[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 155 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6587-S6590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The Presiding OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. Shortly, along with the Senator from 
Colorado, I am going to discuss an amendment to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill we have offered. But, first, I am going to yield to 
the Senator from Texas for the purpose of his offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                 Amendment No. 775 to Amendment No. 738

  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maine. I have an amendment at 
the desk. I ask that it be called up and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 775 to amendment No. 738.

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funding for Operation Fast and Furious or similar 
                       ``gun walking'' programs)

       After section 217 of title II of division B, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 218.  No funds made available under this Act shall be 
     used to allow the transfer of firearms to agents of drug 
     cartels where law enforcement personnel of the United States 
     do not continuously monitor and control such firearms at all 
     times.

  Mr. CORNYN. I will be back to talk to the substance of my amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss an 
amendment numbered 757 that I have offered with my colleague from 
Colorado, Senator Mark Udall, that would protect the flexibility of 
schools to serve healthy vegetables in the National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast Programs. This is a bipartisan amendment that we are 
offering. It is cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Risch, Snowe, Ayotte, 
Wyden, Johanns, Nelson of Nebraska, Mikulski, and Hoven.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed a rule 
that would limit servings of a certain category of vegetables that 
includes white potatoes, corn, peas, and lima beans. It would limit 
them to a total of one cup per week in the National School Lunch 
Program.
  The proposed rule would also ban this category of vegetables 
altogether from the School Breakfast Program. Our bipartisan amendment 
would prevent the Department of Agriculture from moving forward with 
this arbitrary limitation. I am concerned the proposed rule would 
impose significant cuts on schools and would limit the flexibility they 
need to serve nutritious, affordable meals to their students.
  For those who are less familiar with this issue, let me give my 
colleagues some background. Current law already requires the School 
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to follow the most recent dietary 
guidelines for Americans. Last year, the USDA released the newest 
dietary guidelines that call for all Americans of all ages to eat more 
vegetables.
  The 2010 dietary guidelines list four nutrients of concern. They are 
potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D. The guidelines state 
that dietary intake of these four nutrients are low enough to be of 
public health concern for both adults and children.
  Since USDA is concerned about a lack of these nutrients in the 
American diet, it would make sense for the Department to promote good 
sources of these critical nutrients. Yet the USDA's proposed rule would 
actually limit vegetables that are good sources of these nutrients. 
USDA should not limit their availability but instead should encourage 
their healthy preparation.
  For example, here are some nutritional facts about potatoes that are 
often overlooked. Potatoes have more potassium than bananas, a food 
commonly associated with this nutrient. Potatoes are cholesterol free, 
low in fat and sodium, and can be served in countless healthy ways. In 
fact, a medium baked potato contains 15 percent of the daily 
recommended value of fiber--that is one of those nutrients of concern--
27 percent of the daily recommended value for vitamin B6, 28 percent of 
the daily recommended amount of vitamin C. This is a great nutritional 
bargain at about a nickel per serving.
  I am going to go on and discuss the rest of the problems with this 
rule and the solution, but I know my colleague from Colorado is under a 
time constraint. So at this point I am going to yield to him, my 
partner in this endeavor, for his statement. Then I will reclaim the 
floor and continue with my discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the Senator from Maine for her 
graciousness and for her leadership on this important amendment that 
she and I brought to the floor. Clearly, the 2012 Agriculture 
appropriations bill that will direct the USDA to provide adequate 
flexibility to schools to deliver students nutritious school meals 
while effectively managing costs is very important. But we have to do 
it in the right way. I want to share my thinking on what the right way 
is.

[[Page S6588]]

  In January of this year the USDA issued a proposed rule for 
nutritional standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs that would limit total servings of certain vegetables--most 
notably potatoes, corn, green peas, and lima beans--to one cup per week 
and eliminate potatoes from school breakfasts.
  I have heard from school lunch providers in Colorado that this 
restriction will result in significant challenges for food service 
operations through increased costs, reduced flexibility, and decreased 
school meal participation. This is especially concerning for them in my 
State, and I think as the Senator from Maine has pointed out, all over 
our country because school districts are facing increasingly tight 
budgets.
  Many children from Colorado and across the Nation depend on school 
meal programs to keep them nourished and ready to learn. That is why it 
is important for school meals to include healthy food options while 
also allowing sufficient flexibility to school meal providers to help 
build a foundation for healthy eating going forward.
  In order to achieve this goal, a very worthy goal, it is important 
that we implement the bipartisan child nutrition reauthorization the 
Congress passed last year. In order to ensure that implementation is 
successful for both kids and schools, it is important the USDA takes 
into consideration the insights and the experiences of those who are in 
the school cafeterias every day across America serving meals to our 
children. These are well-trained and qualified individuals who see our 
children, our students, on a daily basis. They know their parents, and 
they very well may be parents of students themselves.
  Here is what they are saying. I will read to you from a letter the 
Colorado School Nutrition Association sent me recently regarding this 
proposed rule:

       We believe it is a realistic and attainable goal to create 
     meal plans that meet the current dietary guidelines for 
     Americans while allowing schools the flexibility to manage 
     cost and maintain student participation. Improved nutrition 
     is a vital aspect of our nation's health, one which we 
     heartily support, and we believe it can be accomplished 
     without significant damage to the programs we are trying to 
     improve and without additional strain on local schools.

  That is what the Collins-Udall amendment intends to do. It would 
direct the USDA to not set maximum limits on the frequency that schools 
can serve any one fruit or vegetable while allowing schools to continue 
to moderate portion size appropriately. Our amendment will also ensure 
that schools have the flexibility to serve healthy fruits and 
vegetables in a manner consistent with guidelines established jointly 
by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, called the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
  Some wonder why Senator Collins and I have taken such issue with this 
proposed rule. Yes, we both do come from potato-producing States. We 
both believe potatoes have gotten a bad rap. The truth is, when 
prepared properly, the potato can provide critical nutrients to 
students that will help them lead healthy lives and be ready to learn 
in the classrooms.
  In some areas, increased flexibility to serve this nutritious and 
available vegetable can actually help schools manage costs so they can 
afford to purchase other more expensive vegetables. Where I believe 
school meal providers, potato producers, and health advocates can agree 
is that this issue is less about any one vegetable and more about the 
preparation of the vegetable. Anything can be fried or drowned in any 
number of fats available to us as consumers. Let's be honest.
  Even Agriculture Secretary Vilsack agreed in testimony before the 
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee that it is not the potato, 
it is the way in which potatoes are being prepared and provided. We 
should be encouraging schools to prepare potatoes and other fruits and 
vegetables appropriately, not limiting their flexibility and 
potentially increasing their cost unnecessarily.
  I have spent a good portion of my time in Congress working to promote 
physical activity, getting children and families into the great 
outdoors and reducing the amount of time children spend in front of the 
TV and video games. Through my Healthy Kids From Day One Act and the 
National Kids to Parks Initiative I have focused on getting kids to eat 
healthier and become more active.
  Another way we promote healthy lifestyles is making sure kids have 
access to needed nutrients and balanced meals. That is why Congress 
directed the USDA to ensure that all fruits and vegetables are part of 
Federal food nutrition programs, particularly the school meal programs.
  I believe, and I know Senator Collins believes, there is a balance we 
can find, a balance that preserves needed flexibility for our cash-
strapped schools but also preserves guidelines that will ensure our 
kids are getting the best nutrients possible in their school meals, 
including from the potato.
  So instead of pointing fingers, we need to provide commonsense 
solutions that help school kids and their parents make wise choices 
that in turn will make a healthier America.
  A healthy country is a strong country. I believe this amendment is an 
important tool to ensure that our schools can be an active and 
effective participant in ensuring our children are healthy, well cared 
for, and ready to become the next leaders in our goal of winning the 
global economic race.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding time to me. I look 
forward to working with her, to reaching a successful conclusion, and 
to our amendment being agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his 
excellent remarks. Both of us share the goal that all Americans share 
for our children--making sure they get a healthy diet. For many 
children, it is so critical that the School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs provide that diet.
  Unfortunately, in many ways USDA's rule does not comply with the 
dietary guidelines which recognize that Americans of all ages tend to 
be short on two particular nutrients, potassium and fiber, and potatoes 
are abundant in providing those.
  When we think of potassium, most of us think of bananas. In fact, as 
this chart shows, a potato actually has far more potassium than a 
banana. Indeed, ironically, the Dietary Guidelines for all Americans 
includes an appendix exclusively listing foods that are rich in 
potassium. A baked potato is the first vegetable listed because it is 
such an excellent source of potassium.
  Potatoes can also serve as vehicles for other vegetables. I recently 
discussed this issue with the director of school nutrition for two 
communities in Maine, York and Kittery. Her name is Doris Demers. She 
told me the kids in her school system rave about the baked potato bar, 
where they can load baked potatoes with broccoli, shaved carrots, 
chives, salsa, vegetarian chili, beans, and many other healthful items. 
Doris also pointed out to me that this is a particularly popular option 
for students who are vegetarians, and they are seeing an increasing 
number of students who are vegetarians in their school system.
  Yet if this rule were to go into effect, a school serving a medium 
baked potato on Monday would be prevented from serving a full portion 
of potatoes or corn at any other lunch during that week. Think how 
absurd that result is. These two vegetables--corn and potatoes--are 
central to a variety of dishes, such as soups, stews, chowders, and 
Shepherd's pie.
  One food service director told me of her school's attempt to get 
children to eat fresh whole foods rather than heavily processed foods. 
Thus, she developed a farm to school program in cooperation with a 
local farmer.
  The students went out into the field, picked the corn, husked it 
themselves, and were served the corn for lunch, enjoying the experience 
of consuming wholesome, locally grown food. Yet, as she pointed out to 
me, the USDA's proposed rule would prevent her from serving an ear of 
fresh corn one day of the week and a baked potato another day of the 
same week. That is an utterly absurd result. That is why people get so 
frustrated with some of the regulations that come out of Washington.
  I am also very concerned about the impact on the School Breakfast 
Program. It is a voluntary program, unlike the School Lunch Program. 
Some school districts could be forced to drop out of the School 
Breakfast Program

[[Page S6589]]

as a direct result of this rule because it could increase costs by up 
to 50 cents per breakfast. If we start multiplying that across all the 
breakfasts served by these school systems, we are soon talking about 
real money. This would be a disaster if schools chose to terminate 
their participation in the School Breakfast Program for those students 
who rely on this program. Only Washington could impose a rule that 
purports to improve school nutrition but actually causes schools to 
drop out of the very program that is supposed to provide that 
nutrition.
  In fact, many of our colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus in 
the House have written to Secretary Vilsack expressing ``concerns 
regarding the new costs the proposed rule would impose on schools 
educating the highest percentage of low-income students.'' The letter 
goes on to note:

       For many low-income children, the best, if not all, of 
     their nutrition comes from programs (the USDA) administers.

  The letter points out that many schools simply ``do not have the 
resources that may be diverted to meet such large cost increases.''
  Research has shown us time and again that eating a healthy breakfast 
is critical to academic success. Eating breakfast also provides 
significant health benefits, as we all know. Not eating breakfast is 
associated with excess body weight, especially among children and 
adolescents, and consuming breakfast has been associated with weight 
loss and improved nutrition.
  I hope USDA will listen to the concerns voiced by the professionals 
who manage these programs. The School Nutrition Association opposes 
this restriction and ``believes that consumption of an array of fruits 
and vegetables should be encouraged,'' not limited.
  The following organizations are opposing the USDA's proposed rule 
because it would increase costs and limit their flexibility: the 
American Association of School Administrators, the National School 
Boards Association, the Council of Great City Schools, and the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals.
  In my State, the Maine Department of Education, the Maine PTA, the 
Maine School Management Association, and the Maine Principals 
Association have all expressed their support for our amendment and 
their opposition to the USDA's ill-conceived rule. These groups 
represent school administrators, superintendents, school boards, and 
principals. They know; they oversee the school food service programs, 
and they understand the difficulties and costs this rule would cause. 
The American Association of School Administrators, for example, wrote 
to express support for our amendment saying:

       The overly prescriptive nature of the requirements for 
     providing fruits and vegetables increases the cost of meals 
     so drastically that school districts implementing the 
     changes, even receiving the higher reimbursement rate, would 
     still be covered for less than half of the incurred expenses.

  The fact is, the proposed rule would impose significant and needless 
costs on our Nation's school districts at a time when they can least 
afford it.
  Listen to what the cost of this rule is estimated to be by the 
Department of Agriculture: The USDA estimates that this rule could cost 
as much as $6.8 billion over the next 5 years. The lion's share of that 
cost is going to fall on State and local agencies.
  The costs associated with the proposed rule would also affect working 
families who rely on the school meal programs. As the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals wrote me:

       USDA's proposed nutritional guidelines will force schools 
     to raise paid meal prices.

  I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations in support be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will take a closer 
look at this bipartisan amendment that Senator Udall and I are 
offering, with the support of many colleagues. We need to ensure that 
our schools can maintain the flexibility they need to serve healthy 
meals at an affordable cost.

                               Exhibit 1

                           Letters of Support


                         National School Groups

       American Association of School Administrators (AASA): 
     Represents approximately 13,000 educational leaders including 
     superintendents, as well as school chief executive officers 
     and other senior level Administrators and cabinet members.
       National School Boards Association (NSBA): Represent public 
     school boards and related school boards associations.
       Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS): Represents the 
     needs of urban schools and inner-city students. Membership 
     includes school districts located in cities with populations 
     over 250,000 or student enrollment over 35,000. Therefore, 
     CGCS indirectly represents 6.8 million children, 65 percent 
     of which are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals 
     (NAESP): Represents approximately 23,000 elementary and 
     middle school principals. NAESP indirectly represents 
     approximately 33 million children in grades pre-kindergarten 
     through grade eight.
       National Rural Education Association (NREA)/National Rural 
     Education Advocacy Coalition (NREAC): These umbrella groups 
     represent the rural voice of America's educators. Members are 
     comprised of state and national organizations, as well as 
     individuals, who are concerned about rural education.
       Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA): 
     Represents approximately 550 regional service agencies 
     (public multi-service agency that provides support services 
     and programs for schools). They work with schools that 
     represent 80 percent of all public school students in the 
     nation, and are authorized by state statute (none in Maine).


                          Maine School Groups

       Maine Parent Teacher Association (Maine PTA): Represents 
     approximately 100 local PTA units and 3,500 members in Maine; 
     membership is comprised of parents, educators, students and 
     school advocates.
       Maine School Management Association (MSMA): This umbrella 
     organization represents the school boards (MSBA) and 
     superintendents (MSSA) in Maine. Maine Principals Association 
     (MPA): Represents approximately 900 members in Maine, 
     including elementary and secondary principals, assistant 
     principals, and other school administrators.
       State of Maine Department of Education
       Maine School Nutrition Association


                            Farm/Food Groups

       National Potato Council
       Maine Potato Board
       American Frozen Foods Institute


                              Other Groups

       Letter from several Members of the Congressional Black 
     Caucus

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Collins and Senator Udall to raise the concern of nutrition guidelines 
in our schools. This amendment aims to clarify school nutrition 
standards to ensure that they appropriately reflect the USDA's Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans.
  As you may know, on January 31, 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Secretary Tom Vilsack and Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced the release of the 2010 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the Federal Government's evidence-
based nutritional guidance to promote health, reduce the risk of 
chronic diseases, and reduce the prevalence of obesity through improved 
nutrition and physical activity. However, just 2 weeks prior, on 
January 13, 2011, USDA released a proposed rule to improve nutrition 
requirements for the National School Lunch Program and the School 
Breakfast Program to align them with the 2005 ``Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans.''
  This was bureaucratic confusion exemplified. Why not delay the 
proposed rule for our Federal meal programs by 2 weeks and instead 
release it to reflect the most recent nutrition guidelines that were 
issued on January 31? While I understand and agree with the necessity 
and desire to update the nutrition standards in schools, wouldn't it be 
more effective to utilize the most recent, science-based guidelines to 
reflect those recommendations?
  In my home State of Maine, like most in the Nation, we find ourselves 
struggling with an obesity epidemic. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control, today in the United States, 64 percent of adults and 
28 percent of high school students are either overweight or obese. 
Equally, if not more disturbing, are the statistics revealing that only 
23 percent of adults and 21 percent of high school students eat at 
least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily.
  With more than 31 million children currently participating in the 
National

[[Page S6590]]

School Lunch Program and more than 11 million participating in the 
National School Breakfast Program, I believe that good nutrition within 
our Nation's schools is more important than ever. And that is all the 
more pressing, given that many children consume at least half of their 
daily calories at school, and for many students participating in these 
programs, the food served at school may be the only food they regularly 
eat.
  For that, and many other reasons, I stand here today in support of 
Senate amendment No. 757. Specifically, the amendment would ensure that 
Federal school meal programs will be permitted to provide fruits and 
vegetables consistent with the most recent dietary guidelines.
  Specifically, the recently proposed rule to improve nutrition 
requirements for the National School Lunch Program and the School 
Breakfast Program would limit the total servings of starchy vegetables, 
including the white potato, to one cup per week and completely 
eliminate those vegetables from school breakfasts. I am particularly 
disturbed by this recommendation because they actually contradict the 
recently published 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as 
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines they are supposed to reflect.
  Our most recent national Dietary Guidelines--those released this past 
January--simply state that ``intake by Americans of some nutrients is 
low enough to be of public health concern. They are potassium, dietary 
fiber, calcium, and vitamin D.'' As you may know, there are few fruits 
or vegetables that contain the levels of potassium in potatoes. In 
fact, a medium potato--5.3 oz with the skin--is not only a good source 
of potassium, but also contains significantly more potassium--200 mg 
more--than its nearest rival, the banana.
  Additionally, one serving of potato has as much fiber as broccoli and 
provides 13 percent of the daily recommended value. In an attempt to 
combat these deficiencies the 2010 Dietary Guidelines recommend that 
all Americans, including school age children, consume 5 cups of starchy 
vegetables a week. This is an increase in recommended consumption from 
the recommendations of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for 3 cups of 
starchy vegetables per week. And yet the proposed rule would limit the 
total number of servings of starchy vegetables to one cup per week in 
our school lunch program, which is entirely inconsistent with the 2005 
and 2010 Dietary Guideline recommendations.
  I believe that it is clear that potatoes are a nutrient powerhouse, 
and the fact that the white potato offers 13 percent of a child's daily 
potassium requirements for less than 5 cents per serving provides 
further support for keeping potatoes in school meals, especially during 
challenging budgetary times. The Federal Government should allow our 
struggling schools to make fiscally responsible choices that offer the 
most nutritional return on investment. In fact, USDA has estimated that 
the proposed meal plan will increase school lunch costs by $6.8 billion 
over 5 years, and it cannot be denied that a significant part of this 
increase is due to the limit on potatoes. Limiting starchy vegetables 
to 1 cup per week will increase costs by approximately 5.6 percent with 
possible adverse affects on nutritional quality.
  It has been well documented that, currently, nine out of ten 
Americans are not achieving vegetable and fruit consumption 
recommendations. I am disappointed that during such a time, that the 
USDA would propose rules denying our nation's youth access to nutrient-
rich foods as part of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast 
programs.
  And let me just say before the issue is raised that no one is arguing 
in favor of a diet based on french fries. The truth is--to combat the 
wave of obesity and promote more healthy food choices we must promote 
food items that present a diverse set of vitamins and minerals. No 
matter how they are prepared, potatoes are currently included in 
healthy school meal plans to meet national dietary guidelines. Yet many 
Americans seem to believe all potatoes served in schools are in the 
form of deep fried french fries.
  This may have been the case at one time, but today, according to our 
own school food service administrators, most potatoes served in schools 
are baked, not fried. Like 80 percent of schools nationwide, the deep 
fryers in York and Kittery, ME schools, for example, were removed years 
ago. As the school nutrition director of those schools, Ms. Doris 
Demers informed me recently that, in her 18 years working in school 
nutrition, she has never seen fryers in a Maine school nutrition 
program. When prepared properly, the potato is packed with nutrition 
and is a cost-effective option for the school lunch and breakfast 
programs.
  While I will continue to endeavor with my colleagues to support 
improved nutritional standards for all Americans, I am concerned that 
many throughout our nation cannot help but get confused about which 
guideline they should try to follow. For these reasons, I respectfully 
request that my colleagues join me in encouraging USDA to be consistent 
on their nutritional advice to the American public--of all ages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                 Amendment No. 772 to Amendment No. 738

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, I ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up 
amendment No. 772.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 772 to amendment No. 738.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike a section providing for certain exemptions from 
environmental requirements for the reconstruction of highway facilities 
              damaged by natural disasters or emergencies)

       Strike section 128 of division C.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________