[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2571-H2572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS ARE PLACING THE WELL-BEING OF OUR CHILDREN IN 
                                JEOPARDY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep concern over 
Republican proposals that would excessively cut nutrition programs--
proposals which could jeopardize the future of our children and our 
ability to compete in the global economy.
  Our country has had a long-standing, bipartisan commitment to 
ensuring an adequate nutritious diet for our most vulnerable citizens. 
Members on both sides of the aisle have always before recognized that 
the country's strength depends on having a healthy, productive 
population, and nutrition programs contribute substantially to that 
goal.
  The School Lunch Program was started in 1946 as a national security 
measure in response to the large number of men enlisting in the armed 
forces who were found to be malnourished. Other Federal nutrition 
programs, such as the Food Stamp Program and WIC, were developed in 
response to findings of widespread hunger in the late 1960's. In 1967, 
for example, the Field Foundation sponsored a study that was shocking 
to much of America. It found that hunger and poverty were shortening 
the lives of many 
[[Page H2572]] thousands of young people in parts of the rural south. 
And if it was happening in the rural south, it was certainly also 
happening in many urban areas of the country where poverty was 
prevalent.
  Federal nutrition programs have made a big difference in improving 
the lives of needy children and their families. These programs have 
given children access to better diets, which, in turn, has led to 
better health and a greater ability to learn in school and become 
productive citizens.
  I have seen the results of the nutrition programs in my own State. In 
Georgia, more than 400,000 low-income children per month receive 
benefit of food stamps which help their families purchase nutritious 
food. More than 200,000 Georgia children receive help for school 
breakfasts and more than 450,000 receive help for school lunches.
  These programs provide a vital safety net. Last year, for example, 
the Food Stamp Program provided emergency help for many families who 
lost their homes and their livelihoods in the flooding which struck 
parts of the area of Georgia I represent. Countless stories can be told 
of how nutrition programs have literally saved families during times of 
emergency.
  Some of the untested reform proposals being discussed in Congress 
would threaten to slash nutrition funding for school children, for 
mothers and infants, for the elderly. If these programs can be better 
managed, fine. But simply slashing the level of funding or capping it 
arbitrarily would inevitably lead to increased hunger and all of the 
suffering and costs that are associated with poor nutrition. We can ill 
afford, Mr. Speaker, to place the health and well-being of our 
children, our economy and the country as a whole in jeopardy by turning 
back the clock on the gains that have been made over the past half 
century.
  Let us cut short the Republican plans to cut short the nutrition 
programs so vital to America's women, infants, children and seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I was just looking at this report from the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and looked at the State of Georgia and 
noted that over 108,000 persons will have less nutrition than they have 
now. These include school aged children, pre-school children, as well 
as school children in special programs. That is 108,000 less in 
Georgia, and I know the gentleman would be concerned about that so I 
wanted to bring that to his attention.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I am happy the gentlewoman pointed that out 
because I come from a district that has some of the poorest counties 
anywhere in the United States, and we have numerous individuals and 
families that suffer from malnutrition, and we have low birth weight 
babies that are born which ultimately has to be paid for by Medicaid, 
and it is a lot easier and a lot cheaper on society and on our 
taxpayers if we pay for a $6,000 delivery as opposed to a $150,000 
delivery with incubation for that low birth weight baby.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I agree.

                          ____________________