[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3715-H3716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            FOOD ASSISTANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the debate in the House on the 
Personal Responsibility Act will conclude. We will take a vote, and it 
may pass. But that will not end the fight. This struggle will continue 
in the Senate. And if the bill passes there in substantially the same 
form as the House, that will not end the fight. In America, nothing 
becomes law until both the House and Senate have acted and until the 
President of the United States has signed the bill. If the Personal 
Responsibility Act passes the House and Senate in its current form, it 
is my hope that the President will veto the bill.
  Tomorrow, we will also consider the Mink substitute. Either the Deal 
substitute or the Mink substitute would be better alternatives to the 
Personal Responsibility Act. Both Deal and Mink provide resources to 
help move recipients from welfare to work--resources such as education, 
training, child care, and transportation.
  The Deal substitute received a significant number of votes tonight. 
There is a chance that it may have more votes than the Personal 
Responsibility Act will get. In that case, it will pass the House.
  One of the issues that remains as a point of contention is whether 
the Personal Responsibility Act cuts or increases spending for child 
nutrition programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, an 
office now headed by a Republican appointee, the bill cuts child 
nutrition programs by $7 billion over the next 5 years.
  In 1996, we will spend $300 million less on these programs than we 
are spending this year. When less is being spent from year to year, 
that is a cut in spending, not an increase. And, while there are dollar 
increases in spending in the years beyond 1996, those increases make no 
provision for inflation; population increases, that are certain; or for 
economic downturns. In other words, any increases in spending in the 
out years, will be offset by other cost considerations. Under current 
law, those cost considerations are taken into account.
  By changing current law, the effect is that we are spending less for 
nutrition programs. When we spend less, that is a cut. Worse yet, under 
the block grant proposal, the States will be able to shift one-fifth of 
the funds to nonnutrition uses. When 20 percent of the money goes 
elsewhere, that is a cut.
  The Republican majority calls these cuts ``savings.'' But, while 
insisting on calling them ``savings,'' they refuse to apply the money 
to deficit reduction. Instead, they intend to apply these ``savings'' 
to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It may seem confusing; 
however, let me summarize. The Republicans say their bill will increase 
spending. To increase spending, they want to ``reduce'' spending and 
call a cut a ``savings'', but instead of applying the ``savings'' to 
``reduce'' the deficit, they want to apply the ``savings'' 
 [[Page H3716]] to a tax cut. By applying the ``savings'' to a tax cut, 
they will ``increase'' spending. Does that make it more clear? Some 
refer to this logic as ``sincere confusion.'' In my State of North 
Carolina, we call it ``sleight of hand.'' If it wasn't so sad, it would 
be very funny. They claim they want to help children, but their bill 
hurts children.
  Under their bill, there is no guarantee that poor children will 
receive free meals when they are hungry. Under current law, children in 
poverty levels get their meals free. Under their bill, only 90 percent 
of funding is targeted for children at certain levels of poverty. Under 
current law, about 10 percent more of such funding is targeted for 
these same children.
  They say that block grants will save on administrative costs. But 
under their bill 80 percent of the ``savings'' or cuts will come 
directly from food assistance. Tomorrow, the debate on the Personal 
Responsibility Act will conclude in the House. We will take a vote, and 
it may pass. But that will not end the fight.

                          ____________________