[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H671-H672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               NUTRITION AND THE FAMILY-FRIENDLY CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, there is much talk in this House about 
this being a family-friendly Congress. What constitutes a family-
friendly Congress. Is it just that we are given a schedule which allows 
us time to spend with our families? This of course is very important to 
all of us. But as leaders we have the responsibility of
 also being friendly to the families which we represent. In being 
friendly to these families, we should be able to ensure them that they 
will be given the option of meeting their basic needs--such as clean 
water to drink, fresh air to breathe, and food to eat. During the 
recent debates on the unfunded mandates, we have discussed in great 
detail the clean water and fresh air issues. It is now time to focus 
our attention on nutrition.

  I believe that we have come to a consensus on both sides of the aisle 
that our current welfare system needs major reform. But reform should 
be directed at moving people out of poverty--not into poverty. The 
President said on last evening, we need a lean but not mean government. 
It should not mean cutting nutrition programs which are essential to 
the well-being of million of our citizens--the disadvantaged, our 
children, our elderly and the disabled. These are the groups of people 
who in many instances cannot fend for themselves and need assistance 
for their basic existence. They are not asking for much--just a little 
sustenance to help them through the day--to keep their children alert 
in class or help the adults be productive on their jobs. I am speaking 
specifically of the nutrition programs which in many cases provide the 
only nutritious food many of our Nation's poor receive daily. We are 
all aware that poor nutrition breeds poor development in children and 
low productivity in adults. I am not necessarily speaking of the 
homeless population--I am speaking of those people who, although they 
are working, are still struggling to make ends meet--and cannot afford 
to feed their families--one-fifth of families receiving food stamps are 
working families who have gross incomes below the poverty level. Aren't 
these people suffering enough? Can we in good conscience say to these 
citizens that feeding your family is not important to the Members of 
Congress.
  Currently the Food Stamp Program serves over 27 million people in the 
United States--over half of them are children--51 percent. Seven 
percent
 are elderly. The program allows only 75 cents per person per meal--75 
cents per person per meal--when was the last time you were able to buy 
a 75 cent lunch in the cafeteria? Have you noticed the price of a 
McDonald's happy meal lately? Not even a happy meal for 
[[Page H672]] the kids. Are we saying that the Federal Government can't 
afford to buy a hungry child lunch?
  It is essential that we continue these nutritional programs. The 
School Breakfast Program as we know it today provides a child with one-
fourth of the daily recommended dietary allowance. The School Lunch 
Program--which serves over 13 million children--provides about one-
third or more of the daily recommended dietary allowance for children. 
These nutritional programs have standardized dietary allowance by the 
Federal Government. If we remove the Federal Government's input, it 
will be up to each State to set dietary standards for their program. 
This could mean 50 different sets of standards to feed our Nation's 
children. Is it fair to expect the States to maintain these nutrition 
programs and still feed hungry children when in fact they will receive 
a reduction in Federal assistance? We will be asking them to do more 
with less.
  Over the past several days, I have received a great number of letters 
from elderly constituents in my congressional district. They ask only 
one thing--please do not eliminate the meal programs which serve the 
elderly population--such as the Meals on Wheels Program.
                              {time}  2050
  These programs are funded through the Older Americans Act and are not 
considered welfare programs. Yet these programs are being considered in 
the welfare reform package and to be block grant to States. Great 
reductions are proposed.
  It is apparent that nutrition is essential for people to be 
productive members of their communities. Malnutrition, or 
undernutrition, will only promote poor health and productivity 
problems--as well as social problems. Let's face it, people will do 
whatever is necessary to feed their children.
  Again, I agree that the welfare system needs reform. But why cut 
programs that are working. We can't lay the blame of an unbalanced 
budget solely on the cost of these programs since less than 3 percent 
of the budget is targeted for feeding the hungry. And statistics 
indicate that for every dollar spent on WIC, between $2 and $4 are 
saved in health care costs. As for the elderly, it is a fact that a 
hospital stay for a malnourished senior citizen may double in 
comparison to a well-nourished senior--inflating the cost to Medicare 
an additional $2,000 to $10,000 a day.
  I come from a very rural, very poor district. Making cuts in these 
nutrition programs will certainly be adverse to my district, and to 
many of my constituents.
  Let's stop picking on our elderly--let's stop picking on the 
children--let's stop picking on the poor--let's make some cuts, sure, 
but let's make them to the people who can afford them--not by taking 
food out of the mouths of children and senior citizens.
  The Republican welfare reform really goes too far to deny poor 
children and senior citizens from a needed healthy meal.


                          ____________________