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


                MORE ON WELFARE REFORM AND BLOCK GRANTS
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to call to the attention of our 
colleagues H.R. 4. My colleagues who are viewing this from home, our 
friends who are viewing this from home should read this and weep. This 
is the Republican welfare proposal. It rewards the rich, cheats 
children and is weak on work.
  But one particular aspect of this proposal is the federal children's 
nutrition program which I wish to address this evening.
  My colleague earlier this evening referenced the fact that the child 
nutrition programs came into being following World War II, when the 
military told us that our recruits were malnourished and this took its 
toll on their physical and mental well-being. Since that time, feeding 
the hungry has not been a debatable issue in our country. Indeed, 
President Richard Nixon said, a child ill-fed is dulled in curiosity, 
lower in stamina and distracted from learning.
  This has been our national policy until now. The proposal that the 
Republicans have placed on the table will take food off the table for 
America's poor children. And this is why.
  You have heard much discussion here this evening about whether the 
Republican proposal is a cut or is not a cut in what they call the 
school lunch program. But what we are addressing in this bill is the 
full federal children's nutrition program. So if we are only talking 
about school lunch, then you are talking about a situation where the 
Republicans are saying, we are not cutting school lunch. But what they 
are cutting are the after-school and summer programs. They are giving 
the same amount of money and they say with an increase except they are 
cutting out one very important facet of the children's nutrition 
program.
  In addition to that, they are making this a block grant and not an 
entitlement. Under the law now, there is a formula for needs-based, a 
formula that is needs-based for children who are poor. And now the 
Republican proposal will eliminate that entitlement and call it a block 
grant instead, which means a definite amount of money will be sent to 
the states. Why does that create a problem?
  For the following reasons: First, in that block grant, there is a 
reduction of the money for the
 full children's nutrition program, including school lunch, school-
based lunch program, and assistance for after-school and summer 
programs. These programs are very important to day care, children in 
day care who have to stay after school because their parents work. And 
work is the goal that we have for the welfare program. So that 
undermines that goal there.

  Second, in this block grant, it removes eligibility, so you do not 
have to be poor to be a beneficiary of the Republican proposal, which 
means that poor children will get less nutrition because more children 
can avail themselves of the program. This is supposed to be needs-
based.
  In addition to that, on the block grant program, it only says that a 
governor must spend 80 percent of the money that the Federal Government 
sends to the state. The governor only has to spend 80 percent of the 
money on the children's nutrition programs.
  So already we have had a reduction of 20 percent because that is all 
the requirement is.
  This is why people are concerned about what they hear coming out of 
Washington, DC. People are not fools. People who have received this 
benefit because it is necessary for children's nutrition know when they 
are getting cut. And then to hear semantics used about, well, when I 
said school lunch program, I did not mean after school or I did not 
mean summer school. Well, we are talking about the children's nutrition 
program. Let us refer to it there, and that is being cut. And 
eligibility is being removed and the requirement to spend all the money 
is being removed.
  This is not even a fight between domestic spending versus defense 
spending, as is classic in this body, because this came from the 
military, recognizing the deficiencies and the malnutrition that they 
saw in our troops coming out of World War II. So this is about the 
strength of our country.
  I did not even really get started. What I want to just say is that 
what the Republicans are doing is a real cut in the children's 
nutrition program. The welfare proposal they are proposing should not 
even contain a nutrition cut. Nutrition has never been part of the 
welfare program. It rewards the rich because that is what this cut is 
about, giving a tax break to the wealthiest Americans. It cheats 
children, and it is weak on work.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
  

                          ____________________