[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

                                 ______


                            HON. TIM JOHNSON

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 3, 1995
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to express my 
strong support for our Federal nutrition programs--especially the 
school breakfast and lunch programs and the WIC program. I am very 
concerned about the Republican proposals to dismantle these programs, 
decrease their funding, and change their very nature.
  It is inexcusable that so many children in this Nation live in 
poverty and that we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of 
any industrialized country in the world. We must make an aggressive 
effort to direct our limited resources towards our most precious 
resource--our children.
  The WIC program is one of the very few Government programs that has 
been recognized as a success by people from all parts of the political 
spectrum. Studies have shown that WIC reduces low birthweight babies, 
premature births, and infant mortality. Every dollar spent on WIC 
produces a savings of between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid expenses. 
Similarly, the school breakfast and lunch programs have been proven to 
be very effective. It has long been recognized that hungry children are 
unprepared to learn, and for this reason school nutrition programs have 
enjoyed bipartisan support for years.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am well aware of the fact that we need to 
examine all Government programs to ensure that Federal funds are being 
spent effectively and to work towards our goal of a balanced budget, I 
am quite concerned about the Republican proposals affecting nutrition 
programs.
  I am very concerned about the effect of replacing Federal programs 
such as these that are recognized as effective with 50 different State 
programs. If our goal is to reduce bureaucracy, how does creating 50 
new programs help meet that goal?
  In addition, if we are seeking to reduce costs, why does the 
Republican proposal repeal the competitive-bidding requirement for the 
selling of infant formula to WIC? This provision has contained costs in 
the program by cutting the cost of providing formula by nearly $1 
billion in 1993--nearly a two-thirds reduction in the program's 
expenses. Repealing this provision will take a billion dollars of the 
taxpayers' money and turn it over to four pharmaceutical companies. Is 
this really the best use of our limited resources?
  I am also concerned about the elimination of Federal nutrition 
standards. These standards have improved the nutrition and health of 
low-income families and help ensure that our children have access to 
healthy meals at school. We have no assurance that these standards will 
continue to be met at the State level--what will keep us from returning 
to the days of ``ketchup as a vegetable?''
  Finally, I am concerned that the block grant approach to school 
breakfast and lunch programs will shut needy children out of the 
program and reduce the ability of the program to respond to increases 
in the school-age population, inflation of food prices, and/or changes 
in the economy. USDA estimates that my State of South Dakota stands to 
lose over $28 million from child nutrition programs from fiscal year 
1996-2000.
  I ask my colleagues to think long and hard about making such drastic 
changes to programs that work--is it really good policy to experiment 
with the health and well-being of our children to pay for tax cuts for 
the wealthy?


                          ____________________