[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3131-H3132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           BLOCK GRANTING THE SCHOOL-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I had to participate in this particular 
debate because it has grated on me, quite honestly, as a member of the 
House Appropriations Committee and a member of the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee. I see a couple of my colleagues 
here, Mr. Goodling, the chairman of the full committee, and Mr. 
Cunningham, one of the subcommittee chairmen, and it has grated on me 
to hear these repeated falsehoods and exaggerated claims coming from 
the other side of the aisle.
  It has also reminded me of that wonderful statement that there are 
really three kinds of lies. There is lies, there is more lies, and 
there is damn lies, and we have been hearing an awful lot of damn lies 
and out and out falsehoods propagated by our friends on the Democratic 
side of the aisle regarding our plans with respect to block granting 
the school-based nutrition programs back to State and local education 
agencies and our plans to dramatically overhaul and reform the American 
welfare system.
  Now, I am a former school board member. In a sense, that is how I cut 
my political teeth, because believe me, school boards remind one of the 
old saying of I think the late Speaker Tip O'Neill, that all politics 
are local, and I have a great deal of confidence and faith in those men 
and women who come forward, purely in a volunteer capacity, to serve on 
the school boards of their local communities.
  I am fully confident that they will provide for the nutritional needs 
of our school kids at the local level and that is obviously the best 
way for government to function.
  Now, we believe that block granting the school lunch and breakfast 
programs, obviously, as this chart indicates that my colleagues have 
made repeated reference to tonight during special orders, we believe 
that our block grant programs to State and local education agencies 
obviously does not mean the end of nutrition assistance to needy 
children. Instead, what it means is the end of funding to Federal 
bureaucrats.
  Some facts to go with the chart as we have attempted to reinforce 
tonight with our colleagues, and also to the American citizens who 
might be viewing these proceedings, some facts. Number one, funding in 
the nutrition block grant will increase 4.5 percent per year, as the 
chart indicates.
  Number two, at least 80 percent of the funds must be spent on low-
income children, that is to say, the neediest of children in local 
schools around the country.
  And number three, not more than 2 percent of the block grant funds 
can be spent on administrative expenses at the State government level, 
ensuring that more funds are spent on nutrition services for children.
  And, ladies and gentlemen, let me just stress that this is part of an 
overall approach by Republicans in reinventing and downsizing the 
Federal Government. We are attempting to respond to this patchwork that 
we have today of over 600 separate Federal categorical programs that 
have been authorized by past Congresses over a period of many years, 
and as a consequence, we are putting forward proposals to radically 
reform this current maze of congressionally mandated government human 
service programs.
  We are considering proposals that we will be bringing to the House 
floor in coming weeks to
 consolidate block grant programs in the areas of education, job 
training, nutrition, child care, and welfare.

  And why the block grant approach? Well, the obvious reason. This is a 
fundamental and long overdue reform necessary back in Washington 
because these Federal categorical programs are too proscriptive. They 
are overregulated. They are incredibly fragmented. As my colleagues on 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities will attest, 
when you are talking about 153 federally mandated job training programs 
for adult and youth, we are obviously talking about government gone 
amuck and creating far too many programs that can be reasonably 
administered for productive results and actual benefits to recipients.
  So these programs are fragmented and many times often duplicative 
with the programs at the State and even local government level. We 
think block granting will actually encourage flexibility, local 
control, innovation, and ultimately greater accountability.
  And why are we taking this approach? Because we want, by cutting down 
on Federal bureaucracy here in Washington, to apply those cost savings 
to reducing the deficit and ultimately balancing the Federal budget, as 
we have promised our fellow Americans we will do by the year 2002.
  The only way we can do that is to decentralize authority and 
responsibility, and, yes, funding and revenues back to the States. In 
turn, we will be dispersing power to our fellow citizens and will be 
empowering those Americans who are most in need of government services 
and encouraging them to take greater responsibility for their own lives 
and their own destinies.
  I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I wish the President 
and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here cared enough 
about our children to balance the budget. I want to say that one more 
time. I wish our Democratic colleagues cared enough about our children 
to balance the budget. That is simply not the case.
  In conclusion, we believe that we have a moral imperative to balance 
the 
[[Page H3132]] budget, and that is exactly what we intend to do by 
taking these innovative approaches here despite the opposition.

                          ____________________