Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on November 6, 2001, to require the Family Independence Agency (FIA) to adopt an electronic system for the distribution of food stamps, and to tie eligibility for welfare payments to a person’s compliance with the "social contract" work and training requirements imposed by welfare reform. Among other things the bill requires FIA to stop benefits immediately if the person fails to comply, rather than gradually, and replaces a minimum 20-hour a week work and training requirement with authorization for FIA to require up to 40 hours a week. A person whose benefits have been stopped for noncompliance could not reapply for at least one month

The vote was 22 in favor, 8 opposed and 8 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 516 at Senate Journal 84)

Click here to view bill details.

Mr.President and members, I will be voting "no" on this bill. I believe that this is the wrong time to require welfare recipients to work 40 hours a week. We are in a decline--a shrinking economy. We are officially in a recession. The unemployment in this state and around the country has risen in the last few months.

I have a couple statistics that I'm just going to mention to you before final passage. The research seminar in quantitative economics at the University of Michigan is forecasting a decline of 1.8 percent in Michigan wage and salary employment for the first quarter of 2002, followed by another .3 percent decline in the second quarter. The recovery forecast for the third and fourth quarters will not be large enough to prevent the state from having a net decline in wage and salary employment for 2002. The research seminar in quantitative economics forecasts or predicts the net decline of .6 percent for the year, translating into 28,900 jobs.

I feel that, again, this is the wrong time to require our welfare recipients to find 40 hours of employment. It just may not be out there. I think it's mean-spirited and punitive. I hope that this chamber would vote against it.

I rise to talk about two issues: one, the legislation itself and the content that is not there, and that's the content that Senator Scott addressed. The issue is that it really does not make an improvement and opportunities for people of low income, particularly when we are facing very tough economic times. One of the things that appears to be causal relation to this introduction and rush to pass this bill is we see it as a way of saving dollars in the Family Independence Agency. We can use provisions in this bill to make sure that individuals are, in fact, denied benefits more frequently that they are found not to be in compliance more easily and that they then lose their subsidy and their support.

The other thing is the process. This bill left committee yesterday, and it was forced through this floor in a matter of hours. It would have been quicker if the Republicans hadn't wanted to caucus. The need for a close review and a close scrutiny as indicated by the fact that, oh, changes are going to be made in the House that have been agreed to among lobbyists and interest groups. I think it is very good that people are actually working hard to get changes in this bill, and I applaud them for it. But the Senators in this chamber have a responsibility to our constituents. That responsibility has been abridged by the process that has been adopted, and our concern that if we are too vocal on our side, the compromises that have been agreed to may fall.

I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this legislation. It has more need for amendment than those compromises that have been agreed to. The bottom line in the state should not be how we save money in the department and in the General Fund budget or in the federal funding that comes through, but how we save families and children and the neighborhoods in which they live.

Senator Scott's statement, in which Senator Hart concurred, is as follows:

This bill places family and child well-being at risk. The only people who even testified in favor of this bill were the Family Independence Agency, who has apparently already printed up policy and notices that reflect the changes in this bill, and the association that represents FIA county directors.

The potential negative impacts of this bill are too great to not listen to advocates who have voiced opposition. These bills will undoubtedly have some families falling through the cracks. These cracks will end up forcing victims of domestic violence to go back to their batterers.

This bill removes the safety net for families who need to care for their children who have severe health problems or disabilities. Studies have shown the biggest barrier to self-sufficiency for these families is safe, high-skilled, accessible and fully subsidized child care.

This bill does not ensure access to safe, quality child care or even ensure training will be available if work is not. If we are going to make families successful, we need to provide the resources. Placing child well-being in danger is not the answer. I urge you to vote "no."

I commend the various groups and parties who negotiated agreements to make the provisions of this bill a little better. However, they did not go far enough. The substitute the House has returned to us is still a bad bill. The reasons I opposed this bill in the first place remain unchanged.

The bill still removes a key safety net for families in need. Families will be falling through the cracks and left floundering. Victims of domestic violence might be led back to the violence they are trying to escape. Parents caring for a child with a severe health problem or disability may be forced to work even though we know that safe, highly-skilled, and accessible care for these children is unavailable. A recipient of Social Security disability, which is difficult to obtain, may be forced to find employment that is not available due to their physical and/or mental conditions. And you know we're closing some more mental hospitals, don't you?

This bill does not enhance family well-being. If we are going to make families successful, we need to provide the resources. We need to provide training and tools that will lead to long-term self-sufficiency in jobs where individuals can continue to develop. Simply moving families into jobs that place them above the income limit does not guarantee a ladder to success. Families need access to mental health resources, job-skill training for good jobs, and literacy programs. Placing a child's well-being in danger is not the answer. I urge you to vote "no."