[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  2230
                       SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am not much of a statistician, but when 
we are talking about children and nutrition, this is what I think it is 
all about. The opening statement of the National School Lunch Act of 
1946 includes the words, ``It is hereby declared as a matter of 
national security to safeguard the health and well-being of the 
Nation's children to provide for the establishment of nonprofit school 
lunch programs.''
  Even in 1946, our Nation realized there was a significant need to 
invest in the health and diets of its citizens, most particularly its 
kids.
  Since the implementation of the National School Lunch Act and the 
Food Stamp Act, these and other food assistance programs have received 
broad support from the people of this country and the results are in. 
We have gotten our money's worth. Successful health outcomes have 
resulted. Growth stunting has decreased 65-percent. Low birth weight 
has plummeted. Iron deficiency anemia among preschoolers has been 
dramatically reduced. These successes can be seen in the WIC program, 
the school lunch and breakfast programs, and the child and adult food 
care programs.
  Now, some lawmakers in Washington want to significantly reduce the 
funds and fundamentally change the way we extend quality nutrition to 
kids and other deserving Americans. The proposal being debated that we 
have been discussing this evening would scrap several well-working 
nutrition programs, cut funding, and send the reduced amount back to 
the States. They call it block granting. I call it block-headed.
  The designers of this program intend for these block grants to reduce 
the Federal spending on domestic food aid, give the States more power. 
States would be allowed to consolidate and target the programs.
  I am all for State power and flexibility. I think that is a good 
idea. But if this block granted proposal becomes law, many nutrition 
programs that we now have will have to compete against one another for 
the reduced funds that would be available. Imagine being the State 
administrator, forced to pick between programs for seniors versus 
programs for infants, school age children versus day-care kids. These 
are all worthy nutrition recipients, competing for support that under 
the proposal would be dramatically below what we have extended 
presently and for the past several years.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture released numbers just Monday that 
indicated my State, North Dakota, would alone see a total reduction of 
$53 million over the next 5 years. Now, this is a cut that goes far 
below any so-called bureaucratic or paperwork savings that they claim 
would result. This is taking meals from seniors, lunches from school 
children, milk from toddlers at day-care centers.
  Certainly North Dakota under its block grant authority, like any 
other State, wants to do well by the nutrition for our citizens. I 
trust the State officials to look after that. But under this reduced 
funding level, cuts will be certain, meals will be withdrawn.
  You know, at the age of 41 last year I became a father for the first 
time? I am now the parent of a 16-month-old beautiful little girl, and 
it has given me in particular an interest in what is available for day-
care, because I know all over the country we got parents really worried 
about quality day-care and affordable day-care.
  Last weekend I met about over a dozen parents and day-care providers 
in North Dakota, and they told me that the access they have to the 
child and adult food program, one of several, by the way, being 
eliminated under the block grant program, has been vitally important to 
them. They have written in fact across the State of North Dakota over 
300 letters from day-care providers, and what they tell me says an 
awful lot about how ill-advised these program changes are.
  Let me quote to you from these letters. One woman who provides day-
care writes,

       The meals eaten at day-care are the healthiest meals some 
     of our children have each day. I do not feel that the 
     discretionary funding for children's nutrition programs will 
     have a positive effect on our children. In fact, it may harm 
     many. We would be in direct competition with other programs 
     within our State that receive the funding.

  A parent writes,

       Without the food program to assist her, my day-care 
     provider, as well as many others, will not be able to keep 
     taking care of the children and still make enough money to 
     make ends meet. She has considered raising her prices to help 
     make up the cost of assistance if the program is no longer 
     available. If she does raise her hourly wage, some families 
     will not be able to afford to pay her the price she requests.

  These and other testimonials from those most directly affected show 
that consolidation of the day-care feeding programs are a terrible 
idea, they will raise costs for parents, they will reduce the quality 
of nutrition for our kids, and they must be stopped.


                          ____________________