[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              SCHOOL LUNCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal school-based nutrition program 
is not like welfare, which cries out for fundamental change. On the 
contrary, the New York Times calls the school lunch program ``a rousing 
success in boosting health and academic achievement.'' It feeds 25 
million American children each day. But the new majority is willing to 
slash and burn a program serving America's hungriest and most 
vulnerable population.
  They want to use them as guinea pigs for the revolution. But one bad 
thing about a revolution is that a lot of people starve in them.
  Under this proposal, New York State could lose as much as $373 
million in funding. They could cause 60,000 New York City children to 
be dropped from the school lunch program. The Republicans say they are 
just handing over the program to the States who are bound to do a 
better job. But let us take a hard look at their proposal.
  They are going to dismantle an entire nutrition infrastructure that 
successfully feeds 25 million children, hand it over to 50 new State 
bureaucracies, sharply cut funding for the program from projected 
levels of need, and eliminate minimum nutrition standards. They say 
this will provide better lunches to more kids at lower cost.
  I cannot speak for other Americans, but I do not have any great 
confidence that the majority of Republican governors nationwide will 
make school lunch programs for poor children a high priority.
  I do not think our State bureaucracy is any more efficient than the 
Federal one. And the fact is the school-based nutrition block grant 
will create more bureaucracy, not less. It is written into the bill. 
The administrative cost currently in Federal child nutrition programs, 
excluding WIC, is 1.8 percent.
                              {time}  2300

  The school-based block grant proposal increases the administrative 
cap to 2 percent. It retains most Federal administrative burdens such 
as meal counting and income verification. It imposes an additional 
bureaucratic procedure to establish citizenship, and it requires States 
to create 50 new bureaucracies of their own.
  Child nutrition bureaucracies will be a growth industry nationwide. 
The new majority denies they are cutting school-based nutrition 
programs. They say they are increasing it by 4.5 percent per year. But 
that would cause decreases in child and adult care food programs, the 
summer food program, and after school programs, as my colleague the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] pointed out.
  That simply is robbing from Peter to give to Paul.
  They also fail to account for the 3.5 percent rise in food inflation, 
or the 3 percent growth in school enrollment.
  And they fail to mention that they will allow States to transfer 20 
percent of funds to programs for purposes other than food assistance to 
school children. They say, ``Only in Washington would a 4.5 percent 
increase be considered a cut.''
  Well, most American families do not see it that way. Assume an 
American family is financially breaking even this year. The next year 
their daughter's school tuition goes up by 9 percent, but their family 
income only goes up by 4.5 percent. The fact that their income went up 
is irrelevant to them. Their concern is only that they do not have 
enough. The alleged 4.5 percent increase is a phony number, and even if 
it were accurate it would not be enough.
  The bill strips school-based nutrition programs of their entitlement 
status. It makes no allowance for the growing number of children who 
live in poverty. The new majority knows this full well, but apparently 
does not care.
  In 1987, one in five American children lived in poverty. By 1992, it 
was one in four. The new majority talks about flexibility, but capped 
block grants are totally inflexible.
  Ultimately school-based nutrition programs will face dramatic 
shortfalls. Under President Reagan, a smaller cut led to 3 million 
fewer children being served a school lunch. But these new State
 bureaucrats will not just reduce the number of children served, they 
have a cost-saving instrument that today's Washington school lunch 
bureaucrats do not. They will not have to meet strong Federal 
nutritional standards that have been refined and developed over 50 
years by scientists and nutrition experts.

  By abolishing these standards we effectively throw out the window 
half a century of expertise in feeding our children so they can learn, 
so they can think, so they can grow, so that they can succeed.
  The child nutrition program is a health care program, it is necessary 
to our children, it is an education program, and it is an important 
part of our country.

                          ____________________