[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6366-S6367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             GOVERNOR EDWARDS ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a 
speech by Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards be printed in the Congressional 
Record. Governor Edwards recently made remarks concerning the House-
passed Contract With America and its effect on Louisiana. I found 
Governor Edward's remarks very informative, and I wanted to share them 
with my colleagues.
  The speech follows:

                       Speech by Governor Edwards

       I have said repeatedly that I do not believe the actions of 
     American voters last fall were an endorsement of the so-
     called Republican ``Contract with America'' so much as a 
     general dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire for 
     new faces.
       National surveys indicate that few voters knew anything 
     about the contents of the so-called contract when they went 
     to the polls, and still fewer based their votes on support 
     for its provisions.
       As the Republican Congressional leaders continue to act 
     upon what they claim is a mandate for their so-called 
     contract, however, it has been necessary for me as a 
     responsible Governor of a small state (1.7 percent of U.S. 
     population) with a large percentage of poor people to take a 
     closer look at just what the provisions mean to the people of 
     Louisiana.
       I don't like what I see. I am convinced that Louisianians, 
     at least, would not have voted for the contract. I am alarmed 
     because it appears that the end result effectively will be a 
     contract ``on'' the children of Louisiana and, ultimately, on 
     the well-being of the entire state.
       Neither Louisiana nor our nation can afford to balance the 
     federal budget on the backs of its most vulnerable and its 
     most precious resources--its children. But what makes these 
     particular efforts even more onerous is that the cuts will 
     not be applied to reduce the federal deficit and, thus, 
     reduce the price these same children will be paying on behalf 
     of the nation in the future. Rather, the cuts will be used to 
     compensate for tax breaks to wealthy individuals and 
     corporations.
       This ``contract on Louisiana children'' means that while 
     families with incomes of $200,000 a year get tax breaks that 
     will put cash in their pockets, many of our poor children 
     will have food taken out of their mouths. Literally, 59,000 
     of Louisiana's poor children will lose school lunches; 28,500 
     poor children will lose meals and snacks in child-care and 
     Head Start programs, and about 410,000 children will lose 10 
     percent of their food stamp benefits.
       Under the welfare block grant proposal of House Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich, Louisiana will lose about $1.68 billion over 
     the next five years that otherwise would be used for our 
     children--especially those who are poor, hungry, disabled, 
     abused or neglected, or sick.
       Even setting aside the devastating human effect, the state 
     would suffer economically. The $1.68 billion potentially lost 
     to the state's economy represents almost twice as much as 
     Louisiana's annual, net income-tax revenues. The ripple 
     effect throughout our business community--whether it be ``Mom 
     and Pop'' service stations, shoe shops or grocery chains 
     would be a disaster that would have a ruinous ``trickle 
     down'' effect on our parishes and towns.
       Louisiana already is struggling to meet its obligations to 
     serve the health-care needs of our poor people under new 
     federal Medicaid requirements that have reduced federal aid 
     to the state and threaten to wipe out new economic gains the 
     state is making. We cannot afford this contract on our 
     state's economy.
       And that would only be the start. Louisiana would get a 
     smaller share of federal dollars that it does today, despite 
     having a larger proportion of poor people than most other 
     states and an average per-capita income that is only 80 
     percent of the U.S. average. History shows that block grants 
     tend to shrink over years as the spotlight fades away from 
     them. Further, if the national economy fell into a decline, 
     there would be no strengthening of the assistance safety net.
       And there is more. The contract threatens the 433,958 
     children under age 21 who received Medicaid-covered services 
     in 1993 in Louisiana at a cost of about $1,928 per child.
       In 1991, 31,420 births were financed by Medicaid, and 
     payments for maternity and newborn care were 4.5 percent of 
     total Medicaid expenditures in the state. Meanwhile the 
     infant mortality rate decreased by 22 percent between 1984 
     and 1992--from 12.1 to 9.4 per 1,000 live births--obviously a 
     result of better access to health care, among other factors.
       What will happen to the birth rate, to the pregnant 
     mothers, the infants, and to our children if that access is 
     reduced because of budget cuts? That is a campaign 
     ``contract'' victory I for one would not care to claim.
       I am the very embodiment of the difference a good education 
     can make in the future of a poor child. However, if 
     Republicans succeed with their stated intentions: 101,621 
     Louisiana college students--who already pay more than the 
     Southern states' average in tuition--will pay more for 
     student loans; 670 of Louisiana's young people will not 
     participate in national service jobs that allow them to earn 
     college tuition; 62 of our state's 66 school districts will 
     lose money now available to help them make their schools safe 
     and drug-free; 2,400 Louisiana students with special needs 
     will lose extra help they need to learn and to succeed, and 
     27,000 teenagers in Louisiana will lose summer jobs.
       Our young people cannot afford this ``contract on their 
     future.''
       And there is more: 7,460 Louisiana children are at risk of 
     losing access to safe, affordable child care--a move which 
     not only threatens the well-being of the children but also 
     the 
      [[Page S6367]]  psychological well-being of the parents 
     while they are at work; another 1,700 abused and neglected 
     children will lose foster care; 28,500 blind and disabled 
     children lose SSI cash assistance immediately, and 114,000 
     low-income children lose cash assistance.
       The contract falls also on 41,531 senior citizens and 
     families with children in our state who will lose assistance 
     they depend upon to provide heat during the winter, and 
     17,747 Louisiana families who otherwise could count on an FHA 
     loan, their only access to an affordable home loan, to help 
     them buy their first houses.
       These are only some of the disastrous effects of the 
     contract on Louisiana that threaten the young, the weak and 
     the poor--in short, the very people who need our help the 
     most. I do not believe that was the intent of the American 
     voters nor is the wish of Louisiana voters. And I do not 
     believe it is in the best interests of either the American 
     people or their elected representatives.
       I am reminded of the words of Jesus who described in the 
     Gospel of St. Matthew (Chapter 25, verses 44-45) how on 
     Judgement Day those on the left hand of God would ask: `Lord, 
     when saw we Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or 
     naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee? 
     Then shall He answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, 
     Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye 
     did it not to Me.'
       May I respectfully suggest as we open our ears to listen to 
     the popular political rhetoric of tax cuts and budget 
     balancing that we pause for a moment and open our eyes to the 
     consequences on those who can least afford to bear the 
     burdens which will be heaped upon them in the attempt to 
     achieve these goals.
     

                          ____________________