[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3547-H3548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         REPUBLICAN SHELL GAME

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
address the House tonight. I want to compliment our speaker on his 
ability tonight, but also when I heard last week that you were 
fortunate to have Dave Berry sit in your office just briefly as your 
press secretary, you are a very brave man, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me talk about the welfare bill that we are considering because 
that has been the topic this evening. The Republican shell game 
continues with the lives of the children hanging in the 
[[Page H3548]] balance literally. Today my office received updated 
estimates on exactly how much the welfare reform bill would cost the 
state of Texas, and it would be over a billion dollars in the year 1996 
and 1997.
  The good news, if you can call it that, is that the early estimates 
of 60 million reduction for the Texas school nutrition program is now, 
after looking at the final bill that came out of the committee, will 
now only be a 35.1 million cut. And my Republican colleagues tonight, 
when they talked about that it is really an increase, they obviously, I 
would rather read and depend on outside the beltway information from 
someone who is looking at it than from someone who is inside the 
beltway.
  The chief financial officer of Texas estimates, in fiscal year 1996, 
the appropriations will be sufficient. But after that year, with only 
the 4.1 percent increase, and I would like to read part of the letter 
and also have it all inserted from John Sharp.

       I am happy to provide you with our analysis of the federal 
     welfare reform proposals. The analysis below has been updated 
     based on the bill language expected to reach the House floor.

  Again, I received this today.

       My concern isn't with making cuts in federal spending but 
     rather with the unfair way in which Texas is being placed at 
     a disadvantage and asked to shoulder more than its fair 
     share. The proposals currently under consideration in 
     Congress have a disproportionate and grossly inequitable 
     effect on Texas. Nothing has changed since our preliminary 
     analysis. While I support block grant funding as an effective 
     way to reduce federal spending, the fact is that the current 
     formulas being debated by Congress are based on past 
     allocations for the states. It is unfair to Texas that high-
     spending, low-growth states like Michigan and Wisconsin would 
     make money with the
      current formulas while Texas would be one of the hardest 
     hit.

  Texas is a typically low-spending and high-growth state for funding:

       The inequity of the current formula would result in a loss 
     of $1 billion anticipated federal funds for Texas in the 
     1996-1997 biennial budget. I know Texans are willing to take 
     their share of the cuts, but we want to make sure that we 
     aren't penalized while other high-spending states avoid cuts 
     and actually make money.

  That is what we are looking at, if you are a member of Congress from 
Texas.
  And to continue:

       As far as your specific request regarding current funding 
     formula proposals for the school nutrition program, we expect 
     to sustain a shortfall of $35.1 million during the next two-
     year budget cycle. The family-based nutrition program funding 
     formulas will also cost Texas more than $149.5 million during 
     the same period.

  I know earlier this evening my colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] talked 
about how Ohio is going to benefit, but let me tell you, Texas is low 
spending on welfare but a high-growth state and we will lose money.
  The Republicans will not admit that we grow at 8 percent each year. 
What they do not tell you is that now we have a guarantee of a school 
lunch and that an increase in authorization, with an increase in 
authorization but a possible cut in the appropriations each year, the 
Republicans should not play the shell games with our children and take 
nutrition programs out of welfare reform. Under this shell game, the 
authorization under this bill is one shell. The appropriations is 
another. And yet the 80 percent that will only be required to be used 
is the other shell.
  We ought to take school lunch out like the Deal amendment talks 
about. I am not a cosponsor of the Deal amendment, but I intend to vote 
for it because it is so much better than the current bill that we have. 
We do not call buying textbooks, computers, desks or other material in 
our schools welfare. And we should not call a school lunch or a 
breakfast that they are providing that helps them to be a better 
student welfare.
  Congress must stop the shell game and calling school lunch and 
breakfast welfare. Call it like it is. It is a helping hand to our 
students. That is what we need to consider. That is why it should not 
be part of this bill, and that is why I would, the Committee on Rules 
did not let us have an amendment on the nutrition. But at least we will 
get a shot at it when we have the Deal amendment up.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred.

                               Comptroller of Public Accounts,

                                       Austin, TX, March 22, 1995.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Green: I am happy to provide you with our 
     analysis of Federal welfare reform proposals. The analysis 
     below has been updated based on the bill language expected to 
     reach the House floor. My concern isn't with making cuts in 
     federal spending, but rather with the unfair way in which 
     Texas is being placed at a disadvantage and asked to shoulder 
     more than it's fair share.
       The proposals currently under consideration in Congress 
     will have a disproportionate and grossly inequitable effect 
     on Texas. Nothing has changed since our preliminary analysis. 
     While I support block grant funding as an effective way to 
     reduce federal spending, the fact is that the current 
     formulas being debated by Congress are based on past 
     allocations to the states. It is unfair to Texas that high-
     spending, low-growth states like Michigan and Wisconsin would 
     make money with the current formulas, while Texas would be 
     one of the hardest hit states in the Union.
       The inequity of the current formulas would result in a loss 
     of more than $1 billion in anticipated federal funds for 
     Texas' 1996-1997 biennial budget. I know Texans are willing 
     to take their fair share of cuts, but we want to be sure we 
     aren't penalized while other high-spending states avoid cuts 
     and actually make money.
       As for your specific questions regarding current funding 
     formula proposals for the School Nutrition program, we expect 
     to sustain a shortfall $35.1 million during the next two-year 
     budget cycle. The Family-based Nutrition program funding 
     formulas will also cost Texas more than $149.5 million during 
     the same period.
       Attached are two charts illustrating the estimated five-
     year impact of current nutritional block grant funding 
     proposals. We derived the estimates for the proposed block 
     grants by taking the anticipated 1996-97 federal revenues for 
     the affected programs from the current Biennial Revenue 
     Estimate (BRE) and then subtracting the anticipated revenues 
     from these programs in each block grant. The BRE revenue 
     estimates are based on projected caseload growth, program 
     costs and the federal share of total costs of the programs 
     under current law.
       Again, I strongly support block grants as a means of 
     cutting federal spending, balancing the federal budget and 
     returning control to the states. However, the future losses 
     to be incurred by our state under the proposed funding 
     formulas are unfair because they ignore the fact that Texas, 
     with one of the fastest-growing populations and lowest per 
     capita income rates in the nation, will have one of the 
     greatest needs for these funds in the years ahead and yet, 
     states like Michigan, which is losing population, face no 
     loss of funds.
       I look forward to working with you, the Texas delegation, 
     the Governor and Texas' legislative leadership to ensure the 
     necessary curtailments to federal spending occur--without 
     treating Texas unfairly.
           Sincerly,
                                                       John Sharp,
                                   Comptroller of Public Accounts.
       Comptroller Estimates of Potential losses in federal funds 
     under block grant formula for federal nutrition payments with 
     Block Grant Caps, under formula approved by Committee.


             nutrition funding block grant funding proposal

       Combining total WIC, Child Summer Nutrition programs into 
     single lump sum payment to the states (including growth rates 
     in bill formula):

                                                                        
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed           
                                            BRE       Block             
                  Year                    Estimate    Grant    Rev. loss
                                         (millions    (Grant            
                                           of $)     formula)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996...................................     $476.1     $412.7      $63.4
1997...................................      514.1      428.0       86.2
1998...................................      555.3      442.1      113.2
1999...................................      599.7      458.5      141.3
2000...................................      647.7      475.4      172.3
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................  .........  .........      576.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total loss for 1996-97 biennium $149.5 million.                         

         school nutrition funding block grant funding proposal

       Replacing current enrollment-based funding formula for 
     total school nutrition programs with Block Grant amount as 
     approved in formula (including growth) by House:

                                                                        
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed           
                                            BRE       Block             
                  Year                    Estimate    Grant    Rev. loss
                                         (millions    (Grant            
                                           of $)     formula)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996...................................     $591.6     $577.3      $14.3
1997...................................      621.8      601.0       20.8
1998...................................      653.5      625.0       28.4
1999...................................      686.8      651.3       35.5
2000...................................      721.8      678.0       43.9
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................  .........  .........      142.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total loss for 1996-97 biennium: $35.1 million.                         



                          ____________________