[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