[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H663-H664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE NUTRITION PROGRAMS IN FACE OF WELFARE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the debate on welfare 
reform, let their be no mistake that the Democrats on the Committee on 
Agriculture welcome the opportunity to further reform the Food Stamp 
Program and the commodity distribution programs.
  Those of us who have worked with these programs labored long and hard 
to make needed changes, but are well aware that there are areas where 
they can be further improved, as with any other good program. They can 
be made more responsive to the needs of poor people by encouraging them 
to attain self-sufficiency, and they can be made more efficient for the 
States that administer them. This is not to say that we haven't tried. 
We have.
  But our challenge now is to make sure that in making these reforms we 
do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
  These are complex, well-intentioned, and largely successful programs. 
The Federal nutrition programs have reduced hunger in this country 
dramatically and improved the nutritional quality of the diets of poor 
families. We should not lose sight of that fact by rushing to pass 
legislation that could threaten the good work of these programs.


                             state concerns

  Two aspects of the nutrition block grant proposed in H.R. 4 could 
seriously threaten the effectiveness of our nutrition programs. First, 
all but eight States will be given less money in fiscal year 1996 under 
the block grant proposal than they would receive under current law, and 
all States would eventually be given less money in the long run. For 
example, Texas would lose over $1 billion, which would result in either 
a reduction in benefits or a denial of benefits to many needy families.
  Second, the major nutrition programs, food stamps, school lunch, and 
school breakfast would no longer be entitlement programs. There would 
be a cap on the annual appropriations for the block grant. The cap 
would be adjusted each year for changes in population and food prices, 
but not for changes in unemployment or poverty. Congress could 
appropriate less, but not more than the cap.
  That means that if there is an increase in poverty due to a 
recession, States will be unable to expand their nutrition programs to 
meet the increased need for nutrition benefits. It also means that 
every year States will need to fight at the Appropriations Committees 
for scarce funding for their nutrition programs.


                         agricultural concerns

  Not only could the nutrition block grant have an adverse impact on 
the States, but it could also mean that less money is available to 
support food purchases and agricultural incomes.
  Studies have shown that retail food spending might decrease when the 
same level of assistance is provided in cash instead of in food stamps. 
USDA estimates that there could be a reduction in retail food sales of 
between $4.25 billion to $10.5 billion. This decrease will result in 
reduced earnings of food manufacturing and distribution firms. And 
agricultural producers would, therefore, suffer decreases in farm 
income. For livestock, vegetables, and fruit producers alone, farm 
income could drop by as much as $1 to $2 billion.
  In the short run, implementation of the block grant could result in a 
loss of 126,000 to 138,000 jobs, and rural areas would suffer the most 
because of their heavy dependence on the agriculture sector. In the 
short run, rural areas would lose twice as many jobs as metropolitan 
communities.
  Under the block grant, almost all authorities for USDA to purchase 
and distribute food commodities to schools and other outlets, like 
TEFAP, would be eliminated. Although the proposal would add new 
authority for USDA to sell food commodities to States for food aid 
purposes, it is not clear how the Department would acquire the non-
price-support commodities in the first place. The proposal would, 
therefore, make it impossible for USDA to stabilize markets for non-
price-support commodities in times of surplus production.
  Commodity distribution programs that now serve a dual purpose of 
supporting commodities in times of overproduction and providing those 
commodities to nutrition programs would no longer be available.
                    [[Page H664]] recipient concerns

  Finally, and most important, the nutrition block grant proposal could 
result in an increase in hunger in America. Fifty-two percent of food 
stamp recipients are children. Approximately $9 of every $10 spent for 
food stamp benefits--89 percent--are provided to households with 
children, elderly, or disabled people. Families with children receive 
82 percent of food stamp benefits. Thirteen million children receive 
food stamps in an average month.
  If States choose to handle the reduced funding levels by restricting 
eligibility to nutrition programs, 6 million food stamp recipients, 
most of them children, will no longer be eligible for nutrition 
benefits in fiscal year 1996. I don't believe that the American people 
intend for welfare reform to increase hunger among our children.
  All welfare reform proposals should be analyzed on the basis of how 
well they will support and encourage people to attain self-sufficiency, 
and not simply on how much money they save. They must be analyzed on 
how they will affect our children, who are our future. Simply reducing 
funding, and eliminating the entitlement status of our nutrition 
programs, does not result in effective welfare reform. We all want 
welfare reform, but we must be concerned not just with the short-term 
impact, the present impact, but also with the future impact. I urge my 
colleagues to move carefully and thoughtfully on welfare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, as long as we have the human element involved, there 
will be fraud and abuse; our challenge is to minimize it. But, my 
friends, a block grant is not going to cure this. Let us not deceive 
ourselves on this, it might even make it worse, for there will be no 
uniformity. So, again, I urge my colleagues to move carefully and 
thoughtfully to achieve the end result. We cannot, we must not, gamble 
with such a precious commodity as our children.


                          ____________________