[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 10 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S846-S848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we begin the 105th Congress with a 
sober recognition of the fact that the Federal Government cannot solve 
all problems. Anyone who questions this premise need only look at 
painful choices that must be made in order to balance the Federal 
budget, our first and most difficult task this session.
  Having said that, the clearest message, I think, sent to us this past 
November was that the people of America want Republicans and Democrats 
to work together to solve real problems. I have been very concerned and 
I might even say dismayed by statements made by Members of this body 
and the House, that under no circumstances will there be any changes, 
no matter how meritorious, no matter how necessary, to the welfare bill 
which passed last year.
  Mr. President, when this body debated and approved the historic 
welfare reform bill last year, I outlined to my colleagues what I saw 
as some of the major flaws in the drafting of that bill, and as a 
result, the impact that this legislation will have on the largest State 
in the Union--California. I want to take an opportunity this afternoon 
to update those comments.
  The impact of this bill on California is huge. At this stage, it 
really is not fully known or even understood. Some estimate that 
California will absorb about $17 billion of the $55 billion saved by 
this bill. That is a body blow to our safety net. It could have a 
catastrophic impact both financially and in terms of human lives. I 
voted, because of this, against that welfare bill.
  I am not alone in my concerns. Even the Republican Governors, many of 
them poster-children for the reform effort, are looking at the fine 
print now and saying, ``How is my State going to pay for these costs? 
How are we going to provide the necessary care? How are we going to 
meet these requirements without turning people out on the streets?''--
for some, in large numbers. Even the Republican Governors are asking 
for changes.
  A headline in the Washington Post 2 days ago said it pretty clearly: 
``After getting responsibility for welfare, States may pass it down,'' 
something that I, as a county supervisor and a mayor for some 18 years, 
recognize that it is exactly the way it goes. The buck usually stops 
with the lowest rung of a government. That is just what is going to 
happen with this bill. In California, a proposition 13 State, there is 
no way for local governments to raise their taxes or their revenue 
potential to deal with the problem.
  In the months since the passage of the welfare bill, I directed my 
staff to examine how this bill would impact California counties. To 
date, my staff has met with the welfare directors of 22 out of 
California's 58 counties. Their pleas were nearly universal. I will 
share them with you. The work requirements, they say, as currently 
outlined in the bill will most probably not be attainable even under 
the most optimistic of circumstances. The child care funds in the bill 
for California are not enough to satisfy the requirements of the bill. 
The legal immigrant provisions denying food stamps and SSI, 
particularly to the elderly, the sick, and the disabled, will have a 
devastating impact on county general assistance programs. The biggest 
impact will be on the largest county in the State, Los Angeles County. 
And the counties tell me they have no computer ability to track and 
monitor recipients under the new rules. How do they comply?
  Some of the changes asked for by these counties are technical in 
nature, such as increasing the time permitted for job search to be more 
realistic for areas where the average search even for nonwelfare 
recipients is twice as long as that permitted under the bill. Other 
changes are more fundamental, such as restoring some assistance to the 
elderly and disabled legal immigrants. I know President Clinton shares 
many of these concerns, and will propose a number of changes in his 
budget soon to be released.

[[Page S847]]

  I hope the door is not closed to at least looking at what the facts 
are. I believe it would really be unconscionable, and in a sense, the 
height of irresponsibility, to arbitrarily say we will not look at any 
problem or any misdrafting in that bill. I will point out one area in 
my remarks later where I think it is simply a case of misdrafting.

  Let me speak for a moment about legal immigrants. There are 500,000 
elderly and disabled noncitizens nationwide who will lose SSI by August 
22, 1997. Of these legal immigrants 205,000 are in California--more 
than 40 percent. That is a very real problem. Many of these individuals 
are seriously ill and completely destitute, with no family capable of 
supporting them. In Los Angeles County alone, there are 93,000 such 
people, and the ultimate transfer to the county will be in the hundreds 
of millions of dollars. When they lose their benefits they will turn to 
the counties.
  Just last week, California's State legislative analyst's office 
estimated the ban on SSI and food stamps will cost California $5.8 
billion over 6 years. Now, either this is a massive cost-shift or the 
homeless in America and in California are going to be greatly adding to 
their numbers. In Los Angeles County alone the nonmedical costs of 
supporting elderly and disabled legal immigrants could top $236 million 
annually.
  San Francisco also estimates that 20,000 legal noncitizens may turn 
to the county's general assistance program, at a total cost of up to 
$74 million annually.
  Let me give an actual example from my hometown legal immigrants. My 
San Francisco staff met with a 73-year-old legal immigrant on SSI. She 
was welcomed to this county from Vietnam in 1980. She was a refugee 
from communism with no family in the United States. She speaks no 
English and she is suffering from kidney failure. She requires dialysis 
three times a week. Under this new law, this 73-year-old woman will 
lose SSI, her only source of support. Her well-being will become the 
responsibility, somehow, some way, of the county.
  During the welfare debate I proposed an amendment to make this 
section of the bill prospective. I understand the majority's concern 
that the legal immigrants' use of SSI was increasing at a higher ratio 
than U.S. citizens' use of SSI. I understand wanting to slow that 
number down. The way to do it is to say that in the future, everyone 
coming to this country following the date of enactment, which was 
August 22 last year, know that when you come to the United States of 
America as a legal immigrant, you are not eligible for SSI. For the 
people here before that time, what I propose is that there be an 
amendment to the bill that would say SSI could be continued for those 
who have no other verifiable source of support. These are the elderly, 
they are monolingual, they are destitute, and many of them are ill.
  Let me speak for a moment, Mr. President, about the work requirements 
of the bill, because counties throughout California are really 
concerned.
  Under the new welfare law, 25 percent of single-parent families on 
welfare and 75 percent of two-parent families on welfare must be 
engaged in work activities this year. By 2002, the requirements rise to 
50 percent of single-parent families and 90 percent of two-parent 
families.
  California's economy is recovering, but our unemployment rate is 
still 1\1/2\ points above the national rate. It is 6.8 percent. The 
national rate is 5.4 percent. So some 1 million Californians are still 
on unemployment.
  Let me give you some examples of how unrealistic the work 
requirements of the welfare bill are on certain counties in California.
  In Tulare County, the heart of the great Central Valley, the heart of 
the area that has the largest agriculture producers in the United 
States, the unemployment rate is 16.3 percent, more than 10 percentage 
points above the Nation, and one-third of the county is on public 
assistance--one-third of the county. There are no jobs for people.
  In Merced County--again in the Central Valley--unemployment is even 
higher at 16.8 percent. Thirty-five percent of the population there 
receives some type of public assistance.
  Here are others: Imperial County, 27 percent unemployment; Madera, 
15.9; Monterey, 10.6 percent; Stanislaus County, 17.3 percent; and 
Sonoma County, 14 percent.
  And these are not small population areas. In some of the cases, the 
population of these counties is actually more than the population of 
some of the States. These are larger areas.
  With 2.7 million families in California on welfare, counties fear 
that the work requirement, as defined in the new welfare law, simply is 
not realistic for the State to be able to meet.
  California is simply not creating jobs fast enough, and the kinds of 
jobs that the State is creating are high-technology, biotech, highly 
skilled jobs, and jobs in the import-export business; jobs that relate 
to Asia; jobs that have a level of educational requirement that can 
produce a high skill level.
  In Riverside County in southern California, their GAIN Program, which 
is their welfare-to-work program, is the most successful program of its 
kind in the Nation. It is 12 years old. It has been the model for other 
programs all throughout the United States. Yet, in that time, only 14 
percent of single-parent families currently meet the work requirement 
as set under welfare reform. And only 15 percent of two-parent families 
meet the work requirement. That is after 12 years of trying. If 
Riverside County can't meet the requirements, how many counties and 
States nationwide will actually be able to do so?
  That is why I urge that the President and Members of Congress to 
allocate some new funds--countercyclical moneys--that would apply 
particularly in counties where the unemployment rate is at a certain 
amount. You might want to make it over 1 percentage point from the 
national average, particularly in areas where there is a high welfare 
load, which gives testament to the fact that you can't produce jobs in 
that county.
  I feel that Congress should amend the welfare law in significant ways 
to make it easier for States to meet the work requirements. And I would 
like to suggest some of them.
  Doubling the time allowed for job search activities from 6 weeks to 
12 weeks. That is what they say it actually takes and where there is 
success.
  Expand the welfare law's definition of ``work'' to include 2 years of 
vocational education instead of 1. That is what they say it requires to 
be employable.
  Include people who--this is a glitch, I think, in the drafting of the 
bill and one of the reasons that I am so concerned that the 
announcement has been made that even technical changes will not be made 
to the bill. The way the bill is drafted, it does not include people 
who leave welfare for work and those who are immediately placed in a 
given month as part of the State's total number of people moving from 
welfare to work. So, In other words, the way the bill is drafted, you 
don't get credit for the people that month you place in jobs. I think 
that this is a technical glitch. I think it is a drafting error. I 
think it is easy to correct. But if we have this policy of nothing no 
matter whenever it is not going to get corrected.

  I would suggest creating a countercyclical funding program for the 
next 6 years, and I suggest targeting counties with high unemployment 
and high welfare caseloads.
  Child care funding increases: Under the new welfare law, the money is 
insufficient to accommodate the increasing demands. Currently, my State 
subsidizes child care for 205,000 low-income children. But there are 
1.8 million children on welfare in California--1.8 million. The State 
currently only has funds to subsidize 205,000.
  In order to accommodate the increases in the work requirements which 
are required by this bill from 25 percent in 1997 to 50 percent in 2002 
for an individual recipient, I would propose adding an additional $1.43 
billion in child care funding over the next 6 years.
  I would also propose exempting parents with children under the age of 
12, instead of 6, from the work requirement if they cannot find child 
care.
  This bill--mark my words--will be known as the ``latchkey mandate 
bill'' if people can't find work. And there is no reason for any child 
in elementary school be left home alone without any adult supervision.
  Let me speak for just a moment on the reporting requirements.

[[Page S848]]

  When Federal welfare reform was enacted, little attention was paid to 
the 15 new reporting requirements that the law imposes on the States--
everything from welfare recipients' race and citizenship status, to 
other Federal benefits they receive, to unemployment status and 
earnings.
  California, like many other States, has no computer system in place 
to track and report all of this data. And without effective tracking 
and reporting, the Nation's largest State has no hope of enforcing the 
time limit and preventing welfare fraud. Contra Costa County's welfare 
director said that his county's ability to meet the reporting 
requirements of the bill is ``literally zip.'' This is a big county.
  I think that the welfare law's reporting requirements are important, 
and I do not advocate relaxing them. But I do believe that the counties 
are going to require additional support in the form of computer 
assistance that is greater than that which is provided in the bill 
today, and that we ought not to be so fixed that we cannot take a look 
at it.
  I make these comments at this time in the hope that someone might 
read them, or even see them, or take notice of them, and that this 
statement that there will be no amendments to this bill can perhaps be 
changed to ``Well, we will carefully consider amendments.''
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Moseley-Braun pertaining to the introduction of 
S. 235 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, we are.
  (The remarks of Mr. Gregg pertaining to the introduction of S. 252 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  (Mr. FRIST assumed the Chair.)

                          ____________________