[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H662-H663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          THE REFORM OF AMERICA'S WELFARE AND HUNGER PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hiatus in the debate for the 
Balanced Budget Amendment and the unfunded mandates to discuss 
something that I think is most appropriate. That is the reform of the 
welfare programs and the hunger programs in our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not rise to say that the current system 
is perfect. There is a lot of need for improvement and reform. However, 
the question is, if we look at the Republican Contract for America and 
we look at their provisions regarding welfare reform and hunger 
programs, I am afraid that in a rush to enact that contract, that the 
Republican leadership has targeted a powerless, pretty much nonvoting 
population: America's hunger, their children, their families.
  What they are proposing is not a solution to hunger and poverty, or a 
better way to do it, but block grants that may ultimately expand hunger 
problems in America, and in fact shift costs to the States. This is not 
reform, this is denial. This is shifting responsibilities from the 
Federal Government to the State government, something I thought we were 
going to stop doing around here.
  I challenge our new leadership to end hunger and poverty, not the 
programs that feed hungry families and their children. Republicans are 
passing the burden of responsibility and the price tag to the States. 
My State alone, Oregon, under their proposal would be handed the 
programs for poverty and hunger, currently federally assisted programs, 
with $64 million less than in 1996 to solve the problem. How is that 
going to help the State of Oregon?
  However, the Republicans have a solution for that, too. Their 
unfunded mandates legislation has an effective date of next October. 
You know why the effective date is next October? Because they know they 
have hidden bombs in the Contract for America, huge new unfunded 
mandates for the States, cuts in successful State programs.
  However, they don't want to apply the unfunded mandates legislation 
before or during the adoption of the Contract on America, particularly 
those provisions
 that go to welfare and hunger, because they know this is their 
intention, to shift costs to the States, not to look at a way of 
improving these programs so we can better combat this problem.

  In a nation number one in the industrialized nations in defense 
spending, national wealth, and the number of billionaires, I think it 
is a pretty sad commentary on our priorities that we are also number 
one in child and elderly poverty and hunger.
  Many of our anti-hunger programs were enacted in the 1960's and 
1970's in response to a documented wide range of problems of 
malnutrition. These programs have in good part worked. We have 
decreased the incidence of infant mortality and low birth weight 
babies. We have improved necessary nutrition food intake, both for our 
children and elderly, by 20 to 40 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to take, say, the hardest-hearted green 
eyeshade view of this issue, there is another way to look at it. These 
programs save the American taxpayers money. They not only improve the 
quality of life for the next generation, but they save money. Every 
dollar that is invested in the WIC program saves up to $4 in Medicaid 
savings, and a whole lot of other funds for the States in terms of 
special education programs 
[[Page H663]] and other things that would be necessary if we were 
dealing with a new epidemic of low birth weight babies.
  If we are really talking about investments that make sense, if we are 
talking about reforms that make sense, then we should be putting more 
money into this program, not less. However, that is not in the 
contract.
  We often have these academic debates around here, and it sometimes 
helps to put a little bit of a face on it. My background is in 
gerontology. I have worked with senior citizens. I have seen seniors--
people who have given their whole lives, raised a couple of 
generations, their kids, their grandkids, and worked and worked and 
worked, and are living on a small Social Security--I have seen them cry 
when I brought them a hot meal, because it was the only hot meal that 
they had had in days.
  Are we going to end these programs? Are we going to turn back the 
clock? The Contract would, or it will say, ``Well, we are going to give 
a block grant to the States, but we are going to cut the funding.'' How 
are the States going to pick up that additional burden? If the Contract 
is honest, then the Contract will adopt the unfunded mandates 
legislation tomorrow so we know what costs we are shifting to the 
States next year.


                          ____________________