[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3134-H3140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, since the death of Chairman Carl Perkins, 
I have proudly accepted my role as the son of school lunch and child 
nutrition. He was the father.
  I am really disappointed with the press accounts of the last several 
weeks, with the accounts of some of my colleagues, with those who are 
inside the Beltway as nutrition lobbyists. I do not take exception to 
the fact that perhaps their philosophy is different and they want to 
defend their philosophy against mine. But I do object to the fact that 
if they had read what is in H.R. 999, I do object to the fact that they 
are being Herman Goebbels, who was Hitler's propaganda expert. And he 
basically said that if you tell a lie enough times and big enough and 
long enough, you will get a lot of people to believe it.
  And that is very discouraging to me because, as I said, if it is a 
philosophical difference, I do not
 have any problem with that. But if you will not read what is in H.R. 
999, I do have a problem with that. Or if you have read it and you 
mischaracterize what is in it, I really have a problem with that.

  Since the death of Chairman Perkins, I have shepherded, protected, 
and guided these programs in Congress. I heard someone say this evening 
that they have a vision of the future for children. I have a vision for 
the future of our children. And that vision is to have the healthiest 
children in the world.
  But my vision goes beyond that. Because my vision is I want them to 
have a guaranteed hope that they can grab a piece of the American 
dream.
  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot grow a debt by millions and 
trillions of dollars every couple years and expect that these children 
will ever have an opportunity to grab a piece of the American dream.
  I heard someone else say, Terrible, no counseling in H.R. 999. I do 
not know what bill he was referring to. He was not referring to H.R. 
999. That I am sure of. But he said there was no counseling for WIC. 
The very first goal they have to meet in WIC is that of counseling.
  The last speaker changed her tune a little bit later, but initially 
said, And then they can use the 20 percent for anything they want to 
use it for. Obviously, she either had not read H.R. 999 or is not 
interested in knowing what is said in H.R. 999.
  I would like to do a couple things this evening. First of all, I 
would like to talk a little bit about the program that we now have. 
Because I have a feeling that there are not too many people out there 
that really even understand the present national school lunch program 
and that is what we are talking about.
  If you do not participate in a national school lunch program, you do 
not have to feed free and reduced-priced meals except in three States, 
and that is why I have worked so hard to protect the national school 
lunch program.

                                  2030

  But the existing program, you get reimbursed from the Federal 
Government for free meals. Children of families below 130 percent of 
poverty, $19,240 for a family of four, they receive $1.76, plus 14 
cents in commodities, $1.90 subsidized by the Federal Government.
  In the present program, if you receive a reduced price meal, you come 
from children of families between 130 and 185 percent of poverty, which 
is up to $27,380 for a family of four, and you receive $1.36 in cash 
and 14 cents in commodities.
  If you are a full-program participant, your parents believe they are 
spending the full price for your meal. These are children of families 
over 185 percent of poverty, over $27,380 for a family of four. The 
Federal Government subsidizes, the taxpayers subsidize, 18 cents cash, 
14 cents commodities. You are not sending the full amount to school for 
your children who are participating in a paying meal program.
  We did that for many reasons when we were able to afford it. We did 
it, as I said earlier, to try to keep the school lunch program going, 
the national
 school lunch program going, so free and reduced price meals would be 
available.

  We do not have the luxury to say that we will continue to do 
everything the way we have done it in the past, because as I mentioned, 
if you are growing trillions of dollars of debt in a few years' time, 
you are denying these same children any hope for a decent future in 
this country.
  Now, at the present time the Clinton budget called in 1995 for 
$4,712,000,000. Our proposal for 1996 is $4,712,000,000.
  In the President's budget, he proposes $656 million in commodities. 
We have $638 million in commodities.
  The President proposes for State administration $92 million. We 
propose $98 million. That is the school lunch program as it is today.
  Now, let us take a look at what we have done in committee. The first 
thing I want to talk about is the difference between H.R. 4 and H.R. 
999, because I am giving some people who are standing up here saying 
incorrect things and I am giving the press the 
[[Page H3135]] benefit of the doubt, the fact that they did not read 
H.R. 999, and are only talking about H.R. 4. Let me point out the 
differences.
  H.R. 4 is one block grant to the States and combines all the 
programs. H.R. 999, because we in committee did not accept what was in 
H.R. 4, the one block grant proposal, created in nutrition alone two 
separate block grants, and then we created two additional block grants 
for child care and other programs.
  H.R. 4 distributes funds to the States based on the lower living 
standard, and does not take into consideration current participation 
rates. On the other hand, H.R. 999 provides States the first year 
funding based on participation this year, a hold-harmless. However, in 
the next several years, it is based on participation, which is exactly 
the way it should be based. And that is what we do in H.R. 999.
  H.R. 4 eliminated the entitlement status of all programs included in 
the block grant. H.R. 999, the program we are talking about, makes the 
school nutrition block grant a cap entitlement to the States, thereby 
ensuring a level of funding for each fiscal year.
  H.R. 4 eliminated support payments for children in the school lunch 
program with incomes above 185 percent of poverty. H.R. 999 does not 
limit a State's ability to support meals for the paying child. It 
provides that 80 percent, and that figure was chosen because that is 
the figure at the present time for those who are receiving free and 
reduced price meals, it provides that 80 percent must go to those who 
are receiving free and reduced price meals.
  The other 20 percent can be used for those who are below the 185 
percent level of poverty, if that is what they need it for, or it can 
be used for the infrastructure of the school lunch program, if that is 
what they need to keep the school lunch program going, or they can 
transfer it, not to anything they want, as some people have said; they 
can transfer it to one of the other block grants only, only after the 
person who runs the program certifies that they have met all of our 
goals.
  This is the difference between revenue sharing and block granting. We 
have set the goals. We have told them what the outcome has to be, and 
we have a way to assess that.
  H.R. 4 set aside 12 percent of available funds for the WIC program. 
H.R. 999 creates a family nutrition block grant and reserves 80 percent 
of available funds
 for WIC. H.R. 4 contained no guidance to the States regarding the use 
of funds. H.R. 999 establishes program goals, specifies the uses of 
funds in each block grant, and contains reporting requirements which 
allow us to determine whether or not States are meeting such goals.

  H.R. 4 did not require States to establish nutritional standards for 
assistance offered under the block grant. H.R. 999 requires States to 
develop their own nutritional standards based on the most recent tested 
nutritional research, or to adopt the nutritional standards developed 
for each block grant by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National 
Academy of Sciences.
  A big difference, folks. If you have not read H.R. 999, I would 
suggest you do it, and perhaps you would not come and make statements 
on the floor that are positively incorrect in relationship to H.R. 999.
  It was mentioned by my colleague who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee that these programs have been good programs. There is no 
question about it. Are there any programs that cannot be better 
programs? Well, I will guarantee you, every program that the Federal 
Government runs can be a better program if Federal Government is not 
running the program.
  What program do you know that is totally outstanding because the 
Federal Government has run it? I do not know of any.
  What are the concerns of the existing program? There are several. The 
complaint that we have heard over and over and over again by the people 
who are on the front line, the people who are serving these meals, the 
people who are preparing these meals, the people who are administering 
the program back on the local level, is the complaint that there is so 
much Federal bureaucracy, so much red tape, so much paperwork, that 
they spend hours and much, much money doing this paperwork, meeting the 
bureaucratic requirements, rather than feeding needy children.
  Let me tell you what the American School Food Service Association 
just recently stated. This is the American School Food Service 
Association. Somebody in one of the previous speeches referred to them.
  ``School nutrition programs have become increasingly complex and more 
costly, due to overly prescriptive, intrusive and restrictive Federal 
regulations.'' Bill Goodling is not saying this. I am quoting this from 
the lobbyists who are the most active when you talk about school lunch 
programs.
  I quote again, and complete the quote:

       School nutrition programs have become increasingly complex 
     and more costly, due to overly prescriptive, intrusive, and 
     restrictive Federal regulations. Although there has been 
     extensive communication with USDA, little progress has been 
     made in simplifying regulations and limiting regulations to 
     those specifically required by law.

  The second concern we have with the existing program is there is some 
abuse. Unfortunately, there is some fraud. A program that is as big as 
this, I suppose one can expect that to happen. But let me tell you what 
I heard on a talk show the other day. A gentleman called in. He said he 
was a superintendent of schools in Texas. He asked to remain anonymous, 
and he asked that his school district remain anonymous, for good 
reason, because the auditors would just love to catch up with the 
gentleman.
  What he said was that it is to our advantage, as I pointed out 
before, not to look too closely at who should get free or reduced price 
meals, because we get much more money for free and reduced price meals. 
You
 can understand why he and his district want to remain anonymous. The 
auditors would have a field day, and hopefully they will catch up with 
whomever it was that was speaking.

  The third concern we have and why we think there needs to be change, 
only 46 percent of those students who would be paying customers 
participate in the program. Only 46 percent of those eligible to be 
paying customers participate in the program. Part of the problem is 
that one size does not fit all. You do not feed Pennsylvania Dutch what 
you may feed an Italian community or an Irish community. They 
determine, going by nutritious guidelines, what it is that these young 
people will eat, what will cause them to participate. But only 46 
percent at the present time do.
  We have to do better. You cannot support the program if you have a 
district that has 65, 75 percent free and reduced price. You have to 
get the paying customers participating. And we believe by giving the 
kind of flexibility that we do in this legislation, that that local 
district will have an opportunity to meet the nutrition standards, and, 
at the same time, cause an influx of the paying customer coming through 
that line because she will eat the meal that will be served.
  Let me talk a little bit more about H.R. 999. Often times you get 
people who have not read it who are telling us, this is what is wrong 
with your program.
  First of all, they say it is less money. Now, you know, I wish that 
chart were still there, because I would like them on that chart to put 
the 3.1 percent that the President recommended for 1995's budget, and 
then see how it comes out. I would like them to put the 3.6 percent 
that the President suggested for an increase for next year on that 
chart, and then show me a little bit about who is saving and who is 
paying and who is cutting and who is giving more. I think they would 
have to turn to this side to look at the charts on this side.
  Do not talk about what your dreams may be or what you think should 
be. That is not what your Commander in Chief, that is not what the 
leader of your party has recommended 1995 budget, or the 1996 budget.
  We grow children, and I think it is important that we understand 
that. We are growing children at a greater rate than the President does 
in his 1995 budget, than the President does in his 1996 budget.
  Let me talk about a couple other most frequently mentioned untruths. 
They say how about an economic downturn? Well, do you know any time 
this 
[[Page H3136]] Congress has walked away from those in need? What do we 
do when there is a flood that we have not budgeted for? What do we do 
when there is an earthquake that we did not budget for? We come back 
for supplementals.
  But we built into H.R. 999 help for this same situation, because we 
say you do not have to return your money at the end of the year if you 
have a surplus, because you had a good year. You have a two year 
carryover. You had a good year in 1996, you saved money; you have a 
downturn in 1995, you have that extra money.
  Now, let me tell you what we do beyond 4.5 percent. We probably get 
to the 5.2 CBO that they like to put over there. We may even go above 
it, I am not sure. Because when you think of the cost of the 
bureaucracy, when you think of the cost of the red tape, when you think 
of the cost to the local school district to meet all of these nutrition 
paperwork programs coming from the Federal level, there is a great deal 
of money to be saved, to be used not to feed bureaucrats, but to be 
used to feed children.
                              {time}  2045

  That is what we are in the business to do.
  We heard a couple of people be awfully cute. I mean, they wanted to 
be cute. Unfortunately, they were not too cute, because they did not 
read what this administration is doing.
  You had the President of the United States hold up a bottle of 
ketchup. You had the minority leader hold up a bottle of ketchup. And 
they were trying to bring up this old game they played back in 1982 or 
1983, which was overplayed, which had nothing to do with reality, 
saying that somehow or other if you had those nutritious standards, the 
people back there who run these programs would feed a child a half cup 
of ketchup.
  First of all, let me say, they could not afford to feed every child a 
half cup of ketchup. It is much easier and cheaper to feed the child a 
half cup of vegetables than it is to feed them a half cup of ketchup. 
So it had nothing to do with reality.
  But how did they get ketchup on their face? They did not check what 
the nutrition standards are now in their own administration, because 
would you believe it, they can count ketchup in their calorie count?
  This administration, who was second-guessing the people back home 
saying that you are feeding too much fat, what the people back home 
were doing was following their rules and regulations, their nutrition 
standards.
  Now, why should we trust them to continue to tell the people back 
home what is the best nutrition that children should have when the very 
standards that they set out, then criticized the people who met their 
standards and said too much fat.
  Again, I am afraid the two got ketchup on their face.
  Let me just move on to one or two other areas. We build into our 
program a reward for participation. That is the way it should be. As I 
indicated, you have to attract the paying customer in there. You have 
to attract them to keep the program going.
  What we say is the first year, you are held harmless and you will 
get, your State, the same amount of money. After that, however, it is 
all on participation. It goes down slightly each year, where you will 
get 95 percent based on your previous year, but you get 5 percent if 
you have an increased participation. The next year it is 10 percent. 
That is an encouragement to get them to do a better job. That is an 
encouragement to get more children participating in the program.
  I have spent too much time, and I always have to laugh when people 
say, people who wrote this ought to get into the schools and see what 
is going on in the schools. For 22 years, I participated in school 
lunch every day, every day, sitting with the students, eating a school 
lunch, and for the 20 years here, I have tried to improve on that 
program year after year. Then I become most upset. Even a good friend 
sends out a ``Dear Colleague'' totally distorting what happened in 
1982-1983.
  In 1982 and 1983, it was not that side of the aisle that stopped some 
of those revenue-sharing block grants. It was this side of the aisle, 
those of us who were on this committee, because they were revenue-
sharing. They were not block grants. It was revenue-sharing.
  I have always said if you are trillions of dollars in debt, it is 
pretty tough to go back home and say, ``We're revenue sharing.'' The 
only thing we had to share is debt.
  These block grants set the goals, say specifically what has to 
happen, and then give enough flexibility so the local district can make 
them work even better than they presently do.
  Let's not mix apples and oranges. There is no comparison to what is 
in H.R. 999 and a revenue-sharing, massive block grant. That is why we 
designed H.R. 999, rather then go on with H.R. 4.
  I would hope that those of you who were listening this evening are 
beginning to understand exactly what we have done, and what we have 
done is given an opportunity to grow more children thant the President 
has requested, more children than would have been appropriated, and 
make sure that that increase is there year after year.
  I am proud of our end product, very proud of that product. I know 
that people are fearful of change. Nobody likes change. You fear 
change. Folks, change is inevitable. Not only is it inevitable, it is 
positively necessary if we are going to give these children, as I have 
said several times, an opportunity as adults to grab a part of that 
American dream.
  Is there anyone out there who really believes that in the last 35 or 
40 years we have helped these people grab a part of that American 
dream? We have done just the opposite. What we have done is enslave 
them. We have put them in shackles, Federal shackles, to make sure that 
they never have an opportunity to get a piece of that American dream.
  We are going to change things so they do have that opportunity, so 
that they too can be participants giving to this Nation, participants 
who can grow independently and not depend on the Federal Government.
  I yield to my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, you will not hear of a Republican or at least even very 
many Democrats that will say that the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], has ever attempted to hurt kids. He has 
spent his life protecting them, Mr. Speaker.
  I would ask the honorable chairman, how many children can we feed on 
a bankrupt country? And today we are looking, where every child over 
their life, lifelong interest and account on the national debt, will be 
saddled with a $180,000 debt. Yes, it will be
 indexed. You will have to pay the increases with inflation. That is 
before you buy a car or a home or everything else.

  We are also looking at a Medicare system that is going bankrupt and 
will be in the near future. If we do not attack waste in government by 
bigger bureaucracies, then it is going to affect that.
  I would just like to make two quick statements and I have a lot of my 
colleagues that want to speak, and I would yield back to the gentleman.
  One, when the other side of the aisle talks about cuts, I have been 
here for 4 years. The rhetoric was confusing to the American people, 
where Democrats were saying, Well, look what we have done, we have cut 
this budget, but yet the American people could not figure out how we 
keep spending more.
  I have an example, Mr. Speaker, that if my mom in San Diego, 
California, Escondido, said, ``Son, we have a turkey this Thanksgiving 
and next Thanksgiving, your brother and family is coming over. I am 
going to project that I need 10 turkeys for next year.''
  Well, a few months before Thanksgiving, Mom calls up and says, ``Son, 
your brother can't come, he's got to work, but the family's coming. I'm 
only going to need 7 turkeys instead of 10 turkeys.''
  Under the Democratic accounting principles, I have just cut 30 
percent of the turkeys, when in essence I have increased it by 60 
percent. I have gone from 1 to 7. I have not cut 30 percent. That is 
what they are trying to confuse the issue with, with the other chart.
  The second point is that I would like to finish a statement on what 
the committee did on illegal immigration. 
[[Page H3137]] Would American citizens like to feed the world? Probably 
the answer is yes. If you asked them the question, Would they like to 
do it on the backs of our children, the answer would be most definitely 
no.
  We have eliminated illegal immigrants from all 23 programs that they 
previously held. We have 400,000 illegal children in California, just 
in California schools, K through 12, at over $1.33 a meal. That is over 
$1 million a day, 800,000 meals a day, just for illegals.
  Mr. GOODLING. I would imagine they are receiving $1.90 a day.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I am trying to do it on a conservative basis. 
Then if you look at an average in California, it takes a kindergartner 
through high school, 12th grade, $5,000 a year to educate that child. 
That is $2 billion a year. Yet we are decrying that we do not have 
enough money for nutrition.
  We have added money for nutrition. We have cut the bureaucracies. But 
what we also did is said, our priority in this country with limited 
resources, with the national debt getting out of shape, with the 
national deficit, and the President's budget increasing the national 
deficit by $300 billion, our priorities are American children, and we 
want to feed those children. We want to make sure that no child under 
any circumstances goes hungry.
  Should a high-income parent be subsidized by the Federal Government? 
Absolutely not. But the chairman has provided for those children 185 
percent below the poverty level that we are going to make sure that 
they are fed. Again, the priority of disestablishing big government and 
who should receive the support are the kids that most need it.
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee 
on Economic and Educational Opportunities for yielding. I especially 
want to thank him not just for his leadership this year but for a 
countless number of years.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has lived the life that many of us do 
not have or did not have the opportunity to do in terms of looking over 
the lunch programs from a perspective of a couple of feet. Most of us 
get most of our information from a book, a newspaper, from a pamphlet, 
from charts, information such as this.
  I want to talk with my colleagues for a moment about the school-based 
child care block grant contained in the House Republican welfare bill. 
It has been subjected to vicious attacks by the White House and other 
defenders of the status quo, and I say defenders of government 
bureaucracy, of Federal bureaucracy.
  I appreciate this opportunity to take just a moment and, with my 
colleagues, tell the truth about the House Republican welfare bill. I 
believe for the last few weeks, the American people have been deceived. 
Some would say maybe more strongly they have been lied to. But the 
Democratic Party, some of those who preceded us here this evening, have 
distorted the facts and attempted to use children to promote the 
political agenda, and one by one they have paraded out on the House 
floor to tell the story, make the claims that House Republicans are 
taking food out of the mouths of children. I have to say that nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  The House Republican welfare bill actually expands the Federal 
commitment to child nutrition.
  I will admit, maybe our block grants are a bad deal for Washington 
bureaucrats.
                              {time}  2100

  But they are a great deal for the local administrators of school 
lunches who no longer will have to wade through tons of redtape to 
provide nutritious meals to schoolchildren.
  I would like to reaffirm what has already been brought out this 
evening that I would like to inform the American people and reaffirm 
that our proposal, the Republican proposal, increases funding for 
school lunches, as has been said, by 4.5 percent each year.
  The other thing that is important, I think, to remember is that the 
total Federal funding for the school-based nutrition block grant over 5 
years is real money. It is $36 billion, and despite this strong 
commitment to school-based food programs, Democrats are trying to 
convince the American people that the Republican Party has turned its 
back on the poor, and I think it is time the American people know the 
truth.
  The school-based nutrition block grant proposed by the party, by the 
Republican Party, will greatly improve the way we provide school meals 
to needy children. It returns decisionmaking back home and removes the 
one-size-fits-all mandates that will allow States to provide nutritious 
meals to kids.
  Now, one of the things that I really do not understand is why the 
Democratic Party, certain members, are so distrustful of the States. 
The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on compassion and, 
contrary to popular belief in this body by some, Congress does not have 
all the answers, not all of the answers to our Nation's problems. 
Governors and State lawmakers also have concerns about the well-being 
of children, and they live closer to the fact, to those children. They 
have a direct interest in promoting the health and development of the 
children in their States. They are not going to walk away from those 
responsibilities.
  Just yesterday I had a chance to talk to the Governor of my State, 
Governor Engler, from Michigan. He is excited about this new majority 
in the House of Representatives. He is excited because they are willing 
to give him the flexibility that he wants and needs to design and craft 
some of the innovative solutions that will make a big difference, a 
positive difference, in the lives of those persons that are trapped in 
the current welfare system. He understands, and he assured me that he 
and the other Governors understand, that there is importance in 
providing nutritious school meals, and they do not want to shortchange 
the kids.
  I truly believe that the States can do a better job with welfare 
reform, that welfare reform over and above what the Federal Government 
has done, and the House Republican welfare bill will encourage 
creativity at the State level instead of stifling it, and as a result, 
I am confident that we have offered a positive alternative to the 
current wasteful welfare system.
  I urge the American people to search out the truth, listen to both 
sides. I believe that you will find there is no reason that you have to 
be lied to, to be deceived.
  In closing, I just would like to reaffirm, restate, and it has been 
stated several times, but I do not think it hurts to drum it a few more 
times, the Republican bill increases funding for school lunches by 4.5 
percent per year. By the year 2000, we will be spending $1 billion more 
on school lunches than we spend today.
  We are not taking the food from the mouths of hungry children. We are 
streamlining the
 administrative costs and allowing more money to be spent on lunches 
instead of paper, paper-shuffling.

  So I think it is time, and I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you 
have taken the leadership again to promote the facts that should be 
aired so that the American people can sort through the rhetoric and 
look at truly what is in this welfare bill, this child block grant bill 
and, frankly, I say again it is shameful that individuals would use 
children as political props.
  I thank you for yielding, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for participating, a member of 
our committee, and I yield to another gentleman from our committee, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Before I get into my remarks, I want to congratulate you on an 
excellent presentation of the true facts about the Republican proposal 
to reform our school lunch program, our child nutrition programs, in 
ways that put more food in the mouths of kids and helps more people in 
this country, and you clearly, in your presentation, dispelled the 
falsehoods and the untruths that are being stated not only by people in 
the opposition but as well by people in the media who do not understand 
what we are trying to do here.
  When I won my election, and this is my first time in Congress, I am 
one of the new freshman Congressmen, I had a lot of people tell me, 
``Dave, you have 
[[Page H3138]] got a tough job ahead of you. You face some real serious 
challenges up there in Washington, and the biggest one of them all, the 
budget deficit.''
  How do we rein in this budget monster? Clearly there was no other 
issue that Republicans and Democrats came together on more clearly than 
that issue. They all recognized it as being a serious problem, and how 
do we deal with it, particularly when we look at so much of the money 
that is spent up here in Washington is going to so many very, very good 
causes.
  When I first was delighted to find that I was going to be on the 
Education and Economic Opportunities Committee with Chairman Goodling, 
I was very challenged to see what we could do to make the system better 
and help us move our Nation towards a balanced budget so that we could 
have our children, instead of inheriting bankruptcy and debt, 
inheriting prosperity, so that our children would be able to have the 
opportunities that I had as a young man growing up in our Nation.
  And there was probably no program that I saw a bigger challenge than 
our school nutrition and our childhood nutrition programs, because I 
have been able to see firsthand the benefits of so many of these 
programs. And I was very, very intrigued to see in the hearings that we 
held in our committee that many of the people directly involved in 
these programs were able to recognize that there were some very, very 
clear inefficiencies. We had witnesses come before us telling us how 
they were just burdened with too much bureaucracy and too much redtape 
and how there is a separate application program for the breakfast 
program, and a separate application for the lunch program, and a 
separate accounting process for the summer nutrition program, and how 
much better it would be if we would block grant these programs and 
eliminate bureaucracy.
  After we held those hearings, I was so delighted to see you, Chairman 
Goodling, come forward with a program, a solution to this problem, that 
would allow
 us to eliminate bureaucracy, eliminate redtape, and put more resources 
in the hands of State officials that would allow them to feed more 
kids, feed more of the hungry, and at the same time help us move 
towards that desired goal of reining in this deficit monster and moving 
towards a balanced budget. And we were able to do all of this in the 
framework of actually modestly increasing the funding for these 
programs at 4.5 percent per year.

  We had Governors come before us and tell us that in that type of an 
environment they could feed many more children than what we were able 
to do with the current system.
  I think what we have seen coming from the opposition for the past 2 
weeks, the past 3 weeks, as well as liberal members of the media, in my 
opinion, is just fear of change. The American people are the people who 
are asking for change. They voted in change on November 8, and we are 
coming up with innovative ways to change the system for the better and, 
yes, there are people who are stuck in the past, stuck in the old ways 
of doing business who are making claims that are not true.
  But I am very proud to be on the committee with you, Mr. Chairman, 
and to be able to support you in this effort, and I can say that the 
other freshman members of the committee, the Republican members of the 
committee, stand with you and are ready to help you get this program 
through and make sure it does what we desire it to do.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for participating.
  I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], who is 
also a member of the committee.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I, too, have enjoyed the committee. We are dealing with tough issues, 
but I think in a responsible fashion.
  The frustrating thing is to be on that committee at 2 o'clock in the 
morning sometimes to deal with this legislation and get up and read the 
paper the next day and wonder, ``Is that the committee that I was on?'' 
It has been very difficult back home to get the truth out. So I had a 
news conference at the statehouse with my Governor and superintendent 
of education where we got together and kind of held hands and said we 
can handle this at the local level if you give us a chance, and I think 
our new Governor, Governor Beasley, and the superintendent of 
education, Mrs. Nelson, we can handle it if we give them a chance.
  The thing that struck me the most about this debate, there have been 
a lot of charts put up. There are, I guess, two or three sides to every 
story. I am willing to concede something. I am willing to concede the 
people on the other side of the aisle care about children. I think 
people on our committee care about children. I think people on our 
committee care about children, the Democrats. They just have a 
different view of how government should interact in taking care of real 
problems. It is OK to differ. That is what makes this country great.
  I just wish certain people on the other side of the aisle would admit 
that Lindsey Graham cares about children, because I do, and that David 
Beasley, my Governor, cares about children.
  When it comes time to figure out how to change things, I would like 
people to think of concepts. Block-granting is a concept that is not 
that hard to understand. If you believe in a basic principle that 
everybody cares about children, that the people in South Carolina maybe 
care more about the children in
 South Carolina than the people in the Department of Agriculture, and I 
am willing to concede the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture 
care about people in South Carolina, but when you come up to 
Washington, drive by the Department of Agriculture building and ask 
yourself this, do the people in that building know more about the 
children in my district than I do? Do they care more about the children 
in my district than I do? Do they care more about the children in my 
State than my Governor? I think if you are honest with yourself that 
the answer would be no.

  I live in an area that in the recent past in my lifetime, we have had 
abusive policies toward our fellow citizens. There has been 
discrimination in my State and other States in the South and throughout 
this country just not based on region where people did not get a fair 
break because of the color of their skin. That was wrong.
  I have experienced change, and change is good. States' rights is 
something we talk about a lot. We have got to remember in the past the 
States have been irresponsible at times in treating their citizens 
fairly.
  I can tell you this, that Lindsey Graham is not one of those 
politicians. My Governor is not one of those politicians. We have 
matured as a society.
  The biggest fear and threat I think minority citizens have today is a 
Federal Government that does not allow them to get off welfare and get 
a job. The whole idea about caring has been talked about a lot tonight. 
I just wish people would admit that I care about the people in my 
district as much as anybody in Washington, DC, that my Governor cares 
about the children more than anybody in Washington, DC, in South 
Carolina, and block granting has a basic premise that that is the 
truth. If you believe that, you support block granting.
  Cost, we talked a lot about cost. Right now, 25 percent of the money 
in the WIC Program goes to administer the program. We are trying to 
reduce the administration of these programs to get more money into the 
hands of the State people with less cost to feed and take care of more 
children and more new mothers, and one way you can do that is cut out 
the Federal middleman. Every business in America works on that concept 
of trying to reduce costs by streamlining the efficiency of delivery. 
That is all we are doing here.
  And one thing I would like people at home to realize, why would Bill 
Clinton propose a 3.1 percent growth in this program, get on 
television, have his picture made in a school lunch setting, and accuse 
the Republicans of cutting the program when we have added more to the 
program than he has? I think the answer is pretty obvious. He has no 
agenda. He has abandoned welfare. The Clinton welfare reform proposal 
is nothing.
  We are doing something, and the only way he can get out of this box 
is to criticize others who are taking an active role.
  Al Gore's Reinventing Government, in my opinion, is a joke. Nobody 
has come to my office and said, ``Congressman Graham, Al Gore is going 
too 
[[Page H3139]] far.'' I have not had one bureaucrat complain about Al 
Gore's Reinventing Government.

                              {time}  2115

  I have had everybody and their brother in Washington complain about 
what we are trying to do to reform welfare, and to me it is working 
because the right people are complaining. If you want to change 
something, somebody is going to complain and the people that are 
complaining are the right people. That is the bureaucrats in this town.
  The people in my district, when they are told the truth, are not 
complaining. They do not want somebody making $100,000 a year to get a 
subsidized school lunch program. They do not want someone going to day 
care getting a subsidized school lunch program if they can afford to 
pay for it because we are broke up here.
  The reason I am optimistic, Mr. Chairman, that we are on the right 
track is because the right people are complaining, those people that 
believe in big government, those people that care about children, but 
believe the only way you can care is spend from Washington, DC. I 
believe you can care and allow people to take care of their own at home 
and save money at the same time. I believe that very deeply and that is 
why I am supporting what you are doing and I will compliment you on 
that very reasonable approach to a real serious problem.
  Mr. GOODLING. I would yield again to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the chairman and I would like the 
chairman, if he would, from his years of experience here, perhaps he 
could comment on why the President would do such a thing as accuse us 
of cutting these programs excessively when we, in reality, increased 
the funding for these programs over and above what the President had 
requested?
  He requested, as my colleague from South Carolina very, very 
eloquently and appropriately pointed out, he requested a 3.1 percent 
increase and we on our committee, under your leadership, came in with a 
4.5-percent increase, which is a 1.4-percent increase over and above 
what he himself had requested, and then he engages in the shameful act 
of appearing in school lunch lines claiming that we are cutting these 
programs too much.
  I do not understand that, Mr. Chairman, and maybe you can explain 
that to me, and I took the liberty of putting up that chart there that 
I think shows our growth, and maybe you could explain that to us here
 and let us know what those numbers mean. That is a little complicated, 
but perhaps you could.

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman will yield, I say to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Weldon], I am not a member of the committee and I 
want to make--I am really glad that I came down here tonight because 
this is the most honest and healthy debate I have heard so far about 
this bill, because what I read in the newspaper and what I have heard 
on the news and what I have heard from some of the special interest 
groups does not match what we are seeing on these charts and what I 
have heard tonight.
  Let me ask anybody here, and Mr. Chairman or Mr. Weldon or Mr. 
Graham, if you want to respond to this, we are actually going to be 
spending 4.5 percent more in each of the years and the President only 
recommended what percentage increase?
  Mr. GOODLING. He recommended 3.1 this year and 3.6 next year.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Three point one, 4.5. In other words, we are going to 
be spending about 30 percent more than the President recommended?
  Mr. GOODLING. That is why I said I would like to see them put their 
chart up there and put his 3.1 and 3.6 over there rather than talk 
about what a CBO baseline is.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. It is interesting, because when we first came here, we 
are all freshmen, we were not part of accumulating this huge national 
debt, and I think we all made the pledge to our voters last year that 
we want to do something about that, and we need some change around 
Washington.
  We came here to change the way Washington does business and yet what 
we have heard from many leaders on the other side, including the person 
down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is that they want to fiercely defend 
the status quo, and I think the American people do want change.
  In fact, it was less than a month ago that the President stood right 
up there and he said in his speech that we were not giving the American 
people enough change and now he had heard the message from the November 
elections.
  I did not know until tonight though that we are actually going to be 
spending 30 percent more than the President requested. As somebody said 
when we first got here, people around here sometimes give the word 
``hypocrisy'' a bad name.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. GOODLING. And I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota, and I just also would like to share with the chairman that 
as a physician who practiced medicine up until I came here, that I had 
the opportunity firsthand to see the effects of malnutrition and the 
medical consequences of that and how it really is in our Nation's best 
interest to make sure our children are properly fed.
  However, I do feel that it is the primary responsibility of parents 
to make sure that their children are properly fed and that we have had 
an erosion of responsibility in our Nation over the many years that the 
minority was in control because of an excessive tendency of the 
Government to take responsibility where parents should have been having 
responsibility.
  And if I may go on a little further, Mr. Chairman, into this, I have 
seen the consequences of malnutrition and I expressed some of those 
concerns to you and to other members of the committee and I was very 
alarmed and shocked to learn that a substantial percentage of the 
program as it was devised up here actually was going to feed the 
children of people who really did not need this kind of financial 
support, that there were lots of middle class and actually children 
from affluent families who were getting subsidized meals in schools, 
and this is one of the very reasons why the Governors came to us and 
said that they wanted to take over managing these programs, because 
they, in their States at the local level, like the gentleman from South 
Carolina was describing, can better determine where the areas of 
poverty are, who would benefit the most from these programs, and I 
thought that was wonderful that you could design this program through 
this block grant to go make sure that the people who really needed it 
were getting it and the people who did not need it were no longer 
getting it.
  I commend you and I commend the other members of the committee and 
the staff who were able to come up with this Child Nutrition Block 
Grant Program, and I think it is going to be a tremendous success.
  Mr. GOODLING. One of the other tragedies, as I mentioned, that we had 
poor participation as far as paying customers are concerned in the 
School Lunch
 Program, but there is an even greater tragedy. We have about 46 
percent of free and reduced priced people who do not participate in the 
program. So I am saying, just because someone says it is a good 
program, it has to be a better program because that 46 percent are in 
need of the program and are not participating.

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. If I may interrupt the chairman, could you 
explain why so many of those people who need it are not participating 
in the program?
  Mr. GOODLING. I think I said part of that in my opening statement in 
that the one size fits all from Washington, DC, we know best what is 
best for this town or this city or this State, does not sell back home, 
and those people back home know what nutritious food they can serve the 
children will eat and then you get the participation.
  Did the gentleman from Minnesota have any--I wanted to summarize.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. On that point, I want to say and it has been said 
tonight, it is very important. People do resist change and there is no 
institution that resists change more than a monopolistic bureaucracy, 
and what you are really trying to do is decentralize this program and 
that is what we have to do. It has to be consumer driven.
  [[Page H3140]] The people out in the districts and the Governors are 
not heartless people. They want their kids to get nutritious meals as 
well. I think this is a good plan. I think it is a first step. I think 
once we get more of these facts out here--as I say, if I did not know 
that we were spending 30 percent more than the President requested, if 
I did not know that as a Member of Congress until tonight, I will 
guarantee you that an awful lot of American people did not know that 
but they are going to know it sooner or later.
  Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best. ``Give the American people the 
truth and the Republic will be saved.'' All we really have to do is get 
the facts out about this program. I think the American people will see 
the wisdom of it. I think it is a good plan. We ought to pass it.
  I hope colleagues will join us in this because if the American people 
get the facts about this, they will buy into this idea.
  Mr. GOODLING. Let me quickly say that I again do not argue with 
somebody's philosophy. If they have a philosophical difference, that is 
fine. If they believe one size fits all, that is fine. I do not happen 
to have that philosophy. If they believe that the Federal Government 
has all the answers to all the problems, I do not have any problem with 
their philosophy. I do not agree with it, but I do not have any problem 
with it. That is their philosophy.
  If they believe that we have helped those on welfare in the last 35 
years, go on dreaming. I do not happen to believe that. The only thing 
I request is, please read the legislation and then discuss the 
legislation.
  Mr. President, we are not cutting and gutting school lunch and child 
nutrition programs. We are cutting bureaucracy. We want to grow healthy 
children. We are not trying to grow healthy or unhealthy bureaucracies. 
And so I hope that everyone from the Commander in Chief on down will 
read what is in H.R. 999 so that they actually can participate in a 
debate intelligently and talk about the facts. And again, as you 
pointed out over and over again, we are doing better to grow healthy 
children than the President has recommended.
  I appreciate all of your participation this evening and I hope that 
the public has been listening and I hope that they will now better 
understand what the existing program is and what we are doing in the 
future to try to change to make sure that more children have an 
opportunity and more pregnant women have an opportunity to participate 
in nutritious meals programs.


                          ____________________