[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 36 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3142-S3143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CHILD NUTRITION CONCERNS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was concerned over the weekend as I read 
some of the items on both the balanced budget amendment and the pending 
resolution, House Joint Resolution 1.
  I was in a debate over the weekend on this balanced budget amendment 
on television and other areas. I have been asked questions about some 
of the issues involving child nutrition.
  Now, the area of child nutrition, Mr. President--I may or may not 
have expertise in some areas in this body--I do believe I have an 
expertise in that area. As both chairman and as ranking member of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee, and before that as a member, I have had a 
primary responsibility handling our child nutrition programs. I have 
done this in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations. 
I have done it with both Republican and Democratic cosponsors.
  In fact, I might say that since the Truman administration, both 
Republicans and Democrats have strongly backed the School Lunch 
Program. The distinguished occupant of the chair may recall when this 
program began. It began right after World War II. President Truman 
realized that thousands of military recruits were turned down, even at 
a time of war, because of malnutrition and nutrition-related medical 
problems.
  Now, I am afraid, Mr. President, the House Republicans want to end 
this 50-year tradition. They want to repeal the School Lunch Act. 
Actually, I believe they want to do that as part of this overall 
Contract With America, which includes the balanced budget amendment and 
others.
  In fact, in committees last week, the Republican majority in the 
House repealed free lunches for school children who cannot afford a 
meal ticket. They turned their back on the program supported by 
Republican and Democratic Presidents since the time of Harry Truman. 
They eliminated national nutrition standards for healthy school 
lunches. Now, that will not make parents of grade school children very 
happy, but it will make a fortune for soft drink bottlers and their 
PAC's and their lobbyists.
  Now, Republicans also have taken steps to cut thousands of children 
off child care food programs. They are dismantling the WIC Program. 
Millions of pregnant women, infants and children could be thrown off 
the WIC Program. In fact, it is the height of hypocrisy when they speak 
of having the Contract With America and the American family when they 
move to cut the Women, Infants and Children Program, something that 
feeds pregnant women and feeds their children when they are first born.
  Not only that, I would say to my colleagues; they removed the so-
called Leahy amendment which required competition among infant formula 
makers. This competition saved the American taxpayers $975 million a 
year and allowed more children, more infants, and more pregnant women 
to go on this program. They eliminated that.
  What does it do? It tells the American taxpayers that that $975 
million, instead of feeding poor hungry children, will go to four major 
drug companies. It is welfare for the wealthiest. It is denying food to 
the neediest. It is hypocrisy at its worst, and it is a giveaway to 
major political contributors in the most obvious sense.
  These people have reduced dramatically the chance of low-income 
families to get off welfare. Their cuts in day care funding may mean 
that thousands of day care homes go out of business. They know the 
children are not old enough to vote, so what they have done is target 
the School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the child care 
programs, and WIC. They put back in Meals on Wheels because they 
suddenly realized that went to older Americans who do vote and may 
contribute. So they put that back in, but they cut out the children who 
do not vote.
  The fine print in the Contract With America is really a contract 
against children. It is a contract against mothers and fathers. I 
believe it must be stopped. The contract is antichild, antifamily, and 
false advertising.
  I believe, Mr. President, that we ought to look at what they have 
done. They say they will pass this out in block grants. Of course, they 
do not put out money for the block grants, and if they do, we know what 
will be the first thing to be cut. In fact, I must say that one of the 
best arguments against block granting child nutrition programs have 
come from Speaker Gingrich and Congressman William Goodling, but, in 
the past, not when they are here with this unholy contract.
  Speaker Gingrich has done a complete about-face on these issues. He 
cosponsored a resolution in 1982 stating that the ``Federal Government 
should retain primary responsibility for the child nutrition programs 
and such programs should not be included in any block grant.''
  The reasons child nutrition programs should not be included in block 
grants is best stated by Congressman William Goodling, who is now 
chairman of the House committee. He said that ``a child's basic 
nutrition needs should not vary from State to State,'' and yet we now 
find that what was true then apparently is not true today when you have 
a Contract With America to fulfill, no matter how hypocritical it is, 
no matter how many giveaways to huge campaign contributors and wealthy 
interests there are.
  Mr. President, I feel, as does the distinguished senior Senator from 
West Virginia, that I have one contract with America, and like him, I 
carry that with me. It is the Constitution of the United States--the 
Constitution of the United States. This is so good, we have only had to 
amend it 17 times since the 
[[Page S3143]] Bill of Rights. It has been the framework of the most 
powerful democracy known to history. It has been the framework of a 
democracy that, if it keeps to its basic tenets, can last for hundreds 
and hundreds and hundreds of years.
  I do not like the Republican Contract With America. I think it would 
result in the largest transfer of benefits and entitlements from 
working-class families and the middle class to the rich of this 
country. I have seen reports that households with incomes over $200,000 
would receive an average annual tax entitlement of more than $11,500 by 
the year 2002, and working-class America will lose. I will fight those 
changes in the Senate.
  Since the Truman administration, Republicans and Democrats have 
strongly backed the School Lunch Program. The Lunch Program began 
because thousands of military recruits were turned down in World War II 
because of malnutrition and nutrition-related medical problems.
  Now House Republicans want to end this 50-year tradition and repeal 
the School Lunch Act. The Republicans keep changing their minds on who 
they should pick on next--infants, toddlers, pregnant women, or school 
children?
  In committee last week, the Republican majority repealed free lunches 
for school children who cannot afford a meal ticket.
  They eliminated national nutrition standards for healthy school 
lunches. That will not make parents of grade school children very 
happy, but it will make a fortune for the soft drink bottlers.
  House Republicans also have taken steps to cut thousands of toddlers 
off child care food programs, and they are dismantling the WIC Program. 
Millions of pregnant women, infants and children could be thrown off 
the WIC Program.
  House Republicans have reduced dramatically the chance that low-
income families can get off welfare--their cuts in day care funding may 
mean that thousands of day care homes go out of business.
  This makes no sense whatsoever.
  But, the Republicans know that children are not old enough to vote so 
they have targeted the School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast 
Program, child care programs, and WIC.
  The fine print in the Contract With America is really a contract 
against children, and a contract against mothers and fathers. This 
assault on America's families must be stopped.
  The contract is antichild, antifamily, and false advertising. It 
promises limited block grants, but delivers big cuts.
  The contract is antitaxpayer as well. The House Republicans on the 
committee voted down last week a provision that would save taxpayers $1 
billion a year.
  The WIC Program is required to buy infant formula under competitive 
bidding under a provision I was able to get passed in 1989. That 
provision puts an additional 1.5 million pregnant women, infants, and 
children on WIC at no extra cost to taxpayers--it does this by saving 
$1 billion.
  Who wins under this Republican scheme? Four giant drug companies that 
make infant formula. Who loses? Taxpayers, and 1.5 million pregnant 
women, infants, and children.
  At the same time House Republicans are throwing hundreds of millions 
of dollars at these corporate giants, they are proposing to cut free 
lunches to children who cannot afford the cost of a lunch.
  The best arguments against block granting child nutrition programs 
have come from Newt Gingrich and Congressman William Goodling.
  Newt Gingrich has done a complete about-face on these issues. He 
cosponsored a resolution in 1982 stating that the ``Federal government 
should retain primary responsibility for the child nutrition programs 
and such programs should not be included in any block grant.'' [H. Con. 
Res. 384, which passed on September 29, 1982.]
  The reasons that child nutrition programs should not be included in 
block grants was best stated by Congressman William Goodling who is now 
chairman of the House committee that just approved the block grants of 
child nutrition programs. He said that ``a child's basic nutrition 
needs do not vary from State to State.'' [Cong. Rec., July 23, 1982, p. 
17865.]
  The report explaining that resolution, which was sponsored by Newt 
Gingrich, said that if you have ``50 distinct State programs, there is 
no guarantee that the needy child whose family income has fallen below 
the poverty line would be entitled to participation in a free-lunch 
program.''
  The report concluded that Federal child nutrition programs ``should 
not be turned back to the states or diluted through a block grant at 
reduced funding.'' [Page 4, Hse. Rpt. 97-870, Sept. 24, 1982.]
  The report explains that block grants do not increase to address 
recessions, and thus they throw children off the program just when the 
lunch program is most needed.
  That was true then. It is still true today.
  Why has Newt Gingrich changed his mind? To understand why you have to 
look at the whole contract.
  The Republican Contract With America and the balanced budget 
amendment--taken together--would likely result in the largest transfer 
of benefits and entitlements from working-class families and the middle 
class to the rich in the history of this country. I have seen reports 
that households with incomes over $200,000 a year would receive an 
average annual tax entitlement of more than $11,500 by the year 2002. 
And the working class will lose.
  I will fight these changes in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________