[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2376-H2377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FACTS ON WIC AND THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have got an article here from the 
Washington Times, and it says ``Democrats Lie About Lunch.'' And I 
would like to submit it for the Record, and I would like to explain 
what the article means.
  First of all, there has been a lot of politically motivated criticism 
and partisan purposeful misrepresentation of the facts. And I think it 
has gotten to the extreme level, Mr. Speaker. What we have done is kill 
the big Federal bureaucracy versus putting Government control where it 
does the most good, and that is at the effective, closest level to the 
people and taking it out of Washington. And a lot of the Clinton 
liberals do not like that.
  Facts: The school-based block grant ensures that increased funding 
levels for the school breakfast and lunch, that funding level is 
increased by 4.5 percent. CBO had originally requested or taken a look 
and said the average [[Page H2377]] growth is about 5.2 percent. There 
was a large concern and they wanted to put the nutrition programs in 
with the welfare block grant.
  As the subcommittee chairman, I determined that if we did that, we 
would hurt those nutrition programs. So I separated the school 
breakfast and the school lunch program and guaranteed that 80 percent 
of it would be spent on the most needy children, those children, 185 
percent and below poverty level. That protected those.
  The States and the Governors also wanted a 20 percent remaining to be 
flexible, that they could either add, if that particular State needed 
it, to the school breakfast or school lunch program or other 
nutritional programs. For example, what may work for Tommy Thompson in 
Wisconsin may be a little bit different than Governor Wilson of 
California, but it gives them the flexibility. We increased the 
spending level by 4.9 percent.
  I would like to submit this chart also for the Record, Mr. Speaker. 
It shows incrementally, for example, in 1995, for the school breakfast 
program, it was $4.59 billion. In 1996, it is $4.7. In 1997, it is 4.9. 
In 1998, it is 5.1. And in 1999, it is 5.4. And in the year 2000, it is 
5.6. As you can see, each year we have increased spending for the 
school breakfast and lunch program. Also for the Women, Infants and 
Children Program that we have increased funding and, again, if we would 
have block granted it with the welfare block grants, it would have been 
in competition and I protected it.
  [Chart not reproducible in the Record.]
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I also mandated that 80 percent of the funds in that 
block grant must go to the WIC Program. And the 80 percent funding is 
more money than current law gives to the WIC Program. Why? Because the 
WIC Program in California and most States across the country is very 
effective and it is the Women, Infants and Children Program.
  For example, currently it is 3.5. In 1996, under our block grant, it 
goes to 3.7, this is from 3.5. That is not a cut, my colleagues. In 
1997, it is 3.8; in 1998, it is 4.0; 4.1 in 1999, and in the year 2000, 
4.2, nearly 4.3. That is not a cut.
  I would like to submit this for the Record also, Mr. Speaker.
  What the other side would have you believe is that we are actually 
trying to kill and cut children's nutrition programs. It is not true. 
The Governors came to us and said there was 366 welfare programs,
 very noneffective, if you look. And the American people understand 
that those programs have failed. The monumental paperwork, the 
Government bureaucracy, the reporting documents. I listened to State 
Senator Hoffer from the State of Colorado and he said they literally in 
the State have two full computer system programs and computers 
dedicated to just the reporting data of the children's nutrition 
program. We have eliminated that. We have made it easier for the States 
to work. And so that we do not build State bureaucracies, we have 
limited the administration of States to 2 percent. In the case of WIC 
because it is more demanding, 5 percent. And what we are doing is 
getting the dollars to the kids.

  We are growing kids, not Federal bureaucracies. I think that is 
important also. I included the language to make sure that the nutrition 
standards were maintained. But yet, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], came and said, can we add 
language to ensure, even stronger language, that we maintain those 
nutritional levels? Both those amendments were accepted in the 
committee. They passed with bipartisan support.
  But yet they still say we are killing the programs. Let me tell you 
what we are doing. We limit Federal bureaucracy, paperwork, increase 
local flexibility. We allow for the expansion of the children's 
nutrition programs. And that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. It is backed up 
with facts and figures.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the documents to which I 
referred.
               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 28, 1995]

                     Democrats ``Lie'' About Lunch

                          (By Nancy E. Roman)

       Democrats continued to spin the GOP's proposed ``cuts' to 
     the school-lunch program yesterday as ``mean-spirited'' and 
     ``cruel,'' herding a troop of preschoolers from Cheverly 
     Early Childhood Center into the Capitol to make the point.
       Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said if the 
     Republican plan succeeds, it will ``roll back years of 
     progress.''
       Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., said it is ``despicable'' 
     and accused Republicans of targeting nutrition programs for 
     children because they cannot vote.
       In fact, under the Republican proposal, the federal school 
     lunch program will grow by 4.5 percent or $203 million. In 
     the current budget year, the federal government spends $4.5 
     billion. Republicans would spend $4.7 billion.
       The ``cuts'' that have received so much press attention, 
     refer to a reduction in the 5.2 percent average increase in 
     the school-lunch program, as projected by the Congressional 
     Budget Office. The GOP increase is 4.5 percent.
       Rep. John Boehner, Ohio Republican and chairman of the 
     Republican Conference, called talk of cuts in the school-
     lunch program ``the biggest lie in Washington, D.C., this 
     last week.''
       ``What we're doing is guaranteeing that states will get 
     more money,'' he said.
       Republicans propose to spend 4.5 percent more on school 
     lunches in 1996--an average of 4 percent more every year for 
     the next five years. They hope that by eliminating federal 
     paperwork, the states will be able to serve even more free 
     and subsidized lunches.
       ``If they [the governors] can't take more money and do a 
     better job, they should step down,'' said Rep. Bill Goodling, 
     Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the committee that 
     crafted the bill.
       The failure to get that message out foreshadows the trouble 
     Republicans face when they get to
      real cutting necessary to balance the budget.
       ``It points out the job we are going to have to do in going 
     over the heads of special-interest groups who want to portray 
     whatever we do as a cut,'' said Brian Cuthbertson, press 
     secretary for Rep. John Kasich, chairman of the House Budget 
     Committee.
       He said he routinely explains to reporters that even after 
     budget cuts, some programs will grow.
       ``I had to explain that to a local reporter from Columbus, 
     Ohio, on Friday,'' he said. ``I said, `Would it surprise you 
     to learn that it is not being cut? That we are gong to spend 
     more on school lunches?'''
       The reporter said ``Oh,'' Mr. Cuthbertson recalled.
       ``Let's focus on facts,'' Rep. Steven Gunderson, Wisconsin 
     Republican and welfare-reform point man, said when House 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee was marking 
     up its welfare reform last week. The ``toughest accusation'' 
     that can be made about the block-grant approach ``is that it 
     reduces growth.''
       Mr. Hoyer said because of an expected increase in children 
     using the school lunch program, a 4 percent increase in 
     overall spending amounts to a cut.
       The Democrat barrage continued yesterday with Donna E. 
     Shalala, secretary of health and human services, telling 
     members of the American Public Welfare Association 
     conference: ``Cruel is the only way to describe provisions 
     that would abolish nutrition programs for children, deny 
     benefits to children of teen mothers, and reduce assistance 
     to thousands of abused, neglected and abandoned children.''
       Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, 
     said he, too, is appalled.
       ``How ironic that in the name of reducing the debt on our 
     children, we take their meals instead,'' he said.
       Ed Gillespie, spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick 
     Armey, said it has been difficult to counter the Democratic 
     assault on the Republican bill as stealing food from the 
     mouths of children.
       ``I don't know what else you can do when the Democrat Party 
     has a concerted strategy to lie to the American people other 
     than to tell the truth,'' he said.

                          ____________________