[Page: H2502]---
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.
END