[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 36 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3139-S3140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are hearing a great deal these days 
about something called the Contract With America. It was constructed by 
the Republican Party prior to the 1994 election and was designed by 
them to be a road map or a political device by which they could tell 
the American people what they stand for and what they hoped to 
accomplish. Some of the contract makes good sense. Some of it continues 
and retains the same kinds of policies that we on the Democratic side 
of the aisle have been pushing for some years. But some parts of the 
contract make no sense at all.
  I stand on the Senate floor today to talk about something that soon 
will come to the floor from the other body as a result of action they 
took last week. The House Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee passed a bill that repeals the School Lunch Act and replaces 
it with block grants to the States. It also eliminates the requirement 
that poor children get free school lunches. And, third, it eliminates 
Federal nutrition standards.
  I say to my friends on other side of the aisle who constructed this 
that there is reason for us to differ on some things and that there is 
room to differ on many issues. We, for example, differ on the subject 
of whether this country should build star wars. Some say the Contract 
With America says, ``let us--despite the fact that the Soviet Union is 
gone, vanished, done--build star wars again. Let us spend tens of 
billions of dollars building a star wars program.''
  They also say, ``let us cut taxes; in fact, let us cut taxes and give 
the majority of the benefits to the rich.'' It will reduce the revenue 
to the Federal Government by three-quarters of a trillion dollars in 
the next 10 years, if we do what the Contract With America wants us to 
do on revenues.
  So there is room to disagree on these proposals. But there is much 
more room to disagree on another proposal at a time when some are 
saying, ``let us cut taxes, especially for wealthier Americans, and let 
us build star wars because we apparently have the money to do that.''
  There is much more room for disagreement on the notion that we ought 
to decide at this time in our country's history to repeal the School 
Lunch Act and to eliminate the requirement that the poor children get 
free school lunches. I can recall--as I told my colleagues last week--
sitting in a hearing one day and hearing a young boy named David Bright 
from New York City. His family had been down and out, down on their 
luck. They had no place to live, so they lived in a homeless shelter. 
He described for us the rats in the homeless shelter, the living 
conditions, and what it is like for a 9-year-old boy to be hungry in 
school. What he--this young boy--said to the Hunger Committee when he 
testified:

        No young boy like me should have to put his head down on 
     his desk at school in the afternoon because it hurts to be 
     hungry.

  It was some years ago that young David told us that. But I have not 
forgotten what he said or how he said it. How many in this Chamber have 
ever hurt because they were hungry in the afternoon? Not very many, I 
might say, and probably none. But young children do, if they come from 
families that are disadvantaged. Young children do when they come from 
families with no parents. Young children do when they come from homes 
without money to buy breakfast or nutritious lunches.
  [[Page S3140]] This country in its wisdom created national nutrition 
standards and created the School Hot Lunch Program. It also created 
another requirement that I am proud of. It is the requirement that says 
poor children in this country will get free school lunches.
  There ought not be anyone in this Chamber and there ought not be 
anyone who disagrees with the basic assumption that it is our 
responsibility to give free school lunches to poor children. If we 
cannot, by looking into the eyes of children, understand the dimensions 
of a public policy that would withhold food from children who are 
hungry, what on Earth can we do that is constructive in this body?
  I am hoping, when the product--that says in effect that we do not 
care about poor children and that there is no national requirement 
here--is sent to us by the House of Representatives under the Contract 
With America, that all of us have the willingness to stand here in the 
Senate and say, we disagree; poor children matter, America's kids 
matter.
  Let me use a couple of quotes just to show you how those who push 
this Contract With America have changed. In 1982, the current Speaker 
of the House cosponsored a resolution written by then-Representative 
Carl D. Perkins that expressed the sense of the Congress ``that the 
Federal Government should retain primary responsibility for the child 
nutrition programs and such programs should not be included in any 
block grant.''
  Well, here we are, turning 180 degrees, running the other direction, 
saying, Let us just eliminate the requirement. Let us roll it into a 
block grant. Roll it all together and ship it back to the States so you 
can have 50 different standards. Maybe one State would say it is not a 
standard that they care about. Maybe a dozen States would say they do 
not have the money to feed poor children. Does this country not care 
about that? I think that is not the case.
  I think it would be a tragic mistake for us to decide in this body 
that what is really important in the Contract With America is to build 
star wars or to give tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, but it is not 
important to feed hungry children.
  I know that when I go back to my office, I will get calls from 
someone watching C-SPAN saying that this is not what the contract says. 
But you had better believe this is what it says, and it is what the 
House of Representatives is trying to do. If you decide that we should 
eliminate the national requirement that poor children get free school 
lunches, then that is exactly what some mean to do.
  At least from my standpoint, I hope my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will say that this makes no sense for this country. It 
ignores America's children and it retreats on a national standard that 
makes eminently good sense. Children matter. Hungry children must have 
access to free school lunches. It matters to all of us in this country 
to see that is done.
  This is a fight and a discussion that I am anxious to have in the 
coming weeks when this bill comes to the Senate,
 because this proposal is something that we should change.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). The minority leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________