[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2569-H2570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1000
                        CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHUGH). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLAURO] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Republican colleagues 
over the last several days get up here and tell the American people 
that by cutting the School Lunch Program that they will be able to feed 
more children. I think it is time to set the record straight.
  In the fantasy world of the Republicans, higher food prices and 
larger school enrollments simply don't exist. But they do exist in the 
real world and current law allows funding for child nutrition programs 
to keep pace automatically, especially during difficult economic times. 
This is where the Republicans' block grant proposal fails and where our 
kids would get hurt.
  Republicans argue that their proposal would increase child nutrition 
program funding by 4.5 percent every year. But this is deliberately 
misleading. Their so-called increases would not keep pace with food 
price inflation and rising program enrollments. Under the Republicans' 
plan, according to the Center for Budget Priorities estimates, school-
based nutrition programs would be cut by $190 million in 1996 and $2.3 
[[Page H2570]] billion over 5 years. Family-based nutrition programs 
would be cut by $680 million in 1996 and $4.6 billion over 5 years.
  The Republicans say their plan frees up more money for food by making 
the programs less bureaucratic. This is preposterous. The Republicans' 
proposal would actually make the programs more bureaucratic by creating 
50 new bureaucracies to administer 50 new programs. This will only 
increase administrative costs for the States, and ultimately mean less 
food for children. The fact is the Republicans would not be cutting 
Federal bureaucracy, they would simply be cutting Federal funding.
  I am especially concerned about the impact this block grant proposal 
would have on the School Lunch Program--a program that serves free and 
reduced priced lunches to over 104,000 children in my home State of 
Connecticut every day.
  I met today with two special people who run a program in my district 
called Boys Village. This program provides community-based and day 
treatment services for at-risk children. Every day, Boys Village feeds 
breakfast and lunch to all the children enrolled in its program. To 
help do this, they receive $30,000 a year from the National School 
Lunch and Breakfast Programs.
  The budget for this remarkably successful program is small. If 
funding for its nutrition programs was substantially reduced, or 
eliminated, which is possible under the Republicans' proposal, Boys 
Village would have to make some tough choices.
  Those are not pleasant choices, Mr. Speaker. And they're choices that 
all School Meal Programs will be forced
 to make. They will have to either eliminate meals, increase prices, or 
reduce the quality and quantity of the well-balanced, nutritious meals 
that kids currently receive.

  Newt Gingrich, who spoke so highly of the Boys Town of yesteryear, 
should wake up and see what the Boys Villages of tomorrow will be like 
if he has his way. They will not feature the smiling faces of the movie 
version. It will be more like the Dickens' version, with hungry 
children holding out their tin cups and begging for more.
  Child Nutrition Programs in this country will be a pale imitation of 
what they are today. Enrollment will decrease, nutritional standards 
will diminish, and the health of our children will suffer.
  It is a vision of hungry kids who are not healthy, alert, and ready 
to learn--all this so the Republicans can pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthy. This Republican scheme must be stopped. I urge my colleagues 
to keep up the fight.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Would you just comment on the fact that most of the 
time when we think about changing things, we want to correct them; do 
you see anything wrong with the school lunch and the WIC program? Is 
there fraud or something we know that is going on that it is not 
effective? Why are we changing the school lunch program? Is there some 
reason that would help us understand? Are we improving it? Why are we 
changing it?
  Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague has put her finger really on the crux of 
this issue. I say do not listen to all of us tonight, listen to us, but 
talk to the people in our districts who run these programs. These are 
successful programs. They work. They are living up to the objectives 
that they were created for, and it is foolish for us to unravel these 
very fine programs and create difficult problems for our youngsters 
and, quite frankly, for our economy in the future.
  And once again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

                          ____________________