I would like to highlight what I believe is a crucial element of this budget resolution. I am referring to the budget assumptions regarding the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children. Page 21 of the committee report on the resolution reads: The Committee's recommendation assumes the full $354 million increase in budget authority over a freeze requested by the president. An additional 710,000 low income women and children would be served and the program would remain on track for full funding in 1996. In addition, the Boxer-Leahy amendment, adopted yesterday, assumes an additional $100 million in WIC in 1995. Mr. President, am I correct in understanding that the committee's resolution adopts and assumes the President's full fiscal year 1995 funding request for WIC, as well as an additional $100 million, toward the goal of serving all eligible WIC who apply by 1996?
Editor's note · Context
Discussing budget resolutions related to the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children.
Share
More from Patrick Leahy
I rise today to celebrate the incredible institutions of higher education in my home State. Like many Vermonters, I was the first in my family to attend college--I chose a small, liberal arts, Catholic college--Saint Michael's College in…
I have been a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for 48 years, since I was elected in 1974. I have helped to write nine farm bills, and I have overseen the creation of programs that have helped farmers, food systems, and consumers…
I can say with absolute certainty that the proposed rules directly conflict with the legislation on a variety of matters, especially on provisions that limit access to the PTAB.





