[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2707-H2709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    WHO REALLY CARES ABOUT THE KIDS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] is 
recognized for 30 minutes as the majority leader's designee.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the issue of 
nutrition for children.
  Mr. Speaker, when Republicans stood on the steps of the Capitol on 
September 27 last year, we made a contract with the American people. We 
said that if the people made us the majority party in the House of 
Representatives we would bring to the floor of the house within 100 
days 10 major bills to get America back on track. Our contract will be 
honored; our word will be kept.
  Soon we will consider a bill that will make an end to a welfare state 
that has failed. The welfare state failed because for too many years 
Congress equated solutions with one-size-fits-all bureaucratic 
remedies. And it failed because Congress was afraid to make the tough 
decisions that must be made if we are going to truly help the 
beneficiaries of the current welfare system as well as the taxpayers 
without whom no system of help could be made possible.
  However, in our attempts to provide needy children with nutrition 
programs through block grants we have been suscepted to the 
disingenuous attacks by the White House and its congressional allies. 
Listening to the other side, one would have thought the worst: The end 
of the school lunch program.
  The American people deserve better than these scare tactics. We are 
seeking compassionate solutions to help needy children. We are 
committed to creating a system that ensures the safety and health of 
our Nation's children.
  The facts are clear and, as usual, the facts tell quite a different 
story than some congressional Democrats have presented. Spending for 
school meal programs will actually increase by at least 4.5 percent 
next year under the Republican proposal and each year thereafter.
  Our bill creates a separate school-based nutrition block grant that 
focuses on school-based nutrition programs such as school lunch and 
school breakfast. In addition, it creates a separate family nutrition 
block grant to meet the needs of low-income children and pregnant 
mothers, provides meals and supplements to children in child care, and 
allows for the operation of a summer food program to meet the needs of 
children when they are not in school.
  Block grants eliminate the Federal middle-man and allow the governors 
to design a program that serves their State's families in the most 
efficient manner, and even saves money on administration. By 
eliminating the Federal bureaucracy and the 15-percent administrative 
costs that go with it, they can use these funds to provide more meals 
for more students.
  As we turn power over to the States, much has been said about the 
strings attached issue. Some governors have asked for block grants from 
the Federal Government that come with no strings. However, we want to 
make sure that the programs will be in fact implemented correctly and 
in the way that we know will serve our children best.
  Let me emphasize that nutrition block grants will go directly to fund 
nutrition programs and nutrition programs only. In turn, States will be 
responsible for reporting to the Federal Government mathematical 
statistics every year to ensure their commitment to serving those 
needs. It is imperative that the nutritional goals are met.
  Changing a system as large and as important as welfare will 
inevitably lead to some disagreements. Nevertheless, when our bill is 
passed, we believe life in America will be changed for the better. We 
also believe children will be served better by eliminating the Federal 
middle-man and the bureaucracy and getting more funds in fact to help 
our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. J.C. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes and 
go down memory lane. I was one of those kids in school who loved school 
lunches. Back at Jefferson Davis Elementary School in Eufala, OK, they 
made some of the best school lunches. I used to love the hot dogs, 
sauerkraut, and mashed potatoes, and those cinnamon rolls were pretty 
doggone good too. In fact, all of us kids were made to eat lunches and 
were thankful to have them.
  Let me fast forward to 1994. As far as my public service, before I 
was elected from the Fourth District of Oklahoma, I served as youth 
minister at the Baptist Church in Dale City, and on occasion I would go 
to different junior highs and high schools in the community and eat 
with the kids in my youth group. Now, for round numbers, let us say 100 
kids were supposed to eat in the school lunch room. Only about 50 to 60 
of those kids would eat lunch, and most were eating from the fast food 
outlets in the cafeteria that actually made money for the schools. Now 
that is a different story. The rest of that food went to waste. A lot 
of food went to waste.
  I do not like waste. I do not know about your house, but in my house 
growing up J.C. Buddy Watts, Sr. and my mother Helen Watts would never 
approve of wasting food.
                              {time}  2145

  Now I do not know about your house, but in my house growing up J.C. 
Buddy Watt, Sr., and Helen Watt would never approve of wasting food. 
Wasting money was even worse.
  That is what this school nutrition program is all about, not wasting 
food and not wasting money.
  As my colleagues know, the opening day reforms of this House 
suggested that government would have to live under the same rules as 
everyone else. We need to stop the misinformation campaign and scare 
tactics of those opposed to us and get out the real truth about the 
school nutrition program. The school nutrition program is saving money 
and is passing along these savings to the school lunch program.
  And here is a real twist. With the Republican nutrition block grants 
we are actually serving kids the best kinds of lunches, lunches that 
have budgets cooked up in their own State, lunch budgets that will 
actually increase 4.5 percent each year for the next 5 years. Let me 
repeat that, budget increases of 4.5 percent each year for the next 5 
years, and lunches that will be healthy and nutritious, maybe even 
taste as good as what Mrs. Guider and Mrs. Woods would make at my 
elementary school.
  The point is Mrs. Guider and Mrs. Woods, our cafeteria manager, and 
Mrs. O'Reilly, the principal, and now Governor Keating and his staff in 
Oklahoma know more about serving their children than bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  This plan sends the school lunch program back to the States where 
they can administer it best. It creates block grants that eliminate the 
Federal middleman and reduces paperwork, meaning more lunches can be 
served with the savings.
  As Michigan Governor Engler says, the States can do it better. To 
quote him:

       To suggest that any Governor in any State is ready to 
     abandon children, let them be hungry, throw them out on the 
     street, is absurd.

  Anyone who thinks that Uncle Sam knows best how to feed the kids in 
     [[Page H2708]] Duncan, Lawton, Altus, Frederick or Norman, 
     OK, is literally out to lunch.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole debate is not true. The savings alone will 
allow us to continue to serve those in need and increase the number of 
children and families receiving services.
  We have all heard that there is no such things as a free lunch. The 
current program serves up about $200 million just for administration to 
provide the $1.77 worth of free lunch and at least 30 cents in 
subsidies for all students who pay. If we cut out the middleman, we all 
gain from the savings.
  We need to put the Federal bureaucracy on a diet. The only starvation 
in this bill is to the fat-laden layers of Federal bureaucracy.
  Now let me repeat something. This bill only cuts out the fat of the 
middleman, the Federal bureaucrat, not school lunches. This bill saves 
money by sending the money back home to prepare home cooked meals in 
our own home schools.
  The best news yet is we pass along the savings to our kids.
  Here are a few more morsels:
  There are actually more funds in fiscal year 1996 under the block 
grant proposals than under the current system. Eighty percent of the 
funds must be used for meals for low income children, and no more than 
2 percent may be used for administrative purposes.
  Add up all these tidbits, and I think you find the opposition's 
dissent is distasteful. We have a full plate when it comes to budgeting 
in this Congress.
 The school nutrition block grant programs make sure that our students 
also have a full plate when it comes to lunchtime.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts]. I think he well 
points out the fact that under our GOP proposed spending on the school 
lunch program you will notice in the red column the increase every year 
goes all the way up to 1995, the year 2000. So obviously there is a 
dedication here to take a program, and improve it and to make sure that 
we work hard with it.
  At this time, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, funding for the nutrition programs under 
the GOP plan is greater in each of the next 5 years than under the 
current system, a 4.5 percent increase each year or $19 billion 795 
million, which is $588 million more than would be provided under the 
current system.
  Mr. Speaker, our needy children will not be left behind. All program 
dollars in family nutrition block grants are required to go to 
individuals below 185 percent of the poverty level. With increased 
funding, less bureaucracy and less paperwork, Mr. Speaker, States can 
provide more services to more people.
  Eighty percent of the family block grant must be used to provide food 
assistance to pregnant, postpartum and breast-feeding women, and 
infants and children who are found to be a nutritional risk. This 
program helps children because it meets the needs of low-income 
children, pregnant mothers, provides meals and supplements to children, 
and child care, and allows for the operation of a summer food program 
to meet the needs of children when they are not in school, but in day 
care centers, Head Start, summer camp and homeless shelters.
  Mr. Speaker, these changes will benefit our children positively over 
the next few years.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Ney] to speak on his perspective not only with regard to 
nutrition and the importance of our program, but his experience in the 
State of Ohio in programs dealing with human needs.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for yielding his time.
  As my colleagues know, I think the sad part to this whole scenario is 
the amount of demagoguery that
 has been cast forth in the media, and I note, as I went around my 
district this weekend, as I talked to people involved with the school 
nutrition program, and you start to tell them what the reality is 
versus the myth, as you well know, they start to see the real intent 
that is before us with this proposal in Congress.

  As my colleagues know, I would like to point out that of course the 
issue is, as I spoke with my constituents involved with the school food 
programs, the issue is that we are increasing it, and the issue is that 
we are sending this to the States by cutting out the middle bureaucracy 
with more money through the process, and the issue, also the fact of 
the situation, is that not only are we going to be increasing, but we 
are going to be guaranteeing that the school lunches are going to be 
there.
  And there is another guarantee. For those of you out there that have 
worried that this would be somehow sabotaged, somehow set somewhere 
else when it comes into the States, I think it is clear, if you look at 
the track record, whether it is money for the seniors that have come 
down to the States, Mr. Speaker, or whether it is monies that have come 
down for other essential programs, I think you will find that the 
States carry out the mission, and if they do not, there is plenty, as 
we know, out in the system of Federal ability to step in and make it 
clear of what our intent was.
  But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to just address the issue of 
what we are doing and why we are doing it. and it is because we do care 
about children, and I guess what disturbs me the most is the fact of 
picking up the newspapers and seeing a direct attack upon those of us 
who want to give more money, who want to take care of children, and it 
is being put forth, and I know you have seen this. It is being put 
forth all over the media and told by people that, you know, we are 
mean-spirited with children, and that is not the reality of it.
  Not only are we trying to pass laws to toughen the laws that go after 
those who try to harm children, but by this proposal we are really 
cutting out the Federal bureaucracy that is taking more money away, and 
the 5 percent administrative cap, I think, is a very good thing, but 
you know we are caring Members who have children. We are Members that 
come from districts that have needs.
  I serve an Appalachian district, very poor school district, and there 
is no way that we would promote anything that is not going to help our 
schools.
  So, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox], you know I just feel that it is very unfair, and history is 
going to prove us right as we proceed down a path to give an increase, 
to give more money and to guarantee our children good hot lunches. 
History is going to show that we are correct in what we did, and 
history is going to show we were not mean-spirited. We simply want to 
give more money.
  How this has been televised and turned around, Mr. Speaker, I think 
is causing such unfair confusion throughout this country with the 
people, so I am very proud of what we are going to do. None of us want 
to hurt children. We all want to help our poor school districts and the 
children that cannot get lunches, and so I feel confident. I know the 
past history of our States, and the pressure is going to be there, and 
this is going to be watched, and the people are going to make sure, and 
this Congress is going to make sure, that our wishes are carried out.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I
   appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney]. I 
think he has seen in the State of Ohio just how well the programs work 
in a State that have come back from the Federal Government with the 
safeguards you put on as finance chairman.

  Mr. NEY. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Fox from Pennsylvania, I 
can tell you in the 1980s, when the block grants were coming back and 
the cry was, as this comes from Washington, DC, we are going to lose 
our money; what do we do? We put in administrative caps. What did we 
say they are to be used for? Community development purposes, these 
block grants. What has the track record been from 1981 forward? It has 
been a track record of success. The bureaucracy was cut loose from here 
and fed right back into those economic development programs, and the 
gentleman knows from his State, I am sure, we have a track record of 
success.
  So this is not embarking on nothing new in the sense of doing this in 
past situations from Congress back to the States. But I believe that it 
is an issue 
[[Page H2709]] where people knew they could demagogue, knew they could 
twist it, knew they could turn it and try to paint a paint brush of 
people that just really do not want to help the children. That is so 
far from the truth.
  I know our State has got a track record.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. We do in Pennsylvania as well, so we look 
forward to working with you on this issue and make sure we bring light 
to it. The fact is we want to protect the programs for children, and we 
will work together for that purpose.
  Mr. NEY. I applaud you and thank you.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] for comments in support of 
this proposal to make sure we increase the school lunch programs and 
protect our children.
  Congressman Nethercutt.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fox] for yielding to me, for this opportunity to speak about the 
family nutrition block grant.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason my colleagues and I are here on the floor 
tonight is to make the case for the hard choices that we are compelled 
to make in order to bring the Federal budget in balance, and this is 
why we continue to supply essential services to our constitutes in 
need. As my friend just said here on the floor, it is a little 
disconcerting when those who oppose any reform in the existing programs 
label those programs, the plan for reform by the Republican Congress, 
as hurting children, or hurting women who are pregnant, or hurting 
older Americans. It is simply not true, and it is unfair to them, and 
it is unfair to this body.
  Why are we delving into such a sensitive area? The reason is simple. 
We have a national debt of over $4.7 trillion. The interest on the debt 
alone exceeds the defense budget for this year, which is by September 
we will have to raise possibly the debt ceiling again most likely in 
excess of the $5 trillion mark. In a place where we use the term 
``crisis'' quite freely, our gargantuan debt represents the greatest 
crisis that we face as a Nation, not only us as adults, but our 
children in future generations. My colleagues across the aisle have 
been enormously critical of our efforts to combine programs into block 
grants and to get rid of the cost of the Federal bureaucracy that 
administers them. They raise the specter of increased malnutrition 
among the Nation's poor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  What we are doing by creating a family nutrition block grant is to 
simply combine funding for the WIC program, the child and adult care 
food program, the summer food program and the homeless children 
nutrition program. We are cutting out the middlemen, in this case 
Federal bureaucrats, and getting more money to those families and 
children in need. Let us call this the stop feeding the bureaucrats 
measure. In other words, we will save money by being more efficient in 
the distribution of Federal funds by moving it closer to those people 
whom the programs serve. In fact, based on the CBO projections, 
Congressional Budget Office projections for funding for the current 
programs, the programs grouped in the family nutrition block grant will 
increase, and listen to this, by an average of 3 percent a year for the 
next 5 years. Where is the money going? We have mandated that all of 
the funding available in the block grant go to low income families, and 
80 percent of that money must go to women and children currently served 
by the WIC program. Women, infants and children will be fine under this 
program by the Republican majority.
  Furthermore, no more than 5 percent can be spent by the States on 
administrative costs, so I say, Mr. Speaker, let us not be fooled by 
the rhetoric that comes forth on a daily basis. It is a public 
relations effort to resist sensible reform.
                              {time}  2200

  This will work. It is going to be good for women. It is going to be 
good for children. We will all be better off in the years ahead. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the speakers that have 
joined me tonight for this special order on the Republican proposed 
program to increase WIC and the school lunch programs.
  With me today has been the gentleman from Oklahoma, Congressman J.C. 
Watts, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, 
the gentleman from Ohio, Congressman Robert Ney, and the gentleman from 
Washington, Congressman George Nethercutt. I think the case can be made 
and I hope the American people realize that we Republicans are 
dedicated to increasing the school lunch programs, approximately 4.5 
percent per year from here to the year 2000 and beyond.
  We will be working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make 
sure we protect our children in every way possible and to make sure we 
move forward in good sensible legislation that will help our children 
and help our families.
  I thank the Speaker for this time tonight to be able to express our 
views on this and, hopefully, illuminate this issue for every one.

                          ____________________