[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 111 (Monday, August 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9977-S9978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to very briefly speak to an 
issue that actually might be one we will debate as we go through this 
Ag appropriations bill since part of what we deal with within the 
Department of Agriculture is food assistance programs such as the 
Women, Infants, and Children Program and the Food Stamp Program.
  We have heard a great deal from the White House and from some Members 
of Congress about the success of the welfare bill. On Sunday, the White 
House released data on the number of women who were on welfare and are 
now working. There will be a gathering in Chicago tomorrow, I believe, 
where the President will be talking about welfare to work and talking 
about the success of this.
  As a Senator, I want to raise a couple of questions that I think are 
important and to focus on some unpleasant facts that we should be 
willing to face up to.
  First of all, I point out for my colleagues the fact that the welfare 
rolls are down 40 percent begs the question of whether or not we have 
reduced poverty. The fact of the matter is, the welfare rolls are down 
40 percent, but poverty is barely down. The goal was not to reduce the 
welfare rolls; the goal everybody talked about was to move families 
from poverty to economic independence. That is really what the goal was 
all about. The issue has never been welfare; the issue has been 
poverty.
  The question is, How do you reduce the poverty? I do not quite 
understand how the White House or any Democrat or any Republican can 
proclaim this a success when we have done so little to reduce poverty 
in our country, especially poverty of children. There are about 14 
million people who are poor in the country.

  My second point is, when the President and the White House talk about 
the number of mothers who are now working, that begs the question as to 
what kind of jobs and what kind of wages. What we should be talking 
about are family-wage or living-wage jobs. The evidence we have right 
now is that most of the mothers who are working are working in jobs 
with wages somewhere between about $5.50 and $7 an hour, which is 
barely above minimum wage but does not enable these families to escape 
poverty.
  My third point is, Families USA just came out with a study that 
points out there are about 675,000 low-income citizens who have now 
been cut off medical assistance because of the welfare bill. There are 
about 675,000 low-income citizens who no longer are receiving any 
medical assistance.
  My final point is, there was a Wall Street Journal piece today about 
the dramatic, precipitous decline of participation in the Food Stamp 
Program. I argue especially the decline of participation among children 
which cannot be explained alone by the state of the economy, especially 
with the dramatic increase in the use of food shelf service.
  What is going on? Do we have a situation now where the AFDC structure 
is no longer there, and when people come in, no one tells them about 
the fact they and their families are eligible for food stamps--that is 
happening--or they are not told they are eligible for medical 
assistance--that is happening--all of which leads me to two final 
things today as we move into this debate about the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  First, I lost by one vote on a welfare tracking amendment, and then 
the Senate adopted it on the Treasury-Postal bill. It is now in 
conference committee. The amendment called upon the States, when they 
apply for the $1 billion bonus money, to present to Health and Human 
Services the data on what kind of jobs women have, whether or not they 
and their children are participating in food stamps and do the families 
have medical assistance, so we can find out if families are better off 
or worse off. That is now in conference. If that gets taken out of 
conference committee--amendments are adopted in the Senate and taken 
out in conference committee--I am going to bring that amendment back up 
on this bill, and we are going to have a vote because sometimes we do 
not know what we do not want to know, and sometimes we only know what 
we want to know.
  That is the way it is with the White House about this welfare bill. 
We ought to be engaged in an honest policy evaluation to find out what 
is happening in the country. We are talking about poor women and poor 
children, and we ought to know whether they are better off or whether 
they are worse off. There is some disturbing evidence that many of 
these families might, in fact, be worse off. It is a little early and 
premature for the White House to be declaring this a success or for any 
Senator or Representative, Democrat or Republican, to be declaring it a 
success.
  My final point is, since we are dealing with an Ag appropriations 
bill--and I think I will have an amendment to this effect--we need to 
call on USDA, or someone, to do a study and to report

[[Page S9978]]

back to the Senate and to the Congress in a relatively brief period of 
time, as soon as possible, what is happening with the Food Stamp 
Program in this country. We need to know.
  There was a dramatic piece in the Washington Post about 2 weeks ago. 
I could hardly bear to read it. It was the front page of the B section. 
It was a picture of an 8-year-old child, a little boy. The whole piece 
was devoted to hungry children in the District of Columbia.
  The gist of the article was that in August--now--the summer schools 
are going to shut down and the breakfasts will not be there, the School 
Lunch Program will not be there, and there is no food at home.
  In this particular family, this grandmother with four children does 
not have enough money to feed her children. What I want to know is, 
whatever happened to the Food Stamp Program? That has been our safety 
net program. What is going on when we have a dramatic rise in the use 
of food shelves and food pantries in this country? The Catholic Church 
network study pointed this out just last month.
  What is going on when 675,000 low-income people are removed from 
medical assistance as a result of the welfare bill? What is going on 
when the vast majority of these women are working at jobs that still do 
not get them and their families out of poverty? What is going on when 
we are unwilling to do an honest policy evaluation of this legislation, 
because very soon in many States there will be a drop-dead date 
certain, and all families, all women, and all children will be cut off 
from any welfare assistance at all. Before that happens, we need to 
know what is happening with this legislation.
  I have come to the floor of the Senate today to basically challenge 
my colleagues to make sure this stays in the conference committee and 
to announce I will be out here on the floor with an amendment if it 
gets eliminated from the conference committee, and to announce we ought 
to also have a study of the Food Stamp Program to find out why it is 
not reaching children and families who need the help, and also to 
directly challenge the White House and the President. It is not enough 
to say we have cut the rolls by 40 percent. The question is, Have we 
reduced the poverty by 40 percent? We have not.

  It is not enough to say these mothers are now working. The question 
is, Are they working jobs that will enable them and their children to 
no longer be poor in our country? That is the goal which I do not 
believe has been met.
  We are talking about the lives of poor women and poor children. They 
deserve to be on our radar screen. They deserve an honest, rigorous 
policy evaluation so that we, as decisionmakers, know whether or not, 
by our actions, we are helping these women and children or whether or 
not we are hurting these women and children. We ought to have the 
courage to step up to the plate.
  I think we are about ready to start on the Ag appropriations bill. I 
will yield the floor. I look forward to this debate. I came down here 
on the floor to debate this bill. This is the crisis that is staring my 
State of Minnesota in the face. I am going to leave it up to Senator 
Harkin or Senator Daschle to start out debate on our side, but I am 
very anxious to be in this debate and very anxious to speak for farmers 
and for agriculture.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________