Sec. 2. Findings; sense of Congress

220 words·~1 min read·/bill/116/s/3276/is/section-2

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Congress finds as follows: Many means-tested public assistance programs limit eligibility for benefits on the basis of the assets of a family, such as savings and other resources. Such asset limits impede the ability of needy families to improve their financial circumstances and thereby reduce their dependence on public assistance programs. Restricting eligibility for public assistance programs on the basis of assets negatively affects the financial security of low-income families.

For example, to avoid losing eligibility for public assistance under an asset limit, a family may avoid mainstream financial services such as bank accounts, or refrain from acquiring and saving resources that would enable the family to weather an unanticipated expense. The risk that people who don't need public assistance will take advantage of public assistance programs in the absence of asset limits is low, in part because most applicants for public assistance have very few assets, must meet strict work requirements, and usually may only participate in a program for a limited time.

Evidence from States that have eliminated asset limits suggests that the administrative cost savings associated with the elimination of asset limits outweigh any increases in payments made to beneficiaries. It is the sense of Congress that certain federally funded means-tested public assistance programs should not utilize asset limits to restrict eligibility for assistance under those programs.