[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3091-H3092]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          THE RESCISSION BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider the rule and the 
bill on rescissions. That $17 billion cut will begin to fundamentally 
change the way the Federal Government acts and responds, but more 
importantly, will begin to change the fundamental way we respond to 
Americans.
  While I suspect both will pass, I intend to oppose both the rule and 
the bill. The rule is too restrictive. First, it only allows the 
restoration of programs through other cuts within the same chapter. And 
second, the rule restricts cuts to those programs already proposed to 
be cut. In short, the rule is designed to ensure that the disproportion 
in cuts proposed cannot be changed.
  According to the analysis of the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, low-income people will bear 63 percent of the cuts, where 
they only account for 12 percent. And over 12 percent of the total 
budget is paying 63 percent of the cuts proposed. The rule makes it 
virtually impossible to correct that imbalance of the shift of more 
burdens to the poor.
  I cannot support such a rule, Mr. Speaker. Again, I cannot support 
such a rule that reverses in such a basic and elemental way the way in 
which we provide for the quality of life for the poor that Americans 
have come to expect and in fact, have come to rely upon.
  The rescission bill would change how poor people eat, where poor 
people live, and where the poor people work, and what they can learn, 
and where they can travel, and how poor people can attend to their 
health care when they are in need.
  It should be noted that the quality of life for poor people cannot be 
changed 
[[Page H3092]] significantly or dramatically without affecting the 
quality of life of all of us. We all live in America and as they are 
affected, we are also affected.
  If poor become poorer in our society, the resources from those of us 
who are affluent and rich certainly will be drained. If poor people are 
not involved in the mainstream of our economy, the mainstream of 
America will suffer as a consequence of that.
  In our blind rush to change things, it seems that we are ignoring 
these changing factors. To review some of these changes, let's consider 
that again according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 
low-income elderly will be the hardest hit by a rescission. Why? 
Because the low income energy assistance program will be eliminated 
from these cuts. More than half of a million senior citizens will no 
longer have assistance in the cold of winter for heating purchases.
  Also the low-income housing assistance program will also be 
drastically reduced. Poor children will be hit very, very bad by this 
bill. Excluding the housing and the energy assistance programs, $5 of 
every $6 proposed for the cut will affect children and youth. Children 
and youth thus far will face a double hit, because they also are 
assisted by the assistance for housing and also for fuel assistance.
  More importantly, to receive no assistance means that low-income 
families with children must bear a disproportionate burden. The 
availability of housing for the poor will be made far more difficult 
if, indeed, the rescission package goes through.
  These are fundamental changes in the quality of
   life of our citizens. While poor children will be cold, they may 
also be malnourished. Despite facts and statements to the contrary, 
more cuts in nutrition will indeed, occur, Mr. Speaker, despite the 
fact that the opposing side is saying that that will not happen.

  Consider this fact: The WIC program will be cut by $25 million in 
this rescission package, even before we get to the welfare reform next 
week. So to suggest that we are not cutting, we are going to make sure 
that children, pregnant women, and the very small suffer the most.
  Why are we doing this? Where is the rationale for making these 
drastic cuts? In a sense, Mr. Speaker, we are imposing unfunded 
mandates on the States. I submit to you, by cutting these funds we are 
shifting the burden from the Federal Government to the States. And it 
will be, indeed, the expectation of the poor and those who have come to 
rely on these, they will now go to the States or to their local 
Governor expecting them to bear up this burden.
  The States will have very little, I suspect, in responding to those 
who are cold in the winter, who are ill-housed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker 
we should not be doing this.
  Funding for safe and drug-free schools, as my colleague has just 
mentioned to you, will be drastically cut. Some $482 million will be 
lost, including $9 million, Mr. Speaker, from my State of North 
Carolina. And for those lucky enough to receive training, they will not 
have jobs to go to because transportation will be cut.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the rescission bill really is a 
contract for disaster for poor people in America.

                          ____________________