[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2100
        NUTRITION PROVISIONS IN THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the provisions in the 
Personal Responsibility Act which contains a food assistance block 
grant.
  The child nutrition provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act 
will completely eliminate the National School Lunch Program as it has 
existed since 1946. The Personal Responsibility Act would combine a set 
of Federal food assistance programs--including food stamps, school 
lunch, school breakfast, the WIC Program, elderly nutrition, and the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP] into a single block grant to 
States, with a reduction in overall funding for the programs. The House 
Republican Conference has estimated that the 4-year reduction in 
funding as compared with current law would be $11 billion. Probably a 
more accurate reduction is $17.5 billion as projected by the center on 
budget and policy priorities.
  There are many reasons why I oppose the block grant method for the 
distribution of funds:
  Historically, when Federal funds have been left to the discretion of 
a few, they have not been distributed to the most impoverished or the 
ones in need the most. Giving States carte blanche authority does not 
guarantee that Federal funds will be used to address the national needs 
that Congress has identified.
  By definition, block grant programs do not require that specified 
programs are provided for specifically targeted populations. Reporting 
and evaluation requirements for most block grants are so limited that 
information about program participation levels, implementation and 
effectiveness is not sufficient to provide guidance for continued 
funding of the programs.
  Even though education is administered through 50 States and over 
15,000 local educational agencies [LEA's], and conditions do differ 
among States and LEA's, certain identifiable national problems are of 
sufficient importance to merit special Federal programs.
  For these and other reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
movement to combine nutrition programs into a block grant.


                          ____________________