[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        FEDERAL FOOD ASSISTANCE

  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, I just wanted to join my colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], in recognizing the CIAA 
tournament. We both will be in attendance, and we both have schools in 
that that will be participating and, indeed, it is commendable that he 
has brought to the attention of the Nation that this tournament has 
been in operation for 50 years.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 is 
irresponsible. Federal nutrition programs for children and families 
will not be the same if this bill passes. School lunches and breakfasts 
will be slashed. Thousands of women, infants, and children will be 
removed from the WIC Program. National nutrition standards will be 
eliminated. And States will be able to transfer as much as 24 percent 
of nutrition funds for nonnutrition uses.
  But, the impact of this proposed change goes even deeper. Retail food 
sales will decline by ten billion dollars, farm income will be reduced 
by as much as $4 billion and unemployment will increase by as many as 
138,000. The security of America's economy is at stake. From the 
grocery stores, large and small, to the farmer and food service 
worker--everyone will suffer. Most States will lose money. That is why, 
if I may borrow a quote, I will resist the change, ``with every fiber 
of my being.'' Some want capital gains cuts. Some of us want an 
increase in the minimum wage. Others want block grants. We want healthy 
Americans.
  Some want a full plate for the upper crust and crumbs for the rest of 
us. We want, and we will restore Federal food assistance programs. It 
is irresponsible to do otherwise. Nutrition of our citizens should not 
be left to chance. We have a choice. During the second half of the 100-
day push under the Contract With America, we will vote on the Personal 
Responsibility Act of 1995. Title 5 of that act proposes to consolidate 
all Federal food assistance programs and convert them into a block 
grant program.
  I intend to offer an amendment in the Agriculture Committee and on 
the House floor should my effort in committee prove unsuccessful. My 
amendment would restore these vital nutrition programs. Most are 
working and working well. If the block grant program is passed, 
children and seniors will face immediate, unnecessary nutrition and 
health risks. There will be instantaneous cuts in Federal food 
assistance programs. National nutrition standards will be eliminated. 
And, money designated for nutrition programs will be transferred to 
nonnutrition programs, thus further reducing available resources.
  It is also important to note that there is no real accountability in 
the block grant proposal, there is no contingency plan in the event of 
economic downturns and, the proposal does not streamline or eliminate 
bureaucracy as promised. School-based nutrition programs, such as 
school lunches and breakfasts, have been particularly successful. Even 
the proponents of H.R. 4, I believe, will concede this point. According 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, if the block grant program is 
put in place, in fiscal year 1996, funding for school-based programs 
would be $309 million less than the current policy.
  And, such funding would be over $2 billion less over the 5-year 
period between 1996 and 2000. In fiscal year 1996, as much as $1.3 
billion could be transferred for nonfood programs. Such a transfer 
would mean as much as 24 percent less than the fiscal year 1996 level. 
Additionally, for more than 50 years, America has maintained a set of 
national standards that have guided school-based nutrition programs. 
All school meals must meet certain minimum vitamin, mineral and calorie 
contents. Those national standards are regularly updated, based upon 
the latest research and scientific information.
  Those national standards would give way to State by State standards--
standards which could be as many and varied as there are States. Those 
varied standards run a greater risk of being compromised by tight 
budgets and different perspectives. Family nutrition programs face a 
similar fate if they are converted into a block grant program. Spending 
for these programs would be $943 million less in fiscal year 1996, and 
$5.3 billion less over the 5-year period from 1996 to the year 2000, 
under the block grant program. Incredibly, up to $900 million could be 
transferred by the States under the block grant program.
  Mr. Speaker, change for the sake of improvement is good. Change for 
the sake of change is not. Something different does not necessarily 
create something better. The nutrition programs do not need the kind of 
sweeping change as proposed by the proponents of H.R. 4.


                          ____________________