[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13264-S13266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
        Jeffords):
  S. 1805. A bill to restore food stamp benefits for aliens, to provide 
States with flexibility in administering the food stamp vehicle 
allowance, to index the excess shelter expense deduction to inflation, 
to authorize additional appropriations to purchase and make available 
additional commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                     the hunger relief act of 1999

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, 
and I are introducing the Hunger Relief Act of 1999. Our goals in this 
legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from 
welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the 
availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans 
and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan 
support.
  Improving Food Stamp accessibility is a central part of helping low-
income working families feed their children and achieve self-
sufficiency. A strong Food Stamp Program, along with a higher minimum 
wage and an adequate Earned Income Tax Credit, gives low-income 
families the stability they need to build a brighter future. With the 
unemployment rate at a 30-year low and record, economic growth, this is 
a time of broad economic prosperity for most Americans. But that is not 
true for the poorest Americans. In 1998 the poverty rate declined from 
13.3% to 12.7%, but this still surpasses rates in the 11% range 
recorded throughout the 1970's. The safety net provided by food stamps 
has weakened since the 1970's, and hunger among working families in 
America has grown.
  In July 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported that 6.6 million 
adults and 3.4 million children live in households that suffered from 
hunger in 1998, and that 36 million people comprising 10% of the 
nation's households lack secure access to enough food for an active 
healthy life.
  In the same month, the Congressional General Accounting Office 
reported that of the 14 million U.S. children who live in poverty, the 
proportion who receive food stamps dropped from 94% in 1995 to 84% in 
1997. During 1997 alone, the number of children living in poverty 
decreased by 350,000--but the number receiving food stamps decreased by 
1.3 million. GAO's report concludes, ``children's participation in the 
Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children 
living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and 
assistance.''
  In January 1999, the Urban Institute released the results of a study 
of former welfare recipients and reported that 33% have to skip or 
reduce meals due to lack of food. This result is corroborated by 
independent studies in Wisconsin and South Carolina, and by NETWORK's 
National Welfare Reform Project.
  In 1998, surveys of emergency food providers conducted by the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest independently 
documented that the need for emergency food services increased 15 to 
20% over the previous year, and that almost 40% of emergency food 
clients live in households in which an adult is employed.
  The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project conducted 
surveys of over 5,000 low-income families between 1992 and 1994--the 
most comprehensive study of childhood hunger ever undertaken in the 
U.S.--and found that approximately 4 million children under age 12 were 
hungry, and 9.6 million were at risk of hunger.
  Far too many working parents still struggle to feed their families. 
If our national values cannot persuade us to fight hunger now, while 
the economy is strong, when will we ever do so? If we need economic 
reasons to fight hunger in America, we need only consider the effects 
of hunger on children.
  Hunger and undernutrition are serious problems for people of all 
ages, but their effects are particularly damaging to children. Over 14 
million children live in households that suffer hunger. Hungry and 
undernourished children are more likely to become anemic, and to suffer 
from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more 
likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When 
children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not 
address this problem, our considerable investments in education and 
early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that 
they should. Hunger and under-nutrition injure our greatest national 
resource--our children.
  In the past three decades, food stamps have grown into the nation's 
most comprehensive and trusted way to end hunger. The news that 
participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 27% over the past 
three and a half years would be welcome--if poverty had declined by a 
comparable amount. But the poverty rate declined by only 7% over this 
time. Six million more poor people are without food stamps today than 
in 1995. GAO reported that in 1997 alone, while the number of children 
living in poverty decreased by just 350,000, the number of children 
receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. We need to be concerned 
that the nutritional needs of the other 950,000 children are not being 
met.
  Just as the decline in the welfare rolls does not by itself show that 
people are no longer poor, the decline in Food Stamp rolls in no way 
means that children and families are no longer hungry. Increasingly, 
low-income working families are relying on emergency food services. 
Across the country, demand for emergency food services has increased by 
as much as 50% in some places. Many food banks find themselves unable 
to meet the increased requests for help.
  Only two days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article 
entitled ``Hunger--a growing concern in suburbs,'' describing 
increasing demand for emergency food in some of Chicago's most affluent 
neighborhoods.
  A November 1998 study by Project Bread and Tufts University found 
that 49% of emergency food providers in Massachusetts reported 
increased need among families with children over the previous year. Of 
those requesting assistance, 33% of food bank clients were children, 
and 27% of Massachusetts adults requesting emergency food assistance 
were employed. Although our

[[Page S13265]]

strong economy and historically low unemployment rate have helped many 
families get back on their feet, there is no question that many 
families are working hard and still cannot make ends meet.

  By simplifying Food Stamp eligibility rules and improving access to 
the program, we can reduce hunger and malnutrition, and help working 
families live healthier, more fulfilling lives. No one in this country 
should go hungry. This is a problem we can solve. We must not become 
indifferent to the message that hunger indeed has a cure.
  The Hunger Relief Act repeals many of the 1996 welfare reform law's 
restrictions on access to food stamps for legal immigrants. For 30 
years prior to the welfare reform law, Food Stamps were available to 
legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law made them no longer 
eligible. That law also created substantial uncertainty among eligible 
groups as to whether they qualify.
  Last year, Congress restored food stamp eligibility to some legal 
immigrants--children, seniors, and disabled persons--who were in the 
United States before August 1996. This was an important step, but it 
helped fewer than a third of those who were adversely affected by the 
1996 law. Hunger among legal immigrants predictably increased after 
1996, although many legal immigrants held low-income jobs and paid 
taxes. Children continue to be denied benefits because they arrived in 
the U.S. after 1996 or because exclusion of their parents directly 
results in decreased access to food stamps. Our laws recognize that 
legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care 
programs. Yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal 
immigrants are denied access to adequate nutrition. The Hunger Relief 
Act ensures that all those who need food stamps can obtain them.
  In addition, the Hunger Relief Act helps low-income families by 
relaxing federal limits on the value of a vehicle that a family can own 
and still be eligible for food stamps. The current federal limit is 
$4,650, which has risen only $150 since 1977.
  Because low-income parents commonly need a vehicle to get to work and 
to safely transport their children, many states have adopted vehicle 
allowance standards for their state assistance programs that are more 
generous than the federal standard. The conflicting and complex rules 
that govern state programs and the Food Stamp Program complicate access 
to food stamps for working families, as confirmed by GAO's July 1999 
report.
  By giving states the option of using their state vehicle standards 
instead of the federal standard, the Hunger Relief Act gives states the 
flexibility to ensure that their nutritional needs are met. It also 
promotes work and child safety.
  The case of a single parent of three young children in Northeastern 
Massachusetts illustrates the need for this provision. The mother's 
income recently dropped to $928 per month, but she is denied food 
stamps because the value of her car exceeds $4650. Massachusetts would 
be unlikely to reject her application under state law, but the federal 
law requires her pleas for help to be rejected. Our Hunger Relief Act 
will change that.
  The Hunger Relief Act also enables families to qualify for food 
stamps when they have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing 
costs. Low-income families must often pay high rent for substandard 
housing in many cities today. According to a recent report by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, demand for public housing 
is rising, while the supply of affordable apartments and houses is 
declining. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of affordable apartments 
fell by more than 1 million. Nearly 1 million low-income families are 
now waiting for public housing units across the country. They may wait 
as long as 8 years in New York City to be placed.
  HUD compares finding affordable housing to an ominous game of musical 
chairs in which only the lucky find seats. In Boston, the average rent 
for a two bedroom apartment rose by 58% between 1990 and 1998 to $1,350 
after adjusting for inflation. The Women's Educational and Technical 
Union has documented that single parents with one infant pay an average 
rent of $839 in Boston, $709 in Worcester, and $578 in Pittsfield. All 
of these figures far exceed half of a minimum wage worker's income.
  Present law permits some shelter costs to be deducted when 
determining Food Stamp eligibility, but the deduction is capped too 
low. In 1996, 950,000 people received reduced food stamp benefits due 
to the shelter cap. Over 880,000 of those affected were families with 
children. The Hunger Relief Act raises the cap from $275 to $340, and 
then indexes it to inflation, increasing access to food stamps for 
approximately 1.25 million people.
  For example, a family from Centerville, Massachusetts consisting of a 
working mother and three children, survives on $1,433 in income each 
month. Yet their shelter costs exceed $1,200. This family cannot 
possibly meet these children's nutritional needs on $233 each month, 
even if the family spends money on nothing besides shelter and food. 
The Hunger Relief Act is intended to keep families like this from 
having to choose between heating and eating.
  Finally, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal support for 
emergency food programs. Sharp increases in requests for help from food 
pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year, despite 
steep declines in food stamp participation. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, and America's Second Harvest has independently documented a 15 
to 20% increase in need over 1998. A recent survey of 30 cities by the 
National Governors Association found that a growing number of low-
income working parents rely on food banks to feed their children. 79% 
of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Projected Bread reported 
serving more working poor in 1998, and 72% reported helping more 
families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met, 
the Hunger Relief Act increases federal funding for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program by 10%.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the 
Hunger Relief Act will be $2.5 billion over the first 5 years. This 
amount will increase our support for the Food Stamp Program by just 
over 2% each year, a relatively small price to repair the most serious 
problems in the nation's core nutrition program.
  Americans overwhelmingly recognize that hunger is also closely linked 
to problems in health, education, and the workplace. Adequate nutrition 
should be available to all. Over three hundred national, regional, and 
local organizations support the Hunger Relief Act. Even before welfare 
reform was enacted, a January 1996 poll found that 55% of Americans 
believe hunger is worsening in our country, and 74% felt that more 
should be done to combat hunger in America. I request unanimous consent 
that a letter signed by over 300 organizations in support of the Hunger 
Relief Act may be printed in the Congressional Record following my 
statement.
  Millions of low-income working families, like the Jenkins family of 
Royalston, Massachusetts will be helped by this bill. Although Terry 
Jenkins' husband works in two jobs, after their mortgage payments, car 
payments, utilities and clothing expenses for four children are paid, 
they often cannot afford enough food for their family. As a result, 
Terry worries that her children cannot concentrate during their 
classes.
  Her concern is legitimate. Students who are hungry or at-risk of 
hunger are twice as likely to have academic, social and psychological 
problems as children from similar low-income families who are not 
hungry. By improving the Food Stamp Program, the Hunger Relief Act will 
reduce the suffering for millions of families like the Jenkins.
  Now, while the economy is strong, we must actively fight hunger and 
ensure that the most basic needs of children and families are met. I 
welcome the support of Senators Specter, Leahy and Jeffords in this 
bipartisan effort and I look forward to early action in the Senate to 
pass this needed legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we approach the beginning of the next 
century, we have much to be proud of as a nation. The stock market has 
reached an historic 10,000 mark. We are in the midst of one of the 
greatest economic expansions in our nation's history. More Americans 
own their own homes

[[Page S13266]]

than at any time, and we have the lowest unemployment and welfare 
caseloads in a generation.
  Yet, there are millions of Americans who go hungry every day. Just 
this past July, the Department of Agriculture published a report 
entitled ``Household Food Security in the United States 1995-1998'' 
which reported that last year, 36 million persons--of which 
approximately 40% were children--lived in households that experienced 
hunger.
  While it is true that food stamp and welfare program caseloads have 
dropped over the past few years, hunger has not. As families try to 
make the transition from welfare to work, too many are falling out and 
being left behind. And too often, it is our youth who is feeling the 
brunt of this, as one out of every five people lining up at soup 
kitchens is a child.
  Second Harvest, the nation's largest hunger relief charity, 
distributed more than one billion pounds of food to an estimated 26 
million low-income Americans last year through their network of 
regional food banks. These food banks provide food and grocery products 
to nearly fifty thousand local charitable feeding programs--food 
shelves, pantries, soup kitchens and emergency shelters.
  Yet as the demand has risen at local hunger relief agencies, too many 
pantries and soup kitchens have been forced to turn needy people away 
because the request for their services exceeds available food.
  Last year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors released its Annual Survey 
of Hunger and Homelessness, which reported that the demand for hunger 
relief services grew 14 percent last year. Additionally, 21 percent of 
requests for emergency food were estimated to have gone unmet. This is 
the highest rate of unmet need by emergency food providers since the 
recession of the early 1990s. And this is not just a problem of the 
inner cities. According to the Census Bureau, hunger and poverty are 
growing faster in the suburbs than anywhere else in America. In my own 
state of Vermont, one in ten people is ``food insecure,'' according to 
government statistics. That is, of course, just a clinical way to say 
they are hunger or at risk of hunger.
  Under the leadership of Deborah Flateman, the Vermont Food Bank 
distributes food to approximately 240 private social service agencies 
throughout the state to help hungry and needy Vermonters. The local 
food shelves and emergency kitchens which receive food from the Vermont 
Food Bank clearly are on the front-line against hunger. And what they 
are seeing is very disturbing--one in four seeking hunger relief is a 
child under the age of 17. Elderly people make up more than a third of 
all emergency food recipients. We cannot continue to allow so many of 
our youngest and oldest citizens face the prospect of hunger on a daily 
basis. Another extremely troubling statistic about hunger in Vermont is 
that in 45 percent of the households that receive charitable food 
assistance, one or more adults are working. Nationwide, working poor 
households represent more than one-third of all emergency food 
recipients. These are people in Vermont and across the U.S. who are 
working, paying taxes and contributing to the economic growth of our 
nation, but are reaping few of the rewards.

  Our government has taken numerous steps to alleviate hunger in 
America, but clearly more still needs to be done.
  The Emergency Food Assistance Program has been essential in the fight 
against hunger by providing USDA commodities to the nation's food banks 
and local emergency feeding charities. As the demands continue to grow, 
however, TEFAP resources are running on empty. The Hunger Relief Act 
would increase funding for TEFAP, thus helping community charities cope 
with increased local demand for hunger relief.
  Perhaps more than any other program, the Food Stamp Program has been 
critical to the prevention and alleviation of hunger and poverty, and 
is essential to helping families on welfare transition to work. 
Nationally, one in ten people--half of which are children--participates 
in the Food Stamp Program.
  In this time of economic booms, one in five U.S. children--
approximately 15 million children--lives in a household receiving food 
stamps.
  And far too many families with full-time or part-time minimum wage 
jobs need food stamps just to approach the poverty line.
  For many families, the choice between paying the rent and buying food 
is becoming more and more common. While the Food Stamp Program does 
adjust benefits for families with high shelter costs, this adjustment 
has been artificially capped. In 1993, Congress passed a phased-out 
elimination of the cap on the food stamp shelter deduction. With the 
passage of the Welfare Reform bill, however, Congress repealed the 
phase-out and the cap remained in place.
  The cap on the shelter deduction has had a significant impact on 
working families, who tend to have higher shelter costs than families 
receiving public housing assistance. The Hunger Relief Act raises the 
shelter cap from $275 to $340, and then indexes it to inflation, 
increasing access to Food Stamps for approximately 1.25 million people.
  Many working poor families, particularly in rural areas, own a 
modestly valued car, necessary to get to work, but of a value greater 
than the antiquated food stamp vehicle limit. In the last 22 years, the 
limit on car values has increased a total of $150, and in many states 
the Food Stamp vehicle allowance is much lower than the TANF vehicle 
allowance. The Hunger Relief Act would give states more freedom, 
allowing states the option of using the same limits for vehicles under 
both TANF and Food Stamps. The Hunger Relief Act would also complete 
the restoration of food stamp benefits to thousands of immigrants who 
were pushed out of the program by the Welfare Reform Act.
  Last Congress I worked hard to include $818 million in the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act to 
restore food stamp benefits for thousands of legal immigrants. This 
legislation restored food stamps to legal immigrants who are disabled 
or elderly, or who later become disabled, and who resided in the United 
States prior to August 22, 1996. That law also increased food stamp 
eligibility time limits--from five years to seven years--for refugees 
and asylees who came to this country to avoid persecution. Hmong 
refugees who aided U.S. military efforts in Southeast Asia were also 
covered, as were children residing in the United States prior to August 
22, 1996.
  Though the Agriculture Research Act restored food stamp eligibility 
to children of legal immigrants, many of these children are not 
receiving food stamps and are experiencing alarming instances of 
hunger. In its recent report entitled ``Who is Leaving the Food Stamp 
Program? An Analysis of Caseload Changes from 1994 to 1997,'' the 
United States Department of Agriculture reported that participation 
among children living with parents who are legal immigrants fell 
significantly faster than children living with native-born parents. It 
appears that restrictions on adult legal immigrants deterred the 
participation of their children. That is a disturbing development that 
must be rectified, and the Hunger Relief Act would go along way toward 
making the situation right by restoring food stamp eligibility to all 
legal immigrants.
  Of the many problems that we face as a nation, hunger is one that is 
entirely solvable. Hunger is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Hunger 
is a problem that all Americans should agree must be ended in our 
nation. I am proud to join with Senators Kennedy, Specter, and Jeffords 
in introducing the Hunger Relief Act, and I look forward to working 
with members of the Senate to see the passage of this legislation.
                                 ______