[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2576-H2577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WE CANNOT BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF THE NATION'S SMALLEST AND 
                            WEAKEST CITIZENS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to again raise my 
voice on behalf of my constituents and in behalf of America's children.
  My conscience and the conscience of the Nation tell me that the 
unprincipled and unreasonable cuts to longstanding child nutrition 
programs proposed by my Republican colleagues are simply insensitive 
and yes they are immoral.
  Those advocating these cuts are prepared to disregard the very health 
and nutritional well-being of some of America's poorest children.
  While resisting lobby reform that would restrict the ability of high-
rolling lobbyists to wine and dine without regulation Members of 
Congress and their staffs at posh, Washington restaurants, nutrition-
cut advocates are prepared to literally snatch food from the mouths of 
the most vulnerable among us.
  Mr. Speaker, included with various assaults on child nutrition 
contained in title 5 of H.R. 4 is a proposal to eliminate competitive 
bidding on infant formula purchases under existing programs.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, competitive bidding saved 
the states one-billion-dollars in 1994, helping them feed an additional 
one-point-five-million infants * * * better fed babies are healthier 
babies * * *
 and healthier babies consume far fewer health care resources.

  So the cost-benefit analysis is clear * * * Federal infant feeding 
programs--as currently administered--are a huge success, period.
  Now you can bet the GOP proposal has the big formula producers very 
happy, but what horrible consequences await our Nation's babies born to 
poor mothers?
  And what about cuts to school lunch and breakfast programs?
  In my hand, I have a letter I received last month from both the dean 
of Tufts University Medical School and the President of the American 
Academy of Pediatrics.
  Together, they represent a non-partisan group of medical educators 
and pediatricians known as the Physicians Committee on Childhood 
Hunger.
  Mr. Speaker, these physicians--who have dedicated their lives to 
caring for all our Nation's children--share my grave concerns about 
proposed block-granting of child nutrition programs.
  They write, and I quote, ``Proposals to block grant these programs, 
remove Federal nutrition standards, and reduce available funding, all 
pose a direct threat to the well-being of American children.''
  Cutting the budget deficit they add, ``at the expense of the Nation's 
children . . . is unacceptable.''
  Unacceptable in deed, Mr. Speaker. We can surely do better than that.
  In my home State of Texas alone, again according to the Department of 
Agriculture, these mean-spirited cuts to school and pre-school programs 
will reduce available funds by more than $65 million in fiscal year 
1996.
  And Texas' children would suffer more than $671 million worth of cuts 
through fiscal year 2000.
  Nationwide, poor and hungry babies and kids would be forced to go 
without a whopping $7.3 billion of healthy, nutritious food through 
fiscal year 2000.
  Yes, Government must become more efficient and Members of Congress 
from both parties must come to terms with a growing national debt that 
also threatens the futures of our children and grandchildren.
  But I for one, Mr. Speaker, refuse to go quietly while some in this 
body seek to balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's smallest 
and weakest citizens while tax cuts for the strongest and best fed 
among us are being considered. Don't Hurt the Kids!
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter for the Record.
  (The letter referred to follows:)

                                                 Tufts University,


                                           School of Medicine,

                                                February 17, 1995.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Jackson-Lee: We wish to share with you 
     an important message concerning child nutrition from 
     physicians representing every state in the nation.
       Deans of medical schools, public health schools, and 
     members and officers of the American Academy of Pediatrics 
     are working together as the ``Physicians Committee on 
     Childhood Hunger,'' the Committee's purpose is to insure that 
     American children do not experience increased hunger and 
     malnutrition as the result of proposed policy changes now 
     before Congress.
       The Committee is a nonpartisan medical group, united in the 
     belief that it would be medically unwise for Congress to 
     weaken existing federal food and nutrition programs that have 
     been carefully developed over three decades. Proposals to 
     block grant these programs, remove federal nutrition 
     standards, and reduce available funding, all pose a direct 
     threat to the well-being of American children.
       Whatever steps Congress takes to address federal budget 
     deficits, doing so at the expense of the nation's children--
     many of whom already suffer from preventable insults to their 
     health--is unacceptable. We look forward to working with 
     Congressional leaders from both parties to maintain and 
     strengthen these critical federal food programs.
           Sincerely,
     Morton A. Madoff, M.D.,
       Dean, Tufts University School of Medicine
     George Comerci, M.D.,
       President, American Academy of Pediatrics
                                                                    ____


                Physicians Committee on Childhood Hunger

              Will Congress Produce More Hungry Children?

       For nearly fifty years Congress has shown a bipartisan 
     commitment to alleviate the worst of human suffering in our 
     nation, especially hunger. Now radical new proposals could 
     end this commitment. If adopted they would weaken every U.S. 
     nutrition program--jeopardizing school lunches for young 
     children, hot meals for the elderly, and nutritional 
     supplements for infants.
       One proposal in the ``Contract with America'' would cut or 
     cripple the very anti-hunger programs that Republicans and 
     Democrats in Congress developed. It would end all federal 
     nutrition programs, replacing them with reduced grants to the 
     states. The problem? Deep cuts in anti-hunger programs at a 
     time when hunger already threatens millions of Americans, 
     especially children. The consequences would be unacceptable.


    1. denying adequate food to children can produce lifelong damage

       In today's dollars-and-cents climate, everything has a 
     cost. But the costs of a hungry childhood are excessive. Even 
     a period of mild malnutrition can have lifelong effects.
       A growing body of scientific evidence reveals that children 
     are far more susceptible to the harmful effects of nutrient 
     deprivation than previously understood. What was once 
     considered relatively mild undernutrition can 
     produce deficits that last a lifetime. And once physical 
     growth and cognitive development are impaired, the damage can 
     be irreversible. Children may carry this damage throughout 
     their schooling and into the workforce. The price of this 
     tragedy is paid by everyone: children who cannot reach their 
     potentials, workers who are not as productive, a nation that 
     is not as competitive.
       It makes no sense to let this occur. Hunger is morally 
     offensive and economically unwise.


        2. children cannot find food in shrinking public budgets

       Right now, federal nutrition programs precisely pinpoint 
     people who need help. Kids have to qualify for food, but once 
     they do, they get it. Proposals now before Congress would 
     change this.
       Funding cuts and block grants would remove access to 
     federal food programs for millions of poor children. In their 
     place, fifty 
     [[Page H2577]] different programs would be set up, one in 
     each state. Federal funding would be cut by 12% in the first 
     year alone. Poor children would be lopped off programs in 
     every state. Kids--who cannot lobby or vote--would have to 
     compete for shrinking public funding against powerful special 
     interests. Kids would lose. And health care costs would rise 
     even higher to address the needs of more hungry children, 
     costs which could be avoided if food programs are not cut.


    3. proposed changes would increase the number of hungry children

       Children will pay the price of shortsighted deficit 
     reduction. Converting successful federal nutrition programs 
     into reduced state grants will result in deep funding cuts--
     nearly $31 billion by the year 2000. If the proposed Balanced 
     Budget Amendment also passes, cuts will be even greater. In 
     hard times, when tax revenues fall, there will be more hunger 
     but less help.
       Drastic changes in the nation's nutrition programs would 
     make them insensitive to economic needs in a particular year. 
     They would no longer insure that those in need could be 
     protected. In fact, by their very nature proposed changes 
     would not guarantee where assistance goes. And Congress could 
     cut critical food programs further at any time.


                  ``if it's not broken, don't fix it''

       The nation's nutrition programs are cost-effective and 
     target the truly needy. According to the General Accounting 
     Office, one program alone (Special Supplemental Food Program 
     for Women, Infants and Children) saves $3.50 in special 
     education and Medicaid costs for every prenatal $1 invested. 
     Other research shows that children who get a school meal 
     perform better academically.
       The existing programs work, and they work well. The only 
     problem is that they are not reaching enough of those in 
     need. Proposed changes would mean that they never will.
       For the richest nation on earth to deny food to its own 
     children is a shortsighted betrayal of our values and our 
     future. It is also unnecessary. In the name of our nation and 
     its children, we call upon reason to prevail in Congress.
     

                          ____________________