[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H664-H665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    IN DEFENSE OF NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in a rush to cut governmental 
spending, the Republicans seem intent not to look at whether or not 
programs are effective, whether or not programs have been successful, 
but simply to cut and to block-grant those programs so that they can 
realize the savings that they want to pay for the other things that 
they wish to do, whether it is an increase in the defense spending or 
to provide tax cuts to the very wealthy of this country.
  Unfortunately, the programs caught up in that whirlwind happen to be 
the nutrition programs. These are among some of the most successful 
programs in the history of this Government and the history of this 
Nation. These are the programs that have lifted our elderly out of 
desperate situations when they did not have enough income to feed 
themselves, have dramatically reduced the incidence of low-birth-weight 
and very-low-birth-weight children to pregnant women, to families, to 
prevent them from suffering the setback and the disappointment and the 
heartbreak of birth defects of a critically ill child at the moment of 
birth, and at the same time to alleviate the taxpayers and others of 
the cost of the thousands of dollars a day it takes to bring a very-
low-birth-weight child up to normal weight and the efforts so that they 
can take that child home.
  These are the programs that have allowed our senior citizens to live 
in their own home. One of the leading causes of people being put into 
nursing homes is that they can no longer cook for themselves. So we 
used a program called Meals on Wheels. I have delivered the meals, my 
wife has delivered the meals, our children have delivered the meals to 
the elderly in our community. That is the reason they can live in a 
surrounding that they are comfortable with. They can no longer cook, 
but we can deliver a nutritious meal to those individuals.
  What happens when we do that? We reduce the nursing home cost, the 
health care cost, and the whole Nation benefits, and those people get 
to live in a surrounding they are comfortable with.
  These are the programs that have allowed people to go into their 
homes and to cook for those individuals so that they could stay in 
those surroundings.
  These are the programs that when people find themselves unemployed, 
through no fault of their own, they went to work every day, they worked 
in the steel mills, in the automobile factories, in the insurance 
companies, at IBM or Xerox, and all of a sudden they had no family 
income, because of restructuring or downsizing or layoffs or 
unemployment, whatever the words are that you want to use.
  But they had to feed their families. So they were entitled to go 
over, and to get food stamps to give them help while they were 
unemployed. Their children might be eligible for a school lunch because 
they have no family income.
  Now we say we are going to cut those programs across the board? We 
are going to cut those programs across the board for Americans that 
went to work every day. And they worked hard. They just happened to be 
so unfortunate that their job was yanked away from underneath them.
  I do not think that is the message that America wants to send to its 
families, but that is what these nutrition programs are about. they are 
about the prevention of birth defects. They are about letting families 
have an opportunity to have healthy babies. They are about our elderly 
living out the twilight of their life with dignity, and the security of 
their own surroundings, and not bankrupting their children or 
themselves because they have to go to a nursing home because there is 
no one to take care of them in the city in which they now live.
                              {time}  2030

  That is what these programs are about. And they are about making sure 
that there is in fact a safety net for working Americans so that when 
hard times come they can get some help until they can get the next job.
  Twenty percent of the families receiving Food Stamps are working 
families in this Nation. The go to work every day. They have not lost 
their job, but they do not make enough to be above the poverty line.
  Some of those families are in the U.S. military. They are serving 
this country. But they do not make enough, so that they are eligible 
for Food Stamps, and to make ends meet for those military families they 
go down and they participate in the Food Stamp Program. That may be a 
shame that that is the situation with the military families in this 
country but it is a fact. In fact, if we look at these nutrition 
programs, they are an indictment of this country, for our inability to 
provide jobs to create wages so people can feed themselves, so that 
people that find themselves in tough economic straits can get a bridge 
out, to get temporarily help. But we do not.
  We see homeless people on our streets. In 1980 the Reagan 
administration said it was an emergency and temporary. They said they 
were there because they wanted to be. And in 1990 they were counted in 
the census as a permanent part of the American landscape.
  That is unacceptable and, the nutrition programs stand between 
millions of Americans and that fate. And that should be block granted.
  Mr. Speaker, the question I put to you today is: Where is the 
mandate? Who is mandating the repeal and block granting of the Federal 
nutrition programs?
  No one has contacted my office to support a nutrition block grant, 
and hundreds have written opposing it. Exactly who is asking for the 
demolition of these programs that have proven so successful in saving 
the taxpayers' money, preparing our kids to support themselves when 
they get older, and increasing the health of our seniors?
  The Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee had to cancel a 
hearing this morning on the nutrition block grant because they couldn't 
get a Republican Governor to testify in support of it. The Governors 
themselves have serious concerns about the negative impact the block 
grant will have on our citizens and our country.
  Speaker Gingrich is mandating this block grant to pay for his tax cut 
for the rich. In order to save a few billion dollars to pay for 
[[Page H665]] the contract's tax cut for the rich, and in complete 
disregard of the merits of these food assistance programs, the 
Republicans are risking incurring significant long term Federal, State, 
and local cost of health care, remedial education, and decreased worker 
productivity.
  Of course, there is room for improvement in the programs--we work on 
this every year. Congress is constantly working to improve efficiency, 
decrease paperwork, and end fraud in these programs. Last year the Ed. 
and Labor Committee reauthorized the School Lunch Act. I worked with 
Members on both sides of the aisle to add a strict penalty for 
anticompetitive bid-rigging by food suppliers. Almost every year Mr. de 
la Garza and the members of the Agriculture Committee have passed 
legislation to curb fraud in the Food Stamp Program.
  These programs are good for the recipients and the taxpayers. The 
block grant contains no requirement that the food programs States 
create maintain any uniform nutrition standards. The recommended daily 
allowances for kids and adults in California is the same as those in 
New York. Only the ability of the children and their families to pay 
for that food varies.
  The current taxpayer savings the Republicans are putting in jeopardy 
are:
  Every $1 spent in the WIC program saves between $2 and $4 dollars in 
Federal Medicaid costs.
  Every $1 spent on elderly programs--Meals-on-Wheels and Congregate 
Meals program--saves $3 on Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and veteran's 
health care costs. Malnourished patients stay in the hospital nearly 
twice as long as those who are well-nourished, costing an additional 
$2,000--$10,000 per stay.
  Malnutrition permanently impairs brain development and a child's 
ability to learn, causing an increase in the number of children failing 
in school and a significant increase in the local and Federal cost of 
remedial education.
  Nutrition programs significantly decrease anemia in adults as well as 
children and the elderly. Studies show anemia lowers worker 
productivity and ability to learn new and emerging fields, hurting our 
ability to compete in global economy.
  In my district, as in all other districts across our country, this 
block grant means more than a loss in food assistance. In Contra Costa 
County alone it means almost 400 fewer grocery store jobs, $6.6 million 
less in wages, and the closure of over a dozen food stores.
  I understand the Republicans want to move quickly in debating their 
proposed legislation in order to meet their 100 day-deadline. However, 
if the cost will be measured in taxpayer dollars and human lives, it 
would be unconscionable of the Republicans not to slow down. Please, 
talk to your constituents, visit a WIC center, eat a school lunch, and 
find out why these programs are so popular and successful. You owe at 
least that to yourself, our children, and our country.

                          ____________________