[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H554-H557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           POVERTY IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have listened to much of the 
discussion this evening, and I have decided that I am going to talk 
about something that I do not think we talk about nearly enough, and I 
am sure that we do not do nearly enough about it, and that is the whole 
issue of poverty and what it does to millions of people in our Nation 
and what it does to millions of people throughout the world.
  Madam Speaker, the stubborn persistence of poverty in America is one 
of the most inexplicable features of our national life. America, that 
is our country, in the 21st century is the wealthiest Nation in the 
history of the world. We have the resources to provide for all of our 
citizens, and certainly we have the resources to end hunger, 
homelessness, and to offer quality health care and education to all of 
our people. Yet, in our great national paradox, we have not chosen to 
do so.
  The gap between the few ultra-wealthy and the overwhelming majority 
of working people, that gap, which was once quite small, has grown and 
is now wider than at any time since the Great Depression.

                              {time}  2200

  It has, in the judgment of many, become so large that it undermines 
our sense of a Nation of equals. Poverty and income inequality present 
a real challenge to our notion of America as a Nation that promotes 
equality and that is seriously moving in that direction.
  In 1997, the top 1 percent of the U.S. population, that is, 2.6 
million people, had as much after-tax income as the 100 million 
Americans with the lowest income.
  At the same time, household debt reached historic highs. The total 
value of all forms of outstanding household debt was greater than the 
total disposable income of all households.
  The wealthiest 1 percent reduced their share of the debt by 27 
percent, while the middle 20 percent of households increased their 
share of the debt by 38.8 percent.
  There was no progress in reducing poverty between 1995 and 1999 
despite an increasing economy. More than 1.4 million Americans are 
classified as food insecure, including the cruelest feature of poverty, 
the concentration of children among the poor.
  Madam Speaker, 45 percent of children in poor families are considered 
food insecure.
  Reductions in poverty as a result of economic growth were entirely 
offset by increased poverty due to cuts in government safety net 
programs. The poor in the United States are less likely than the poor 
in other countries to leave poverty. On average, 28.6 percent of the 
United States poor are able to escape their economic situation, while 
in Sweden the rate is 36 percent. In Germany, the rate is 37 percent; 
in Canada, the rate is 42 percent; and in the Netherlands the rate is 
44 percent.
  Counting the poor has become a cynical art. Measures of poverty have

[[Page H555]]

come and gone, many of them arbitrary from their inception. The current 
poverty level has never been permitted to adjust to cost of living 
increases and other impacts. The debate over defining poverty and who 
is poor has been used to limit the ability of public policy to address 
poverty in a meaningful way.
  As William Greider has pointed out, ``The effect of the poverty line 
is to obscure the existence of a vast pool of struggling families who 
are above the poverty line, who are not officially poor, and to exclude 
them from the political equation.''
  Further quoting, ``Helping the poor is considered virtuous even among 
conservatives. Helping the nonpoor is considered wasteful or even 
fraudulent. The problem of poverty is presumed to reside in the poor 
people themselves, not in the structure of wages available in the 
private economy.''
  According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, 29 
percent of working families in the United States with one to three 
children under age 12 do not earn enough to afford basic necessities 
such as food, housing, health care, and child care, even during a 
period of national prosperity. Nearly one-third of families with 
incomes below twice the poverty threshold faced at least one critical 
hardship, like going without food, getting evicted, having to double up 
in housing with another family or not having access to medical care 
during an acute illness.
  The report calculated a basic budget level for each State, the budget 
a family would need to afford food, housing, child care, health 
insurance, transportation, and utilities. Even for families that 
include a full-time worker, nearly one-quarter of the families below 
twice the poverty line face these problems.
  Of families with incomes below the basic income line, half include a 
parent who worked full time, and nearly 60 percent are two-parent 
families. More than 75 percent are headed by a worker with a high 
school degree or more. About one-third live in the suburbs, one-third 
in the cities, and one-third in rural areas.
  Just over half of all families living below the basic budget level 
are white families. However, about half of all black and Hispanic 
families fall below the basic budget levels.
  No one argues for income equality in the sense we demand equality in 
polling places. Nevertheless, there is, somewhere, a line where 
economic inequality becomes incompatible with democracy. The 
marketplace makes no allowance for democracy, and there is no greater 
challenge to our democracy than economic injustice and poverty in the 
first place.
  So out of concern for basic economic justice, out of the fundamental 
need for capitalism to balance production and consumption and a 
profound need to preserve our sense of Nation, we face no more critical 
task than shaping a national economic policy which addresses the issue 
of poverty.
  The question of poverty and economic income inequality has moved 
center stage as, for the first time in a decade, America is mired in 
recession. And of course we know that when we talk recession overall we 
are talking serious depression for those at the lowest levels of our 
economic stratum.

  More than 8 million Americans are now out of work. More than 1 
million workers have lost their jobs since September 11. Our economy 
has been shedding 100,000 jobs a week. Two million workers will likely 
lose their unemployment insurance benefits in the first 6 months of 
this year. Ninety-four percent of those who lose benefits will not 
receive additional assistance.
  It is extremely unfortunate that the President's budget slashes job 
training in 336 cities from $225 million to $45 million.
  We have now experienced more than 13 consecutive months of industrial 
decline, the longest such period since the Great Depression. American 
consumers, which have accounted for two-thirds of our economic engine 
in recent years, have been staggered by the current crisis, and both 
the November and December retail sales have been characterized as 
dismal.
  As usual, the most vulnerable are the hardest hit. Unemployment of 
African Americans and Hispanics have increased at least 50 percent 
faster than the national average. For African American teens, the 
increase is 400 percent faster. While the number of African Americans 
in poverty began to decrease in the last years of the period of 
economic expansion in the 1990s and the wage gap decreased during those 
recent years, the income gap has remained substantial.
  The persistent racial inequalities and inequities are underlined by a 
recent study by Edward N. Wolff. Wolff points to the persistence of 
these inequalities and notes that even if we could immediately 
eliminate the racial income gap, it could take another two generations 
for the wealth gap to close.
  Unemployment rates for women who are heads of household have soared. 
200,000 single moms are scheduled to be dropped from Federal assistance 
in 2003.
  Also soaring is the homeless rates. According to the Coalition for 
the Homeless, a record number of people, more than 29,000, were 
spending nights in shelters in New York during November, up from 8,000 
in October.
  Meanwhile, the so-called safety net, gutted by welfare reform, has 
begun to reveal fearsome gaps. Even before the downturn began, more 
than 100,000 families lost their income support because of time limits. 
In the first 3 years of TANF, 540,000 families had benefits terminated 
for not complying with program rules.
  State reserves for income support programs are drying up rapidly. 
Illinois and Michigan are among states most at risk.
  Food stamps have traditionally been one of the basic protections of 
the safety net. However, over the past few years participation rates 
have fallen sharply because of barriers to access.
  One of the other basic fixtures of the safety net has been 
unemployment insurance. Benefit levels now replace only 33 percent of 
the coverage that average workers lost, down from 36 percent in 1990. 
The percentage of unemployed workers who actually get unemployment 
benefits has also declined over the past 40 years, peaking at 49 
percent in 1975 and declining to a mere 37 percent in 2001.
  We know that recessions are particularly cruel to State budgets. 
Those who have been following events in Illinois know that Medicaid is 
high on the endangered list. We need an economic stimulus to jump-start 
our economy, and we need it immediately.
  While some talk about tax cuts which will primarily benefit the 
wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, and do nothing for the bottom 75 
percent, let me suggest that any serious economic stimulus package must 
consider and be focused on the needs of the poor and the most 
vulnerable among us.
  The President's fiscal year 2003 budget calls for cutting job 
training and employment funding by almost $700 million while 
unemployment is increasing.
  The President's budget calls for reducing community development 
support by 28 percent while poor communities and programs for child 
care and social services are in crisis.
  The President's budget proposes to cut home energy assistance by $300 
million compared to fiscal year 2002.
  The President's budget cuts funding for JAIBG, which helps States 
improve facilities and services to incarcerated youth by 13.8 percent.
  The President's budget makes the first of 10 annual $780 million cuts 
to our teaching hospitals; and, to add insult to injury, then adds a 30 
percent cut to a program which funds medical training at hospitals that 
specialize in the care of children.
  The President's budget request reduces his own plan for prescription 
drug benefits from the $48 billion he proposed last year to $13.2 
billion this year.
  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health would take 
a $29 million hit, while the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration will take a $9 million hit.
  Public housing will face a $382 million cut along with the $417 
million cut for public housing repairs and $268 million from the 
Community Development Block Grants.

                              {time}  2215

  Now is the time for some hard thinking about priorities and about 
cutting waste in government.
  Here is what Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, United States Navy, retired, 
former commander of the United States Second Fleet and head of the 
Military Advisory Committee of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities

[[Page H556]]

 wrote about the President's budget on February 13. He said: ``The 
decision to ask Congress to increase the Pentagon budget by $48 billion 
or more may sound reasonable in light of America's ongoing war on 
terrorism, but the reality is that the Pentagon budget should actually 
be trimmed by 15 percent.''
  Further quoting: ``To be sure, our military will require new tools to 
fight modern adversaries. The Pentagon needs more unmanned aircraft, 
better communications and reconnaissance technology, as well as more 
mobile weaponry.
  ``We need to spend more money on military personnel and ideas, as we 
create a force that is capable of a seamless transition from 
humanitarian activities to peacekeeping to actual combat and back 
again. This places a premium on the individual soldier who gets the job 
done with minimum loss of life on both sides, with minimum property 
damage and in the shortest possible time.
  ``But these new military expenditures can easily be paid for with 
money saved from eliminating outdated weapons from the Pentagon budget, 
wasteful expenditures that President Bush himself pledged to cut.
  ``None of the weapons that the administration reportedly wanted to 
eliminate prior to September 11, like the F-22 fighter jet, the 
Crusader artillery system, and the Comanche helicopter, would have been 
of any significant benefit to our troops in Afghanistan. Likewise, they 
will not be needed by our military personnel in any foreseeable 
conflict with our most likely adversaries.
  ``But the money that could be saved by cutting these Cold War weapons 
could definitely be put to good use. The administration is correct that 
America needs to spend more on shoring up national security. But rather 
than add to the Pentagon budget, President Bush should trim it of Cold 
War fat and apply the savings to our more expansive and pressing 
security needs.''
  Madam Speaker, we must provide protection for those at greatest risk 
of economic hardship: low wage, entry level and part-time workers, 
women, minorities, the underprivileged, small businesses, marginal 
communities and those who have lost their jobs.
  Specifically, what does this mean? I believe it means raising the 
minimum wage to a livable wage. Obviously, there is never enough time 
to really talk totally about the minimum wage or the living wage 
movement. But suffice it to say that the living-wage movement has 
become one of the most potent and effective tools for attacking 
poverty.
  Chicago and Cook County are just two of the more than 70 local units 
of government which have passed living-wage ordinances. We now have 
extensive research which shows that when the lowest-paid workers 
receive additional income, they spend those dollars to meet their 
family's needs. This provides a boost to the local economy which more 
than offsets the increased salary costs.
  Further research demonstrates that businesses do not flee these 
communities because of modest increases in wage costs, but are actually 
attracted to communities with healthy economies. Extending unemployment 
and medical benefits both with regards to time and eligibility has 
become a central feature of the current legislative initiative in the 
Congress and offers one of the fastest and most efficient means of 
stimulating the economy.
  Providing direct loans and grants to small businesses affected by the 
September 11 terrorist attacks has become a hot topic of discussion, 
especially since the Congress passed the airline bailout.
  I believe that it makes a lot of sense to look towards assisting 
small businesses which today generate the majority of jobs in our 
Nation. Reauthorizing a TANF program, which not only takes people off 
welfare, but takes people out of poverty, is one of the largest issues 
facing us this year.
  The unfortunate fact is that welfare reform has been successful. 
Unfortunately, the problem is that it was never intended to meet the 
needs of the poor, but to shed public responsibility for addressing 
poverty.
  Welfare rolls have declined, but many of those who have left TANF are 
in worse economic condition than they were before they left. The U.S. 
Conference of Mayors reports that emergency shelter requests in 27 
cities have increased 13 percent over the last year, but the 
President's budget cuts public housing repairs $417 million. That is 
14.7 percent.
  Real welfare reform must address, at a minimum, improving the safety 
net for children while helping parents meet work-related goals; 
empowering families to find resources and tools and make decisions 
needed to meet their needs and goals as a family; ensuring families 
with multiple barriers to employment and economic independence receive 
necessary services, including mental health and substance abuse 
treatment; revising the time limits on eligibility, as was emphasized 
by the just-completed National Governors Conference; redefining the 
goal of reform to reduce poverty, especially child poverty, not just 
caseloads.

  We will never eliminate poverty until we recognize the need for a 
federally funded daycare program for children of all ages. Forty-nine 
States have child care costs greater than tuition to public colleges; 
yet quality day care is not only a critical prerequisite for parental 
employment, it is critical for healthy child development.
  Finally, and critical for our growth as a Nation, is a system of 
national health care, including prescription drug coverage and the 
treatment of mental illness on par with all other illness. America is 
abuzz these days with response to the new Denzel Washington movie 
``John Q'' and how it relates to people's own experiences with paying 
for health care in America.
  No nation in the world has the health care resources, the technology, 
the trained health care professionals of America. But our health care 
delivery system is broken and our priorities, especially our lack of 
focus on prevention, are sadly misplaced.
  I hope that the result of the November election in Portland, Maine, 
will be a bellwether of things to come in health care. Portland voters 
passed a referendum on universal health care, despite the fact that 
opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more than 
congressional candidates usually spend in Maine trying to defeat the 
measure. A single-payer, universal health care system would be more 
efficient, would cost less as a result of eliminating mountains of 
paperwork, would offer more choice and would provide coverage to every 
one of our people.
  Integral to my dream, my vision for America, is an America where 
poverty and all of the social, moral, mental and physical ills 
associated with poverty are eradicated forever.
  Of course, a part of that poverty syndrome is the fact that our 
prisons are filled to the hilt with individuals, 2 million of them. 
While we are only 5 percent of the world's population, we have 25 
percent of the world's prison population.
  The Justice Department has predicted that 630,000 of these 
individuals are going to be released from prison this year. About 
30,000 of them will be in my State, the State of Illinois. 
Unfortunately, we have not prepared for them as they come back to 
neighborhoods and communities. So a good part of our attack on poverty 
has to be a serious look at our correctional system and a serious look 
at what it takes to reform, to rehabilitate and to prepare people for 
reentry into normal society once they are released from correctional 
facilities and institutions.
  I introduced the week before last a bill, the Public Safety Ex-
Offender Self-Sufficiency Act, that is designed to provide structured 
living arrangements for ex-offenders as they return home, an 
arrangement that is not designed to cost taxpayers a great deal of 
money. We use a creative approach to financing by creating a model like 
the low-income-housing tax credit program, where instead of credits on 
the basis of population, that we provide credits on the basis of the 
number of ex-offenders in a State.
  Private developers are encouraged to develop housing. This bill calls 
for the development of 100,000 units over the next 5 years, the idea 
being that corporations who do this will get the benefit of their 
resource back within a 10-year period. They must hold the facilities at 
least for 15 years. Individuals will then have a place to live, a place 
to go, where they can also receive education, job training, skill 
development,

[[Page H557]]

 counseling for whatever their social or physical-medical problems may 
be, as well as health care and assistance with job placement.
  I believe, Madam Speaker, that if America is to become the Nation 
that it has the potential of being, then we must seriously address the 
problems, needs, hopes, and aspirations of all our citizens, and even 
those who are mired down at the bottom.
  I believe in the theory and the concept that a rising tide should 
lift all boats; and I am confident that as we lift and improve the 
lives of those at the bottom, as we help the American dream become more 
of a reality for all of our citizens, then America becomes that Nation 
that Langston Hughes talked about when he suggested that we ought to 
let America be America again, the land that it has never been, but yet 
must be.
  In all of our greatness, we have not realized the fulfillment of our 
potential. It is my hope that as we deal with the issues of poverty and 
the issues of those who are the most needy among us, we will lift 
America to heights that it has never seen.

                          ____________________