can tell folks, you are out, even though 
you might qualify, you are out, that is tough. And even future ones 
come on, you cannot even come on, even though they were deserving and 
not folks who abuse the system.
  In food stamps alone, in Kentucky we spent, as I said, $41 million 
for 524,000 people. The Federal Government spends $24.5 billion this 
year on food stamps. Without question, the fraud and abuse sometimes 
runs rampant in the Food Stamp Program. In 1994, food stamps were 
issued to purchase food to over 207,000 retail stores. I do believe 
that the inspector general and others of oversight are making some good 
recommendations on how we should treat the retailers. Congress should 
authorize the forfeiture of proceeds for materials that facilitate the 
violation of food stamps. Those retailers who traffic in food stamps 
should be permanently disqualified from the program. Stores that are 
disqualified from participation in the WIC Program should also be 
disqualified from other programs. But that is just the people. What 
about the people that use them?
  Obviously, we have got to have tougher sanctions. We have to stop the 
trafficking. All of you have seen television shows about the traffic in 
food stamps. But, again, I come back to my central theme. We have a lot 
of discussion on welfare reform up here. But the proposals that have 
been produced to date do not include food stamp reform. Why not? It 
constitutes a larger portion of the welfare budget than AFDC does, in 
fact, everything except Medicaid.
  Let us talk about related issues. I am going to come back to AFDC one 
more time. It is easy to pick on the single Mommas and the children. It 
is easy. People know examples all over the country. Where are the 
Daddies? Where are the Daddies? Thirty-four billion dollars of 
uncollected child support today throughout this country--$34 billion. 
Should not the child support issues be a factor in welfare reform? 
Should not the missing and absent parent have some responsibility to 
help us curb the cost of raising their children? Obviously, the answer 
is yes.
  Again, when we talk about welfare. I suggest to you that child 
support issues need to be made an integral part of the whole package.

                              {time}  1620

  We will not just try to get past AFDC and say, ``We are there.'' We 
are not there. It is my suggestion that all these issues have to be put 
together in one package to address, if we are going to have true 
welfare reform, because it is going to be too easy to say after one 
passes, ``We have done our job; we have met our responsibility; we have 
hit our contract; let's go home.'' We should not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever reform we make--whatever reform we make, it 
will not work unless we curb the abuse that people experience every 
day. How do we do that? I suggest that we need to involve the local 
communities more and more in reporting the abuse and in prosecuting the 
cases. Some States do this already.
  We have to involve the locals. The people next door know who is 
cheating. The people next door know who is trying to beat the system. 
We need to bring them into the discussion. We have to give incentives 
back to the State to help us collect the money.
  For instance, on Medicaid, in the State of Kentucky, the Federal pays 
70 percent, the State pays 30 percent of Medicaid. I think it would be 
pursuant to
 law if the State of Kentucky increased their enforcement provisions on 
Medicaid fraud, and give them a larger portion back, so they could do 
other things with other programs.

  We have to have tougher sanctions for the violators. It is not enough 
to get your hands slapped and say you cannot participate in a program 
for 6 months. It is not enough to say, ``We caught you now. That is 
tough. We are going to let you go; don't do it anymore.'' People who 
violate the system, who do not cooperate with what we are trying to do 
with our work programs and everything else should be dealt with swiftly 
and, I think, firmly.
  Last, we have to make sure that folks who are enforcing have the 
tools for enforcement. We talk about welfare and we talk about AFDC. 
What we really want to accomplish is self-sufficiency.
  I submit to you that in every community we have what it takes to make 
self-sufficiency. We have United Ways, we have the community 
activities, whether it is tenant services or whatever. We have the 
housing corporation. We have section 8 certificates. We have hospitals. 
We have the local governments, State governments. We have colleges of 
dentistry, home economics, whatever.
  The Federal Government, I submit, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking 
about money, when we decide we are going to spend some money on welfare 
reform, we need to provide the incentive to suggest to the communities, 
if you will work with these folks and try to get them toward self-
sufficiency, and if you will integrate all the resources available to 
you in your community, and if you will have housing, child care, 
transitional help, and you will help provide it, we will help you do 
that, and it will work.
  Our ultimate goal is to take people off of welfare to self-
sufficiency. But I submit that ultimate goal has to apply not only to 
AFDC, it has to apply to SSI, it has to apply to food benefits, food 
stamps, housing benefits, and I think we have to have some 
responsibility tied to Medicaid.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot that has been discussed up 
here on welfare about the Contract With America, and I understand it 
and appreciate it. But I would like to submit to you, there is another 
contract we have to be concerned with.
  It is easy to talk about welfare reform, because we are going to have 
very few people up here talking on the other side. Most of us agree 
what has to be done. However, we are going to do this and do that with 
contracts, let us not forget one of the contracts I think we have which 
is most important of all. That is a contract with our conscience.


                          ____________________