[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2848-S2850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     National School Lunch Program

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in 1946, the National School Lunch 
Program was signed into law by President Truman--broadly supported in a 
bipartisan manner. And for 76 years, we have been providing food for 
our children's schools so they have every opportunity to learn and to 
be successful. Over the years, we have added school breakfast, and then 
summer meals, and other support.
  At the beginning of COVID, we worked together on a bipartisan basis 
to make sure our children still had access to healthy meals, even 
though they weren't able to physically be in school. We have worked 
together to provide critical funding and flexibility until now. Our 
kids are counting on us to do this again.
  In 22 days--22 days--healthy meals for many American children will 
stop if we can't get the bipartisan support necessary to extend the 
flexibilities and the funding that allows schools and summer programs 
to keep feeding our children healthy meals--22 days.
  Again, critical funding will stop in 22 days. That is not very far. 
Summer programs need to be planning right now. And many children are 
already starting those summer programs. Critical funding is going to 
stop in 22 days, even though supply chains are still broken and costs 
are still rising.
  In July 2020, with bipartisan changes we made in the middle of the 
pandemic, almost 6 million children received summer meals, and that was 
double the year before. This was a great thing for children and 
families across the country.
  During the school year, the roughly 30 million children who 
participate in school meals knew that they could count on breakfast and 
lunch each day. They may not get supper, they may not get other food, 
but they could count on breakfast and lunch.
  These are real kids, the same as my grandchildren and yours, and they 
need our continued support to be healthy and to be successful. That is 
what this is about. They want to spend their summers playing with their 
friends and their school days focusing on learning, not just trying to 
ignore a headache and a growling tummy.
  There is a little boy in Coopersville, MI, who got summer meals for 
the first time because his school district could deliver to his 
neighborhood. If local sites can't open or flexibility doesn't happen, 
if these options end at the end of the month in just 22 days, 20 
percent of the meal providers in Michigan will likely no longer be able 
to provide that healthy food in the summer.
  Kids have always been able to count on healthy meals at school, but 
next year is going to bring new challenges for children, for families, 
for schools.
  Take the little girl in Port Huron, MI, whose family is doing their 
very best to make ends meet as they recover from the pandemic. Over the 
past 2 years, she has been able to get school meals without her parents 
and her school having to worry about lots and lots of paperwork and 
redtape. But when the flexibilities end, schools will be right back at 
it, having mounds of paperwork for too many families, which, too often, 
result in kids who need help being missed or left hungry. Schools may 
also be forced to increase the price of meals for children, and that is 
going to be very difficult for many working families.
  This lack of action is not only about our children, which, of course, 
that should be enough that this is about our children; but, too often, 
when we talk about the budgets and the programs, we lose sight of the 
people who are doing the work to feed our children, and they have to 
make the hard choices on how they are going to continue to do that.
  For example, 357,000 students get their meals at a school in the 
Miami-Dade school district. It is the fourth largest school district in 
the country serving more than 35 million meals each year to young 
people. But because of the uncertainty in the supply chains, Miami-Dade 
has struggled to find a single distributor to serve their school 
district.
  While this contract has since been addressed, many districts have not 
been so lucky, because if we go back to low reimbursements in the fall, 
they are finding they can't find vendors, providers, that will bid for 
those contracts.
  Issues are popping up all over the country. In Fort Worth, TX, kids 
have increasingly limited options for food. Again, supply chains have 
broken down; food supply chains have broken down. The school district 
is reporting over 400 options out of stock, things as simple as orange 
juice or chicken wings.
  In a Cleveland school nutrition program, they have got 67 open 
positions they are trying to fill, which is the other issue right now 
coming out of the pandemic as we look at our labor shortage.
  Outside Portland, OR, school food staff are going to grocery stores 
to get the food and supplies they need when their distributor cancels 
their order, and they are paying up to 10 times more doing that in a 
retail store.
  Starting this month, kids will have fewer options for healthy milk 
and other dairy products when the main dairy serving Northern Virginia 
schools is going out of business. There are a lot of challenges.
  When Senator McConnell, Leader McConnell, said he didn't want to 
extend the funding and flexibilities because the pandemic is over--the 
effects of the pandemic are not over, nor is the pandemic. We are 
managing it better. Thank you to the President's leadership and all of 
our hard work to make sure we have the vaccines, and the testing, and 
the therapeutic medicines, and so on, but the supply chains that broke 
down when you shut down an entire economy--not just an American 
economy, by the way, but global economy. These are still trying to be 
fixed in so many different ways to try to get things up and going, 
which, of course, has led to the increased cost in inflation.
  So we are in a situation where our schools, going into next year--not 
only this summer but next year--are going to have a very, very 
difficult time making sure they can provide healthy meals to our 
children, and there is no excuse for that to be happening if we come 
together and act.
  The fact is, we are seeing shortages across the board. Healthy 
options are hard to find, and there are delays for new equipment so 
schools could safely store prepared food. What happens when school food 
staff are faced with challenges like this? Kids don't eat;

[[Page S2849]]

that is what happens. And that is not OK.
  Nationwide, 90 percent of our schools and summer programs count on 
the funding and flexibility that is currently in place--90 percent of 
our schools. All of this in red, 90 percent--over 90 percent--count on 
the flexibilities, they count on the funding that we put in place 
during the pandemic that is still needed because of the challenges 
going on. This is who is counting on us to act to be able to help them 
feed children.
  Starting July 1, 22 days from now, that is going to stop for many 
schools. I have been told that if we don't act, one-third of our 
schools will be in such a dire situation that they may not be able to 
continue the National School Lunch Program at all. Let me repeat that. 
One-third of our schools may not be able to provide healthy meals to 
our most at-risk children through the school lunch program at all if we 
don't come together and do something to help them. And we know what to 
do. We just need the bipartisan support to do it. This is a shocking 
failure of our country's responsibility to provide for our children and 
set them up for success.
  Throughout the pandemic, Democrats and Republicans have come together 
to make sure that schools and summer meal programs have the tools they 
need to feed hungry kids. We need Republicans to join us again. We are 
working to return to normal, but we aren't there yet. It is so urgent 
that we pass my Support Kids Not Red Tape Act right now. I am extremely 
grateful that we have every Democratic Member of the U.S. Senate and 
Independent Members and two of our Republican colleagues leading the 
way: Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins. It is a bipartisan, broadly 
supported way to make sure our kids aren't going hungry. But time is 
running out, and we only need eight more Republican colleagues to join 
us. We have 52; we need 8. We need eight more Republican colleagues to 
join us to be able to provide support for our children and support for 
our schools throughout the next year as we are working our way through 
all of these supply chain issues and so on that are getting in the way.
  Our kids are counting on us. Twenty-two days--twenty-two days--that 
is what we are talking about. We have got 22 days before all of the 
support, all of the funding to be able to make sure that as many 
children are getting healthy food in the summer as possible, the 
children who need it--and in the schools that we have a school lunch 
program and that we are able to provide healthy meals so that kids can 
focus on learning, they can focus on being kids, they can focus on 
being successful--not just how they are going to manage their hunger 
through another day.
  Twenty-two days, Mr. President. Our kids are counting on us. We need 
to act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Vermont.


                     Honoring Our PACT Act of 2021

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
PACT legislation that we are now considering.
  As a former chair and longtime member of the Senate Veterans' 
Committee, one of my highest priorities is to make certain that every 
veteran in this country, people who have put their lives on the line to 
defend us, get the quality healthcare and benefits that they have 
deserved.
  This is an important piece of legislation, and I want to congratulate 
Senator Tester, chair of the committee, and Ranking Member Moran for 
their hard work on this. This legislation will improve healthcare, 
research, and resources for veterans who were exposed to deadly toxic 
substances and environmental hazards, including open-air burn pits, 
during their military service. This legislation will finally recognize 
and treat toxic exposure as a cost of war for the millions of veterans 
Congress has ignored for far too long. And we do that by adding 23 burn 
pit and toxic exposure-related conditions to the VA's list of service 
presumptions. This will mean that some 3.5 million veterans will now be 
eligible for VA healthcare, and that is very, very important.
  It goes without saying that in the wealthiest country on Earth, where 
we spend more on defense than the next 11 nations combined, no veteran 
should be without the healthcare that they are, in my view, entitled 
to. I understand there is not the political support for this in 
Congress right now, but I happen to believe that in a world in which 
nation after nation guarantees healthcare to all of their people as a 
right--in fact, we are the only major country on Earth not to do that--
that the very least we could do is to make certain that every man and 
woman who has put the uniform of the United States of America on, put 
their lives on the line, are, in fact, entitled to healthcare because 
they served our country. That is my view. This bill does not do that, 
but this bill does at least enroll 3.5 million more people for VA 
healthcare, and it is a step forward.

  In terms of this bill, clearly, it is unacceptable that we have 
exposed our military members to toxic burn pits and other dangerous 
substances on the battlefield. For decades, the Pentagon has utilized 
open-air burn pits to dispose of a wide variety of waste, including 
medical, human, and hazardous waste.
  Way back in 2009, when he led the U.S. Central Command, GEN David 
Petraeus sounded the alarm ``about the effects of burn pits and 
airborne toxins on our servicemembers and civilians.'' Despite those 
concerns, DOD continued to expose U.S. forces to burn pits, leaving the 
VA with the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of these 
dangerous and deadly actions.
  So the bottom line is, I am deeply supportive of this legislation. It 
is a step forward. But we can significantly improve this bill, and that 
is why I have introduced four amendments to this important bill that I 
hope will be supported by the Senate.
  First, this first amendment that I have offered will expand permanent 
access to VA healthcare to members of the National Guard and Reserve 
who are not otherwise eligible. Right now, National Guard men and women 
who are activated on Presidential orders are eligible for VA 
healthcare, and that is good, but that turns out to be only a very 
small percentage of people who are in the National Guard and Reserve. 
And I happen to believe that if you are in the National Guard or 
Reserve and you could be called up at any moment to put your life on 
the line, I think you should be entitled to VA healthcare. And that is 
what that amendment does.
  The second amendment deals with--what can I say--a pathetic and 
laughable bureaucratic nightmare that currently exists in the VA. And 
Rube Goldberg would have a hard time coming up with a system like this. 
This is really quite amazing. And that is, within the VA bureaucracy, 
which is itself difficult to overcome for many veterans, you have a 
system which now has over 3,000 income eligibility standards based on 
ZIP Codes.
  So a veteran out there watching this says: You know, I would like to 
apply for VA healthcare. I served my country honorably. How do I do it?
  Well, it turns out that, depending on your income and depending on 
the ZIP Code that you live in, you may or may not be eligible for VA 
healthcare. So, in other words, in Vermont you can have one veteran 
with an income of X living across the street from another veteran who 
has an income of Y, $3,000 more or less. One veteran will be eligible 
for VA healthcare; another will not. In a large State like California, 
you have literally hundreds of different income eligibility standards 
that veterans are going to have to overcome.
  So if people go to a service officer in the VFW or the American 
Legion and ask: Am I eligible, it takes a lot of research to determine 
whether you are eligible. Look at the eligibility standards for San 
Francisco versus Los Angeles, for example. There are many, many 
thousands of dollars in differential. So you could be eligible in San 
Francisco--rather, eligible in Los Angeles and not in San Francisco. It 
really makes no sense. It is a nightmare.
  This amendment simplifies it. It simply says that every State in the 
country takes the highest level of income eligibility and that is the 
standard. So you will have 50 standards rather than 3,000 standards, 
and I think that will make it a lot easier for veterans to access VA 
healthcare.
  My third amendment is a pretty simple one. It says that the VA should

[[Page S2850]]

maintain a dental clinic in every State in the country to provide 
necessary dental services for veterans. Right now, there are very few 
States that do not have at least one dental clinic. My own State of 
Vermont is one of those States, and I think every State should have 
that.
  My fourth amendment again deals with the issue of dental care. One of 
the many, many crises facing the American dysfunctional healthcare 
system is that, by and large, we do not recognize dental care as being 
healthcare, and the result of that in the general public is there are 
many, many, many millions of people who cannot afford the outrageously 
high cost of dental care. These are people, including many seniors, who 
literally lose all of the teeth in their mouth; they can't chew their 
food properly. For younger people, they can't go out and get a job 
successfully because if you open your mouth and you don't have any 
teeth in it, it is kind of hard to get hired under those conditions.
  Currently, out of the 8.9 million veterans enrolled in VA healthcare, 
only 16 percent--or 1.4 million veterans--are eligible for dental care, 
and that is because, within the VA, almost the only people eligible for 
dental care are those with service-connected problems. In other words, 
if you have a service-connected issue with your mouth, with your teeth, 
you are eligible for VA healthcare, but if you don't, if you are simply 
a veteran whose teeth are rotting in his or her mouth, sorry, you are 
not eligible.
  And the limitations of that approach are not only that dental care 
should be considered as healthcare in general; if somebody is suffering 
with poor dental care, we should take care of that person because it is 
healthcare. But there is no question that dental problems, oral 
problems--infections, et cetera--have an impact on our overall health.

  According to the VA, there are roughly 3.9 million veterans who have 
chronic diabetes and heart disease who are enrolled in the VA--3.9 
million. Most of the veterans diagnosed with diabetes were exposed to 
Agent Orange during their service in the Vietnam war. Furthermore, the 
overwhelming healthcare consensus is that poor oral health worsens the 
symptoms of diabetes and heart disease. So what that means in English 
is that you have veterans out there who are struggling with diabetes, 
struggling with heart disease, and their problem is exacerbated by poor 
dental health, poor oral health; and yet they can't get the dental care 
they need, which not only should be an end in itself, but it also 
impacts their overall health.
  So, without going into great detail, I would say that providing 
dental care to veterans not only eases pain, not only addresses overall 
healthcare concerns, but it ends up being a very cost effective 
approach. In a 2019 report to Congress on the cost of expanding dental 
care--something that I asked for--the VA stated--and I quote:

       . . . the provision of dental services could result in some 
     reduction in total health care costs.
       Neglecting oral health can contribute to health problems 
     including bacterial pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and 
     oral cancer.

  In other words, when you treat oral problems, you are treating 
overall health issues; and you can keep people healthier and not have 
to expend a whole lot of money dealing with the health problems of 
those veterans.
  During a VA briefing earlier this month, the VA's office of dentistry 
stated unequivocally that ``dental care is essential to overall health 
care'' while simultaneously advocating to maintain VA's dental 
eligibility status quo.
  The bottom line is that it is not complicated; dental care is 
healthcare. By ignoring dental care, we cause other healthcare problems 
and we increase expenses to the VA.
  So those are the four amendments, and I hope the Senate will give 
them serious consideration.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.