[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2577-H2578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina for the special order.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in support of America's children because 
the Contract With America is an all-out assault on America's children.
  Last week, in this Chamber's Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, the former Education and Labor Committee, I offered two 
key amendments which will would have protected the most vulnerable 
members of our society.
  One of my amendments would continue to guarantee free meals to 
children who are under 130 percent of poverty which was repealed in 
H.R. 999, the Welfare Reform Consolidation Act. My amendment was 
unilaterally defeated by the Republican supporters of the so-called 
``contract''.
  Restoring free meals for children at or below 130 percent of poverty 
would have continued a policy set in 1974 to help protect the health 
and well-being of low-income children. The Republican plan as detailed 
in H.R. 999 will curtail access to the main source of nutrition for 
some youngsters. Overall funding for the school-based block grant will 
be capped at a 4.5 percent rate of increase per year.
  Under the current law, the rate of increase for fiscal year 1996 
would be 5.2 percent, which is still not enough to meet current needs. 
It is unbelievable that we would risk letting children go hungry in 
this country under the cloak of fiscal responsibility. And I do not 
think that most Americans want to shred a critical safety net for 
children and infants.
  If this proposal becomes law, it will be left up to the States or 
school district to decide whether or not to provide any free meals at 
all; States will not be required to serve meals to children who cannot 
afford to pay for them we know that hungry children cannot learn, 
because hunger impairs their ability to learn.
  At a time when much lip service is given to improving education 
through the use of high-technology learning along the information 
superhighway, it seems very contradictory to take away such basics as 
the school lunch program.
  I think every American should have deep concerns about what the 
termination of funding for feeding programs for children says about the 
direction this Nation is heading.
  These are children who did not choose or ask to be born into a 
situation of poverty. These are children who cannot approach the 
legislators and legislatures, to let the folks who are making the 
decisions know that these policies are harmful and damaging to them. 
And these policies punish them for circumstances over which they have 
no control. Americans have always been proud of our spirit of concern 
for one another and compassion for people who are less fortunate than 
we are.
  Has that been wiped out by the Contract With America?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just to remind the audience, these are faces of real people. Mr. 
Speaker, I believe tonight the case has been made against H.R. 4, 
particularly the case of the provision to eliminate nutritional 
programs. We are more than Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are 
actually public servants and we must remember that our first 
responsibility is not to the parties that we are members of but to the 
people we represent.
  At the end of each day, Mr. Speaker, we must be honest with the 
facts, who have we helped and who have we harmed. Have we helped the 
few or have we helped the many?
  I think President Kennedy had it right 34 years ago when he stated, 
``A country that cannot help the many who are poor cannot protect the 
few who are rich.'' No party or no person has an exclusive on family 
values and personal responsibility. Those are standards that each of us 
hold absolutely dear.
                       [[Page H2578]] {time}  2310

  And if we do, we care about children.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I thank him for his participation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to the welfare provisions contained in the Contract With America, and 
to express the fears my constituents have communicated to me about cuts 
to nutrition assistance programs. I would also like to thank 
Congresswoman Clayton for organizing this debate.
  The Contract With America would transfer control over Federal 
programs which provide a safety net to poor children to the States, 
while at the same time transferring only a portion of the money needed 
to provide these vital services. Many programs would suffer under this 
proposal, including those which provide protective services to abused 
children, those which provide child care assistance to the working 
poor, and those which provide nutrition assistance to the 
undernourished.
  Approximately 13 percent of the children in Minnesota live below the 
poverty line, and it is estimated that 160,000 children go hungry as a 
result. Children who do not receive nutritious meals suffer from poor 
health and diminished performance in school. I have fought to support 
successful programs like the National School Lunch Program and the 
Supplemental Food Program for Women Infants and Children [WIC] which 
were created to combat childhood hunger and give young people the 
opportunity to succeed.
  One woman living in Minneapolis recently wrote me that the National 
School Lunch Program has served as a last line of defense for her 
family against hunger. Since her husband left, she has had difficulty 
making ends meet. Nevertheless, she can be confident that her two young 
daughters will receive at least one carton of milk and one nutritious 
meal a day when we cannot afford to purchase these items.
  This family's experience demonstrates the need for a reliable safety 
net. Nutrition assistance programs like these have represented our 
nation's acceptance of the basic responsibility we have to care for our 
children.
  The welfare provisions contained in the Contract With America 
represent a fundamental shift in our Nation's policy toward young 
people. The contract asserts that we, as a nation, should abdicate 
responsibility for providing basic protective services, basic support 
services, and basic nutrition to children in need.
  Those who support the contract would have us believe these proposals 
were crafted in the name of reducing bureaucracy. I am not deceived by 
such rhetoric. One Federal bureaucracy would be replaced by 50 State 
bureaucracies. The only thing that would really be reduced is a child's 
access to a healthy meal.
  My home State, Minnesota, is expected to lose $18 million in Federal 
nutrition funding under the welfare provisions included in the Contract 
With America. This is a daunting sum of money for a State which already 
faces a hunger problem. Currently, 1 in every 16 Minnesotans seeks help 
from food shelves, receiving an annual total of 4 million pounds of 
food. For example, Minnesota FoodShare, an organization which provides 
food to needy families throughout the State, would have to dramatically 
increase their efforts. They would have to generate 17.6 million more 
pounds of food, or six times the amount of current contributions, to 
compensate for these lost Federal funds. Clearly, Minnesotans would 
suffer if these welfare provisions are adopted.
  True welfare reform does not destroy a child's safety net. Rather, it 
makes it possible for families to become self-sufficient. Full-time 
workers should be able to provide food, shelter, and the basic 
necessities for their families without being forced to turn to the 
Federal Government. I have proposed raising the minimum wage by 50 
percent to $6.50 an hour. Individuals can only move away from public 
assistance programs once they are empowered to help themselves. I 
believe increasing the minimum wage is a key element of any welfare 
reform.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the welfare provisions 
contained in the Contract With America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the Republican proposal to end the Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC.
  Since its inception, WIC has been a model nutrition and food program. 
For infants, WIC reduces low-birth weights and lowers infant mortality 
rates by 25-66 percent among Medicaid beneficiaries. For children, WIC 
increases readiness to learn, improves diets and increases rates of 
immunization against childhood disease. For women, it significantly 
increases access to adequate prenatal care and improves their dietary 
intake.
  Study after study has proven that WIC is not only successful in 
achieving its goals of good nutrition and health for children, but is 
also cost-effective. Every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC saves 
up to $4 in Medicaid for newborns and their mothers. For every very low 
birthweight prevented, Medicaid costs were reduced on average from 
$12,000 to $15,000. The only problem WIC has faced over the years is 
that it has always been underfunded. Doesn't it make more sense to 
invest in preventive programs to keep women and their kids healthy than 
to spend thousands later to keep a premature baby alive because it 
lacked the care it needed early on?
  If WIC is block granted, my own State stands to lose $2.7 million in 
Federal funding for WIC--which translates into approximately 5,200 
women and children being denied WIC services. This will mean local WIC 
programs will be forced to turn away nutritionally at-risk children and 
postpartum women. More children will be denied food and health care so 
that our wealthiest Americans can get a tax break. It's becoming 
clearer to me who the Republicans made their contract with and where 
their priorities are.
  In my own district, I know first hand how successful WIC has been and 
how it has helped countless families stay healthy. I know of a young 
mother of five in Taunton, MA, named Dorothy who is not on welfare, 
receives WIC so that she can feed her family. If this small investment 
is denied, she and her family will suffer immeasurably.
  Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the need to get our Nation's finances 
in order and I intend to work with our new leadership to try to achieve 
this noble goal. But, I would respectfully suggest that keeping our 
kids and young mothers well fed and healthy is an infinitely wiser 
investment for our country than this star wars weapons fantasy--which 
unfortunately seems to be making an expensive comeback.
  I would urge my colleagues to show a little forethought and little 
heart, as we decide the fate of our country's most precious resource--
our children.


                          ____________________