[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.
____________________