[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.
____________________