[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S957-S959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHEDULE
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will note that at 9:30, after morning
business, which the Chair has just noted, we will resume consideration
of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill.
Also, I note that the Senate will recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m.
to 2:15 p.m., in order for the weekly party luncheons to occur.
For the information of all Senators, the majority leader has
indicated that rollcall votes may occur prior to the 12:30 p.m. recess
today.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S958]] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
USDA REPORT ON THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the USDA issued a report analyzing
the effects of the House Republican Personal Responsibility Act (H.R.
4), which is part of the Contract With America. All States including
Vermont are big losers. I suggest that all Senators read this report
which I am inserting into the Record.
My home State of Vermont alone will lose $10 million in Federal
nutrition aid in 1996 according to the USDA report.
H.R. 4 will increase malnutrition among children and the elderly.
This Contract With America bill is antichild, antifamily, and it is
false advertising. It promises block grants, but delivers not even a
penny.
The report also concludes that this bill could reduce retail food
sales by as much as $10 billion, reduce gross farm income by as much as
$4 billion, and cost the economy as many as 138,000 jobs.
It could reduce the income of the average dairy farmer in Vermont by
as much as $2,000 per year and could also double the cost of the dairy
program nationwide.
This is a double whammy--it will force dairy farmers to apply for
food assistance just when that assistance is slashed.
Nutrition funding nationwide will be cut by almost $31 billion over
the next 5 years.
It eliminates the Meals on Wheels Program which provides food to the
homebound elderly.
Seventy-five percent of the school children in Vermont will be thrown
off the School Lunch Program. Nutrition standards for healthy school
lunches are eliminated. And the cuts in child nutrition in Vermont
exceed the total size of our School Breakfast Program and the Summer
Food Service Program.
As bad as this is, I am worried that the USDA report issued today
greatly understates the harm that will be caused by the Contract With
America. The report in many respects assumes that the block grants will
be fully funded. I believe that in a couple years, they will be only
funded at a fraction of the full amount authorized.
America's Governors will be stunned when they read the fine print and
realize they have to come to Washington each year and plead for money.
States will be forced to reduce the number of people served, cut
benefits or somehow make up for the loss with State funds.
The effect would be even worse during a recession. Under current law,
programs such as school lunch, food stamps, and the Child Care Food
Program, automatically give States more money to respond to increased
needs during periods of higher unemployment.
This Contract With America bill changes all that and says to the
States, ``tough luck, next time don't have a recession.''
According to the USDA report, if that bill had been in effect over
the last 5 years, the block grant in 1994 would have been over $12
billion less than the food assistance actually provided--a reduction of
about one-third.
They are proposing a massive Federal experiment on America's
children. If it works, I admit that Federal costs will be reduced.
If it doesn't, and funding is not provided, millions of children, the
elderly, and pregnant women will go hungry. Medical costs will
skyrocket as more and more children are born disabled, and more and
more children become handicapped in their efforts to learn.
Before we have a wholesale dismantling of every major nutrition
program under the guise of welfare reform, we ought to take a look at
how this will affect hungry children.
This is not welfare reform. Do not be fooled by this bill. It implies
that States will get block grants to fund food assistance programs. But
as I said earlier, not one penny is provided to states or communities
by the bill--separate legislation would have to pass each year to
provide funding.
Let us not forget what happened in early 1981--hasty cuts were made
in child nutrition programs. Those programs were cut by 28 percent. The
cuts resulted in 3 million fewer children receiving school lunches.
I stand ready to work with responsible Members of both parties to
encourage work, to cut costs, to punish abuse, but I will not sacrifice
the nutrition of America's children for legislation by bumper sticker.
I ask unanamous consent that the USDA report be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[From the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jan. 17, 1995]
The Nutrition, Health, and Economic Consequences of Block Grants for
Federal Food Assistance Programs--Executive Summary
The proposed Personal Responsibility Act, a key component
of the Contract with America, would make sweeping changes
that alter the very character of the existing food assistance
programs. Specifically, the Personal Responsibility Act, if
enacted, would:
Combine all USDA food and nutrition assistance programs
into a single discretionary block grant to States;
Authorize an appropriation of $35.6 billion in fiscal year
1996 for food and nutrition assistance;
Eliminate all uniform national standards;
Give States broad discretion to design food and nutrition
assistance programs, provided only that no more than 5
percent of the grant support administration, at least 12
percent support food assistance and nutrition education for
women, infants, and young children, and at least 20 percent
support school-based and child-care meal programs; and
Eliminate USDA's authority to donate commodities; USDA
could only sell bonus commodities to States.
The consequences of these changes on the safety net of food
assistance programs, the nutrition and health of low-income
Americans, the food and agriculture economies, and the level
and distribution of Federal support to States for food
assistance are significant.
The Personal Responsibility Act would significantly reduce
federal support for food and nutrition assistance.
Federal funding for food and nutrition assistance would
fall by more than $5 billion in fiscal year 1996 and nearly
$31 billion over 5 years (Table 1).
All food and nutrition assistance would be forced to
compete for limited discretionary funds. States' ability to
deliver nutrition benefits would be subject to changing
annual appropriation priorities.
Programs would be unable to respond to changing economic
circumstances. During economic downturns, funding would not
keep up with rising poverty and unemployment. The demand for
assistance to help the poor would be greatest at precisely
the time when state economies are in recession and tax bases
are shrinking.
For example, if the Personal Responsibility Act had been in
place over the last five years--a period marked by both
economic recession and recovery--the block grant in 1994
would have been over $12 billion less than the food
assistance actually provided, a reduction of about one-third
(Table 2).
States would be forced to reduce the number of people
served, the benefits provided, or some combination of both.
The bill could lead to the termination of benefits for 6
million food stamp recipients in fiscal year 1996.
The reduced investment in food and nutrition assistance
programs and elimination of the authority to establish
nutrition standards will adversely affect the nutrition and
health of low-income families and individuals.
The scientific link between diet and health is clear. About
300,000 deaths each year are linked to diet and activity
patterns.
Low-income households are at greater risk of nutrition-
related disorders and chronic disease than the general U.S.
population. Since the nationwide expansion of the Food Stamp
Program and the introduction of WIC, the gap between the
diets of low-income and other families has narrowed.
The incidence of stunting among pre-school children has
decreased by nearly 65 percent; the incidence of low
birthweight has fallen from 8.3 percent to 7.0 percent.
The prevalence of anemia among low-income pre-school
children has dropped by 5 percent or more for most age and
racial/ethnic groups.
The Personal Responsibility Act would eliminate all federal
nutrition standards, including those in place to ensure that
America's children have access to healthy meals at school.
Even small improvements in average dietary intakes can have
great value. The modest reductions in fat, saturated fat, and
cholesterol intake due to the recent food labeling changes
were valued by the Food and Drug Administration at $4.4
billion to $26.5 billion over 20 years among the U.S. adult
population.
[[Page S959]] The Act would also threaten the key
components of WIC--a tightly prescribed combination of a
targeted food package, nutrition counseling, and direct links
to health care. Rigorous studies have shown that WIC reduces
infant deaths, low birthweight, premature births, and other
problems. Every dollar spent on WIC results in between $1.77
and $3.13 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers.
By reducing federal support for food assistance and
converting all remaining food assistance to a block grant,
the Personal Responsibility Act would lower retail food
sales, reduce farm income, and increase unemployment.
Under the proposed block grant, States could immediately
cash-out any and all food assistance programs in spite of
evidence that an in-kind benefit is more effective in
stimulating food purchases than a similar benefit provided in
cash.
In the short-run, the bill could reduce retail food sales
by as much as $10 billion, reduce gross farm income by as
much as $4 billion, increase farm program costs, and cost the
economy as many as 138,000 jobs.
In the long run, the bill could reduce employment in farm
production by more than 15,000 jobs and output by more than
$1 billion. The food processing and distribution sectors
could lose as many as 83,000 jobs and $9 billion in output.
The economic effects would be felt most heavily in rural
America. In both the short- and long-run, rural areas would
suffer disproportionate job losses.
Every $1 billion in added food assistance generates about
25,000 jobs, providing an automatic stabilizer in hard times.
The proposed basis for distributing grant funds would
result in substantial losses for most States.
If Congress appropriates the full amount authorized, all
but 8 States would lose federal funding in fiscal year 1996.
California could gain about $650 million; Texas could lose
more than $1 billion (Table 3).
Although some States initially gain funding, all States
would eventually fare worse than under current law. Over
time, the initial gains will erode because the block grant
eliminates the automatic funding adjustments built into the
existing Food Stamp and Child Nutrition programs.
TABLE 1.--EFFECT OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT ON USDA FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM COSTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------- Total
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current law:
Food stamps/NAP................................ $27,777 $29,179 30,463 $31,758 $33,112 $152,290
Child nutrition................................ 8,681 9,269 9,903 10,556 11,283 49,692
WIC............................................ 3,924 4,231 4,245 4,379 4,513 21,291
All other...................................... 382 351 351 351 351 1,784
------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... 40,764 43,029 44,962 47,042 49,260 225,057
============================================================
Proposed law....................................... 35,600 37,138 38,756 40,457 42,214 194,166
Difference..................................... -5,164 -5,891 -6,206 -6,585 -7,046 -30,892
Percent difference............................. -12.7 -13.8 -13.8 -14.0 -14.3 -13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes.--Based on current service program level for USDA food assistance programs in Department estimates of
September 1994 (excluding projected costs of Food Program Administration but including anticipated mandatory
spending for WIC, consistent with the Presidential policy). This table does not include the budgetary effects
of food programs operated by the Administration on Aging in the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Food Stamp total includes the cost of the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico.
The Child Nutrition total includes all administrative and program costs for the National School Lunch, School
Breakfast, Special Milk, Summer Food Service, Nutrition Education and Training, and Child and Adult Care Food
Programs, the value of commodities provided to schools, and support for the Food Service Management Institute.
The All Other total includes all administrative and program costs for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program,
the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, the Nutrition
Program for the Elderly, and Food Distribution to Charitable Institutions and Soup Kitchens and Food Banks.
Proposed levels for the block grant in fiscal years 1997 through 2000 are increased from the 1996 amount using
the projected increase in total population and the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan for the preceding year.
Totals may not equal the sum of columns due to rounding.
This table assumes that Congress appropriates the full amount authorized in each year.
TABLE 2.--HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATION OF FOOD ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With initial reduction\1\ Without initial reduction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Actual food Difference Difference
assistance Adjusted block -------------------------------------- Adjusted block -------------------------------------
grant Total Percent grant Total Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989............... $21,697 $18,941 -$2,756 -12.7 $21,697 N/A N/A
1990............... 24,778 20,666 -4,112 -16.6 23,672 -$1,106 -4.5
1991............... 28,849 21,971 -6,878 -23.8 25,167 -3,682 -12.8
1992............... 33,519 23,232 -10,287 -30.7 26,612 -6,907 -20.6
1993............... 35,397 23,369 -12,028 -34.0 26,769 -8,628 -24.4
1994............... 36,928 24,374 -12,554 -34.0 27,920 -9,008 -24.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The initial 12.7 percent reduction in the first year is equivalent to the estimated percentage reduction in food assistance funding in the first year
of the Personal Responsibility Act as shown in Table 1.
Notes.--Actual food assistance includes total federal cost of all USDA food assistance programs, excluding Food Program Administration. The cost of food
programs operated by the Administration on Aging in the Department of Health and Human Services are not included.
These figures assume that Congress would have appropriated the full amount authorized in each year. The block grant authorization is adjusted by the
change in total U.S. population and the Consumer Price Index for Food at Home in the preceding year (ending on July 1 for population and in May for
the CPI).
TABLE 3.--EFFECT OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT ON USDA FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS BY STATE IN FISCAL YEAR 1996
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of food assistance Difference
State ---------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed Total Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............. $818 $713 -$105 -13
Alaska.............. 97 84 -13 -13
Arizona............. 663 554 -109 -16
Arkansas............ 422 403 -19 -4
California.......... 4,170 4,820 650 16
Colorado............ 412 417 5 1
Connecticut......... 297 248 -49 -17
Delaware............ 92 58 -34 -37
District of Columbia 137 85 -52 -38
Florida............. 2,194 1,804 -389 -18
Georgia............. 1,209 934 -275 -23
Hawaii.............. 215 198 -17 -8
Idaho............... 127 176 49 38
Illinois............ 1,741 1,483 -258 -15
Indiana............. 713 691 -22 -3
Iowa................ 297 266 -31 -11
Kansas.............. 307 270 -37 -12
Kentucky............ 740 582 -157 -21
Louisiana........... 1,141 765 -375 -33
Maine............... 188 167 -21 -11
Maryland............ 576 404 -172 -30
Massachusetts....... 608 577 -32 -5
Michigan............ 1,390 1,109 -281 -20
Minnesota........... 508 490 -18 -4
Mississippi......... 730 603 -127 -17
Missouri............ 810 754 -56 -7
Montana............. 111 140 29 26
Nebraska............ 187 175 -12 -6
New Hampshire....... 89 94 5 5
New Jersey.......... 836 704 -132 -16
New Mexico.......... 361 321 -40 -11
Nevada.............. 145 150 5 3
New York............ 3,101 2,661 -440 -14
North Carolina...... 930 849 -81 -9
North Dakota........ 86 76 -9 -11
Ohio................ 1,768 1,287 -481 -27
Oklahoma............ 528 475 -53 -10
Oregon.............. 410 346 -64 -16
Pennsylvania........ 1,617 1,465 -152 -9
Rhode Island........ 128 101 -27 -21
South Carolina...... 602 546 -56 -9
South Dakota........ 99 95 -4 -4
Tennessee........... 983 743 -241 -24
Texas............... 3,819 2,665 -1,154 -30
Utah................ 234 277 -43 18
Vermont............. 76 66 -10 -13
Virginia............ 783 597 -185 -24
Washington.......... 660 444 -216 -33
West Virginia....... 405 309 -96 -24
Wisconsin........... 467 442 -25 -5
Wyoming............. 57 57 (\1\) 1
---------------------------------------------------
Total........... 40,764 35,600 -5,164 -13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Equals less than $1 million.
Notes.--Individual cells may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Total includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, other territories and
outlying areas, and Indian Tribal Organizations.
This table assumes that Congress appropriates the full amount authorized
for fiscal year 1996.
____________________