Date: 1984-08-01
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. and I rise in support of the Panetta amendment. Mr. Chairman. I would like to put in perspective some of what has been said earlier today in that this amendment impacts on a very small percentage of those who receive or will apply for food stamps. By and large. what we are trying to do. the gentleman from California and the members of the committee. the gentleman from Missouriand by the way. let me state that we have a good. viable working food stamp program. If there are errors. it is human error. I think that the gentleman from Missouri. the author of the original amendment that we are working with here. has made a good and valuable contribution to a working. viable food stamp program. But in 1984 we find ourselves with new circumstances and a new economic situation that has put a new type of food stamp applicant and/or recipient. Food stamps used to be out in the rural areas and the small towns and in the very inner city. We now have. because of the economic situation in this country. regretfully. brought in a new clientele. if you would. for the Food Stamp Program. And these are what our distinguished colleague from Michigan mentioned about. these are hardworking people who have earned fairly good amounts of money. but inflation. and what have you. have taken all that they have earned to live. But one of the things that an American family aspires for is a vehicle to move his family. This is one of the areas of emotionalnot that it has been mentioned here. I want to clarify thatbut this has been an emotional negative aspect of the Food Stamp Program. that you came iii a Cadillac. In my area. the Cadillac grew into a Rolls Royce or a Mercedes. This has cast a negative impact on the Food Stamp Program. But we know that it is 4.500. We are trying to bring it to 5.500. I address this to my colleagues from the suburban areas of the larger cities of the Midwest. the Upper Midwest and Northeast. that this i addressed to those who are being laid off from the factories. from the manufacturing areas. for whatever reason the factory closed. You have people who are put into a situation that they cannot control themselves. and yet I would say that most of these people. the last thing they would want to do is apply for food stamps. But there comes a time when they have to succumb to reality. and they apply. And there hangs out what the average American yearns for. that he went and bought a good car. a nice car. a $7.500 car. $8.000. And if you just look at the television. it does not buy too terribly much. But I have had a situation in my congres. sional district. with the terrible freeze that we just had this past December and early January. that hardworking people who had paid in income taxes to the Federal Government a lot more than they would ever get in 6 months or 8 months or 10 months of food stamps. who ask the question. "I paid my taxes. I worked diligently. but now I have this need. and why cant you help me?" It is regretful that most of the time you would have to point to that car. Mind you. $5.500 does not buy much of a car. And the equity is not all that terribly much. I know that the gentleman from Missouri mentioned the fact that we could save. yes. several million dollars. and that is good. I want to do that. But there should be other areas. because if you do not do this. you are on the verge of discriminatingyou will. anywayfor someone who has a car beyond $7.500. But below $7.500 you would be discriminating against someone who through no fault of their own except our economic crisis. our economic situation. find themselves in this regretful situation that they have to apply for food stamps. So I would want my colleagues who have never been bothered with the use of food stamps that it is perhaps time that they would look at what the committee has done in a positive and responsible way.