[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3127-H3128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans say that really they are 
not cutting nutrition programs, and I do not intend to suggest that 
they mean to cut and suggest they are not cutting.
  We are probably looking at this in different ways. I would think that 
the emphasis ought to be placed on will they serve more children in the 
long run or will they serve less? Is the current policy being enforced 
or will they indeed have a new policy which may yield more money but 
serve less people?
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that wedding oneself to entitlement 
certainly is not wedding oneself to invest in our future. Wedding 
oneself to entitlement is not the same as saying children are our most 
precious commodity. And entitlements as to some of the basic 
necessities as food and shelter and health seems to be consistent with 
what democracy is all about, not necessarily wedding them to be on the 
dole. I would argue for consistency in terms of America and reaching 
out to help those least among us as reaching out to help those who are 
most affluent. It was indeed President Kennedy who said, and I agree, 
that if this Nation cannot respond to the many who are poor, certainly 
this Nation cannot defend the few who are rich. That is true, Mr. 
Speaker.
  What are those myths they are saying? They are saying, well, there is 
going to be more food indeed for school lunches.
  I would submit, indeed they are cutting. In fact, the chart we have 
here indicates surely that they are cutting as a whole.
  They say indeed that what we are doing, we are increasing the School 
Lunch Program 4.5 percent. Indeed, that may be so, but consider this, 
Mr. Speaker. In that 4.5 percent, you are not taking into consideration 
inflation, you are not taking into consideration the increase of 
students who will be there, but yet that same approach was not led to 
the defense. Indeed, you did take into consideration when you were 
looking at the budget for defense that in order to maintain that level 
of service, we have to make an adjustment for inflation. But indeed you 
did not do that.
  When you take all of the nutrition programs together, this chart 
clearly shows that over that 5-year period, there would be cuts of at 
least $7 billion. You see, when you take all the many nutrition 
programs together and begin to block grant them into two, something 
else happens to that, particularly the ones that you have the nutrition 
where you have WIC and other programs. You begin to have the programs 
who are in need competing among themselves. How does that affect the 
American people?
  I will tell you, it certainly affects the day care people and those 
who are working because they are going to find that their day care is 
going to go up and beyond, to make work affordable, they are going to 
have to increase their outlay for day care because now the choices will 
be how much money we spend on WIC, how much money we spend on day care.
  You say, well, 80 percent of those funds are designed for WIC. Well, 
WIC does not want to help people get over the first 2 or 3 years and 
find that the mother is now working and all of a sudden her day care is 
going up because you are pulling away the support that you had there 
before day care.

[[Page H3128]]

  Block grant in itself may not be an evil concept but block grant 
under the guise of efficiency and better service and local control, it 
needs to be examined. I submit to Members that in the block grants, in 
cutting, we may indeed be offering an unfunded mandate because those 
people who are closest to their citizens will be going to their county 
commissions, be going to their State general assembly, because they 
have come to understand that these programs are there and they no 
longer will be there. You will say, we have given the block grant and 
we have capped them.
  The other issue about block grants is that it does not indeed take 
into consideration the downturn of the economy. It makes no adjustment 
for that whatsoever.
  Given these factors, it cannot be made substantial when we go beyond 
the rhetoric that more children will be served. The truth is, more 
children will not be served. Why? Food is going up, and the school and 
population is growing.
  Which of us would rather tell the last 5 kids of the 25 that are 
there that they are not going to be able to be served? You must begin 
to understand why people are so outraged is they cannot believe that 
you understand this and will still go forward. It is not that we think 
anyone has more of a disregard for young people than we are, but 
apparently we do not share the same vision for the future to allow this 
to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of us to begin to think not in terms of 
entitlement when we think of our children but think of our children as 
our future. To the extent we fail to invest in our future, we fail to 
invest in our society.


                          ____________________