[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 164 (Monday, October 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S6910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH AND BREAKFAST PROGRAM

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I spoke on the Senate floor 
about some of my concerns with the pending legislation that we have 
been talking about now--a number of appropriations bills--including the 
committee report on agriculture. The last time we visited about this, I 
talked about the GIPSA rules. I wish to focus on one more area of 
concern in this appropriations bill; that is, that the Department of 
Agriculture has proposed a rule to revise the nutrition requirements 
for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program.
  In its current form, the rule contains some impractical nutrition 
standards and goals. I don't think there is any question that all of us 
in the Senate, and certainly every parent I know, would want--we all 
want our children to have nutritious food and we want them to have 
nutritious food at home and at school. That is not the point. It is not 
the question. What I question is whether the Department of 
Agriculture's rule is realistic for schools, and for those who provide 
food to the schools, whether they are able to comply with this new 
rule.
  For example, as written, the rule would exclude many nutritious 
vegetables in school meal programs. Appropriately, the Senate adopted 
an amendment offered by Senator Collins of Maine, which I supported, 
that allows school nutritionists to continue to make their own 
recommendations based upon the most recent dietary guidelines for 
Americans, rather than having to follow the mandates issued in this 
latest USDA rule. In my view, that is exactly where these decisions 
should be made: in schools around our country by nutritionists--not 
mandated by our government in Washington, DC.
  Furthermore, we must keep in mind the impact this rule will have on 
school budgets and food suppliers. Unfunded mandates such as this one 
will make it even harder for schools to provide healthy lunches for 
students.
  The Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost of compliance 
over a 5-year period will reach $6.8 billion. The Federal reimbursement 
already does not cover the full cost of preparing a meal in many 
schools across our country. This new USDA rule will further drive up 
the costs of providing lunches and school districts will have to make 
up the difference. This doesn't seem like a reasonable approach when 
many school districts are already struggling to make ends meet.
  Let me give an example of what is in this rule. Once finalized, 
schools would be required to reduce sodium content in breakfasts by up 
to 27 percent and school lunches by up to 54 percent. There are a 
couple problems with this requirement. There is no suitable replacement 
for sodium that can maintain the same functions of flavor and texture. 
Also, reducing sodium is not just a function of limiting raw salt 
content. Many ingredients have sodium in them that occurs naturally.
  School food suppliers have been working for years to reduce the 
amount of sodium in their food products. However, they need additional 
time to come up with a solution that balances nutritional value with 
taste so kids will eat the school lunch.
  This rule would also change how nutritional content is measured--
rather than measure nutrition based on density, the Department of 
Agriculture rule proposes to measure nutritional content based on 
volume. For example, tomato paste is nutritionally dense, but the 
Department of Agriculture says it must meet the same volume as a fresh 
tomato. That doesn't make much sense. Why would we take a metric to be 
the arbitrary volume requirement instead of just measuring the 
nutritional value?
  The bottom line is, kids can still get the right nutrients from food 
products if they are measured by nutritional content.
  A more sensible approach to making sure children have healthy options 
for breakfast and lunch would be to work together with scientists, 
nutritionists, and industry representatives toward a set of 
intermediate goals. Food costs, service operations, and student 
participation rates could then be more closely evaluated before moving 
on to the next goal. This would give school districts and food 
suppliers the chance to make changes in a more reasonable timeframe.
  Our colleagues in the House included a provision in their version of 
this legislation that directed the Department of Agriculture to issue a 
new proposed rule that would not add unnecessary and costly regulations 
to the school lunch and breakfast programs. Unfortunately, this 
language was not included in the Senate version of the bill. In 
conference, I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure the 
Department of Agriculture is not making it harder for schools to 
provide healthy lunches but instead is working alongside local schools 
and their officials to develop better nutritional goals.

                          ____________________