House Education and Labor Committee ranking member John Kline (R-Minn.) says he would oppose approval of an $8 billion expansion in child nutrition programs until the chairman, George Miller (D-Calif.) secures the budget offsets to pay for it. "We stand ready on this side of the aisle to reauthorize the programs and improve their effectiveness and their efficiency," said Kline. "What has given us pause is the $8 billion price tag attached."
Kline said it would be unwise to move the bill out of committee with the hope that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can find the money later. "Every dollar we spend and every program we create must be weighed against the crushing burden that is facing future generations because of our unchecked spending," he said.
Chairman Miller says he is still searching for ways to pay for the increase in authorized spending levels, though he seems determined to move ahead with the bill. "The issues of child hunger and poor nutrition require immediate action, and a joint effort between government, communities, families, school and the unwavering support of advocates," Miller said.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack testified at the hearing that he would "find the necessary offsets" in USDA's budget "if that becomes necessary."
Seeking to head off the possibility that Vilsack might "find the necessary offsets" in USDA conservation programs, a coalition of 17 conservation groups yesterday wrote key House committee and party leaders urging them not to consider that action. In a letter to Chairman Miller, the groups stated their support for the additional $8 billion in funding for child nutrition programs, and they urge the chairman to "work with leadership and the Ways and Means Committee to find offsets for this funding increase that are outside of the farm bill."
The coalition notes that the Senate Agriculture Committee already has decided to cut the environmental quality incentives program by $2.8 billion over 10 years "in order to provide a smaller increase in funding for these important programs." The groups say it is critical that Congress "offset the [nutrition] bill's cost in a way that does not cripple programs that support farmers and forest landowners in their efforts to provide conservation benefits in addition to food, forest products, and fiber."
