[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1904-H1906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        FEDERAL FOOD ASSISTANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goss). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton] is recognized for 40 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, that is irresponsible. As written, 
that provision would convert Federal food assistance programs into 
block grants. Block grant funds are free funds to State and local 
governments. They may not be used as intended. This irresponsible 
provision thus puts at risk various nutritional programs, such as food 
stamps, school breakfast and lunches, Meals on Wheels, and the 
Commodity Supplemental Program.
  When H.R. 4 comes to the floor, I will offer an amendment to restore 
the Federal food assistance program. The block grant proposal does not 
take into account increased school enrollments, changing economic 
conditions, and national food nutrition standards. Confronting hunger 
in America is a serious matter. It should not be left to artificial 
time pressures and blind budget bludgeoning. It is not responsible to 
put the health of our seniors and children at risk. I invite my 
colleagues to join me in amending H.R. 4 to make it responsible on the 
issue of hunger. I will say more about that later. On the first day of 
this, the 104th Congress, I pointed out to my colleagues, that as we 
begin our work this year, we must remember that our first 
responsibility is not to the parties to which we belong, but to the 
people we represent.
  It is for that reason that I supported many of the early votes on 
reform and several parts of the proposed rules package put forth by the 
new majority party. I believe the majority structured some important 
changes to the way we function, and those changes should not have been 
rejected by Democrats simply because they were offered by Republicans. 
At the same time, I reminded my colleagues that we must be forever 
mindful that no Member in this Chamber has a premium on what's best for 
this Nation. We all have a Contract With America. What makes us a great 
Nation is the compassion we show for those who live in the shadows of 
life. We are strong because historically we have been able to make a 
place for all who live here, including those least able to help 
themselves--the young, the poor, the disabled.
  In this time of increased scrutiny, we must examine each and every 
program, but we must also consider each and every person affected by 
our changes. We must ask the question: Who is helped and who is hurt? 
And, at the end of each day, we must be honest about whether our 
actions helped the many in need or the few in clover. President Kennedy 
said it best, 34 years ago, when he stated, ``A country that cannot 
help the many who are poor cannot help the few who are rich.'' The 
contract to which each Member is bound, is to work in the best interest 
of the American people. On election day, we offered our services to 
this great country, and voters accepted our offer, from Rocky Mount, 
NC, and across the United States.
  We all have a Contract With America. That contract involves being 
open to the challenge of change. We, in the Congress, must get beyond 
partisan politics and move to the high ground of principle. This is a 
new day and a new time. There are problems which we face that transcend 
party and politics. Teenage pregnancies stifle an entire community. 
Violence of any kind, whether driven by drugs or propelled by deep 
philosophical differences, can not and must not be tolerated. Economic 
justice must ring true this Congress. No child and no senior citizen 
should face hunger in this land of plenty.
  If welfare reform is to have any significance, we must combine with 
it a meaningful jobs program. And, welfare reform without minimum wage 
reform is no reform. With a meaningful jobs program, there would be 
less urgency for another crime bill. Instead of calls to take back our 
streets, there should be calls to give our streets back to the average, 
hard-working, God fearing citizen. Unfortunately, on this issue, 
Congress has failed to heed the call. Last week and this week, the 
majority pushed through radical changes in our law enforcement system. 
They sliced fourth amendment rights, eliminating habeas corpus 
protections, cut prevention programs, community cops program eliminated 
and put money in to build more jails. It is a sad and difficult time 
for our Nation.
  I too believe we can make our Government smaller, yet more efficient 
and more effective. That is why I applauded and supported several of 
the reforms offered by the majority. But, real reform must include an 
end to gag rules. There are important amendments that those of us in 
the new minority party have wanted to offer, amendments designed to 
improve and perfect the legislation presented. But Members have been 
muzzled by a majority determined to press their 100-day agenda under 
any and all circumstances. I will continue to stand up as part of the 
loyal opposition when I believe pomposity, audacity, and duplicity 
confront us. No party or person has en exclusive on such things as 
family values and personal responsibility. Those are standards I 
absolutely hold dear. And, no party or person should be able to take 
the right to speak from any of us. Too many have sacrificed for that 
precious liberty. Let no one forget. We all have a Contract With 
America. That is why I support the call of President Clinton for an 
increase in the minimum wage by 90 cents, over the 
[[Page H1905]] next 2 years. This increase would raise the minimum wage 
from its current level of $4.25 to $5.15. This is a much-needed 
increase.
  There has been much talk about welfare reform recently. I support 
welfare reform. The current system does not work well, and it does not 
promote self-sufficiency. Reform, however, does not mean change for the 
sake of change. Reform means change for the sake of improvement. As we 
move to reform the welfare system, we must make sure that we make a 
better system, not just a different system. Welfare reform without wage 
reform will not work. The gap in income is growing between those who 
have a lot of money and those who have a little money. That is 
unacceptable. According to Business Week magazine, the income gap 
``hurts the economy.'' Almost half of the money in America is in the 
hands of just 20 percent of the people. That top 20 percent is made up 
of families with the highest incomes.
  The bottom 20 percent has less than 5 percent of the money in their 
hands. A modest increase in the minimum wage could help the bottom 20 
percent, and, it will not hurt the top 20 percent. Without an increase 
in the minimum wage, those with little money end up with less money. 
That is because the cost of living continues to rise. By 1993, families 
in the top 20 percent had an average income of $104,616. Families in 
the bottom 20 percent in America had an average income of just $12,964.
  That is a gap of more than $90,000. That amount of money makes a big 
difference in the ability of families to buy food and shelter, to pay 
for energy to heat their homes, and to be able to clothe, care for, and 
educate their children. That amount of money makes the difference 
between families with abundance and families in poverty. An increase in 
the minimum wage won't provide abundance, but it can raise working 
families out of poverty. As income dropped for low income families 
during the decade of the 1980's, costs escalated. While the income for 
the bottom 20 percent was declining, the rate of inflation for food, 
shelter, heating fuel, clothing, transportation, and medical care, was 
increasing. In other words, the cost of break, milk, eggs, a place to 
sleep, heat, clothing to wear, a bus ride, and a visit to the doctor 
went up, as the income of poor people went down. The rate of inflation 
for each of those items increased, on average, 60 percent, with a low 
of 36 percent and a high of 117 percent. Despite these spiraling 
prices, Congress did not take any steps to increase the minimum wage, 
and poor people, the bottom 20 percent of America, became poorer. That 
deep valley remains with us today.
  The bottom 20 percent of our citizens can have a full-time employee 
in the family, working at least 40 hours a week, and still not be able 
to make ends meet. The earnings of that family could place them below 
the poverty line. It makes little sense to discuss welfare reform when 
working full time does not make a family any better off than being on 
welfare full time. Work should be a prize. It should not be a penalty. 
Work is a penalty when, despite an individuals best efforts, living is 
an unrelenting, daily struggle. Work is a prize when enough is earned 
to pay for essentials. Other nations, around the world, have been faced 
with the gap between high- and low-income workers. Those that have been 
able to close the gap are the nations that have enacted minimum wage 
increases for their workers.
  We can learn from the experience of Germany, Japan, and France, for 
example. It should be noted that 62 percent of all minimum wage workers 
are women. Welfare reform, in the absence of minimum wage reform, will 
hurt women in a lopsided way. The Contract With America proposes to put 
1.5 million welfare recipients into below minimum wage jobs by the year 
2001. Most of those will be women. The number of working poor increased 
by 42 percent between 1980 and 1992. Many of those were women. In fact, 
income inequality in America is higher than it has been since 1947. 
Forty-eight percent of all poor children have parents who work full 
time. In addition, a recent study indicates that job growth in America 
is lowest where the income gap is widest. Closing the gap helps create 
jobs rather than reduce jobs.
  Those who argue that an increase in the minimum wage will cause job 
losses, fail to look at the facts. First, no increase has caused job 
losses. But, more importantly, other recent studies have shown that an 
increase in the minimum wage tends to cause an increase in jobs, rather 
than a loss of jobs. The States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, subject 
of one of those studies, provide a classic example. New Jersey raised 
its minimum wage to $5.05. Pennsylvania kept its minimum wage at the 
required level, $4.25. Jobs increased in New Jersey. There were no job 
increases in Pennsylvania. I want my State of North Carolina to benefit 
from the New Jersey example. Indeed, a recent survey of employment 
practices in North Carolina, after the 1991 minimum wage increase, 
found that there was no significant drop in employment. The survey also 
found that there was no measurable increase in food prices. In 
addition, the survey found that workers' wages actually increased by 
more than the required change.
  There are an estimated 117,000 minimum wage workers in North 
Carolina. Those workers are not just numbers. They are people, with 
families and children. They are farmers and food service workers, 
mechanics and machine operators. They are in construction work and 
sales, health, and cleaning services, and a range of other occupations. 
Their families helped build America, and they can help rebuild it. They 
do not need charity, they need a chance. A chance is a reasonable 
increase in the minimum wage, as proposed by the President. We should 
reward work. The economy is hurt by the income gap between the rich and 
the poor in America. If we want to help the economy, help women achieve 
a level of equality, help our children and help all Americans achieve a 
better quality of life, we should pass a bill to increase the minimum 
wage. The best welfare reform is minimum wage reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like now to turn to the primary topic of my 
discussion for today. As I indicated at the outset, the Personal 
Responsibility Act of 1995 [PRA], a part of the Contract With America, 
would convert all Federal food assistance programs into block grants. I 
have many concerns with that proposal. My concerns are:
  First, providing for block grants for the various nutrition programs 
would require the development of a formula for the distribution of the 
block grant funds. Is there a way to develop a formula that is fair and 
works?
  Second, Federal food assistance programs would be cut by $17.5 
billion in the first 4 years under the Contract With America. Can those 
programs sustain such cuts and be effective?
  Third, according to a Department of Agriculture study, the formula 
proposed by the Contract With America resulted in big winners and big 
losers. Is it possible to develop a formula that meets the needs of the 
intended beneficiaries?
  Fourth, under the block grant program, States could use food 
assistance funds in any way, including cash grants and for purposes 
other than food purchases. I have two concerns about that: Won't the 
use of cash grants make fraud and abuse easier and won't allowing the 
cash grants to be used for purposes other than food purchases defeat 
the intent of the program?
  Fifth, a major limitation of a block grant program is its 
inflexibility, particularly when the economy changes. How would such a 
program compare to the existing Food Stamp Program and other programs, 
like school breakfast and school lunch?
  Sixth, in North Carolina, the nutrition programs serve as an economic 
stimulus and stabilizer for the State, especially for the farm 
community. Have changes to these programs taken into account the 
negative impact such changes might have on State and local economies?
  Seventh, what will happen when States use up funds that have been 
provided under a block grant program?
  Eighth, elementary and secondary school enrollments are expected to 
rise by 8 percent over the next 5 years. What will happen when school 
populations grow, and the money runs out?
  Ninth, will we have waiting lists and lines of people who may have 
missed an opportunity to participate in a program?
  Tenth, can we truly expect administrative savings through block 
grants 
[[Page H1906]] when the various nutrition programs are so different 
that they will need to be administered separately?
  Eleventh, the WIC Program has worked and worked well. Why are we 
trying to fix something that isn't broke?
  Mr. Speaker, the Children's Defense Fund has prepared an excellent 
briefing book on welfare reform, which was published in January of this 
year. I want to especially draw my colleagues' attention to the section 
of the briefing book entitled, ``Why Safety Net Entitlements Must Not 
Be Converted Into Block Grants.'' Let me share with you the findings of 
the Children's Defense Fund from that section:


  why safety net entitlements must not be converted into block grants

       A number of proposals are being circulated that would 
     transform key means-tested ``entitlement'' programs (food 
     stamps, school lunches and other child nutrition programs, 
     Medicaid, AFDC, and Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, 
     among others) into block grants. Such a transformation of 
     these key safety net programs would do incalculable damage to 
     America's children and families, states' finances, and the 
     nation's future.

  Mr. Speaker, we must reform our welfare system but we should improve 
the system for the people and the Nation. We should do more than 
slogans.
                              {time}  1640

  Mr. Speaker, yes, we should reform our welfare system, because our 
welfare system is not working. But we should not reform the system just 
for change itself. We should reform the system to make it a better 
system.
  We are called on to have a contract with our citizens that we 
represent. We were called to be faithful to our promise that we would 
obey the Constitution. I urge us to go beyond slogans, just slogans. 
Personal responsibility also takes in responsibility from this 
Congress. We have a responsibility to make sure these programs are 
administered efficiently as well as effectively.
  Slogans will not feed the poor. Only our working to make sure these 
programs work will. And I urge my citizens, I urge my colleagues as 
well as citizens, to understand the nutrition programs have worked well 
for America.

                          ____________________