Date: 1995-03-22
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: 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 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 isnt 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 dur preliminary analysis. While I support block grant funding as an effective way to reduce federal spending. the fact is that zthe current formulas being debated by Congress are based on past -allocations for the states. It is unfair to Texas that highspending. lowgrowth states like Michigan and Wisconsin would make money with thecurrent formulas while Texas would be one of the hardest hit. Texas is a typically lowspending and highgrowth state for funding: The inequity of the current.formula would result in a loss of $1 billion anticipated federal funds for Texas in the 19961997 biennial budget. I know Texans are willing to take their share of the cuts. but we want to make sure that we arent penalized while other highspending 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 twoyear budget cycle. The familybased 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 talked about how Ohio is going to benefit. but let me tell you. Texas is low spending on welfare but a highgrowth 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 iP 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.