PA Hunger Action Center Election 2000 Candidate Survey
 The
candidates were asked to indicate whether they supported, opposed,
or took no position on five hunger-related bills are presently
before Congress. Please note: If an incumbent candidate has sponsored
one or more of these five bills, his/her support is indicated
even if he/she did not respond to the survey. The
candidates' positions are reported below.
- The Hunger Relief Act (S. 1805/H.R. 3192) would reduce
hunger through changes in the Food Stamp Program. It would permit
Pennsylvania to exclude the family car when determining a family's
eligibility, would make food stamp allotments more accurately
reflect actual housing costs, would allow needy legal immigrants
to qualify on the same basis as needy citizens, and would increase
federal funding for the federal commodity distribution program
(TEFAP) by $20 million per year for five years. The annual cost
of the Act would be $500 million.
- The Food Stamp Outreach and Research for Kids Act (S. 1800/H.R.
2738) also would utilize the Food Stamp Program to fight
hunger. It would authorize USDA demonstration projects to evaluate
Program delivery alternatives that are more participant-friendly,
would authorize USDA inspections of local food stamp offices
to identify barriers to participation, and would provide funding
for community organizations to do outreach to working families.
The annual cost of the Act (known as FORK) would be $8 - 10
million.
- The Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act (S. 2084/H.R. )
would expand favorable tax treatment for the donation of food
and grocery products by making two changes in the tax code:
(a) a deduction of up to twice the cost (basis) of the donated
product would be permitted; and (b) this expanded deduction
would be made available to all business taxpayers - including
farmers and small businesses (presently only "C" corporations
qualify). The annual cost would $120 million.
- The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999 (S. 192/H.R. 325)
would increase the minimum wage by $1 to $6.15 an hour in two
steps (October 2000 and October 2001). According to the Economic
Policy Institute 475,400 Pennsylvania employees (9.3 percent
of the workforce) would benefit directly (by about $2,000 per
year) if this adjustment were enacted.
- The Tax Relief for Working Families Act (S.2825/H.R. )
would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low-income
families with three or more children and thereby address the
troubling 29 percent poverty rate among such families. The annual
cost would be $750 million. Approximately 50,000 Pennsylvania
families would receive an average of $500 more per year in EITC
payments as a result of this change.
Each candidate received a survey by certified mail. Two phone
follow-ups and one faxed memo followed. Several candidates also
had email follow-ups. All candidates had ample response time.
Of the 40 candidates surveyed, 16 responded and 24 did not.
(For those who responded, we have identified a response for
all five legislative bills.) Among the 21 incumbents seeking
voter endorsement, only 7 responded. Four of 20 Republican candidates
and 12 of 20 Democratic candidates responded.
Candidates are very busy at election time. It's always a risk
to ask people to fill out a survey. Forty percent of the Pennsylvania
candidates for the United States Congress thought that it was
important to share their views on this important anti-hunger
legislation. Sixty percent did not.
Election 2000 Candidate Survey Table
|
Name of Candidate
|
Office and/or
District
|
Hunger Relief
Act
|
FORK Act
|
Hunger Relief
Tax Incentive
|
Fair Minimum
Wage
|
Tax Relief
Working Families
|
|
R. Santorum R
|
U.S. Senator
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
|
Ron. Klink D
|
U.S. Senator
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
Bob Brady D
|
U.S.Rep. 1
|
S
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
Steve Kush R
|
U.S.Rep. 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chaka Fattah D
|
U.S.Rep. 2
|
S
|
S
|
N
|
S
|
N
|
|
Bob Borski D
|
U.S.Rep. 3
|
S
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
C.Daugherty R
|
U.S.Rep. 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. VanHorne D
|
U.S.Rep. 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Melissa Hart R
|
U.S.Rep. 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Petersen R
|
U.S.Rep. 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Holden D
|
U.S.Rep. 6
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kopel R
|
U.S.Rep. 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Weldon R
|
U.S.Rep. 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Lennon D
|
U.S.Rep. 7
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
J.Greenwood R
|
U.S.Rep. 8
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
N
|
|
R. Strouse D
|
U.S.Rep. 8
|
S
|
S
|
N
|
S
|
S
|
|
B. Shuster R
|
U.S.Rep. 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Sherwood R
|
U.S.Rep. 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat Casey D
|
U.S.Rep. 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Kanjorski D
|
U.S.Rep. 11
|
S
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
S. Urban R
|
U.S.Rep. 11
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
J. Murtha D
|
U.S.Rep. 12
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
B. Choby R
|
U.S.Rep. 12
|
O
|
S
|
S
|
O
|
O
|
|
J. Hoeffel D
|
U.S.Rep. 13
|
S
|
|
|
S
|
|
|
S. Greenleaf R
|
U.S.Rep. 13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Coyne D
|
U.S.Rep. 14
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
P. Toomey R
|
U.S.Rep. 15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed O'Brien D
|
U.S.Rep. 15
|
S
|
S
|
N
|
S
|
N
|
|
Joe Pitts R
|
U.S.Rep. 16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Yorczyk D
|
U.S.Rep. 16
|
N
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
G. Gekas R
|
U.S.Rep. 17
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Herrmann D
|
U.S.Rep. 17
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
M. Doyle D
|
U.S.Rep. 18
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
C. Stephens R
|
U.S.Rep. 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Todd Platts R
|
U.S.Rep. 19
|
N
|
S
|
N
|
O
|
S
|
|
J. Sanders D
|
U.S.Rep. 19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Mascara D
|
U.S.Rep. 20
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
|
Ron Davis R
|
U.S.Rep. 20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil English R
|
U.S.Rep. 21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Flitter D
|
U.S.Rep. 21
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
S
|
Back to top
KEY
S = Support
O = Oppose
N = No Position
D = Did Not Respond
Shading indicates
incumbency.
|
|
