[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2793-H2794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL ON THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM WILL SPEND LESS MONEY 
               ON BUREAUCRATS AND MORE MONEY ON CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not serve on the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee, but the Republicans on that 
committee voted a few days ago to increase spending on the School Lunch 
Program from $6.7 to $7.8 billion over the next 5 years.
  I repeat: the Republicans voted to increase spending on school 
lunches.
  Yet headlines all over this country said, ``Republicans vote to end 
School Lunch Program.''
  Now, millions of Americans have a totally false impression that 
Republicans have killed the School Lunch Program.
  [[Page H2794]] Actually what was done was to try to end it as a 
Federal program and turn it into a State program.
  This was done so that more money could be spent on food for kids and 
less on bureaucrats in Washington.
  Most Governors have said they could take 80 percent of the money and 
probably operate almost any Federal program more efficiently and 
effectively.
  However, in this instance, the Committee did not say take the School 
Lunch Program over with just 80 percent of the money--it said take 100 
percent of the money with a built-in raise of 4.5 percent each year.
  This is almost 50 percent more than what inflation has been since the 
Reagan years.
  Yet some liberals saw a chance to use a political sledgehammer here, 
and beat us over the head with it, and with help from a supportive 
national media, they are creating a totally false impression.
  I have always supported the School Lunch Program, and I can assure 
you there is not one member here, Democrat or Republican, who wants to 
take food away from any hungry children.
  I do not serve on the Committee that is trying to change this 
program, but I do know that what the Committee is trying to do is make 
things better for children, not worse.
  The School Lunch Program has gotten tremendous bi-partisan support in 
the past because it has worked relatively well. But anything can be 
made better.
  And if there is a way to spend more on children and less on 
bureaucrats, then we should try it.
  Too many federal programs today benefit primarily the bureaucrats who 
work for the program and really do very little for the intended 
beneficiaries.
    
    
  This is true even in programs designed to help children. Every 
program up here has some beautiful motherhood and apple pie title, but 
you have to look below the surface, and below the headlines, to find 
the true story.
  If we want to help bureaucrats, we will continue, and even increase, 
all our current federal programs, and even create new ones.
  If we really want to help children, though, we will downsize 
government and decrease its cost, and give parents the freedom to spend 
more of their own money on their own children.
  Apparently, though, with many liberals, if the choice is between 
giving money to bureaucrats or leaving more with parents and children, 
they will side with the bureaucrats every time.
  There were two other main objections to the changes the Committee 
made in the School Lunch Program.
  One was to the lack of national standards on nutrition, and one was 
to the fact that the Governors were given leeway as to 20 percent of 
the money as long as it was spent on other child welfare programs.
  These were included because almost everyone today realizes that one-
size-fits-all dictation from Washington is not working and has been 
harmful to even our best programs.
  I am convinced that the wonderful people that we have running our 
school lunch program in East Tennessee do not need bureaucrats in 
Washington telling them what they can and cannot serve.
  As to the 20 percent flexibility for Governors, this was done because 
some States need to spend more percentagewise on school lunches than 
others. But if this is a great concern, I certainly would support 
changes making sure all this money is spent for its intended purpose, 
which is school lunches.
  I suppose the big point to be made here is that Republicans love 
children just as much as Democrats do.
  Despite what some pious, holier-than-thou liberals would have people 
believe, no one has a monopoly on virtue--no one has cornered the 
market on compassion.
  All of us are trying to do as much as possible for children. No one 
has voted to kill the School Lunch Program.
  Many people around the country no longer think of the Federal 
Government as God. They know that some programs can be better run from 
the State level, or even by local governments.
  And above all, they want less of their money being spent on 
bureaucrats and paperwork, and more being spent on children.

                              {time}  2045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cunningham). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] is recognized for 5 
minutes.

  [Mr. BROWN of Ohio addressed the House. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________