EMERSON OFFERS OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL WELFARE REFORM

Welfare reform is one of the most complex issues of our time. For many years I doubted that serious reform efforts would be made, largely because of the turf protection practiced by federal bureaus, agencies, departments and, frankly, the committees of the Congress. The conflicts between programs and the cost of the overall system have so escalated that the public is demanding reform, and I believe this Congress has the will to step up to the plate.

One aspect of the reform process that I want to make clear from the onset is that the House Agriculture Committee will play an important role in reshaping America's jurisdiction over our nation's food stamp program and other food programs that are components of the welfare system. As the weeks proceed, I believe we will gain a better understanding on what form food stamp reform will take. And when it comes to writing the farm bill later this year, I believe the food stamp component has an opportunity to be further refined, using the recommendations we make as general guideposts.

Through my lengthy service on the Agriculture subcommittee that deals with food stamps and nutrition issues and my experience on the Select Committee on Hunger, I have concluded that we have a welfare maintenance system. Although it may have grown up with good intentions, it now lacks cohesion and focus. Our nation's welfare system should be designed to give temporary assistance and help people up, off and out of the system into a fuller life. Like most Americans -- including taxpayers, beneficiaries of the current system and welfare administrators -- I am frustrated by what exists and am guided by the words of Abraham Lincoln that "the dogmas...of the...past are inadequate to the present. We must think anew and act anew." I believe it is essential to carefully define what is considered to be welfare and which programs should be integrated with one another as we consider reform of the debilitating system currently in place. I am hopeful we will take a great step toward accomplishing that in the next few weeks, and then take the opportunity to act again during our farm bill discussion and debate.

Consolidation, integration, simplification and automation are words you'll be hearing a lot from me in the days ahead. But they are more than mere buzz words. It is important to keep these words in mind, because they do lead us to some solutions.

There are programs that provide public assistance directly to individual families through cash benefits or food coupons. Other programs provide work or training to get able-bodied people to work. Other programs provide meals in schools and other institutional settings. Other programs provide distribution of commodities to hungry people. And still other programs link health and food. The actual number of programs available to needy families is hard to count. We do know the costs of the 80 major programs are in excess of $300 billion in federal, state and local tax dollars. There are more programs now for providing public assistance to poor families than at any time in the past, serving more people and costing more money. The farm bill could provide us the chance to make a definitive statement for years to come about how our food stamp program needs to relate to our comprehensive welfare safety net concept.

Most families seeking public assistance need help in at least three categories: cash and the accompanying medical assistance, food, and housing. The rules and regulations for these programs are different and in many cases conflicting. It doesn't make sense for the federal government to set up programs for poor families and then establish different rules for eligibility. We ultimately need one program that provides a basic level of assistance for poor families, sets conditions for receipt of that assistance including work and then limits the amount of time families can receive public assistance. Since the problems facing these families in Missouri aren't all the same as those facing families in California or New York City, I believe states must be allowed greater flexibility in putting pieces of different programs together that will address real needs, help people and save money for the taxpayer.

Having mentioned my former frustration in believing we would not step up to the plate, I now believe we are at the right starting point. I think comprehensive welfare reform will be a three-year to five-year process. Reforming Aid to Families with Dependent Children and those programs touching AFDC, such as food stamps and other food programs, is the cornerstone that will lead to further encompassing reform. And the farm bill will give us another opportunity to address how best to interconnect these programs.

I alluded earlier to a turf problem in the executive branch and in the Congress when discussing welfare reform. This is because committees generally take a parochial view of issues and look only to the programs over which they have jurisdiction. For example, Ways and Means generally sees it as an AFDC issue. Economic and Educational Opportunities sees it as job training. Agriculture sees it as food assistance. I submit that it is all of these and a lot more: Section 8 housing and Medicaid, for example. I do not pretend to have all of the answers to the problems facing us in this welfare reform debate, but I do believe that all members of Congress, committees and interested persons can contribute their ideas to refine programs so that able-bodied people receiving assistance will become taxpayers. We must provide benefits to the elderly and to those who are unable to work. We must provide flexibility to those administering the programs. I truly believe a climate currently exists in Congress that will move us toward that end. In other words, there is a good spirit among people genuinely interested in reforming the system, to reach across party, committee and agency lines to make sense out of a system that is confusing to everyone, especially taxpayers and people who genuinely need assistance.

One observation has recurred time and again: Any one program doesn't comprehensively provide welfare for poor families. It takes two or more programs, which currently have different rules and regulations. People fall through the cracks in the current system, and some also take advantage of the system. This must stop. How anyone could defend the present structure and system is a puzzle to me, unless it is someone who benefits illicitly from the fractured welfare mess we find ourselves in today, be they welfare recipients who take advantage of the system, advocates who thrive on the power derived from establishing new programs or bureaucracies protecting turf. Advocates of a humane system, a cost-effective system, and efficient system, a system that helps people up, off and out, could find little solace in the current system.

One good example of potential in the welfare reform opportunity is the program in Delaware set up by our colleague, Michael Castle, and his predecessor, Pete du Pont, when they were governor of that state. Delaware is as state of the art in doing a good job as you can get in the current maze of federal regulations. It is consolidated, integrated and well automated. Delaware, being the microcosmic state that it is, was able to do this well. All told, at least 30 states have sought or are seeking waivers from the federal government to reform all or a part of the welfare system. We can do a lot better than this by giving the states, up front, needed flexibility in structuring systems that serve the needs of real people.

It is amazing to me that so many states have sought to change the welfare system, thereby recognizing the failure of the present system, without any action on the part of Congress to change the system as well. How many more states might have tried to institute reform but for the maze of bureaucracy they most go through to achieve waivers? Our current system thwarts state initiative and diversity, poorly helps poor families become personally responsible, exasperates the front-line administrators running the programs and frustrates and burdens the people paying for this disjointed, conflicting system.

I consider the one-stop-shopping approach compatible with, but not limited to, the concept of block grants. Together they would give states the authority to design a comprehensive welfare program under broad guidelines established by Congress, with appropriate accountability to assure proper expenditure of taxpayers' money. States have been the laboratories for change. They can adapt to the unique regional or parochial circumstances much quicker than the federal government.

Also, in this day of modern technology we make very poor use of it in the welfare system. Through technology we can have enhanced record-keeping and tracking systems and, through methods such as electronic benefits transfers, achieve a much higher level of accountability in the system than currently exists. This will help curtail fraud, abuse and trafficking and help restore public confidence in the system.