[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H2502]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2215
        TWO HARMFUL FOOD STAMP PROVISIONS IN HOUSE WELFARE BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sullivan). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier and just want to expound 
again on the procedure that was engaged in, or the procedure that 
should have been engaged in, as we brought forth a major piece of 
legislation that involves several committees. To my surprise, in the 
welfare reauthorization bill, there were provisions in there that would 
have given the States, at least five States, the election of having a 
block grant and also in that bill were provisions that would allow for 
the super waiver. Giving the super waiver means that you are almost 
giving States an unlimited amount of flexibility and authority almost 
that they do not have to follow any rules and regulations. This super 
waiver really gives sweeping authority to the Governors of the States 
and the possibility of programs being diverted or the real incentive 
really as we look at this proposal, in requiring more work, requiring 
more day care, more transportation.
  When you begin to understand that States are in fiscal constraint, 
you begin to know how that temptation becomes a real possibility if 
indeed you are giving pots of moneys in the block grant and say, You 
can do with it as you please, that gives some of us very much concern, 
particularly when we are concerned about the poor, concerned about 
those who need food; and it is food stamps which is indeed our Nation's 
greatest safety net, primarily to families, families who are working.
  We have seen in the last 7 months the increase of a large number of 
people who are unemployed who are now eligible for food stamps and 
indeed receiving food stamps. More than 1.7 million individuals have 
now increased the benefit for food stamps because they need it. If we 
block-grant food stamps, you do not have the ability to respond to this 
unanticipated need because you have essentially received a certain 
amount of money. Therefore, you do not have the ability to fluctuate 
and respond to uncertain needs.
  The reason that, I guess, I am really upset or offended by this is 
the process. When you consider that the farm bill, which my colleagues 
have been trying to beat up on me for the farm bill, but the farm bill 
was a 2-year-and-several-months' process; and not one time did we hear 
this provision being mentioned. I serve on the Subcommittee on 
Nutrition of the Committee on Agriculture. We did not have any debate. 
We did not hear any proposal. We did not hear any public announcement 
at all about this. We went to the Committee on Rules and asked them 
that they should have had due process. In fact, because they did not 
have due process, the Committee on Rules should have made this 
amendment we offered to strike that provision so that we could go back 
to the appropriate committees and have a full deliberation which this 
bill so rightly needs.
  Why is this important? Not only the procedure, it is important to 
understand the implication of this proposal. This proposal would be 
devastating for unemployment. It would be devastating indeed for its 
meeting the increased participation that we are trying to have for 
working families. It would be devastating for meeting our obligations 
that we have just passed in the farm bill, where we said we are 
restoring legal immigrants. If you are restoring them and they are not 
in your base budget and you are block-granting it, you cannot respond 
to that. You either respond to your legal immigrants or you have to cut 
funds.
  This is really, Mr. Speaker, tantamount to taking food out of our 
babies' mouths and food out of our elderly. I think our Nation can do 
better than that. I think we are unworthy of that kind of action where 
we on Monday morning are signing into law, giving new benefits and new 
opportunities for people to be fed and responded to as they need. Yet 
here we are on Wednesday evening and tomorrow, indeed, taking this 
away.
  Mr. Speaker, both of these provisions should be sufficient for us to 
have great pause and indeed to vote against that when it comes up again 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________