[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last week President Clinton visited Patrick 
Henry Elementary School in Alexandria, VA, to have a bite to eat. He 
dined on federally subsidized beef tacos and coleslaw and corn and 
fruit. The point of his visit was to try to convince the American 
people that the Personal Responsibility Act would slash the money that 
funds the current school lunch programs. Frankly, that is a lot of 
suckatash.
  The President and those who oppose welfare reform are not telling the 
truth to the American people. The Personal Responsibility Act would 
direct that money to go where it is most needed, away from the 
Washington bureaucrats and toward low income children. The idea is to 
help those who have the greatest need.
  I apologize for injecting real facts into this otherwise lively 
debate, but let us look at the numbers. In 1994, the Federal 
appropriation for the school lunch program was $4.3 billion. The 
Personal Responsibility Act would allocate block grants to the States 
of $6.7 billion next year, rising to $7.8 billion in the year 2000.
  So funding for school lunch programs will increase by 4.5 percent 
each year over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that again. School lunch 
programs will increase by 4.5 percent each year. Now, people can argue 
about whether that is good or bad public policy, but, please, do not 
mislead the public by calling it a cut.
  There has never been a time during this debate when those of us who 
favor welfare reform have voted for decreasing spending for school 
lunch programs. Our intent is to better serve children, not the 
Washington bureaucrats.
  How does this bill work? We will transfer power away from the Federal 
food bureaucrats in Washington and give more authority to the States 
where it belongs. At the same time, we will focus the program more 
efficiently to ensure that at least 80 percent of the money goes to 
children from low income families.
  States will have the flexibility to use the grant funds to support 
what they find to be the best programs for their individual school 
districts. They can decide how to meet the needs of children and
 families in their areas. This plan makes school nutrition programs 
easier to operate and more cost-effective by reducing paperwork. It 
caps administrative costs at 2 percent, and it helps ensure that meals 
are appealing to children by allowing greater choice at the regional 
and local level. We are not cutting funds for our children; we are 
eliminating the Federal bureaucrat as the middleman.

  Federally funded beef tacos may be what we have become accustomed to, 
but the diet we have become accustomed to here in Washington is not 
necessarily healthy for the American people. The States should have the 
opportunity to see if they can feed more children more efficiently with 
more money. That is what we propose to do.
  Frankly, as a parent myself, it makes a lot more sense to me for 
someone to be able to talk directly with his or her local school board 
about school lunches than it does to have to speak to the Agriculture 
Department or Committee on Agriculture here in Washington. It is not as 
through Federal overmanagement makes beef tacos, coleslaw, corn and 
fruit taste better.
  I hope that those who are so wedded to the present system finally 
will begin to tell the truth to the American people. The debate becomes 
clearer when it is understood all the distortions and false accusations 
are coming from people who understand that we are not proposing state 
school lunch cuts, but they want to avoid the real cuts other unrelated 
programs later on.
  But opponents want to preserve the country's huge welfare state, so 
they launch this fear attack now as a preemptive strike. Well, my view 
is while we need nutritious lunches in our schools, we need a whole lot 
less baloney here in Washington.


                          ____________________