[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3315-H3318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE MANAGING THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kim). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, should the Federal Government be 
managing the Food Stamp Program?
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I rise today because the Food Stamp 
Program provides clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were correct 
when they advocated a limited role for the Federal Government.
  I'm talking about a system that has increased in cost to the 
taxpayers by 300 percent. I'm talking about a system that wastes $3 
billion yearly in fraud and errors alone. I'm talking about a system 
that does nothing to address the root causes of recipients' needs. I'm 
talking about the Federal Food Stamp Program--a monument to Great 
Society pseudocompassion.
  In Marvin Olasky's ``The Tragedy of American Compassion'' we see an 
exceptional portrayal of how American society can and will take better 
care of its needy without the interference of 
[[Page H3316]] the Federal Government. Olasky tells how, in 1890:

     a successful war on poverty was waged by tens of thousands of 
     local charitable agencies and religious groups around the 
     country. The platoons of the greatest charity army in 
     American history often were small, and made up of volunteers 
     led by poorly paid professional managers. Women volunteers by 
     day and men by night often worked out of cramped offices and 
     church basements.

  What Olasky is describing is an America that reaches out to its 
fellow man. Private charities and churches are still capable of doing 
that and they can do it much better than the Government has.
  Mr. Speaker, people may be listening tonight and thinking--that's 
what the Republican welfare reform bill is supposed to do. They would 
be correct, if not for one exception. That exception is the Federal 
Food Stamp Program. A decision has been made to exempt what is by far 
the largest Federal food assistance program from the block grant 
concept. We're block granting AFDC, we're block granting WIC, we're 
block granting school nutrition programs, but we're going to keep the 
Federal Food Stamp Program at the Federal level.
  Olasky compares the attempts to do this with an anecdote from 
mythology. ``Year after year,'' he writes, ``proposals to tinker with 
the bureacracy and reduce the marginal tax wall caused mild stirs in 
Washington, but even the best proposals mirrored Hercules's early 
attempts to kill the nine-headed monster Hydra; each time he hacked off 
one head, he found two growing in its place.''
  Block granting the Food Stamp Program by itself is not slaying the 
monster, but I reject the notion of some great Federal responsibility 
to administer the program. The taxpayers providing the funding are 
residents of the States. It is taxpayer money, not money belonging to 
the Agriculture Committee, the Congress, or the Federal Government. We 
should take the administration of this program closer to the people.
  This chart provides a perfect illustration of why we should take the 
administration of this program closer to the people. As you can see 
from this chart, about 25 percent of the costs of the current Food 
Stamp Program are not used for the potential purchase of food. In fact, 
right off the top of the Federal funds for food stamps. $1.1 billion is 
issued for a special block grant to Puerto Rico. Next, the Federal 
Government must reimburse the States for about half of the 
administrative costs that the States incur for issuing these coupons. 
This does not take into account an additional $250 million in other 
administrative-type costs that decrease the benefits. And even after 
all these bills have been paid, we still have to consider that there is 
1.9 billion dollars' worth of coupons that are issued erroneously. This 
includes caseworker mistakes, unintentional mistakes made by 
recipients, and about $500 million in intentional deceit on the part of 
recipients. Last, but certainly not least, we have heard estimates from 
the Secret Service that there is an additional $1 billion lost to 
illegal food stamp trafficking. After all these costs are factored into 
the equation, we are left with 75 cents for every taxpayer dollar that 
might go to the purchase of food for the needy. And may I remind you, 
this doesn't consider the fact that the States also spend approximately 
$1.5 billion in administrative costs as well.
  Why does it cost so very much to provide food services to those who 
are in need? It costs so much because the Federal Government is 
attempting to provide the services. My amendment would change all of 
that. Instead of layer upon layer of administrative guidelines, 
regulations, and rules at every level of government, this amendment 
would simply repeal the administrative nightmares and give the States 
the flexibility needed to provide true and meaningful welfare reform. 
As you can see from the chart, my amendment, which almost mirrors the 
contract language, would limit 5 percent of the block grants for 
administrative expenses. It requires that 95 percent of the funds from 
the block grant be used for food assistance for the economically 
disadvantaged. It is simple, clear, and I believe quite compelling. How 
can we argue against sending the funds to those who are closely and 
acutely aware of the problems and eliminating the red tape that has 
prohibited success in the Food Stamp Program. If we take the Federal 
bureaucracy out of the equation, what remains is a lot more money for 
food assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Funderburk], my colleague.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  Mr. Speaker, when Bill Clinton campaigned for President as a new 
Democrat he promised to end welfare as we know it. What happened? The 
Democrats first so-called reform actually expanded welfare spending by 
$110 billion and it destroyed what was left of workfare. It was 
business as usual; more government, more taxes, more bureaucrats.
  But you know what Mr. Speaker, the American people weren't fooled. 
Last November, they said to the liberals, ``enough is enough.'' They 
understood that in no area is the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy 
of the American left more apparent than in welfare reform. The liberal 
left's notion of reform is to spend more of other peoples' money. Their 
notion is to have the poverty industry and the professionally indignant 
churn out more of the perverse regulations and programs which have 
turned so many of our people into a mass of favor seekers.
  This is the liberal Democrats' version of welfare reform: Have a 
child out of wedlock, don't have a job, and don't live with a man who 
is working. If you do these things the taxpayers will take care of you. 
Uncle Sam will give you a check each month, with free medical care, 
free food, and under Mr. Clinton's plan, 2 years in a Federal job 
program and free child care. You see the liberals can't breakout of 
their Washington-knows-best mentality. They want to undo the damage of 
30 years of failed Federal programs by creating more Federal programs. 
Mr. Speaker, since 1965, we have spent over $5 trillion on welfare and 
all we have to show for it is disintegrating families, children having 
children, burned out cities, and a 30-percent illegitimacy rate. We 
won't make a dent in the problem by trotting out the same tired old 
liberal ideas.
  We can make a good start today by endorsing the food stamp block 
grant amendment. This amendment returns us to the original welfare 
reform formula in the Contract With America. It freezes funding at the 
1995 spending level and provides almost $19 billion in savings over 5 
years. But, more importantly, it says people getting food stamps under 
the age of 60 must work.
  Mr. Speaker, we were sent to Washington to put people to work and to 
get the Government's hands out of the peoples' pockets. Let me tell you 
where we will be if we don't get a handle on the runaway welfare train. 
This year food stamps will cost the American people $26 billion. If 
left alone food stamps will
 cost us $32 billion by the year 2000. Today Federal welfare spending 
stands at $387 billion, by 2000 we will spend $537 billion on welfare 
entitlements. Simply put, the madness has to stop.

  The food stamp block grant eliminates the Federal middleman and cuts 
the heart out of the Washington bureaucracy. It says the real 
innovators are in the States and the counties. These are the people who 
are closest to the problem. They know peoples' needs. They are on the 
front line in the fight against poverty. They understand its causes and 
they can provide the moral and spiritual leadership so many of our 
citizens so desperately need.
  Mr. Speaker, the goal of welfare reform is to get people off the 
Federal payroll. The best welfare program is a job. By cutting 
government, taxes, regulations, and bureaucrats we can create a new era 
of opportunity that will make it easier for poor Americans to get back 
on their feet.
  I want to close with remarks from the Governor of Michigan, John 
Engler, who is leading the fight to take government back from the 
bureaucrats and the social planners. Governor Engler tells us:

       Ultimately, the debate over welfare reform is a debate 
     about our basic principles and values as Americans--about the 
     value of work, responsibility, freedom, and self-reliance. 
     It's a debate we cannot afford to lose. It's a debate we can 
     win--if we act in time.
  [[Page H3317]] Mr. Clinton is right about one thing, it really is 
past time to end welfare as we know it. Let's start with food stamp 
reform.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about block granting food stamps to the 
States, opponents of the idea express doubts about the ability of State 
government to reform the program. Forgetting momentarily that the 
Federal Government has not shown any ability to operate the program 
under its own auspices, let us look at what the States have done with 
welfare reform.
  First of all, Wisconsin Governor, Tommy Thompson, introduced a number 
of innovative programs that reduced welfare rolls in his State by 25 
percent, saving State taxpayers $16 million per month. In 1988, he 
began Learnfare which discourages truancy and promotes education. In 
1990, he started Children First, a program to increase child support 
collections. In 1992, his Parental and Family Responsibility Initiative 
removed disincentives to marriage and discouraged children from having 
children. This year, he launched Work Not Welfare requiring able-bodied 
recipients to work for cash benefits.
  Michigan Governor, John Engler, who we heard about prior, offered 
welfare clients incentives to work and required them to sign a social 
contract agreeing to work, receive job training, or volunteer at least 
20 hours per week. In just 2 years, the plan has helped nearly 55,000 
welfare achieve independence, and welfare caseloads have fallen to 
their lowest level in 7 years, saving taxpayers $100 million.
  Massachusetts Governor, William Weld, signed legislation last year to 
strengthen child support collection which is expected to save $102 
million in AFDC and Medicaid expenses and enable an estimated 7,000 
families to discontinue the AFDC Program.
                              {time}  1515

  This year, he introduced welfare reform requiring able-bodied welfare 
recipients to take a job or community placement within 60 days in 
exchange for child care and health care benefits.
  In addition, Governor Thompson recently identified four principles 
around which any welfare system should be built. These include: First, 
to end indefinite cash assistance; require work of able-bodied adults 
as a condition of receiving temporary assistance; include provisions to 
reduce illegitimacy; fund States, not individuals, by ending individual 
entitlements.
  Michigan Governor John Engler stated matters well on February 9 at an 
Agriculture Subcommittee hearing on food stamps. The Governor said, and 
I quote, ``Let me be absolutely clear on this from the start: America's 
governors understand the importance of good nutrition, especially for 
children, pregnant women, and other vulnerable individuals. None of us 
would adopt policies that would take food from the mouths of people in 
need. On the contrary, we want the freedom of a block grant to be able 
to help more people with better, more efficient community-based 
programs that better meet local needs,'' end quote.
  Governor Engler also said, and I quote, ``With the freedom of block 
grants, I trust my human service department directors and their 
colleagues at the county, city, and neighborhood level to get the job 
done. And I trust local charities, civic groups, churches, synagogues 
and mosques to make sure that the children and mothers to be in their 
respective communities get the proper nutrition.''
  Mr. Speaker, I know some people feel that the Federal Government is 
inherently better at providing food assistance. I believe the track 
record shows otherwise. The closer the administration is to the people 
who need the food, the better that administration will be.
  How effective are churches and private charities in dealing with 
hunger? As early as the pilgrims establishing a community in 
Massachusetts, Americans have shown compassion for one another free of 
government interference. Marvin Olasky, in The Tragedy of American 
Compassion, quotes Pilgrim leader William Bradford describing the 
benevolent activities of those Pilgrims who remained healthy. 
Bradford's account describes able-bodied men and women cooking food, 
washing clothes, and providing medicinal aid to those less fortunate.
  Olasky writes that the need to offer personal help and hospitality 
became a frequent subject of sermons, which in colonial days were more 
powerful in shaping cultural values, meanings, and a sense of corporate 
purpose.
  Congregationalist and Presbyterian sermons noted that faith without 
works of compassion was dead. Anglicans also argued that those blessed 
materially by God should have compassion for the poor by descending 
into misery when necessary in order to help them up: This in one order 
of life is right and good; nothing more harmonious.
  And when Methodism spread in the 18th century, American followers 
propagated John Wesley's advice to, quote, ``Put yourself in the place 
of every poor man and deal with him as you would hope that God would 
deal with you.''
  I do not need to document the work of organizations like Catholic 
Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, and the United Jewish 
Appeal. I even have some firsthand experience at church-directed 
charities. I ran the food pantry at 12th Avenue General Baptist Church 
in Evansville, IN. We met people's needs, we took an interest in 
people's lives. That is the America I know. That is the America that 
used to be and can be again if we can get away from this idea that the 
Federal Government is our nanny.
  At this time I would like to offer time to the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think that if the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] wants to conduct a colloquy, I will be 
happy to talk with the gentleman about it. But it seems to me that the 
Committee on Agriculture varied the Contract With America and from the 
change that the people in America have been asking for, and that is a 
smaller Federal Government and local control. And that is what we were 
sent here to accomplish.
  We are not eliminating food stamps. We are not eliminating food 
assistance. We are in favor of kids growing up good and strong. And 
good, healthy fat ones is what we want, right?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. So, I think that it is important that 
people understand in the world that the Education Committee designed 
three block grants for child care, for family nutrition, and for 
school-based nutrition. And all of those programs provide more money 
for all of the programs.
  And not only do they provide more money, but they allow the States to 
be their own judge of how to spend that money and move a little bit of 
it around to wherever the priority projects are in each State, based on 
each State's needs, each kid's needs, each school's needs. Would you 
agree with that?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I think the Committee on Ways and Means 
designed block grants for child protection and family assistance, so 
the two committees together have formed block grants that protect 
children, protect the school system, protect the pregnant women, 
infants, and childrens programs, and make America safer and better. 
And, in addition, ask only in return that they please work for whatever 
benefits that they receive. Do you think that is too much to ask for 
Americans to do?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I do not, sir.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Would you not think that most Americans 
want to work anyway?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, sir, they sure do.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. And we are going to give them that 
opportunity, along with greater and better benefits based on their own 
local input and needs.
  And I think there seems to be resistance in this town to doing things 
that would protect our children at home. Most people here would say 
that the resistance here wants to keep the massive Federal bureaucracy 
in operation, the massive Federal control over every individual's life, 
including the kids.
  And we are teaching the kids, I think, would you not agree, that we 
are teaching the kids that the Federal Government knows best? And I 
defy anybody to say, whether you or I, or 
[[Page H3318]] anybody else in this House of Representatives or Senate, 
knows what is best for the children in their own hometown, in an 
individual school district, in an individual home.
  Would you agree?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. I would most assuredly agree with you.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. And I like your chart by the way. I did not 
get a chance to tell you that. But I think all the people that vote for 
the remainder of the welfare bill under block grants, but refuse to 
make this needed change should rethink their vote, because we think we 
need to be consistent; consistent with the Contract With America, 
consistent with the wishes of the American people, and consistent with 
the ideas and principles of the conservative party, the Republican 
party. Given America back to Americans. Thank you for letting me talk 
with you.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much, sir.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Rules Committee is graciously allowing me to do 
my special order, and I would like to continue and conclude at this 
time. But there will be an opportunity later.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The gentleman will not yield.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
putting it so well. The local, State, and county governments know best. 
That is where our tax dollars come from, and we need to return the idea 
that they know what is best. Theirs is the resource of the money. Let 
them do things in their locales that they think is best.
  There is a quote that says, ``Welfare is a narcotic. A subtile 
destroyer of the human spirit.'' Who said this Mr. Speaker? Was it, A, 
Charles Murray; B, Ronald Reagan; or C, William F. Buckley? The answer, 
Mr. Speaker, is none of the above. The quote is from Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt.
  Who would you say, Mr. Speaker, has been least effective in meeting 
the needs of the poor? A, Mother Teresa; B, the United Way; C, the 
Salvation Army; or D, the Federal Government? If you formulated your 
answer based on dollars spent, you would probably choose one of the top 
three. But in answering the question, Who has been least effective in 
meeting the needs of the poor, the answer is clear. The Federal 
Government has failed.
  Why, then, would we think of a federally run food stamp program as 
the ultimate social safety net as some are calling it? Marvin Olasky, 
in ``The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' writes how charity workers 
deal with applicants for assistance. They start with the goal of 
answering one question: Who is bound to help in this case? Charity 
workers then called in relatives, neighbors or former coworkers or 
coworshipers.
  Relief given without reference to friends and neighbors is 
accompanied by moral loss. Mary Richmond of the Baltimore Charity 
Organization Society noted, and I quote, ``Poor neighborhoods are 
doomed to grow poorer and more sordid whenever the natural ties of 
neighborliness are weakened by our well-meant but unintelligent 
interference.''
  Another minister said, quote: ``Raising the money required specially 
on each case, though very troublesome, has immense advantages. It 
enforces family ties and neighborly or other duties instead of relaxing 
them.''
  The Federal Government does not do any of these things. The proposed 
plan for food stamps, while less of a budget strain than the current 
system, continues on with the Federal tradition of throwing money at 
the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would ask that Members consider the 
idea of block granting food stamps and the idea that the Federal 
Government does not always know best and that State and local 
governments can best meet the needs, along with private and religious 
charities, to meet the needs of our neighbors. And I give back the 
balance of my time.


                          ____________________