When it comes to helping students succeed, there are few things more basic than making sure they eat and eat healthily at school. This is usually, and rightfully, the job of every parent. However, when it’s determined that a family is too poor to do so, churches, non-profit groups, and of course, taxpayers step in. As Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, my committee has the responsibility to review the reach and efficacy of federal government student meal assistance programs paid for by taxpayers and our national debt.
Despite being seriously mischaracterized by a recent editorial in the Recorder, the “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016,” is a major step forward in making sure an appropriate safety net exists and that nutrition standards are revised so that school food is more edible.
Community leaders have been saying for some time now that school breakfast reimbursement rates have not been increased since the 1980’s, and that the summer meal program was in need of improvements to better serve students who rely on it. So, I responded with a plan that solves these issues – all without making one kid ineligible who is currently eligible for the program, and without costing taxpayers and our debt one dime.
Opponents have asserted that our plan would be a step backward in terms of providing for students in need. Again: not one student currently eligible for meal assistance would be ineligible under this proposal. And unlike our Democratic President’s recent bathroom edicts for schools, no money will be cut off for our poorest schools.
The current rules for the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) are perverse, as they incentivize schools to be paid for giving out meals to all students, even to those whose families can or already do pay for their kids’ lunches. Under current law, a school can be reimbursed by taxpayers for offering meal assistance to every student even if just a mere 40% are eligible. This means that schools can have taxpayers pay for every meal in a school even when a majority of students are not even in need of assistance. By increasing that requirement to 60%, we at least make sure that a small majority of students actually need the taxpayer-subsidized meal, before taxpayers pay for all students to receive them. This is hardly an unreasonable or unfair threshold, and is consistent with other policies affecting the school lunch program.
Again, we use the savings from the CEP reforms and give the money right back to the schools. Contrary to the inaccurate claims that breakfast assistance would be hurt, our bill actually provides a higher reimbursement for breakfast – a rate that hasn’t been adjusted since the 1980’s! We would also use these funds for summer meals, making it easier for poor students to receive nutrition even when school is not in session. We also stop several school lunch “standards” that have only resulted in food being thrown away.
Ensuring that students in actual need have these strong protections in place is how ‘we the people’ should judge our success, not by how much paperwork an administrator has to do or how much money a school can make off of the entire school population.
My goal has been, and always will be, to help families rise out of needing government assistance. It’s not surprising that those opposed to the bill have to resort to scare tactics, claiming that we are “taking food from the mouths of Indiana’s children” in order to justify increasing federal involvement in school lunchrooms. Our proposal responsibly strengthens the programs for children in need and returns power to local leaders and parents. Unfortunately, those attacking this bill don’t approve when we can do all of this without spending more of your money.
