[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3240-S3242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2592. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve 
the nutrition and health of schoolchildren by updating the definition 
of ``food of minimal nutritional value'' to conform to current 
nutrition science and to protect the Federal investment in the national 
school lunch and breakfast programs; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces a public health crisis of 
the first order. Poor diet and physical inactivity are contributing to 
growing rates of chronic disease in the U.S. These problems do not just 
affect adults, but increasingly affect the health of our children as 
well. Research suggests that one-third of American children born today 
will develop type II diabetes at some point. For some minority 
children, the numbers are even more shocking, as high as 50 percent. At 
the same time, rates of overweight among children are skyrocketing: 
tripling among children ages 6-11, and doubling among children ages 2 
to 5 and ages 12-19 over the past three decades. Indeed, just this week 
the Journal of the American Medical Association released a new study 
that found that, in just the past 5 years, rates of childhood 
overweight and obesity rose very significantly.
  There are many reasons for this public health crisis, and 
accordingly, addressing the crisis will require multiple solutions as 
well. One place where we can start is with our schools, which have been 
inundated with foods and drinks having little or no positive 
nutritional value. A recent study from the Government Accountability 
office found that 99 percent of high schools, 97 percent of middle 
schools, and 83 percent of elementary schools sell foods from vending 
machines, school stores, or a-la-carte lines in the cafeteria. And it 
is not fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods that are 
being sold. No, the vast majority of the foods being sold in our 
schools outside of Federal meal programs are foods that contribute 
nothing to the health and development of our children and are actually 
detrimental to them.
  Not only does the over consumption of these foods take a toll on the 
health

[[Page S3241]]

of our children, but they also have a negative impact of the investment 
of taxpayer dollars in the health of our kids. Every year the Federal 
Government spends nearly $10 billion to reimburse schools for the 
provision of meals through the National School Lunch Program and School 
Breakfast Program. In order to receive reimbursement, these meals must 
meet nutrition standards based upon the Dietary Guidelines for All 
Americans, the official dietary advice of the U.S. government. However, 
sales of food elsewhere in our schools do not fall under these 
guidelines. Therefore, as children consume more and more of the foods 
typically sold through school vending machines and snack bars, it 
undermines the nearly $10 billion in Federal reimbursements that we 
spend on nutritionally balanced school meals.
  Finally, the heavy selling of candy, soft drinks and other junk food 
in our schools undermines the guidance, and even the instruction and 
authority of parents who want to help their children consume sound and 
balanced diets. The American public agrees. A Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation poll from several years ago found that 90 percent of parents 
would like to see schools remove the typical junk food from vending 
machines and replace it with healthier alternatives. My bill seeks to 
restore the role and authority of parents by ensuring that schools 
provide the healthy, balanced nutrition that contributes to health and 
development.
  What really hurts children and undermines parents is the junk food 
free-for-all that currently exists in so many of our schools. How does 
it help kids if the school sells them a 20-ounce soda and a candy bar 
for lunch when their parents have sent them to school with the 
expectation that they will have balanced meals from the school lunch 
program?
  Today, for the first time ever, bipartisan legislation is being 
introduced in both Chambers of Congress to address this problem--and to 
do what is right for the health of our kids. This bill is supported by 
key health and education groups, and I would like to thank the National 
PTA, the American Medical Association, the Center for Science in the 
Public Interest, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic 
Association, the American Diabetes Association, and others for their 
strong support.
  The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006 
does two very simple but important things:
  First, it requires the Secretary of Agriculture to initiate a 
rulemaking process to update nutritional standards for foods sold in 
schools. Currently, USDA relies upon a very narrow nutritional standard 
that is nearly 30 years old. Since that definition was formulated, 
children's diets and dietary risk have changed dramatically. In that 
time, we have also learned a great deal about the relationship between 
poor diet and chronic disease. It is time for public policy to catch up 
with the science.
  Second, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to apply the 
updated definition everywhere on school grounds and throughout the 
school day. Currently, the Secretary can only issue rules limiting a 
very narrow class of foods, and then only stop their sales in the 
actual school cafeteria during the meal period. As a result, a child 
only needs to walk into the hall outside the cafeteria to buy a 
``lunch'' consisting of soda, a bag of chips and a candy bar. This is a 
loophole that is big enough to drive a soft drink delivery truck 
through--literally. It is time to close it.
  The bill is supported in the Senate by a bipartisan group of 
Senators. Joining me in introducing the bill are Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, Senator Murkowski of 
Alaska, Senator Durbin of Illinois, and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island. 
The diverse group of supporters of this bill cuts all lines and shows 
that when the health of our children is at stake, we can put aside our 
differences in the interest of our children.
  This bill, by itself, will not solve the problem of poor diet and 
rising rates of chronic disease among our children and adults. But it 
is a start. Scientists predict that--because of obesity and preventable 
chronic diseases--the current generation of children could very well be 
the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents. 
If this isn't a wakeup call, I don't know what is.
  Our children are at risk. The time to act is now. And that's why I am 
pleased to introduce the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch 
Protection Act of 2006.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2592

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Nutrition Promotion 
     and School Lunch Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) for a school food service program to receive Federal 
     reimbursements under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) or the Richard B. Russell National 
     School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), school meals 
     served by that program must meet science-based nutritional 
     standards established by Congress and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture;
       (2) foods sold individually outside the school meal 
     programs (including foods sold in vending machines, a la 
     carte or snack lines, school stores, and snack bars) are not 
     required to meet comparable nutritional standards;
       (3) in order to promote child nutrition and health, 
     Congress--
       (A) has authorized the Secretary to establish nutritional 
     standards in the school lunchroom during meal time; and
       (B) since 1979, has prohibited the sale of food of minimal 
     nutritional value, as defined by the Secretary, in areas 
     where school meals are sold or eaten;
       (4) Federally-reimbursed school meals and child nutrition 
     and health are undermined by the uneven authority of the 
     Secretary to set nutritional standards throughout the school 
     campus and over the course of the school day;
       (5) since 1979, when the Secretary defined the term ``food 
     of minimal nutritional value'' and promulgated regulations 
     for the sale of those foods during meal times, nutrition 
     science has evolved and expanded;
       (6) the current definition of ``food of minimal nutritional 
     value'' is inconsistent with current knowledge about 
     nutrition and health;
       (7) because some children purchase foods other than 
     balanced meals provided through the school lunch program 
     established under the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the school breakfast 
     program established by section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the efforts of parents to ensure 
     that their children consume healthful diets are undermined;
       (8) experts in nutrition science have found that--
       (A) since 1980, rates of obesity have doubled in children 
     and tripled in adolescents;
       (B) only 2 percent of children eat a healthy diet that is 
     consistent with Federal nutrition recommendations;
       (C) 3 out of 4 high school students do not eat the minimum 
     recommended number of servings of fruits and vegetables each 
     day; and
       (D) type 2 diabetes, which is primarily due to poor diet 
     and physical inactivity, is rising rapidly in children;
       (9) in 1996, children aged 2 to 18 years consumed an 
     average of 118 more calories per day than similar children 
     did in 1978, which is the equivalent of 12 pounds of weight 
     gain annually, if not compensated for through increased 
     physical activity; and
       (10) according to the Surgeon General, the direct and 
     indirect costs of obesity in the United States are 
     $117,000,000,000 per year.

     SEC. 3. FOOD OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

       Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1779) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and all that follows 
     through ``(a) The Secretary'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 10. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Food of Minimal Nutritional Value.--
       ``(1) Proposed regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate proposed regulations to revise the definition of 
     `food of minimal nutritional value' that is used to carry out 
     this Act and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
       ``(B) Application.--The revised definition of `food of 
     minimal nutritional value' shall apply to all foods sold--
       ``(i) outside the school meal programs;
       ``(ii) on the school campus; and
       ``(iii) at any time during the school day.
       ``(C) Requirements.--In revising the definition, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) both the positive and negative contributions of 
     nutrients, ingredients, and

[[Page S3242]]

     foods (including calories, portion size, saturated fat, trans 
     fat, sodium, and added sugars) to the diets of children;
       ``(ii) evidence concerning the relationship between 
     consumption of certain nutrients, ingredients, and foods to 
     both preventing and promoting the development of overweight, 
     obesity, and other chronic illnesses;
       ``(iii) recommendations made by authoritative scientific 
     organizations concerning appropriate nutritional standards 
     for foods sold outside of the reimbursable meal programs in 
     schools; and
       ``(iv) special exemptions for school-sponsored fundraisers 
     (other than fundraising through vending machines, school 
     stores, snack bars, a la carte sales, and any other 
     exclusions determined by the Secretary), if the fundraisers 
     are approved by the school and are infrequent within the 
     school.
       ``(2) Implementation.--
       ``(A) Effective date.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     proposed regulations shall take effect at the beginning of 
     the school year following the date on which the regulations 
     are finalized.
       ``(ii) Exception.--If the regulations are finalized on a 
     date that is not more than 60 days before the beginning of 
     the school year, the proposed regulations shall take effect 
     at the beginning of the following school year.
       ``(B) Failure to promulgate.--If, on the date that is 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Secretary has not promulgated final regulations, the proposed 
     regulations shall be considered to be final regulations.''.
                                 ______