[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H672-H674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                IMMIGRANTS AND THE NUTRITION BLOCK GRANT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak on the issue of 
welfare reform and specifically the legislation proffered by the 
majority party in the Contract on America, H.R. 4. I want to rise today 
to voice my concerns with that portion of H.R. 4 which talks about 
block granting all the nutrition programs that currently exist to 
provide assistance to our young children in this country who are 
unfortunate enough to be poor.
  H.R. 4 calls for the elimination of all the Federal food assistance 
programs, which would include WIC, food stamps, and school lunches. It 
would clump all of them together in a block grant at substantially 
reduced funding levels. Reduced funding levels will lead to fewer 
people being served and also will not take into account the increased 
need for food assistant program during economic downturns.
  As hard as it may be to believe, this is not the only disconcerting 
aspect of H.R. 4. This bill not only proposes to limit funds provided 
for nutrition, it also intends to cut off immigrants, legal immigrants 
from the very start of any program. No service or assistance to legal 
immigrant children, even though their parents are here at the 
invitation of this country, even though these parents pay every single 
same tax that American citizens pay and even though these parents are 
obligated and do serve in our military in time of war. All 
responsibilities are there for the parents of these legal immigrant 
children. Yet the services paid for in part by the tax dollars of these 
legal immigrant parents would not be there for these children.
  Though they receive less attention, the immigrant children, in this 
whole debate on welfare reform, the provisions of H.R. 4 which deal 
with immigrant eligibility for Federal benefits need to have clarity. 
H.R. 4 would completely withdraw the safety net from nearly all legal 
immigrants, immigrants, as I said before, who came to this country with 
every right to be here because they were told by this country that they 
could come in.
  Sixty programs would be eliminated from participation of immigrants 
and their children. Immigrants would be barred from all of the major 
Federal programs for job training, human investment, as well as those 
that provide nonemergency health care, housing, nutrition, cash 
assistance for women, children, seniors, and persons with disabilities.
  This means, for example, a 6-month-old baby who came here with his 
mother would be ineligible for basic vaccinations.
  A 7-year-old legally present in the United States would be denied 
foster care and adoption assistance upon the death of her parents.
  A 23-year-old woman legally present in the United States, forced from 
her home in flight from an abusive husband, would be denied job 
training, child care, and other services coordinated by a battered 
women's shelter.
  A 35-year-old man granted political asylum here after fleeing torture 
in his native land for his religious beliefs would be ineligible to 
receive canned goods from the food bank run by his local church.
  A 60-year-old woman who emigrated legally when she was 15 years old 
and who has worked in the United States all of her life would be 
rendered ineligible for Medicaid to treat her dangerous heart 
condition.
  These things would occur because this is where the new majority party 
thinks it could find so-called savings. In fact, the savings which 
result from denying benefits to legal immigrants represents less than 3 
percent of the 5-year budget of the affected programs.
  I strongly support a reappraisal of our welfare system and Government 
spending. However, in this case, it seems that a great number of people 
would be hurt for an almost insignificant financial gain.
  What is the practical application of H.R. 4's restriction? How would 
this work in the following scenarios, for example? Looking at school 
breakfast and lunch, a brother and sister whose parents have recently 
become unemployed begin their school year.
  Will the brother, who was born in this country, be eligible for a 
subsidized lunch while his sister, born in Russia, will be ineligible 
because she is not yet a citizen?
  Will poor immigrant children be further stigmatized because their 
family cannot afford lunch money for their kids? Will they stay out of 
the
 lunchroom altogether because they are embarrassed because they are 
immigrants?

  Is this constitutional? Based on the Supreme Court decision in Plyler 
versus Doe, immigration status is irrelevant when the right to 
education is considered. Following World War II, Congress approved the 
National School Lunch Act as a measure of national security to 
safeguard the health and well-being of our Nation's children.
  I think it becomes clear, Mr. Speaker, to say it makes no sense to 
deny these children the basic benefits, and I would hope that we would 
reevaluate H.R. 4.
  Mr. Speaker, further, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 was enacted 
``in recognition of the demonstrated relationship between food and good 
nutrition in the capacity of children to develop and learn.'' Is the 
health and well-being of our children no longer an issue of national 
security? Is there some new evidence disproving the relationship 
between nutrition and learning? Is it the intent of H.R. 4 to change 
our Constitution?
  Looking at the Women Infants and Children Program [WIC], which 
provides coupons for 
[[Page H673]] food staples such as milk and eggs to very poor pregnant 
women to meet basic nutritional needs, we find that through WIC:
  Medicaid costs were reduced on average about $12,000 to $15,000 per 
infant for every very low birthweight baby.
  On the initial investment, total saving in health and education 
related expenditures over the 18 years of life of WIC children amounted 
to over $1 billion.
  Setting aside the issue of humanity for a moment, are we willing to 
incur these huge debts just because immigrants have become unpopular? 
The WIC Program has proven itself over and over again; why stop the 
savings we know we can accrue?
  Are we willing to deny a pregnant woman who is a legal immigrant--
whose child will be a citizen at birth--the benefits of the WIC 
Program? Are we willing to all but guarantee the birth of a low 
birthweight citizen?
  And as for emergency food aid, are we willing to say that a legal 
immigrant who is disabled on the job and becomes unemployed can't go to 
a soup kitchen?
  In recent days, there have been reports that the Republicans may 
resolve the matter by allowing individual States to decide whether 
their noncitizen residents will be barred from aid. A Republican Member 
was quoted as saying, ``We should not be mandating to the States how 
they should best decide who they consider most deserving and most in 
need of social assistance.'' What do you suppose would have happened if 
there had never been a Brown versus Board of Education Supreme Court 
decision? Do we now value one person in this country more than another? 
What message does this send to legal immigrants? Why should they feel 
less worthy than any other individual?
  Why should one baby born to a law-abiding mother not get benefits 
when another baby will? We cannot begin this debate by stigmatizing a 
whole group of people who certainly do not deserve it. Welfare reform 
is supposed to be about fixing the system and giving people a chance to 
succeed. Let's not get confused and try to balance the budget on the 
backs of immigrants.
  The Senate has said it will not pass legislation which would cut off 
benefits to noncitizen immigrants. I think this is the only option we 
have before us. I encourage all Members to reject a proposal that has 
at its base a return to segregation; but this time it is segregation 
where one group of people is stigmatized, discriminated against, and 
denied access to programs simply because the people--regardless of how 
responsible and committed to this country they may be--were not born in 
this country.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Republican proposal to block grant 
current Federal nutrition programs such as WIC, Food stamps, and the 
School Breakfast and Lunch programs is a terrible mistake. The proposed 
block grant will shift the responsibility to the states without 
providing adequate funding and will hurt America's most vulnerable, the 
children and elderly.
  Mr. Speaker, everything in government is not broken. These programs 
were started in response to documented problems of malnutrition in the 
United States. These programs have a proven track record--they have 
improved the nutrition and health of low-income people in this country. 
Food stamp benefits across the country are tied to the cost of a 
modestly-priced nutritious diet sufficient to sustain an active, health 
life. The key components of WIC include food packages tailored to 
specific nutrition requirements, nutrition education, health care 
referrals, and immunization screening. The Child Nutrition programs 
contain standards that ensure that school meals served to America's 
children meet certain nutritional requirements. These programs serve as 
an important safety net for low-income families, especially working 
families with children.
  In an effort to cut government spending and deliver on their elected 
promise to downsize the federal government, the Republicans have 
targeted an easy, non-voting population--America's poor and hungry 
children. Their proposed block grant would result in a reduction of at 
least 30 billion over the next five years. Their proposed block grant 
would also set a cap on annual appropriations in years to come. Anti-
hunger programs would be subject to political whim and could never be 
adjusted for changes in unemployment, poverty, school enrollment or to 
respond to natural disasters like the recent flooding in California. 
While we are experiencing an economic recovery today--only those with a 
crystal ball can predict what will happen tomorrow.
  Most of the larger anti-hunger programs--including food stamp, school 
lunch, and school breakfast programs are entitlements. This means the 
programs provide benefits to any low-income household or child who 
applies and meets the programs' eligibility conditions. These programs 
expand during recessions as unemployment rises and the number of low-
income people qualifying for food stamps and free school meals grow. 
This funding structure has proved crucial to the success of these 
programs in reducing hunger in the United States. The proposed block 
grant will threaten their success.
  These federal nutrition programs serve as an important safety net for 
low-income families and children. In Ohio, our food stamp and school 
lunch programs serve almost one million children. If this block grant 
passes, Ohioans and Americans will wind up paying the price in higher 
health care costs, larger social service budgets, and ultimately in 
adults ill-equipped to contribute productively to an economy that 
demands highly skilled and versatile workers.
  Mr. Speaker, children are one of my highest priorities. The School 
Lunch Program provides school children with one-third or more of their 
Recommended Dietary Allowance [RDA] for key nutrients. The School 
Breakfast Program provides children with one-fourth or more of their 
RDA for key nutrients. The Food Stamp program increases the nutritional 
quality of diets of the 14 million children that live in households 
that are poor. Five million children receive meals in the summer when 
school is not in session. These programs cannot be removed without 
serious negative consequences to our childrens' health.
  There have been so many studies that link the detrimental effects of 
undernutrition on a child's ability to learn. Undernutrition impacts 
the behavior of children and their school performance. Undernutrition 
results in lost knowledge, brain power and productivity for the nation. 
The longer and more severe the malnutrition, the greater the likely 
loss and the cost to our country. Hungry children are 2 to 3 times more 
likely than other children to suffer from health problems such as 
anemia, headaches and an inability to concentrate--problems that make 
these children fail in school and become inadequately prepared for the 
job market.
 We can't in good conscience be unmoved when children go to bed hungry 
at night and without these programs, millions of children will go 
hungry because they are not getting enough to eat anywhere else.

  Those who support the block grant claim that the proposal protects 
WIC and brings it to full funding. This is not accurate. To the 
contrary, the proposal poses serious dangers for WIC and the purposes 
it serves. Specifically there is no requirement that block grant funds 
be spent on WIC nor is there any requirement that WIC even be 
maintained as a program rather than be dismantled. The proposal 
actually contains a provision that creates an incentive for states to 
reduce or end WIC. WIC links food assistance and nutrition education 
with essential maternal and child health services. WIC functions as a 
magnet, drawing low-income women and children to health clinics where 
they receive prenatal and pediatric care and immunizations, as well as 
WIC benefits. WIC is good for the American people.
  Historically, there has been bi-partisan support for these programs 
in both houses because those families with our anti-hunger programs 
know these programs as cost-effective. We know that for every dollar 
spent on WIC, we save between $2-$4 in health care costs in the future. 
The General Accounting Office estimated that in 1990 WIC benefits saved 
$740 million in health and special education expenditures. Total 
savings in health and education-related expenditures amount to over $1 
billion for children through18 years of life who participated in WIC 
during early childhood. Our solutions need to be results oriented and 
move the participants out of poverty. It makes good economic sense to 
invest in programs that work so we don't pay more later.
  Some reformers want us to send the problem of hunger to the States 
and hope the problem goes away. Well it won't. Block granting these 
programs does not make the problem go away, it simply shifts the 
responsibility to the states, without providing adequate funding. 
States could be forced to create waiting lists for food assistance or 
cut the amount given to each recipient.
  The block grant funding levels would not automatically respond to 
increases in poverty during recessions, increases in school enrollment 
that result in more children needing school lunches and breakfasts, or 
increases in the number of low-income children enrolled in child care 
institutions and needing meals at these institutions. School enrollment 
is projected to rise in coming years. Child care enrollment also is 
expected to increase as more women are moved from welfare to work and 
the entry of mothers into the labor force continues. Continuing to 
invest in programs that work is a proven way to reduce the welfare 
rolls in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to put aside the politics and start 
concentrating on people. Let us continue the bi-partisan spirit that 
has helped poor and hungry children over the last thirty years.
  Let us continue the bi-partisan support of programs that work. I 
challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to weigh the value 
[[Page H674]] of these programs rather than make quick decisions in the 
name of downsizing federal government. It is time to end childhood 
hunger, not successful nutrition programs that feed hungry children.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the elderly and 
the millions of Americans, most of them children, who rely on the 
various nutrition programs funded by the local, State and Federal 
Governments.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle would have us believe that 
these nutrition programs are welfare and should be included in welfare 
reform.
  Further, they indicate that these programs are overlapping, and that 
there is no need for several separate programs at the Federal level.
  So they propose that these programs all be consolidated into a block 
grant to the States.
  Then they take the next step--they would remove all nutrition 
guidelines currently in the programs, leaving it to the wisdom of State 
administrators to develop their own guidelines.
  That proposal is wrong-headed from the start.
  Federal nutrition programs, such as the School Lunch Program, were 
not created because of the welfare state.
  At the end of World War II, as America looked back on its 5-year 
effort to rid the world of Nazi tyranny and Japanese aggression in the 
Pacific, a Republican Congress considered this country's state of 
readiness to field massive armies to deal with future aggressors.
  Review of military physical records disclosed an alarming fact--many 
of the Nation's young potential recruits were barely able to pass 
selective service physicals--because of the effects of poor nutrition 
during their maturing years.
  It was because of the necessity to ensure that future calls to arms 
would find healthy young people available to serve the Nation in time 
of war that the Congress developed the National School Lunch Program.
  The program provided assistance to the Nation's local elementary and 
secondary educational schools with one purpose in mind--to ensure that 
the children attending those schools received at least one fully 
nutritious meal every school day, and, in cases where the child could 
not afford to pay for the meal, he or she received it at reduced or no 
cost.
  So this was not created as a welfare program, and it is not a welfare 
program now--it is a program that enables the Nation to be more sure 
that its children will grow up healthy.
  What are the direct economic costs of eliminating that program--let 
me list a few:
  Our already out of control medical costs will increase as people age 
with a history of poor nutrition as children.
  Studies confirm something we have known for over 50 years--poor 
nutrition as a child leads to increased illnesses as an adult.
  Our economy suffers from increased employee absences, lower 
production at the workplace, and increased direct medical costs.
  It this Congress removes the school lunch program direct funding, 
many school districts will find it impossible to sustain school 
cafeterias, and will terminate hot school lunch programs, leading to 
poorer nutrition for all students--and I mean all students--whether 
rich or poor.
  Focused school lunch programs are also good for the economy because 
the national school lunch industry--and make no mistake about it, it is 
an industry--from the farmer who produces the milk and other foods, to 
the former welfare mother who finally landed a job in the cafeteria, 
and all of the processing, packaging and delivery workers in between 
will find themselves unemployed.
  According to the Agriculture Department a loss of as many as 138,000 
jobs.
  At the other end of the spectrum we have the nutrition programs for 
senior citizens funded in part by HHS and the Agriculture Department.
  The Federal contribution to senior citizen nutrition programs, along 
with significant funding by States, localities and private individuals 
and organizations, provide nutrition to senior citizens in two ways.
  Where a senior citizen is homebound, either because of physical 
frailty, remoteness of the residence, or other cause, and regardless of 
the economic status of that individual, the nations aging services 
network can and does provide home delivered meals.
  In some localities, this means a volunteer comes to the home every 
day and prepares the meal, or delivers one that the homebound senior 
can reheat.
  In others, meals are delivered once a week, and the senior or a 
caregiver prepares the meal on a daily basis.
  If the senior citizen can get out of the house, he or she may visit a 
senior citizen center--either one sponsored by the local area agency on 
aging or a private group--a church or synagogue, or a senior citizens' 
association--and join fellow seniors for lunch, and sometimes for 
dinner.
  Where federal funds are used in these programs, no specific charge is 
made for the meals, although most senior centers solicit contributions.
  Seniors of all economic classes are very willing to eat these meals, 
and 225 million meals were served in 15,000 community nutrition sites 
all over the United States.
  In my discussions with senior citizen groups who operate congregate 
meal programs, I have often been told that it is in our Nation's 
poorest neighborhoods that elderly participants contribute the most 
money in voluntary collection boxes.
  Why is this program so important. Because, again as studies over the 
past few decades have consistently shown, good nutrition among our 
aging population translates into significant savings in out health care 
system.
  These meals provide highly directed nutrition, and a strong sense of 
social integration to a population that benefits immediately from those 
meals.
  A healthy senior, who does not feel isolated from society and his or 
her peers, is active, productive and far less likely to need very 
expensive medical care or hospitalization.
  Studies have shown that for every dollar spent on senior nutrition 
programs, a direct savings of three dollars in health care costs 
results.
  So, if you want to save Federal dollars, and we all do, make sure you 
know where the costs are.
  Protect the elderly who are responsible for the greatness of our 
Nation, protect the children who are our future.
  Reject the Republican's misguided effort to destroy America's 
nutrition.


                          ____________________