[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2568-H2569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a story about why the 
Federal nutrition programs are so important.
  Let me tell you about a school in my county.
  Not long ago I met with some teachers from a grade school.
  They told me that before we instituted the Federal breakfast program 
that kids came to school late, if they came at all, they were 
disruptive in class, their attention spans were bad, and they weren't 
learning.
  But then we instituted the Federal breakfast program.
  Kids actually showed up a half an hour early and lined up just to get 
into the school for the breakfast.
  As a result, the kids settled down, their learning ability went up, 
and test scores went up.
  It was a tremendous success.
  That story is repeated every single day in schools all over America. 
Every time a kid comes to school hungry, Every time a kid needs to be 
fed, no matter what his background, whether his parents are poor or 
middle class. This program makes sure they get a good, nutritious meal.
  I can't understand why anybody would want to put that at risk.
  If we've learned anything the past 50 years, it is simply this: a 
third grader can't learn if his stomach speaks louder than the teacher 
leading class. It's just that simple.
  But the changes made by Gingrich Republicans last week in committee 
will put this program at serious risk.
  As a result, I'm afraid we're going to see a diminished quality of 
learning in our school systems.
  Let's be clear what the Republicans voted to do last week.
  They voted to cut the school lunch and school breakfast program, to 
put all that money into Federal block grants, and send them to the 
States.
  And here's what that means. As the school lunch program now works, 
any hungry child who needs a breakfast or lunch gets one.
  If tough times come along and more children need to be fed--then they 
get the food they need.
  Since 1946, the program has operated predictably and smoothly--and 
worked very well. But by putting this money into block grants, and 
turning complete control over to the States, all that changes.
  Under this formula, each State gets a limited amount of money. When 
the money runs out, kids stop getting fed.
  If tough times hit, under the new formula, kids will get turned away.
  To make matters worse, by putting this money into block grants, you 
put them in direct competition with other programs.
  And we all know what's going to happen.
  Kids don't have a constituency on Capitol Hill. They don't have as 
many lobbyists working for their funding. We 
[[Page H2569]] all know that when push comes to shove, kids are going 
to be left out in the cold.
  Republicans claim this new formula will reduce bureaucracy. But they 
seem to forget that by turning this program over to the States, you are 
in effect opening the door to 50 different sets of guidelines--rather 
than one standard. And that means 50 new bureaucracies.
  Mr. Speaker, there's no reason why kids in Michigan should get any 
less for lunch than kids in Texas.
  But by turning this program over to the States, that's exactly what 
we'll get.
  The reason this program was instituted in 1946 was because many 
recruits to the military were found to have nutrition problems.
  But over the past 50 years, this program has helped make our kids 
healthier and stronger and fed those who would otherwise go without.
  I can understand fixing a program if it's broken. But this program is 
working fine. It's feeding hungry children. And there's no reason why 
we should put that at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for her leadership on this.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I was just wondering, as you say, less kids would be 
fed. I have records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and you 
will suffer 279 less young people being fed under your program.
  I did not know whether you were aware of that, to back up your 
statement that kids would not be served, the impact of that.
  Mr. BONIOR. I know the cuts in dollars to the State of Michigan and 
as it will affect other States in this country, that there will be 
hundreds of thousands of youngsters in America who will not get the 
nutrition they need to perform well in school.

                          ____________________