The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WE CANNOT BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF THE NATION'S SMALLEST AND WEAKEST CITIZENS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2576-H2577 on March 2, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WE CANNOT BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF THE NATION'S SMALLEST AND
WEAKEST CITIZENS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to again raise my voice on behalf of my constituents and in behalf of America's children.
My conscience and the conscience of the Nation tell me that the unprincipled and unreasonable cuts to longstanding child nutrition programs proposed by my Republican colleagues are simply insensitive and yes they are immoral.
Those advocating these cuts are prepared to disregard the very health and nutritional well-being of some of America's poorest children.
While resisting lobby reform that would restrict the ability of high-
rolling lobbyists to wine and dine without regulation Members of Congress and their staffs at posh, Washington restaurants, nutrition-
cut advocates are prepared to literally snatch food from the mouths of the most vulnerable among us.
Mr. Speaker, included with various assaults on child nutrition contained in title 5 of H.R. 4 is a proposal to eliminate competitive bidding on infant formula purchases under existing programs.
According to the Department of Agriculture, competitive bidding saved the states one-billion-dollars in 1994, helping them feed an additional one-point-five-million infants * * * better fed babies are healthier babies * * *
and healthier babies consume far fewer health care resources.
So the cost-benefit analysis is clear * * * Federal infant feeding programs--as currently administered--are a huge success, period.
Now you can bet the GOP proposal has the big formula producers very happy, but what horrible consequences await our Nation's babies born to poor mothers?
And what about cuts to school lunch and breakfast programs?
In my hand, I have a letter I received last month from both the dean of Tufts University Medical School and the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Together, they represent a non-partisan group of medical educators and pediatricians known as the Physicians Committee on Childhood Hunger.
Mr. Speaker, these physicians--who have dedicated their lives to caring for all our Nation's children--share my grave concerns about proposed block-granting of child nutrition programs.
They write, and I quote, ``Proposals to block grant these programs, remove Federal nutrition standards, and reduce available funding, all pose a direct threat to the well-being of American children.''
Cutting the budget deficit they add, ``at the expense of the Nation's children . . . is unacceptable.''
Unacceptable in deed, Mr. Speaker. We can surely do better than that.
In my home State of Texas alone, again according to the Department of Agriculture, these mean-spirited cuts to school and pre-school programs will reduce available funds by more than $65 million in fiscal year 1996.
And Texas' children would suffer more than $671 million worth of cuts through fiscal year 2000.
Nationwide, poor and hungry babies and kids would be forced to go without a whopping $7.3 billion of healthy, nutritious food through fiscal year 2000.
Yes, Government must become more efficient and Members of Congress from both parties must come to terms with a growing national debt that also threatens the futures of our children and grandchildren.
But I for one, Mr. Speaker, refuse to go quietly while some in this body seek to balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's smallest and weakest citizens while tax cuts for the strongest and best fed among us are being considered. Don't Hurt the Kids!
Mr. Speaker, I include the letter for the Record.
(The letter referred to follows:)
Tufts University,
School of Medicine,
February 17, 1995.Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Jackson-Lee: We wish to share with you an important message concerning child nutrition from physicians representing every state in the nation.
Deans of medical schools, public health schools, and members and officers of the American Academy of Pediatrics are working together as the ``Physicians Committee on Childhood Hunger,'' the Committee's purpose is to insure that American children do not experience increased hunger and malnutrition as the result of proposed policy changes now before Congress.
The Committee is a nonpartisan medical group, united in the belief that it would be medically unwise for Congress to weaken existing federal food and nutrition programs that have been carefully developed over three decades. Proposals to block grant these programs, remove federal nutrition standards, and reduce available funding, all pose a direct threat to the well-being of American children.
Whatever steps Congress takes to address federal budget deficits, doing so at the expense of the nation's children--many of whom already suffer from preventable insults to their health--is unacceptable. We look forward to working with Congressional leaders from both parties to maintain and strengthen these critical federal food programs.
Sincerely,Morton A. Madoff, M.D.,
Dean, Tufts University School of MedicineGeorge Comerci, M.D.,
President, American Academy of Pediatrics
____
Physicians Committee on Childhood Hunger
Will Congress Produce More Hungry Children?
For nearly fifty years Congress has shown a bipartisan commitment to alleviate the worst of human suffering in our nation, especially hunger. Now radical new proposals could end this commitment. If adopted they would weaken every U.S. nutrition program--jeopardizing school lunches for young children, hot meals for the elderly, and nutritional supplements for infants.
One proposal in the ``Contract with America'' would cut or cripple the very anti-hunger programs that Republicans and Democrats in Congress developed. It would end all federal nutrition programs, replacing them with reduced grants to the states. The problem? Deep cuts in anti-hunger programs at a time when hunger already threatens millions of Americans, especially children. The consequences would be unacceptable.
1. denying adequate food to children can produce lifelong damage
In today's dollars-and-cents climate, everything has a cost. But the costs of a hungry childhood are excessive. Even a period of mild malnutrition can have lifelong effects.
A growing body of scientific evidence reveals that children are far more susceptible to the harmful effects of nutrient deprivation than previously understood. What was once considered relatively mild undernutrition can produce deficits that last a lifetime. And once physical growth and cognitive development are impaired, the damage can be irreversible. Children may carry this damage throughout their schooling and into the workforce. The price of this tragedy is paid by everyone: children who cannot reach their potentials, workers who are not as productive, a nation that is not as competitive.
It makes no sense to let this occur. Hunger is morally offensive and economically unwise.
2. children cannot find food in shrinking public budgets
Right now, federal nutrition programs precisely pinpoint people who need help. Kids have to qualify for food, but once they do, they get it. Proposals now before Congress would change this.
Funding cuts and block grants would remove access to federal food programs for millions of poor children. In their place, fifty
[[Page H2577]] different programs would be set up, one in each state. Federal funding would be cut by 12% in the first year alone. Poor children would be lopped off programs in every state. Kids--who cannot lobby or vote--would have to compete for shrinking public funding against powerful special interests. Kids would lose. And health care costs would rise even higher to address the needs of more hungry children, costs which could be avoided if food programs are not cut.
3. proposed changes would increase the number of hungry children
Children will pay the price of shortsighted deficit reduction. Converting successful federal nutrition programs into reduced state grants will result in deep funding cuts--nearly $31 billion by the year 2000. If the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment also passes, cuts will be even greater. In hard times, when tax revenues fall, there will be more hunger but less help.
Drastic changes in the nation's nutrition programs would make them insensitive to economic needs in a particular year. They would no longer insure that those in need could be protected. In fact, by their very nature proposed changes would not guarantee where assistance goes. And Congress could cut critical food programs further at any time.
``if it's not broken, don't fix it''
The nation's nutrition programs are cost-effective and target the truly needy. According to the General Accounting Office, one program alone (Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children) saves $3.50 in special education and Medicaid costs for every prenatal $1 invested. Other research shows that children who get a school meal perform better academically.
The existing programs work, and they work well. The only problem is that they are not reaching enough of those in need. Proposed changes would mean that they never will.
For the richest nation on earth to deny food to its own children is a shortsighted betrayal of our values and our future. It is also unnecessary. In the name of our nation and its children, we call upon reason to prevail in Congress.
____________________
