[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2567-H2568]
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 60 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, a compelling case can be made against the 
proposal to convert Federal nutrition programs into block grants.
  That case will be made tonight.
  Over the next 2 hours, the American public will hear from many of our 
colleagues about the dangers of certain provisions of H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act.
  That is the bill that contains provisions to slash school lunches and 
breakfasts.
  That bill will remove thousands of women, infants and children from 
the WIC Program. National nutrition standards will be eliminated by the 
bill. And States will be able to transfer as much as 24 percent of 
nutrition funds for non-nutrition uses.
  But, the impact of this proposed bill goes even deeper.
  Retail food sales will decline by $10 billion, 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 grocery stores, large and small, to the farmer and food service 
worker--everyone will suffer. Most States will lose money.
  But, the case becomes even more compelling when viewed in a broader 
context.
  The House Appropriations Committee is pushing a recession package 
that, when combined with the proposed cuts in the nutrition programs, 
will squeeze those most in need in ways we have not seen in America, 
since the Great Depression of the 1930's.
  Nearly $2 billion will be cut from education programs, including 
money for drug free schools and educational support for the 
disadvantaged.
  Also $3 billion will be cut from programs that move teenagers from 
school to work, including complete elimination of the Summer Jobs 
Program.
  Our seniors and veterans do not escape this blind axe
  Billions will be cut in federally assisted senior citizen housing. 
The 2 million needy senior citizens who benefit from the Fuel 
Assistance Program may go cold. That program will be completely 
eliminated.
  That committee's bill cuts $50 million in funds for veterans' medical 
equipment and facilities.
  Billions of the money saved by these cuts will go to the top 3 
percent wage earners in the United States in the form of a 50 percent 
cut in the capital gains tax.
  They want capital gains cuts. We want an increase in the minimum 
wage. They want block grants. We want healthy Americans.
  They want a full plate for those with money. We want to restore 
Federal food assistance programs. And, we will. The nutrition of our 
citizens should not be left to chance.
  Mr. Speaker, all of the nutrition programs are important.
  I would like to highlight one of them to demonstrate the poor 
judgment of those pushing passage of H.R. 4.
  That is the WIC Program. WIC works.
  It is a program that services low income and at risk women, infants, 
and children.
  Pregnant women, infants 12 months and younger, and children from 1 to 
5 years old, are the beneficiaries of the WIC Program.
  For every dollar this Nation spends on WIC prenatal care, we save up 
to $4.21.
  The budget cutting efforts we are experiencing are aimed at reducing 
the deficit.
  The deficit is being driven by rising health care costs.
  When we put money into WIC, we save money in Medicaid. The equation 
is simple.
  Those who have a genuine interest in deficit reduction can help 
achieve that goal by investing in WIC.
  The WIC Program embraces the unborn; provides nurturing and care; is 
devoted to maternal health; helps insure life at birth; and promotes 
the growth and development of millions of our children.
  And, it saves us money.
  WIC works. Let's keep it working.
  The Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities has proposed 
radical changes in the school lunch and WIC programs.
  If these changes stand, 275,000 women, infants, and children will be 
removed from the WIC Program. Nutritious meals served in 185,000 family 
day care centers will be eliminated. School food programs will be 
reduced by $309 million.
  In contrast, the Agriculture Committee has proposed keeping the Food 
Stamp Program as an entitlement. The committee is to be commended.
  It seems inconsistent, however, to retain food stamps as an 
entitlement, a program that has had some problems with fraud and abuse, 
while block granting the WIC and school lunch programs.
  [[Page H2568]] Mr. Speaker, last year, we spent just $26 per American 
taxpayer for the AFDC Program.
  Child nutrition programs represented just one-half of 1 percent of 
total Federal outlays in 1994. The average food stamp benefits is 75 
cents per person, per meal. Seventy-five cents. Children aren't driving 
our deficit.
  Senior citizens are not the cause of our economic woes. Programs for 
the poor do not represent pork.
  That is why I maintain that H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act 
of 1995, is irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is strong, not just because of its military 
might or its technology.
  This Nation is strong because of its compassion.
  We care about those among us who are weak--the young, the old, the 
poor, the frail, the disabled. If our citizens are weak, we are weak.
  I hope the American people will pay close attention to the statements 
by our colleagues this evening.
  Change for the sake of improvement is good. Change for the sake of 
change is not. Something different does not necessarily create 
something better. Most of us support welfare reform because the current 
system does not serve us well.
  However, the nutrition programs do not need the kind of sweeping 
change as proposed by the proponents of H.R. 4.
  A compelling case against that proposal can and will be made tonight.
  And, at the end of the presentations, I ask all to judge for 
themselves who will be helped and who will be hurt by the proposal to 
block grant our nutrition programs?


                          ____________________