Date: 1995-03-21
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. I would like to first express to all of my colleagues the fact that I do not consider this entire legislation in any part welfare reform. although we have a strcng section on fraud and abuse. Otherwise. it is merely a reduction in funding over $21 billion. and it will cause hungry people to no longer be able to attain a nutritionally adequate diet. I know there is great controversy about the Food Stamp Program in the abuses. in the fraud. but the fact is that the average. or more than 40 percent of the recipient households have income below 50 percent cf the poverty guideline and only 20 percent have signifficant earnings. The program has always been responsive to the needs. and in this year of our lord. 1995. In the United States of America. the most powerful country in the world. we should not have to admit that there is hunger in the countryside. that there is hunger in the cities: I know that there is great policy debate and disagreement. but the fact that you cannot deny is that there are hungry people. There are children who go to bed hungry at night. That cannot be denied. That cannot be covered by policy. That cannot be covered by saying Democrat or Republican. That is a fact. That is a fact that cannot be denied. And my concern here this evening is that we go solely on cutting. We should not have to do that. because this committee. and the distinguished chairman has worked on this effort. has reduced by over $65 billion in the past 12 years. more than our share of responsibility in the budget. Had every committee in this House done what the Committee on Agriculture has done. you would not have to worry about a deficit. You would not have to worry about deficit reduction if everyone had done what we have done. So our concern here is that each year the size of a household food stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in the cost of food. This goes back to the old policies for 40 years. We have not had the Food Stamp Program for 40 years. but nonetheless. the old policies. the old policies took care to see that this was accommodated for. Under the present bill. it cannot be. It cuts 2 percent annually of increase. but if the food prices go beyond that. then it does not cover. Then you will have a problem. and there are those who would say. well. you can always come back and ask for more. Under the Budget Act and the atmosphere around here today. you cannot come back for more. What this bill does. it places a cap on annual food stamp expenditures. and that gets into some. and I have never seen it before. and I feel maybe that we may be yielding to outside factors. but the way that the dollar levels would be arranged in that will be the CBO projects low unemployment. assumes no recession in the next 5 years. But if that assumption is not correct. then we have a problem that we have here somehow that we will act according to what the CBO projects. and that figure. that CBO gives. will be the figure used. and I do not know how that works. That has never been tried before. That does not mean that you do not do something that has never been tried before. That would not be right to say that. But in this case. we know how it has worked. and it would be virtually impossible under the Budget Act since to get an added expenditure you would have to have offsetting tax increase or offsetting cuts someplace. So the fact is that you have to go take from the poor to help the poor. And those that would lose jobs during a recession will not have food benefits adequate for their families to have a healthy diet. We do not accept the majoritys assumption that there are plenty of jobs available. and if hungry people are denied food benefits. they will get a job. The fact is that there is little welfare reform in this bill. There are no jobtraining requirements in the bill. It only says that States will provide employment and training to food stamp families. That is deleted. and funding for this activity is eliminated. and so we have to look at what it is that we are doing. and if given adequate job training and employment counseling. I know people will work. I know that they will work. There are those that say. "Well. they dont want to work. I cant find anyone to cut my lawn." There are people who would like to work even if it is cutting a lawn. but if you only have one of those in a month. what would you do? And in my area. I see a lot of people doing that with this help. In other areas. also. AFDC. the WIC. school lunch. we are making radical reforms that. when coupled with changes in the food stamp provision in H.R. 7. greatly compromise our Federal food safety net. Reason argues for leaving one program as a backstop in case reforms in other programs falter or fail. We have now learned that the CBO estimates that the reduction in food stamps. as I have said before. will equal over $21 billion over 5 years. If this savings was the result of people moving from welfare into jobs. this bill would have the support of every Member of this House. I am sure. However. 4 saves money simply by reducing benefits and kicking people off the program who cannot fifnd jobs on their own. And let me tell you. I can categorically state to you. because I hear this at home. I mean. these moneys that we use axe hardearned dollars paid to the U.S. Government in taxes. and we have a moral responsibility. we have a sacred responsibility to see that these funds are used adequately. and there is no way to reform a program that is designed to keep our children from going hungry. How do you reform that? Make more people go hungry? But we are responsible. We have been responsible. But you do not do your responsibility. as we have done. to the tune of $65 billion for 12 years. a little over .12 years. We have done it. but not by reducing benefits and kicking people off programs where they get food or in someother areas attention for their needs. So the reduction in spefiding resulting from implementation of this bill. also. we insist if it is to be done. it should go for deficit reduction. That is what people are speaking on throughout the countryside. "Reduce the deficit." I just heard it before I boarded the plane this morning. "Reduce the deficit." This we must do. that the reduction be used to address the deficit. And I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform. Welfare reform does not mean saying it. Welfare reform does not mean 30second sound bites. Welfare reform does not mean saying there are noaccount. lazy people out there. Welfare reform is what we have been doing. what we have done before there was a contract. before there were many of the new Members that are here. We have done that. We have been doing that. We did it in 1977. we did it in 1981. we did it in 1985. We have addressed these issues. not necessarily only in the Food Stamp Program. But we have. We have had chairmen of the subcommittee that have worked diligently and throughout that process. The distinguished chairman. our colleague. the gentleman from Missouri . has been a part of this. So no one can say that we did not address the issue. Not one can say that. we were not responsible. No one can say that in any way we reduced simply for the sake of reduction. We reduced because it was the right thing to do. We went to areas where the program needed change. We have made those changes. So what we do today is for other reasons besides welfare reform. It is for other reasons besides doing the right thing. It is for other reasons. and you. all of my friends. know what the other Mlarch 21. 1995 reasons are. and this is no way to legislate. Mr. Chairman. the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 cause me great concern. Although I am relieved that the Food Stamp Program. unlike the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs. including the WIC program. will not be immediately turned into a block grant by this bill. the enormous reductions in funding. over $21 billion. will cause hungry people to no longer be able to attain a nutritionally adequate diet. As we strive to find the most effective ways to help poor parents achieve selfsufficiency. there is no excuse for limiting their ability to adequately feed their children. The Food Stamp Program is the countrys largest provider of food aid and one of its most extensive welfare programs. In fiscal year 1994. it helped feed more than 1 in 10 people in this country. Half of the beneficiaries are children. and over 15 percent are elderly or disabled. More than 40 percent of the recipient households have monthly income below 50 percent of the poverty guideline. and only 20 percent have significant earnings. The program has always been very responsive to changes in the economy in two major ways. In the first instance. each year. the size of a households food stamp allotment is adjusted to reflect any changes in the cost of food. Here is how that works: Maximum monthly food stamp allotments are tied tothe cost of purchasing a nutritionally adequate low cost diet. as measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. plus 3 percent. Food stamp benefits are based on 103 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan to acknowledge the fact that food prices usually have increased between the time that the cost of the TFP is determined and the time that benefits are adjusted and distributed. (The cost of the TFP is determined in June. and benefits adjusted beginning the following October. Those adjusted benefits are not adjusted again until the next October. 15 months after the TFP adjustment.) This formula helps assure that families receive benefits reflective of the cost of food at the time they are purchasing the food. This diet is called the Thrifty Food Plan [TFP]. and it is the cheapest of four food plans designed by USDA. USDA determines the cost of a market basket of low cost food items necessary to maintain a nutritious diet. The TFP is priced monthly. and food stamp allotments are adjusted. up or down. each October to reflect the cost of the TFP in the previous June. The Octoberadjustment in 1995 is expected to be an increase of approximately 3.5%. reflecting the percent of increase in the- cost of food. This mechanism assures that no family will get less than what it needs to maintain its ability to purchase a nutritionally adequate. albeit low cost. diet. H.R. 4 will limit any increases in the food stamp allotments to 2 percent annually. even if food prices increase nationally more than 2 percent. While the majority can argue that nominal benefits will not be reduced under their bill. benefits will no longer keep pace with the cost of food. Given current estimates of what will happen to food prices in the future. it is expected that in 2 years food stamp families will no longer receive benefits adequate to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet. Allotments will have fallen below 100 percent of the Thrifty Food Plan. Each year thereafter. under the majoritys bill. benefits will be further eroded. We cannot stress enough the importance of maintaining a nutritionally adequate diet. It is the linchpin upon which this program is based and upon which all changes to the program must be measured. This bill completely abandons the principle that poor and hungry families deserve. at minimum. a nutritionally adequate diet. I am submitting for the record a chart showing that in two years H.R. 4 will begin to deny hungry families the chance to purchase a healthy diet. In the second instance. the bill becomes even more unresponsive to economic fluctuations by making it extremely difficult for the program to respond to increases in need during recessions. H.R. 4 places a cap on annual food stamp expenditures at the exact dollar levels that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the program will cost given implementation of the provisions in the bill. The CBO projects low unemployment and assumes no recession in the next five years. We hope that this assumption is correct. but if it is wrong and the Nation faces a recession. benefits to poor and hungry families will be reduced. There is no provision for an upward. adjustment of the cap if the number of beneficiaries rises during a recession.. Any effort under those circumstances to raise the cap. under the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. would be virtually impossible. since it would require an offsetting tax increase. a cut in another entitlement. or an emergency designation. At exactly the time when poor people need help most. they will receive less food assistance. The working poor. those most likely to lose jobs during a recession. will not have food benefits adequate to feed their families a healthy diet. Everyone can agree that we need additional budgetary controls on our federal budget. However. this is a most inhumane way to achieve such control. Hunger cannot be capped. We must allow the one program that provides a minimal safety net to keep hunger at bay to respond to recessionary times. We must conclude that the majoritys bill is a cost savings bill. nothing more. There is little welfare reform in this bill. For example. there are no job training requirements in this bill. The current requirement that states provide employment and training to food stamp families is deleted. and funding for these activities is eliminated. Instead. the same level of funding is provided to states that choose to operate a program requiring that families work in public service jobs in return for their food stamp benefits. but. only 6 states operate such programs. and none of them are statewide. We do not accept the majoritys assumptions that there are plenty of jobs available. and if hungry people are denied food benefits they will get a job. People do not prefer. poverty over selfsufficiency. If given adequate job training and employment counseling. and if jobs are available. people will work. This bill provides no such incentives. This process has not produced true welfare reform. Merely cutting the Food Stamp Program at some arbitrary level is not reform and no one should mistake it as such. This bill simply goes too far in undermining our federal food assistance safety net and leaves our poor families vulnerable to hunger. In other areas. AFDC. WIC. school lunch. we are making radical reforms that when coupled with the changes in the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 greatly compromise our federal food safety net. Reason argues for leaving one program as the backstop in case reforms in the other programs falter or fail. For those who have worked on farreaching and comprehensive legislation in the past. the process of reforming welfare in this Congress has been most disturbing. The frantic pace at which we are required to move has assured that very little thoughtful consideration and deliberation can take place. The Committee on Agriculture. over Democratic objections. markedup this bill without a CBOestimate. It is impossible to know the full implication of the bills benefit reductions on the poor and hungry of this country without the CBO estimate. The majority many times during markup stated that the bill they presented for approval was believed to save $16.5 billion over 5 years. We have now learned that CBO estimates that the reductions in food stamp benefits that will result from the food stamp title of H.R. 4 will equal over $21 billion over 5 years. The concerns of.the minority over $16.5 billion in benefit reductions are magnified several times when the reductions exceed $21 billion. If these savings were the result of people moving from welfare into jobs. this bill would have the support of every member of Congress. However. H.R. 4 saves money simply by reducing benefits and kicking people off the program who cant find jobs on their own. This is no way to reform a program that is designed to keep our children from going hungry. Finally. the minority is pleased that the comrnittee approved a Sense of the Committee provision that the reduction in spending resulting from implementation of this bill must go toward deficit reduction. This policy must now be adopted for H.R. 4. There should be only two reasons to seek reductions in the Food Stamp Program-(1) to reduce the deficit. and (2) to reallocate resources in such a manner that allows the participants to achieve selfsufficiency (such as employment and training). Any attempt to use the savings to finance tax cuts must be roundly denounced. We cannot stand by and allow an erosionof food benefits for the poor to provide tax breaks for those who are far better off. I urge my colleagues to commit themselves to true welfare reform. not to this bill that does little more than deny and reduce benefits to hungry families in the name of welfare reform. Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.