[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16023-16024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             FEAR AND HUNGER IN THE WAKE OF WELFARE REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 14, 1999

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, legal immigrants have 
been denied access to vital health, income and nutrition assistance 
programs. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 restored some 
benefits to elderly, disabled, and minor immigrants who entered legally 
before August 22, 1996, researchers have documented a dramatic increase 
in extreme hunger and food insecurity among those affected by the law.
  The following research memorandum was written by Amy K. Fauver, a 
research associate for the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric 
Affairs (COHA). The memo represents an elaborated version of an article 
which will appear in issue 19:09 of COHA's publication, the Washington 
Report on the Hemisphere. The article addresses the consequences of the 
immigrant-specific provisions of welfare reform, and demonstrates the 
need to restore essential benefits to immigrants who have come to the 
U.S. legally and have paid taxes, but in some circumstances have needed 
government assistance.

             Fear and Hunger in the Wake of Welfare Reform

 (By Amy K. Fauver, Research Associate, Council on Hemispheric Affairs)

       On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the ``Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act'' 
     (PRWORA), mandating in his own words, ``the end of welfare as 
     we know it.'' The justification for these measures was moral 
     and financial: welfare recipients in general ``abuse'' the 
     system; welfare ``hurts'' people by encouraging 
     ``dependency''; and above all, taxpayers should ``not have to 
     foot the bill for immigrants'' who viewed the U.S. as, 
     according to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, ``nothing more than a 
     taxpayer-funded retirement home.'' Among the most dramatic 
     changes were those affecting the eligibility of legal, 
     documented immigrants for federal benefit programs. Of the 
     $60 billion projected savings from welfare reform, 
     approximately $24 billion--44%--was to come from cuts in 
     social services to immigrants. 85% of these savings were from 
     reductions in Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, 
     Food Stamps and Air for Families with Dependent Children 
     (AFDC)


                  PRWORA provisions target immigrants

       The immigrant provisions of PRWORA created new categories 
     of distinction among immigrants based not on their legal 
     status, but on their date of arrival in the U.S. Previously, 
     federal means-tested benefits were available to any legally 
     admitted immigrant on the same terms as natural and 
     naturalized citizens after a period of deeming. PRWORA 
     redefined immigrants as ``qualified'' or ``unqualified,'' 
     which effectively replaced the ``legal'' or ``illegal'' 
     dichotomy for determining entitlement, and essentially denied 
     most legal immigrants access to benefits. Aside from 
     emergency medical assistance and a few other programs 
     necessary for the protection of life and safety, any benefits 
     the newly ``unqualified'' were receiving at the time of the 
     law's enactment were terminated. Although the majority of 
     legal immigrants were ``qualified,'' most were nonetheless 
     barred from SSI and Food Stamps until they were naturalized. 
     The only exemptions were those able to prove 10 years of 
     Social Security-qualified work history, refugees, asylees and 
     those granted withholding of deportation (but only for their 
     first five years in the U.S.), as well as veterans and active 
     duty military, their spouses and dependent children.
       PRWORA also distinguished between immigrants based on their 
     date of arrival in the U.S. The ``before'' group, of those 
     immigrants who were legally present before August 22, 1996 
     (this date coincides with the signing of PRWORA), were 
     granted greater access to benefits than the ``after'' group, 
     who arrived on or after that date. The ``after'' group was 
     barred from benefits for their first five years in the 
     country, except the life and safety provisions.
       Pressure to amend PRWORA came from immigrant advocacy 
     groups and President Clinton himself, who vowed to soften the 
     immigrant provisions of PRWORA even as he signed it. The 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1998 reinstated $11.4 billion of the 
     $23.8 billion cut from immigrant benefits, restoring SSI 
     benefits to most ``before'' immigrants. The legislation also 
     extended the length of time that refugees and asylees can 
     collect benefits from five to seven years in response to 
     an INS backlog of over a year. This formula was intended 
     to provide a realistic time frame in which to naturalize 
     before benefits would be discontinued.
       In June 1998, the Agricultural Act restored $818 million in 
     food stamps to specific immigrants, including the elderly and 
     legally present children under 18 from the ``before'' group. 
     Although these restorations returned food stamps to 
     approximately 250,000 immigrants, two-thirds of those 
     previously eligible remain without such assistance. This law 
     did not address immigrants who entered after the arbitrarily 
     chosen cut off date.


                     consequences: fear and hunger

       Despite these attempts to soften the blow that PRWORA dealt 
     to legally-present immigrants, it has profoundly impacted all 
     non-citizen welfare recipients and destroyed the safety net 
     for those not currently needing help, but who might require 
     it in the future.

[[Page 16024]]

     A July 1998 Urban Institute study of Los Angeles County 
     portrays a sharp decline in immigrant applications for 
     welfare benefits even though the vast majority remained 
     eligible under state-funded programs. This study suggests 
     that many immigrants are not attempting to prove their 
     eligibility partly due to confusion about the law, but 
     especially out of fear of negative consequences. They are 
     afraid that revealing information about their immigration 
     status (as in the case of undocumented parents trying to 
     collect benefits for legal immigrant or citizen children) 
     could result in deportation or compromise future attempts to 
     naturalize if they are labeled a ``public charge.''
       These well-founded anxieties can prevent those who are 
     aware of their eligibility from seeking benefits for 
     themselves or for their children. PRWORA's provisions 
     requiring public agencies to report to the INS any persons 
     ``known to be unlawfully present'' in the U.S., have 
     exacerbated this fear. Although public health care providers 
     are exempt from such reporting requirement, because they are 
     prohibited from having an official policy that they will not 
     share immigrant status information with the INS, they cannot 
     guarantee protection for undocumented patients. According to 
     the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, TX, 
     ``Public health providers report that this is already having 
     a chilling effect on the use of prenatal care, preventative 
     care and primary care.''
       One of the most egregious problems directly resulting from 
     PRWORA has been an extraordinary increase in hunger among 
     legal immigrants. As for the welfare reductions in general, a 
     disproportionate share of the federal savings from Food Stamp 
     cuts came from restricting immigrant eligibility. Prior to 
     PRWORA, 5.2% of all Food Stamp recipients were immigrants, 
     yet over 30% of Food Stamp cuts came from slashing immigrants 
     benefits. Not surprisingly, many immigrants who lost benefits 
     now are suffering. A May 1998 study by Physicians for Human 
     Rights (PHR) tracked household hunger among legal Latino and 
     Asian immigrants in California, Texas and Illinois. Finding 
     79% of households interviewed to be food insecure, PHR called 
     ``the cuts against individuals who are in the U.S. legally 
     and who pay taxes. . . a serious human rights violation.'' 
     Legal immigrant households were ten times more likely than 
     the general population to suffer from severe hunger and one-
     third of immigrant households surveyed reported moderate or 
     severe hunger caused by a lack of sufficient resources.
       A similar study by the California Food Policy Advocates 
     (CFPA) echoes these findings, but also documents an 
     ``alarmingly high rate of hunger among children in legal 
     immigrant households where food stamps have been cut.'' 
     Immigrant households in Los Angeles that lost benefits were 
     30% more likely to experience ``food insecurity with extreme 
     hunger'' than those that did not. In San Francisco, this 
     number jumped to 173%, making immigrants affected by PRWORA 
     almost twice as likely to be suffering from extreme hunger 
     than an unaffected group. Moreover, in both cities, immigrant 
     households with children which had lost food stamps were 
     almost two-thirds more likely to experience serious food 
     problems than similar households that retained complete 
     benefits.
       Although both studies were conducted prior to the 
     Agricultural Act, CFPA's findings were shocking even though 
     California exercised its option--unlike most states--to fill 
     the gap with state funds for the same population that now has 
     regained eligibility. Without further legislation, marked 
     improvements of this nature in the future are unlikely 
     because most of those benefiting from the restoration are 
     immigrant children living in ``mixed'' households where 
     ``eligible'' individuals live with others who are not. In 
     Texas alone, there are 65,396 ``mixed'' households with 
     approximately 9,000 legal immigrant and 145,000 citizen 
     children. Although these children can again collect food 
     stamps, the total resources available to the family remain 
     low because their parents still cannot.


                     Is ``fairness'' in the future?

       The Fairness to Legal Immigrants Act of 1999, recently 
     introduced in the Senate, proposes the most extensive 
     restoration to date and offers the first substantive 
     opportunity to right the wrongs done to legal immigrants by 
     PRWORA. If approved, this bill would restore food stamps to 
     all eligible ``before'' immigrants and those otherwise 
     qualified ``after'' immigrants who suffer domestic abuse. It 
     would also allow states to cover all pregnant legal immigrant 
     women and children who entered after August 22, 1996 under 
     Medicaid and restore many health and SSI disability benefits 
     for certain immigrants from both the ``before'' and ``after'' 
     groups. This bill represents a significant step towards 
     rectifying several of the most controversial outcomes of 
     welfare reform by protecting dependent children, addressing 
     the mixed household problem and providing essential food 
     assistance to many needy legal immigrant families. 
     Wholehearted support by this Congress would send a clear 
     message to law-abiding, taxpaying immigrants that they need 
     not fear, that they need not go hungry and that they will not 
     be abandoned in their times of need.

     

                          ____________________