[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 117 (Wednesday, August 4, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6685-S6703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the second week 
to continue to urge and compel my colleagues to pass the child 
nutrition reauthorization legislation before our child nutrition 
programs expire on September 30.
  I know we have much to do. We are coming to the end of our work 
period before we go home to our States during August. But we all know 
when we come back in September our time will also be limited, and doing 
something now is critically important.
  The bipartisan Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will put our country on 
a path to significantly improving the health of the next generation of 
Americans. Congress has the opportunity to make a historic investment--
the biggest investment in the history of our program--in our most 
precious gift and the future of this country: our children--all our 
children.
  We are circulating a consent request right now that will require no 
more than 3 hours, at a maximum, of Senators' time to do this. Three 
hours is all we are asking of this body to be able to make a historic 
effort on behalf of our children.
  Last week, I spoke multiple times on the floor about this bill. I 
talked about the very real threat of hunger and obesity in this country 
and how our bill works to address both these critical issues.
  I talked about the cost of action. This bill is completely paid for 
and will not add one cent to the deficit. In fact, in my opinion, we 
have operated in this bill exactly how the American people want to see 
us operate. We have gone through the regular order of the committee. We 
have worked in a bipartisan way. We have worked in a fiscally 
responsible way to pay for this bill out of the actual areas in 
agriculture and in the Ag Committee where we could pay for this bill. 
It is completely paid for, as I said before, so adding to the debt is 
not an issue.
  I also talked about the cost of inaction, about what it will mean to 
our States, to our schools, to our hard-working families, and to those 
families who, unfortunately, due to no fault of their own, have been 
caught in these economic crisis times, who are without work but whose 
children still go to school and still need to be fed.
  Certainly, I have talked about the cost to the most important 
category; that is, our children--the fact that if we do not move on 
this bill, it is yet 1 more year in a child's life that is not going to 
see the evidence of good nutrition, its availability in schools through 
programs that we both have and we expand, and those programs which we 
can actually create more for in terms of afterschool meals instead of 
afterschool snacks. Another school year will start without nutritional 
standards for meals served in schools, meaning we will miss yet another 
important cycle in a child's life to instill good eating habits.
  I think about not just younger children but older children, as my 
kids are moving into high school and starting football practice. I 
think about the ability to be able to see even those older children in 
afterschool programs, to be able to receive a full meal at the end of 
that day instead of just a simple snack.
  Schools will lose out on the first increase in the reimbursement rate 
to school feeding programs since 1973.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, think about where you were in 1973. I 
think about where I was in 1973. I think about what 1973 dollars 
purchased and what 2010 costs are today. How far do those 1973 dollars 
go when we go to the grocery store and pay 2010 prices? Think about 
what our school services are up against in using those 1973 dollars.
  Our afterschool feeding programs will suffer, meaning Congress will 
fail to recognize that hunger does not end when the school bell rings 
and our children are done with their studies.
  I simply do not think it is too much to ask. We can sacrifice 3 hours 
of our time for our children, for all our children in this great 
country, because they will be there as a workforce, as leaders, as 
teachers, as soldiers. They will be there for us as they grow up and 
become the next generation.
  Yet we have an opportunity here, and if we let it pass us by, it will 
be certainly no one's fault but our own. We continue to spend a lot of 
time debating bills on the floor this week without seeing much in the 
way of actual results. This bill represents a real opportunity for us 
to actually get something

[[Page S6701]]

done and to breathe some fresh, new, bipartisan air into this Chamber 
for a change.
  I think the American people are looking for us to do that. I think 
they are thirsty for results. They want us to roll up our sleeves, make 
the tough decisions, and get things done, which is what we were elected 
to do. They do not want to see us wasting precious time, putting each 
other's respective political parties in difficult positions. They want 
to see us spending our time wisely and seizing the opportunities where 
we have come together in a bipartisan manner to solve real problems.
  Hunger and childhood obesity are real problems in the lives of our 
children today, and it is unfortunate. These are diseases for which we 
have a cure. It is simply that we must put that cure into place.
  We are elected in this body to work together to pass legislation that 
addresses the very real issues our families all across this Nation face 
together in each and every one of our States. Although our rates for 
hunger or obesity may fluctuate and be different State to State, it is 
still a very real problem in all of our States.

  This legislation allows us to do that. It allows us to address the 
very real issues that families are facing today and tomorrow and in the 
months ahead.
  On Monday of this week, First Lady Michelle Obama wrote an op-ed that 
was published in the Washington Post that reminded us about the 
historic opportunity we have in front of us--an opportunity to make our 
schools and our children healthier by passing this bill. I happen to 
have a copy of the First Lady's op-ed with me right now, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the full text be printed in the Record following 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. One clear call to action in 
the First Lady's article was her statement about how important it is 
for Congress to pass this bill as soon as possible. She recognizes that 
we are poised to do something truly historic, and I could not agree 
with her more. I applaud her for her initiative and for her passion 
about this issue, her willingness to elevate it every opportunity she 
has, and to focus on, again, our greatest resource--our children.
  We also saw yesterday in the New York Times an op-ed published by our 
own Senator Dick Lugar who has been working so diligently in his time 
here in the Senate to bring a tremendous focus on hunger which exists 
in this country and globally. Very few people can match his dedication 
and his passion to this issue, and I am grateful for his comments. I 
ask unanimous consent that his op-ed be printed in the Record following 
my remarks as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I know we have a lot on our plate this 
week and certainly in the weeks to come, but I am determined to see 
this bill come up for a vote. I think people in this body have a great 
opportunity--and they know it--to make a difference not just in their 
children's lives but in the lives of their neighbors' children, or 
people whom they don't even know, but they do know that those parents 
love and care for their children as much as each one of us loves and 
cares for our own children. They know those parents want every 
opportunity for other children across this globe, but certainly across 
this Nation, to be able to reach their potential.
  If you visit our schools, particularly in low-income areas, and you 
look in the eyes of those children, you know that one of the barriers 
for them in terms of reaching their potential unfortunately happens to 
be that they are hungry, that they are living in food insecurity, that 
they are struggling with obesity because of unfortunate cultural or 
poor eating habits. If there is anything we can solve that is a barrier 
to our children reaching their potential, it is something such as this 
which we know we have the cure for, we know we have the solutions for, 
and we have an opportunity this week to begin that process and make it 
happen through legislation we can pass here in the Senate. We can do it 
and we should.
  I am going to continue to come to the floor or to my colleagues to 
bring up this issue and to talk about it. It is a bill that I think can 
make a difference. I am going to continue to talk about the real 
children and the real families out there across this Nation who would 
benefit from this legislation and who are depending on us to do the 
right thing. I am going to continue to hassle and press my colleagues, 
as I have been known to do, so we can get this very important bill done 
in a timely way.
  I say to my colleagues, to this Nation, and to the opportunity that 
exists before us: Let's do it. In the words of the First Lady: Let's 
move. Let's get it going. Let's get it done. Let's not let this 
historic opportunity to change the lives of our children in this 
Nation--all of our children and, therefore, our future--let us not 
allow it to pass us by.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 2, 2010]

                          A Food Bill We Need

                          (By Michelle Obama)

       Last spring, a class of fifth-grade students from Bancroft 
     Elementary School in the District descended on the South Lawn 
     of the White House to help us dig, mulch, water and plant our 
     very first kitchen garden. In the months that followed, those 
     same students came back to check on the garden's progress and 
     taste the fruits (and vegetables) of their labor. Together, 
     they helped us spark a national conversation about the role 
     that food plays in helping us all live healthy lives.
       For years our nation has been struggling with an epidemic 
     of childhood obesity. We've all heard the statistics: how one 
     in three children in this country are either overweight or 
     obese, with even higher rates among African Americans, 
     Hispanics and Native Americans. We know that one in three 
     kids will suffer from diabetes at some point in their lives. 
     We've seen the cost to our economy--how we're spending almost 
     $150 billion every year to treat obesity-related conditions. 
     And we know that if we don't act now, those costs will just 
     keep rising.
       None of us wants that future for our children or our 
     country. That's the idea behind ``Let's Move!''--a nationwide 
     campaign started this year with a single and very ambitious 
     goal: solving the problem of childhood obesity in a 
     generation, so kids born today can reach adulthood at a 
     healthy weight.
       ``Let's Move!'' is helping parents get the tools they need 
     to keep their families healthy and fit. It's helping grocery 
     stores serve communities that don't have access to fresh 
     foods. And it's finding new ways to help America's children 
     stay physically active.
       But even if we all work to help our kids lead healthy lives 
     at home, they also need to stay healthy and active at school. 
     The last thing parents need or want is to see the progress 
     they're making at home lost during the school day.
       Right now, our country has a major opportunity to make our 
     schools and our children healthier. It's an opportunity we 
     haven't seen in years, and one that is too important to let 
     pass by.
       The Child Nutrition Bill working its way through Congress 
     has support from both Democrats and Republicans. This 
     groundbreaking legislation will bring fundamental change to 
     schools and improve the food options available to our 
     children.
       To start, the bill will make it easier for the tens of 
     millions of children who participate in the National School 
     Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program--and many 
     others who are eligible but not enrolled--to get the 
     nutritious meals they need to do their best. It will set 
     higher nutritional standards for school meals by requiring 
     more fruits, vegetables and whole grains while reducing fat 
     and salt. It will offer rewards to schools that meet those 
     standards. And it will help eliminate junk food from vending 
     machines and a la carte lines--a major step that is supported 
     by parents, health-experts, and many in the food and beverage 
     industry.
       Over the past year, I have met with community leaders and 
     stakeholders from across the country--parents and teachers, 
     school board members and principals, suppliers and food 
     service workers--about the importance of making sure every 
     child in America has access to nutritious meals at school. 
     They all want what's best for our children, and they all know 
     how critical it is that we keep making progress.
       That's why it is so important that Congress pass this bill 
     as soon as possible. We owe it to the children who aren't 
     reaching their potential because they're not getting the 
     nutrition they need during the day. We owe it to the parents 
     who are working to keep their families healthy and looking 
     for a little support along the way. We owe it to the schools 
     that are trying to make progress but don't have the resources 
     they need. And we owe it to our country--because our 
     prosperity depends on the health and vitality of the next 
     generation.
       Changes like these are just the beginning, and we've got a 
     long way to go to reach our goals. But if we work together 
     and each do our part, I'm confident that we can give our 
     children the opportunities they need to succeed--and the 
     energy, strength and endurance to seize those opportunities.

[[Page S6702]]

     
                                  ____
                               Exhibit 2

                [From the New York Times, Aug. 3, 2010]

                   The Senate's Important Lunch Date

                         (By Richard G. Lugar)

       With federal child nutrition programs due to expire Sept. 
     30, the Senate should approve reauthorization legislation 
     this week, before the monthlong Congressional recess.
       The bill was unanimously approved by the Senate 
     Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee in March, and 
     it has no significant opposition. It has simply been a victim 
     of the crowded calendar of the Senate. But if we don't pass 
     the bill immediately, we will imperil programs that have 
     proved vital to our youth, families and schools for decades, 
     and that are especially important during this time of 
     economic stress.
       Since the recession began in late 2007, the use of federal 
     free and reduced-price school lunches has increased by 13.7 
     percent. Twenty-one million children--roughly two-thirds of 
     the students eating school lunches--benefit from the program.
       For many of these children, school lunches represent the 
     bulk of the nutrition they receive during the day, and it is 
     imperative that there are no gaps in providing these meals. 
     The bill would also cut out a lot of red tape in the filing 
     process, ensuring that more families and schools can 
     participate. And it would increase the scope of the 
     afterschool meal program that currently operates in only 13 
     states.
       Research shows that food insecurity and hunger rise during 
     the summer, when children don't have regular access to school 
     meals. The bill would continue to enlarge programs, operated 
     through organizations like local recreation departments, that 
     help feed young people when schools aren't in session.
       Year-round child nutrition programs, on top of improving 
     children's health and teaching them to eat better, are 
     critical to academic success. The school breakfast program 
     has been directly linked to gains in math and reading scores, 
     attendance and behavior, and speed and memory on cognitive 
     tests.
       By passing the legislation, we would expand access to the 
     supplemental nutrition program that makes certain that low-
     income women, infants and children are provided healthy 
     foods, information on eating well and referrals to health 
     care. The supplemental program already helps almost half of 
     all infants and about one-quarter of all children ages 1 to 4 
     in the United States; this legislation would provide millions 
     of dollars worth of further support.
       The new bill would also make great strides in reducing junk 
     food in schools and improving the nutritional quality of 
     meals. Nearly one-third of our children are either overweight 
     or obese, which is telling evidence of greater social 
     problems. Indeed, it's become a national security issue--27 
     percent of 17-to 24-year-olds weigh too much to enlist in the 
     military, according to a recent study by a group of retired 
     generals and admirals. This cannot continue.
       I have been through many battles on child nutrition, from 
     my days on the Indianapolis Board of School Commissioners to 
     my time as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. We have 
     debated local and state control, nutritional mandates, the 
     scope of the lunch programs and the unhealthy food choices in 
     school vending machines.
       This bill, though, is as close to a moment of consensus as 
     can be achieved. There is bipartisan agreement, thanks to the 
     efforts of the Agriculture Committee's Democratic chairwoman, 
     Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and its ranking Republican 
     member, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Our only hurdle is the 
     Senate schedule, which we would do well to surmount this 
     week.
       Given our economic climate and tradition of bipartisan 
     support for child nutrition, we should pass this meritorious 
     bill now. It would be a success that both parties can claim.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Upon President Obama's nomination of Ms. Kagan, I stated that I would 
base my decision on what I could ascertain about her judicial 
philosophy from other components of her record, in light of her lack of 
judicial experience. What little information she offered during her 
confirmation hearings did not accrue to her credit, in my judgment.
  I am unconvinced that the hostility Ms. Kagan demonstrated toward the 
second amendment as clerk to Justice Marshall, counsel for the Clinton 
sdministration, and as Solicitor General under President Obama has 
changed or would not drive her legal opinions on the matter.
  Ms. Kagan has spent her career implementing antigun initiatives and 
evidence of her antagonistic attitude towards the second amendment can 
be found from the beginning of her legal career.
  As a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987, Ms. Kagan stated she was 
``not sympathetic'' toward a man who contended that his constitutional 
rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed 
gun. Think about that.
  In a memorandum to Justice Marshall regarding Sandidge v. United 
States, Ms. Kagan wrote that Mr. Sandidge's ``sole contention is that 
the District of Columbia's firearm statutes violate his constitutional 
rights to keep and bear arms.' I'm not sympathetic.'' She recommended 
that the Supreme Court not even hear the case, thereby allowing Mr. 
Sandidge's conviction to stand.
  When Ms. Kagan served as a political adviser to President Clinton, 
she played a key role in the gun control efforts that were a trademark 
of the Clinton administration. Ms. Kagan took a lead role in a series 
of efforts to respond to the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in Printz v. 
United States, which struck down parts of the 1993 Brady handgun law.
  Ms. Kagan drafted proposals that would have effectively prohibited 
the sale of guns without action by a ``chief law enforcement officer.'' 
She authored a draft executive order requiring ``all federal law 
enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons'' and one to 
restrict the importation of certain semiautomatic rifles. Ms. Kagan 
drafted two memorandums in 1998 that advocated for policy announcements 
on various gun control proposals, including ``legislation requiring 
background checks for all secondary market gun purchases,'' and a ``gun 
tracing initiative.''
  As Solicitor General for President Obama, Ms. Kagan failed to find a 
Federal interest in the McDonald v. Chicago case and did not even file 
a brief in the case.
  Assaults on the second amendment will not end with the McDonald v. 
Chicago ruling. Therefore, the overarching question remains will Ms. 
Kagan's attitude as a Supreme Court Justice radically change from her 
clear and extensive anti-second amendment record?
  I firmly believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. This 
has been enunciated through the courts. I do not believe Ms. Kagan's 
political record and prejudiced background in opposition to the second 
amendment shows that she is prepared to uphold this core constitutional 
guarantee as a Supreme Court Justice.
  In fact, Ms. Kagan's record has demonstrated a disregard for those 
laws and constitutional rights she disagrees with. This is also clearly 
evidenced in her affront to our men and women in the military. I will 
explain.
  As a vocal critic of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, Ms. 
Kagan barred military recruiters from Harvard's campus during her time 
as dean of Harvard Law School. She made her personal feelings 
unmistakable by repeatedly stating that she abhorred the military's 
don't ask, don't tell policy, calling it a ``moral injustice of the 
first order.''
  By barring recruiters, Ms. Kagan's actions violated the Solomon 
Amendment, which requires that the military receive equal access to 
that of other employers on campus or jeopardize their Federal funding. 
Ms. Kagan joined a brief before the Supreme Court arguing that Harvard 
should be able to keep military recruiters off campus but still receive 
Federal funds--although that was in violation of the law.
  She refused to permit ordinary campus access to military recruiters 
during a time of war, yet still wanted to cash in on Federal funding.
  This position was unanimously rejected in 2006, with the Supreme 
Court stating that this was clearly not what Congress intended.
  I find it ironic that we are asked to replace the only Justice with 
wartime experience with a nominee who willingly obstructed our military 
during a time of war.
  It is unacceptable to limit the ability of our Armed Forces to 
recruit on campus at a time when the United States is fighting two 
wars.

[[Page S6703]]

  I have serious concerns about her actions against the military and 
her willingness to prevent access to potential recruits during a time 
of war.
  This incident illustrated her liberal agenda superseding her 
professional judgment.
  I have highlighted only two issues of many that exemplify Ms. Kagan's 
well-defined political record. Put simply, she is a political activist, 
not a jurist.
  Throughout her confirmation hearings, she failed to explain where her 
political philosophy ends and her judicial philosophy begins.
  Mr. President, we need a legal mind on the Supreme Court, not a 
political one.
  We need an impartial arbiter, not a partisan political operative.
  Therefore, I firmly oppose Ms. Kagan's nomination to be an Associate 
Justice on the Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces