Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1147, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.

School meals are critical to reducing child hunger and providing children with the healthy food they need. Milk, offered as part of these meals, can help deliver essential nutrients that are vital to a child's development. That is why it is so important that we provide students with the most nutritious milk options.

Child nutrition standards for school meals, including milk options, are guided by the science-based Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the DGAs, which are periodically updated based on recommendations from child nutrition experts and input from the public.

The latest DGAs, along with the American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and over a dozen other public

health advocates, agree that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children.

Regrettably, H.R. 1147 attempts to legislate nutrition standards and disregard the evidence-based recommendations made by the DGAs. Furthermore, the bill would undermine the Biden administration's ongoing rulemaking to better align school nutrition standards with the latest science.

This bill would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to offer whole milk and reduced-fat milk, violating the current science-based standards that protect children's health.

Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. Conversely, fat-free and low-fat milk options offer the same vital nutrients, including calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein, and potassium, as whole milk.

Nutrition standards must be guided by scientists, not politicians. If someone wants to offer one study or another to be considered, use the DGA process, not the political process. This bill needlessly inserts politics into a science-based process.

Lastly, I am disappointed by the majority's decision to depart from precedent by moving a child nutrition bill outside of a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. Rather than improve our Nation's child nutrition programs holistically, the majority has decided to prioritize interfering with evidence-based nutrition standards for our children's school meals.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, which says in part that the passing of H.R. 1147 ``would be a departure from the longstanding tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for Federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are evidenced-based strategies to increase school meal consumption--and, by extension, potentially school milk consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve no less.''

It is signed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America, Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation, National WIC Association, and Public Health Institute.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity.

National Alliance for

Nutrition & Activity,

December 11, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chair, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House

of Representatives.

Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and the

Workforce, House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: The

undersigned members of the National Alliance for Nutrition

and Activity, the nation's largest nutrition advocacy

coalition, strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1147/S. 1957, the

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. H.R. 1147/S. 1957

would allow school meals to offer full-fat (whole) and

reduced-fat flavored and unflavored milk, and arbitrarily

exempt full-fat and reduced-fat milk from current saturated

fat limits in school meals, both of which are inconsistent

with the recommendations of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines

for Americans (DGAs).

School meal standards, by law, must be aligned with the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are reviewed and

revised every five years. The DGAs recommend full-fat (whole)

milk only for children under the age of two, and fat-free and

low-fat milk after that. In addition, the DGAs recommend

saturated fat should account for less than 10 percent of

calories per day. As such, both the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meal

patterns allow only fat-free and low-fat milk and require

that less than 10 percent of calories in the meal come from

saturated fat over the week. Earlier this year, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed

updates to the school nutrition standards to more closely

align with the 2020-2025 DGAs, which did not change the

saturated fat limit nor increase the milkfat allowed to be

served in school meals. Singling out milk--in this case,

whole and reduced-fat milk--to be exempt from the

recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines is a slippery slope

for allowing--special interests to carve out exemptions in

school meal program rules. Allowing the change in the service

of whole and reduced-fat milk will negate the progress that

has been made in the planning and service of healthier foods

to children in schools.

Milk is an important part of a well-balanced diet. Milk

contains nutrients of concern, such as vitamin D and calcium.

However, unlike fat-free and low-fat milk, full-fat milk

contains too much saturated fat to be part of a healthy food

pattern. According to USDA data, one cup of whole milk

contains around 4.5 grams of saturated fat. Full fat milk is

so high in saturated fat that the government prohibits its

labels from claiming that calcium can reduce the risk of

osteoporosis; fat-free and low-fat milk, however, can make

these claims. By allowing full-fat milk in lunch and

adjusting saturated fat allowances accordingly, H.R. 1147/S.

1957 would allow an additional 4.5 grams of saturated fat

daily in school meals beyond the science-based limit that is

currently in place.

School meal nutrition standards were strengthened

significantly in 2012. These updates were an overwhelming

success, particularly for children in who are part of

households with fewer financial resources. A 2021 study found

that school meals are the single most healthy source of

nutrition for children--more nutritious than grocery stores,

restaurants, worksites, and others. Yet even with the current

nutrition standards that limit saturated fat in school meals,

most children, on average, still consume more saturated fat

than is recommended. According to the DGA, more than 80

percent of children ages 5-8 years, more than 85 percent of

youth ages 9-13, and over 75 percent of youth ages 14-18

consume too much saturated fat. Allowing full-fat milk in

schools would only worsen this problem.

The fat content of school milk is neither the cause nor the

solution to the decades-long decline in fluid milk

consumption in the United States and the struggles of the

dairy industry. According to a 2013 Economic Research Service

(ERS) report, younger generations consume less milk than

preceding generations, but this trend is not exclusive to

schoolchildren. According to the ERS economists,

``individuals born in the 1970s, for example, drank less milk

in their teens, 20s, and 30s than individuals born in the

1960s did at the same age points. Those born in the 1980s and

1990s, in turn, appear likely to consume even less fluid milk

in their adulthood than those born in the 1970s.'' Rather

than acknowledging the fact that 36 percent of Americans

experience lactose malabsorption, (with African Americans,

American Indians, Asian Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos

experiencing at higher rates than non-Hispanic White

Americans), H.R. 1147 perpetuates the cumbersome requirement

that students must obtain a doctor's note documenting a

disability to receive a substitute for fluid milk, while

arbitrarily increasing access to the less-healthy full-fat

milk.

We thank you for your attention to this matter. Passing

H.R. 1147/S. 1957 would be a departure from the long-standing

tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for

federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of

independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are

evidence-based strategies to increase school meal

consumption--and by extension, potentially school milk

consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition

standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be

guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and

as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests

first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the

Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve

no less.

Signed,

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better

Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Heart Association, American Public Health

Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital

of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity,

Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann

Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America,

Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation,

National WIC Association, Public Health Institute.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I have enjoyed working together on many different bills, but on this bill, we happen to disagree. He has presented evidence on the floor that, instead of being considered by Members of Congress, really ought to be considered by the experts in the normal scientific process.

If the schoolchildren get the benefit of his studies, then tell it to the experts and not the politicians. I would hope that we would stick with the scientific process, as we are doing. Let's stick with the DGAs and not the political process in changing the process by trying to convince Members of Congress who are subject to political pressures on one side or another. So I would hope that we would stick to that process and not the political process.

If we have studies, then show it to the experts and not the politicians.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues are attempting to make school meals less healthy by ignoring the latest science and undermining President Biden's work to strengthen school meal nutrition.

The latest DGAs have already made clear that fat-free milk and low- fat milk are the healthiest options for children. If anybody has studies or research to the contrary, they should submit it to the experts in the normal process rather than politicians.

This bill goes against the dairy industry's recent commitment to ensuring students have access to the healthiest dairy options consistent with the DGAs.

Mr. Chairman, we should be committed to ensuring that students have access to the healthiest dairy options in accordance with science-based guidelines, but H.R. 1147 contradicts this commitment by interfering with the independent process that aligns child nutrition standards with the latest science.

I am also disappointed that we are considering a bill that does nothing to meaningfully address child nutrition or hunger. This is in stark contrast to the comprehensive science-based reauthorization of the Federal child nutrition programs that committee Democrats advanced last Congress to, among other things, strengthen evidence-based nutrition standards for school meals beyond just milk.

The bottom line is that Congress should not inject politics into child nutrition standards at the expense of nutritious meals that our children need to grow healthy.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1147, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, nothing in this bill prevents schools from offering organic milk under current law. As the main barrier for schools offering organic milk is cost, nothing in this amendment provides additional funding or support to help schools offer organic milk, if they prefer.

Fundamentally, this amendment does not fix the flaws of the underlying bill. It invites Congress to legislate on specific foods served in school meals at the expense of evidence-based recommendations from experts.

According to those experts, milk is the top source of saturated fat in American diets. Whole and 2 percent milk can raise bad cholesterol, the cause of heart disease, and contains more fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than 1 percent and fat-free milk.

This has led to organizations such as the CDC to recommend nutrient- rich 1 percent or fat-free milk instead of 2 percent or whole milk.

For children aged 2 and up, the inclusion of whole milk in the bill disregards the healthy dietary patterns backed by the dietary guidelines for Americans, the scientific, evidence-based comprehensive set of nutrition recommendations.

Over 60 organizations have expressed concerns over attempts to bring whole milk back into school meal programs. Regardless of whether milk is organic, inclusion of whole milk in this bill is detrimental to American youths' health and well-being, and the amendment fails to alter that fact.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the underlying bill and oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, nobody disputes that the dairy industry is a crucial part of domestic supply chains and provides an important economic benefit to the tune of over $753 billion to the U.S. economy.

In 2022, just five States--California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas, and New York--collectively produced more than 50 percent of the U.S. annual milk supply.

School breakfast and school lunch programs are already required to purchase domestic agricultural commodities and food products. Although exemptions exist, milk is produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. and at competitive prices to severely restrict the ability of any school to purchase foreign-produced milk.

To this end, the amendment does not fix the flaws in the underlying bill and makes no meaningful improvements to buy-American policies.

We can make sure that Chinese milk is not breaching our supply chain with continued monitoring and enforcement of present law. A recent report found that Chinese seafood has been served in schools, highlighting the need for additional diligence in enforcing present law.

I do not support the underlying legislation, and I oppose the amendment as being unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I just reiterate that present law requires domestic purchase, and so this is unnecessary. If Chinese milk has gotten into the supply, we need to monitor that. It violates present law. To suggest that we are ignoring science, the underlying bill ignores science. That is the purpose of the underlying bill.

I hope that we reject this amendment and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, current law requires that school meals and beverages offered under the school meal programs be consistent with the dietary guidelines for Americans, the DGAs, which are drafted by an advisory committee of experts. These are evidence-based recommendations set to provide nutritional guidance to ensure children receive the most nutritious meals possible.

This amendment would effectively undermine the unbiased evidence- based guidelines of DGAs by prohibiting USDA from doing its work and replacing that process with a process where evidence will be presented to politicians and we get to decide the science. It is critical that actual scientists and experts make the recommendations and guide the process in determining options in schools and that regulations are updated to align with current DGAs.

Experts, not Members of Congress, should be the ones determining the nutrition standards to ensure that our children get the healthiest meals possible.

This amendment, like the underlying bill, reinforces the precedent for Congress to legislate on specific foods, at the behest of one industry or another, that would be served in schools.

There is a reason that the school lunch program does not contain specific nutrition standards for foods and beverages, and that is to ensure that nutrition standards can adapt to the latest science and expert recommendations. Both this amendment and the underlying bill upset this policy and open the program to politicization in favor of district interests and single-food lobbies over the health and well- being of our children.

Dozens of organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, and a lot of others have urged Congress not to interfere with that process and to respect the science-based process.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens of organizations opposing this changing the science and the process.

March 20, 2023.

Hon. Patty Murray,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Martin Heinrich,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Susan Collins,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. John Hoeven,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kay Granger,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Andy Harris,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Rosa DeLauro,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sanford Bishop Jr.,

Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairs Murray, Heinrich, Granger, and Harris, and

Ranking Members Collins, Hoeven, DeLauro, and Bishop: As you

craft the fiscal year (FY) 2024 Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies spending bill, the undersigned organizations urge

you to oppose any policy riders blocking implementation of

stronger nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and

School Breakfast Programs.

We strongly support the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)'s proposed rule to strengthen nutrition standards

consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(``Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns

Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans'').

We must preserve and build on the progress schools and the

food industry have made over the past decade to meet science-

based nutrition standards. These improvements are an amazing

success story and one of the most important public health

achievements in a generation. For children in poverty, the

risk of obesity declined substantially each year after

implementation of stronger nutrition standards in 2012 such

that obesity prevalence would have been 47 percent higher in

2018 if the nutrition standards had not been updated.

Additionally, a 2021 study found that school meals are the

single most healthy source of nutrition for children--more

nutritious than grocery stores, restaurants, worksites, and

others. Research shows that children like the healthier

school meals and while food waste remains a problem in this

country, the amount of food wasted in schools has not changed

since the standards were updated in 2012, according to the

USDA's largest and nationally representative study of school

meals. For many children participating in the program, school

breakfast and lunch are the only meals they receive that day.

Despite the overwhelming success of the nutrition

standards, improvements are still needed to align school

meals with the Dietary Guidelines, which the current proposed

rule aims to do. The USDA issued a proposal that is

pragmatic, flexible, gradual, and most important--achievable.

The rule proposes, for the first time, to reduce added

sugars, with product-based limits for the top sources of

added sugars beginning School Year 2025-2026, and to phase

into a limit of added sugars averaged over the week beginning

School Year 2027-2028. These standards are critical: among

children, excessive intake of added sugars has been

associated with poor diet quality, cavities, and increased

risk of cardiovascular disease, yet more than 92 percent of

schools exceed the Dietary Guidelines limit for added sugars

for breakfast and 69 percent exceed it for lunch.

Further, sodium reduction is paramount to protect

children's health: nine out of ten children consume too much

sodium, putting them at risk of hypertension and

cardiovascular disease into adulthood. The USDA proposes new,

gradual 10-percent sodium reduction levels every two school

years for breakfast (through School Year 2027-2028) and lunch

(through School Year 2029-2030). The USDA also maintains at

least 80 percent of the weekly grains offered are whole

grain-rich.

The rule aims to align dietary patterns for sodium and

whole grains with the recommendations of the Dietary

Guidelines, but the USDA recognized that a gradual,

incremental approach to meeting those recommendations is more

feasible for schools and the food industry to implement. For

instance, children up to age 8 would still consume close to

their day's worth of sodium (83 percent) from just breakfast

and lunch combined. Sodium and whole grain-rich standards

have been the subject of many riders over the past decade,

causing confusion and stymying industry innovation and

improvements to children's health. The USDA has listened to

Congress; the proposals in this rule on sodium and whole

grains are within the spirit of those previous riders.

This gradual, incremental approach was crafted by the USDA

to be feasible for schools and the food industry. And these

standards are feasible. The largest food companies have many

K-12 products that meet

the USDA's proposed added sugars, sodium, and whole grain-

rich standards. Further, schools have been able to meet, and

in some cases, exceed the current nutrition standards during

the pandemic. In the first-of-its-kind study, a nationally

representative study of elementary schools found that meals

were meeting existing nutrition standards in 2022, and for

sodium, average sodium decreased and the vast majority of

schools were close to or already meeting future sodium-

reduction levels on par with this rule. There are plenty of

examples where schools have reduced sodium beyond the USDA's

requirements or provided more whole grains and still been

able to serve healthy, delicious, and culturally-relevant

foods to their students.

Opponents of the rule claim that the meal nutrition

standards cannot be strengthened due to labor shortages,

supply chain disruptions, and other issues facing school food

service programs. These are real challenges but require

different solutions than stalling progress for healthier

school meals. Over the past decade, the USDA and Congress

have learned that schools need the additional assistance to

meet stronger standards and they have also recognized current

pandemic-related constraints, and therefore have committed

millions of dollars to helping schools provide healthier

meals while weathering these challenges. In September 2022,

the USDA launched its $100 million Healthy Meals Incentive

Initiative with the stated goal of improving the nutritional

quality of school meals. Of that, $30 million is available

for small and rural schools and $50 million will go toward

working with food manufacturers on innovative solutions to

increase the availability of nutritious school foods.

Congress has also increased technical assistance funding each

year for the past three fiscal years (FY) ($1 million in FY

2021; $2 million in FY 2022 and 2023), with $1 million of

that funding being directed to assist with sodium

reduction efforts in FY 2022-2023. These investments will

be transformational, but the impact of inflation on school

nutrition programs means schools still struggle to make

ends meet. Therefore, increased meal reimbursement rates

will be critical to the future success of school meals

programs.

Beyond riders blocking implementation of the new proposed

standards, there are other ongoing attempts to undermine

evidence-based nutrition standards. For instance, the

proposed rule allows for potatoes to be served in breakfast

up to four out of the five school days, if a school chose to

serve vegetables in place of fruit in breakfast. Therefore

the existing breakfast potato rider--which allows schools to

serve potatoes before other vegetables at breakfast--does not

need to be included in the spending bill. Further, we are

similarly concerned about attempts to bring whole milk into

the school meals program. The Dietary Guidelines is explicit

in its recommendation that everyone 2 years and older should

limit their intake of saturated fat and choose fat-free or 1-

percent low-fat milk instead of 2-percent reduced-fat or

whole milk. The proposed rule reiterates this, while

providing flexibilities for flavored 1-percent milk. Yet

continued industry attempts to circumvent the science

persist.

Finally, there are evidence-based strategies to increase

school meal consumption that do not involve weakening

nutrition standards, for instance, enabling students to have

sufficient time to eat (at least 20 minutes of seat time)

with longer lunch periods, having recess before lunch,

serving lunch at an appropriate time of day, presenting food

in an appetizing and easily eaten way, making the cafeteria

inviting, and limiting competitive foods (snacks and

beverages sold in vending machines and a la carte) during the

school day. While some of these strategies cannot be

addressed at the federal level, we encourage you to support

these efforts.

In conclusion we urge you to oppose any riders that block

or weaken stronger nutrition standards for children.

Sincerely,

Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics; Advocates for Better

Children's Diets; Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc.;

American Academy of Pediatrics; American Cancer Society

Cancer Action Network; American Heart Association; American

Institute for Cancer Research; American Public Health

Association; Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of

Chicago; Association of State Public Health Nutritionists;

Balanced; California Association of Food Banks; Center for

Digital Democracy; Center for Science in the Public Interest;

Chef Ann Foundation; Chilis on Wheels; Coalition for Healthy

School Food; Colorado Children's Campaign; Community Food

Advocates; Council on Black Health, Inc.; Cultiva la Salud;

DC Greens.

Dolores Huerta Foundation; Environmental Working Group;

FARE (Food Allergy Research and Education); Farm to Table-New

Mexico; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); FoodCorps;

Friends of the Earth; From Now On Fund; Healthy Food America;

Healthy School Food Maryland; Healthy Schools Campaign; Hope

Community Services Youngstown; Illinois Public Health

Institute; Independent Restaurant Coalition; Interfaith

Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR); Johns Hopkins

Center for a Livable Future; Latino Farmers of the Southeast;

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners;

National Association of School Nurses; National Education

Association; National Farm to School Network; National League

for Nursing; National PTA; National WIC Association.

Nebraska Appleseed; North American Society for Pediatric

Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition; Northeast Ohio

Black Health Coalition; Northwest Coalition for Responsible

Investment; Office of Kat Taylor; Oklahoma Black Historical

Research Project, Inc.; Public Health Advocates; Public

Health Institute; Redstone Global Center for Prevention and

Wellness; Roots of Change; Rural Advancement Fund of the

National Sharecroppers Fund, Inc; Rural Coalition; Seventh

Generation Interfaith Coalition; Sisters of Charity of Saint

Elizabeth; Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia; Society

for Nutrition Education and Behavior; Society of Behavioral

Medicine; Springfield Food Policy Council; Stanford Medicine

Children's Health; The Laurie M. TIsch Center for Food,

Education and Policy, Teachers College, Columbia University;

The Praxis Project; Trust for America's Health; UnidosUS;

Union of Concerned Scientists; Urban School Food Alliance.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it impossible to update the science based on new evidence. We should be basing our decisions on science, not what somebody tells us at the gas station. I hope that we defeat the amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1147.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1147. It is Christmastime across America. For many, the season brings with it the annual return of cherished Christmas traditions, such as leaving milk and cookies out for Santa Claus and his reindeer to enjoy.

As for my family, our traditional choice of dairy has always been whole milk. We want only the most nutritious option for Santa.

The nutrients in whole milk, like protein, calcium, and vitamin D, provide the fuel Santa needs to travel the whole globe in one night. Whole milk is the unsung hero of his Christmas journey.

Protein helps build and repair Santa's muscles. Hoisting heavy sacks of gifts up and down the chimney is no easy task.

Calcium is vital for strong bones. It is calcium that keeps Santa strong and sturdy as he dashes from rooftop to rooftop.

Vitamin D is essential to a strong immune system. Santa absolutely needs one as he braves the cold, wintry night. You see, it is not just the magic of the season that helps Santa deliver presents worldwide, it is also the fortifying nutrients in whole milk.

Reflecting on Christmas traditions this year begs the question: If whole milk is a good option to fuel Santa's extraordinary Christmas Eve journey, then why isn't it an option for American schoolchildren in their lunchrooms?

That is why I support Representative G.T. Thompson's Whole Milk For Healthy Kids Act, a bill allowing unflavored and flavored whole milk to be offered in school cafeterias.

Since 2012, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program has allowed only low-fat and fat-free milk options for American schoolchildren. This means 2 percent and whole milk have been excluded from the daily diets of an entire generation of kids.

The USDA intends to finalize another rule which will further limit milk options. Anti-milk advocates advance one main argument against whole milk: that whole milk is bad for kids.

Rather, milk has 13 essential nutrients that are needed for children to live healthy lives and succeed in school. It is an essential ingredient to growth and development. Research shows that whole milk is associated with a neutral or lower risk of heart disease and obesity.

Moreover, the USDA contradicts itself by limiting milk options for young children. On one hand, it recognizes that children are at risk of underconsuming dairy, yet on the other, it creates policies that will only exacerbate the problem.

If Americans have learned anything from these past 3 years, it is that scientific authorities tend to contradict themselves. The truth is that whole milk is a significant source of vital nutrients for children's growth and development. The Federal bureaucracy should never stand between your children and a nutritious lunch.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act isn't about advocating for one type of milk over another. It is about providing parents, schools, and food service providers with the option to choose what is best for our children's nutrition.

This act does not aim to diminish the importance of other milk varieties. Rather, it seeks to restore the availability of a wholesome, natural option that has been a staple for generations. This bill is about choice. It is a chance to empower parents and schools to make informed choices about what goes into our children's diets.

Whether it is a nutritional foundation for Santa's journey or your child's math homework, let's not discount the benefits of whole milk.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to tell my colleague something that I think will be easy to remember about why we are doing this. Scientists/experts built the Titanic, and amateurs built the ark.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, we are very concerned about waste. One of the reasons there is so much waste is because whole milk is not allowed, and children don't like the taste of skim milk.

We are putting children first. We are not excluding soy drink. It is not milk. It is a plant-based food. It isn't milk, so you can't call it soy milk. You can call it soy drink.

It was under our first African-American President in this country that this was designed this way. The First Lady pushed through these rules and regulations to exclude whole milk, which, by the way, my colleague says has an enormous amount more fat.

The fat content of whole milk is about 3\1/2\ percent. We are foisting on children 1\1/2\ percent milk, which doesn't have a very good taste to many of them. We are excluding them from 3\1/2\ percent. We do not exclude soy drink. This is about inclusion and equity. We want people to be able to drink the kind of milk they want to drink.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is the vice chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two scientific articles.

[From the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy]

Dairy Foods, Obesity, and Metabolic Health: The Role of the Food Matrix

Compared with Single Nutrients

(By Dariush Mozaffarian)

Introduction

Conventional dietary guidelines from around the globe have

focused on individual nutrients to maintain and improve

health and prevent disease. This is due to the historical

focus, developed in the last century, on single nutrients in

relation to clinical nutrient deficiency diseases. However,

this reductionist approach is inappropriate for translation

to chronic diseases.

A look back at the history of modern nutrition science

provides important perspectives on the origins of the

reductionist approach to nutrition. In 1747, the British

sailor and physician James Lind tested whether citrus fruits

prevented scurvy, but it was not until 1932 that vitamin C

was actually isolated, synthesized, and proven to be the

relevant ingredient. The period of the 1930s to 1950s was a

golden era of vitamin discovery, when all the major vitamins

were identified, isolated, and synthesized, and shown to be

the active constituents of foods relevant for nutrient

deficiency diseases such as pellagra (niacin), beriberi

(thiamine), rickets (vitamin D), and night blindness (vitamin

A). This scientific focus on nutrient deficiencies coincided

with global geopolitics, in particular the Great Depression

and World War II, which accentuated concerns about

insufficient food and nutrients. For example, the birth of

RDAs was at the National Nutrition Conference on Defense in

1941, which focused on identifying the individual nutrients

needed to prevent nutrient deficiencies in order to have a

population ready for war. Together, these scientific and

historical events led to the concept of food as a delivery

system for calories and specific isolated nutrients.

It was not until the 1980s that modern nutrition science

began to meaningfully consider nutrition in association with

chronic diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes,

cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer. Intuitively, the

reductionist paradigm that had been so successful in reducing

the prevalence of nutrient deficiency diseases was extended

to chronic diseases. Thus, saturated fat became ``the'' cause

of heart disease, whereas now, excess calories and fat are

``the'' causes of obesity.

What recent advances in nutrition science have

demonstrated, however, is that although a single-nutrient

focus works well for prevention of deficiency diseases, such

as scurvy or beriberi, this approach generally fails for

chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease (CAD),

stroke, type 2 diabetes, or obesity. For such complex

conditions, the focus should be on foods.

Calories in/Calories out

The US obesity epidemic is a recent phenomenon, starting in

the mid-1980s, and the rise of obesity globally is even more

recent. The strategies to address this epidemic have not yet

caught up with advances in nutrition science. Most current

dietary recommendations and policies across the globe remain

calorie and fat focused, recommending foods based on these

reductionist metrics rather than their complex, empirically

determined effects on health. For example, nearly all

guidelines recommend low-fat or nonfat dairy foods to reduce

calories, total fat, and saturated fat in the diet, based on

the theory that this will help maintain a healthy weight and

reduce the risk of CVD. This is seen, for example, in the

2015-2020 US Dietary Guidelines; National School Lunch

Program, NIH Dietary Guidelines for Kids; and CDC Diabetes

Prevention Program.

However, foods are not simply a collection of individual

components, such as fat and calories, but complex matrices

that have correspondingly complex effects on health and

disease. Recommendations based on calorie or fat contents

fail to consider the complex effects of different foods,

independent of their calories, on the body's multiple,

redundant mechanisms for weight control, from the brain to

the liver, the microbiome, and hormonal and metabolic

responses. This growing evidence indicates that different

foods, calorie-for-calorie, have different effects on the

risk of long-term weight gain and success of weight

maintenance.

Dairy Foods and Weight

Although dairy products contribute cents10

percent of all calories in the US diet, until recently,

little direct research had evaluated the health effects of

different dairy foods. The complex ingredients and matrices

of different dairy foods, from milk to yogurt to cheese,

appear to have varying effects on weight.

Although considerable research has focused on optimal diets

for weight loss among obese individuals (secondary

prevention), fewer studies have evaluated determinants of

gradual weight gain (primary prevention). Among nonobese US

adults, the average weight gain is centslb (0.45

kg) per year. This represents a very slow, modest increment,

but when sustained over many years, this small annual weight

gain drives the obesity epidemic. This gradual pace also

makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to

identify specific causes or remedies.

To identify specific dietary factors associated with long-

term weight gain, we performed prospective investigations

among 3 separate cohorts that included 120,877 US men and

women who were free of chronic disease and not obese at

baseline. We examined weight gain every 4 y, for up to 24 y

of follow-up, and its association with the increased intake

of individual foods. Within each 4-y period, participants

gained an average of 3.35 lb. On the basis of increased daily

servings of different foods, those strongly linked to weight

gain were generally carbohydrate-rich, including potato chips

(per daily serving, 1.69 lb greater weight gain every 4 y),

other potatoes/fries (1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages

(1.00 lb), sweets (0.65 lb), and refined grains (0.56 lb).

Other foods were not linked to weight gain, even when then

intake was increased, including cheese, low-fat milk, and

whole milk. Other foods were actually related to less weight

gain: the more they were consumed, the less weight was

gained. This included vegetables (-0.22 lb), whole grains

(-0.37 lb), fruits (-0.49 lb), nuts (-0.57 lb), and yogurt

(-0.82 lb) When sweetened vs. plain yogurt were evaluated,

each was associated with relative weight loss, although when

sweetened, about half the benefit was lost.

What could explain these findings? We hypothesize that

different foods have varying effects on multiple redundant

mechanisms for weight gain, including effects on hunger and

fullness, glucose, insulin and other hormonal responses, de

novo fat synthesis by the liver, gut microbiome responses;

and the body's metabolic rate.

Based on these findings, certain foods, when consumed over

the long term can have relatively neutral effects on weight,

others promote weight gain, whereas still others promote

weight loss.

Interestingly, although we found that cheese, low-fat milk,

and whole-fat milk were each unassociated with weight change,

there is evidence that dairy foods may promote healthier body

composition. Consistent with our findings, a systematic

review and meta-analysts of 37 randomized clinical trials

with 184,802 participants, which assessed the effect of dairy

consumption on weight and body composition, found that

overall, dairy consumption had little effect on BMI. Body

composition, however, changed significantly. Dairy

consumption led to a reduction in fat mass (0.23 kg) and an

increase in lean body mass (0.37 kg). Overall, high-dairy

intervention increased body weight (0.01, 95 percent CI:

-0.25, 0.26), and lean mass (0.37, 95 percent CI: 0.11,

0.62); decreased body fat (-0.23, 95 percent CI: -0.48, 0.02)

and waist circumference (-1.37 95 percent CI: -2.28, -0.46).

In subgroup analyses, such effects appeared larger in

trials also having energy restriction, but such subgroup

findings should be interpreted cautiously The types and

frequency of dairy products consumed varied among these

trials, making it difficult to make distinctions in this

meta-analysis about the effects of different types of dairy

products such as low-fat or whole fat, or milk, yogurt, or

cheese. When viewed in combination with our long-term

observational findings, the joint results suggest that dairy

foods do not promote weight gain, that dairy consumption may

reduce body fat and augment muscle mass, and that the type of

dairy product (milk compared with cheese compared with

yogurt) may be more important for preventing long-term weight

gain than the dairy fat content.

Dairy Foods, Probiotics, and the Microbiome

Many pathways appear relevant to the concept that foods

cannot be judged on calorie content alone for risk of

obesity. Among these, the gut microbiome is particularly

interesting. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the

quality of the diet strongly influences the gut microbiome.

Among different factors, probiotics have been studied for

their effect on the microbiome; as well as potential benefits

of fermented foods, which may be greater than the sum of

their individual microbial, nutritive, or bioactive

components.

For example, in an experimental model, mice genetically

predisposed to obesity were provided control diets or a

``fast-food'' chow with and without probiotic-containing

yogurt or a single probiotic (Lactobacillus reuteri) in

water. Without probiotics, mice on the fast-food chow gained

significant weight. However, the addition of either

probiotic-containing yogurt or water prevented this weight

gain. Crucially, the probiotics did not appear to reduce the

amount of calories consumed; rather, the benefits appeared

related to changes in microbiome function and inflammatory

pathways. The results support weight benefits of probiotics

and, more importantly, provide empiric evidence that

challenges the widely accepted conventional wisdom that

the effects of different foods on obesity depend largely

on their calories.

Consistent with this animal experiment, a recent systematic

review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials

examined the effects of probiotics, either in foods or as

supplements, on body weight and composition in overweight and

obese subjects. Administration of probiotics significantly

reduced body weight percent (-0.60 kg), BMI (-0.27 kg/m\2\),

and fat percentage (0.60 percent), compared with placebo. A

separate meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

demonstrated that consumption of probiotics in foods or

supplements significantly improves blood glucose, insulin,

and insulin resistance. The trials in these two meta-analyses

were neither long-term nor large--in all, a total of about

1,000 subjects were included in each meta-analysis, with

trial durations ranging from 3 to 24 wk and with varying

designs in terms of controls, disease conditions, and

composition of probiotic preparations evaluated. Nonetheless,

together with observational and experimental evidence, these

studies provide compelling evidence to support weight and

metabolic benefits of foods rich in probiotics.

Dairy Foods, CVD, and Diabetes

Although an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes and

CVD, growing research suggests that specific foods may also

directly alter disease risk. In a meta-analysis of 29

prospective cohort studies including 938,465 participants who

experienced 93,158 deaths, 28,419 incident CAD events, and

25,416 incident CVD events, neither total dairy nor milk

consumption was significantly associated with total

mortality, CAD, or CVD. Notably, findings were similar when

total whole-fat dairy, or low-fat dairy were separately

evaluated. In contrast, the intake of fermented dairy

products (predominantly cheese, plus yogurt and fermented

milk) was associated with modestly lower risk of total

mortality and CVD, with about 5 percent lower risk of each

per 50 g daily serving. In addition, the consumption of

cheese alone, the dairy product with the highest amount of

dairy fat, was associated with a significantly lower risk of

both CAD and stroke.

In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis cohort,

including 5209US adults with Caucasian, Asian, black, and

Hispanic backgrounds, different food sources of saturated fat

were analyzed for their relation with subsequent CVD risk,

adjusted for sociodemographics, medical history, and other

dietary and lifestyle factors. A higher intake of saturated

fat from dairy sources was associated with significantly

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), who is my classmate.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, we are waiting for one more speaker to come, so I will yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate some points that were made before. We are not being driven by any special interest group lobby. We are being driven by the special interest group of children. We want children in school to have access to whole milk, which, as my colleagues have pointed out, is 96.75 percent fat-free, but it provides one of the most nutritious meals that children can have.

We are seeing tremendous waste in the schools. We are not excluding soy drink. The policy that we are trying to overcome here by providing whole milk to children was a policy passed under the Obama administration. We are not trying to harm minorities in any way whatsoever. We want everybody to have the choice to drink a soy drink, whole milk, skim milk, 1 percent milk, whatever.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to myself.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has been terribly mischaracterized by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is about healthy choices for children.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have seen a lot of bills mischaracterized on this floor in my time here, but I think this is one of the worst.

Passing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act would be a critical step toward empowering parents and securing our children's well-being. Whole milk isn't just a beverage; it is a vital source of nutrients essential for children's growth. Denying access to its calcium, vitamin D, and protein threatens to inhibit their development.

To the anti-milk advocates, I have one thing to ask of you: What do you have against milk?

If you scrutinize them closely, you might be convinced that Democrats are waging a war on dairy. The Democrat administration has presided over a 15 percent milk price increase in the grocery store.

A Democrat proposal, the Green New Deal, calls for the elimination of cows for their so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

A Democrat policy is slashing the milk available to newborns through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for women, infants, and children by four quarts.

A Democrat interest group, PETA, has called milk a so-called white supremacist symbol. How patently absurd.

Let's end the war on milk and pass the bill.

Together, we can ensure that our children have access to the nutritional foundation they need to thrive and become the healthy, vibrant leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is here in the Capitol today. The President of Ukraine left his war-torn country to come to the United States to plead for our help in repelling Putin's murderous and unlawful invasion, in protecting his people, and in preserving their democracy.

As he did so, Putin unleashed a devastating missile attack on Kyiv and was captured on video drinking champagne and toasting the downfall of Ukraine if its Western allies falter.

President Zelenskyy came here to ask the United States to stand tall and honor its commitment to an ally, its commitment to democracy, and its commitment to upholding international law. In response, the United States House of Representatives is debating the merits of chocolate milk.

We will not long remember the MAGA majority's great gas stove war of 2023 or their attempts to make it easier to kill the endangered lesser prairie-chicken, but the sad fact is, these bills have consumed weeks of precious floor time this year as the House majority struggles to pass any legislation of note.

The world will, however, remember if the United States fails to support Ukraine in its hour of need.

President Zelenskyy, our NATO allies, and the American people should expect better from this Congress. Under this extremist majority, they are doomed to disappointment, which again brings us here today to debate chocolate milk.

When I was home this past weekend, I had the chance to talk with many of

my constituents. I met with women small business owners to discuss their challenges. I talked to college students about their concerns regarding attacks on reproductive freedom here in the United States. I gathered with people in our community who have lost loved ones, neighbors, and friends to gun violence, and I listened to their calls for action on commonsense gun safety legislation.

Overwhelmingly, people came to talk to me about making our country a place where all Americans, all children, can thrive. That means bringing down the cost of healthcare, childcare, household energy, and high-speed internet so families can care for their kids, heat their homes, and stay connected. This means investing in infrastructure, good-paying jobs, and public education so we can strengthen our economy, lower costs, build safer communities, and create opportunities so everyone has a shot at a brighter future.

These are the things I came to Congress to do.

In these last legislative days of the year, these aren't the things that House Republicans are doing. I would call it unbelievable except we have seen the same story play out over and over again in this Chamber all year.

For months on end, MAGA extremists have dragged our country to the brink of default, nearly shut down the government twice, and even ousted their own Speaker. Pushed by the most extreme members of their Conference, they have brought chaos to the House floor. They have put up bills only for them to tank and have to be withdrawn as they fight among themselves. They spent 25 days just arguing over which one of them should be Speaker. This is all on the American people's dime.

Now, with pressing challenges at home and around the world, they are pushing a completely discredited impeachment inquiry and other naked political stunts, all to distract from their own inability to govern. They have done nothing to deliver for the American people, and Americans deserve better than this.

House Republicans refuse to get their act together. Today, they have brought to the floor two misguided and marginal bills that fail to address any of the major threats or concerns our country or our constituents face. Both bills open the door to the influence of more special interests in our government's functions.

I should note that, today, we were supposed to consider two additional bills impacting our national security and individual rights. Due to infighting among Republicans and their own committee chairs, these measures were pulled last night from the schedule, leaving us with another wasted day of chaos and incompetence.

The first bill we have today is H.R. 1147, which makes changes to school nutrition standards in a way that would undermine science and undo important progress made over the past 13 years.

Schools play an essential role in our kids' health. For so many children, the meals they get at school represent the majority of calories and the most nutritious meals they consume all day.

We saw this reality clearly during the first days of the pandemic when, as schools closed down, the prospect of missed school breakfasts and lunches threatened the health of children across America.

The meals served in schools are based on the most recent set of dietary guidelines as determined by child nutrition experts. These guidelines stay current and are updated at least every 5 years. In fact, in February of this year, the Biden-Harris administration began the latest update.

When I served on my local school board, and before as a Home and School president, I was involved in efforts to improve and implement what was at the time new Federal improved nutrition standards for our district's meals.

Through that experience, I know just how important nutritious meals are to helping students succeed and form lifelong healthy habits. We have seen immense benefits since Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act in 2010.

The research shows that the millions of children who participate in school meal programs have better overall diet quality than those who do not. Studies prove, despite arguments to the contrary, that students eat and enjoy these meals. When presented with healthy choices, they take them.

Allowing whole milk, particularly flavored whole milk, to be served in schools is against current dietary recommendations and against the recommendation of experts, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

We know that too much saturated fat can raise bad cholesterol levels, a known cause of heart disease. Most troubling, many varieties of flavored milk that are pushed by this bill contain unhealthy chemicals, such as artificial colors and flavors, and nearly twice the amount of sugar as plain milk.

At a time when one in five school-age children already has adverse cholesterol levels, we should not be making it easier to serve unhealthier meals in schools.

This bill blatantly ignores the science.

Even if you deny these facts, everyone should be able to admit we are long overdue for a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. We owe it to students and their families to consistently improve the meals that schools are serving. The last comprehensive reauthorization of the laws governing school meal programs was done 13 years ago.

I wish the Republican majority would spend more time helping to pass comprehensive policies to support our schools as they work to provide healthier and more satisfying meals to our students within current nutritional standards. We should not waste time on this one-off change to serve special interests that circumvent the normal process for updating meal standards.

I think we owe it to our children, their health, and their futures to let the experts guide what we are providing them to eat in schools. We should not allow politicians to make the decisions in what should be a science-based process.

Today, we are also considering H.R. 357, another attempt by the Republican majority to derail the Federal rulemaking process. This is an unnecessary and vague bill designed to undermine the critical work of Federal agencies.

It is part of a MAGA narrative that unfairly and untruthfully paints hardworking Federal employees, nonpartisan experts in their fields, as faceless bureaucrats who are somehow hostile to everyday Americans.

The fact is that the regulatory process that our Republican colleagues seek to frame as a battle against some vast bureaucratic conspiracy is actually an essential part of ensuring that we all have clean air and water to breathe and drink, healthy food to eat, and safe planes, trains, and automobiles to travel in.

The truth is that Congress already has a wide range of ways to exercise oversight and control over rulemaking.

If the majority is so concerned about improving the process, they would join Democratic efforts to ensure corporate interests can't game that process. They would advocate for incorporating more public feedback in those agencies' decisions.

They don't really want to make the process better. Instead, bills like this would create a bottleneck in our government's operations that will prevent rules that the Republican majority doesn't like.

This bill would politicize the process of confirming nominees to administrative agencies even more than it is already. Individual Senators would have even more incentive to block an administration's nomination for partisan and corporate goals. More corporate influence would be allowed to infiltrate the Senate confirmation process. Ultimately, our agencies would be obstructed from doing important work to protect the American people's health and safety and making government function better.

It is clear my Republican colleagues don't want to make our government work better. These aren't traditional conservatives. They are nihilists dedicated to grinding government to a halt.

With this bill and their previous efforts to decimate Federal rulemaking, they prefer to upend the regulatory process, even if it improves the lives of Americans every single day.

The Federal Government has long played an important role in promoting

the health, safety, and welfare of the American people. We should ensure that it is able to continue doing so.

Again and again, we have seen this Republican majority prioritize the wrong things this year, and today is no different. They are using valuable floor time and committee time to pass marginal bills, enable their own infighting, and launch an act of petty political vengeance against the current President. Then, they are going to call it a year and go home for the holidays. This is an unacceptable way to govern. It is not governance at all.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The epidemic of gun violence has touched every corner of America, tragically devastating families, tearing apart communities, and scarring schoolchildren.

In 2022, nearly 50,000 people died by guns, an average of one person every 11 minutes. This includes almost 20,000 homicides. Mass shootings skyrocketed from 272 in 2014 to 645 last year. In 2020, firearms became the leading cause of death for American children and adolescents. From 2013 to 2022, there was a staggering 87 percent increase in the child and teen firearm death rate.

In 2023, the heartbreak has only continued. As of today, there have been over 40,000 lives lost and over 630 mass shootings. Over 800 schoolchildren 11 years old or under have been killed or injured with guns. Over 4,000 school-age teens have been touched by gun violence.

The American people are crying out for Congress to act. Yet, the House of Representatives is using its precious time to debate chocolate milk. The American people deserve better.

House Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to tackle this epidemic. If we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

With the rule we consider today, the Republican majority ends a failed year in the choke hold of its most extreme members. They are finishing out 2023 as they started: unproductive, ineffective, and unconcerned for the American people. They have ignored the real problems facing our Nation today, issues like the gun violence crisis, ongoing threats to Americans' fundamental freedoms, access to economic opportunity and good-paying jobs, and threats to our national security.

They have filled this Chamber with culture wars and conspiracies and pushed policies that would hurt our children, families, students, seniors, members of the Armed Forces, and workers. They have turned their backs on our allies: democracies standing in the breach against forces that pose serious threats to our own national security. They have wasted days, weeks, and months with cheap political stunts all to the detriment and on the dime of our constituents.

Congress is supposed to work for the people, and this is not what the people sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put people over politics and to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership and support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my legislation, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, that supports students and dairy farmers across America.

Milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, offering 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits.

Out-of-touch Federal regulations have imposed dietary restrictions on the types of milk students have access to in school meals.

Our ranking member is a dear friend of mine, and we have worked together. I have been here for 15 years and him a little longer. We have a great relationship and have had a lot of bipartisan bills together, like we marked up yesterday.

Mr. Chair, I have to say, the only special interest here is our kids. It is our kids who have been cheated out of the nutrition that they need. Case studies have shown that the rate of obesity and being overweight increased dramatically after access to whole milk and flavor was taken out of the schools in 2007-2008, which was a baseline. In 2010, a Democrat-led initiative demonized milk fat. In 2020-2021, there was a study of that same cohort, and obesity has gone up without this beverage.

Mr. Chairman, regarding my good friend from Louisiana, who just spoke, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The facts are that it is the underlying law that was passed back in 2010 by a Democratic House and signed by a Democratic President that, quite frankly, required a physician prescription for health reasons.

That is a good part of the law, and we didn't touch that. We didn't address that in this bill, so I am not sure why he is talking about it. It is not germane to the topic we are talking about today. That is the underlying law.

The bottom line is that students and parents do have choice. There is a mechanism to honor that. The only choice they don't have, though, is access to the most nutritious beverage, which is whole milk-- specifically, whole milk and flavor.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana sharing how much waste there was and what that amounts to in cartons and half pints and what it amounts to in dollars. That is because of the taste experience. It is not that these kids are throwing the milk away because it is unhealthy for them. It is just a terrible taste experience when you are drinking low-fat or nonfat milk.

Students have been limited to fat-free or reduced-fat milk since the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was enacted in 2010.

While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have argued that we should not reform individual aspects of child nutrition, it was that legislation more than a decade ago that singled out milk for regulation, which is why we are here today.

There are several reasons why these top-down regulations are harmful to students and school districts that are forced to comply with them.

First, we have seen students opt out of consuming milk altogether if they don't have access to a variety that they enjoy. According to the ``Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee,'' more than two-thirds of school-age children failed to meet the recommended levels of dairy. No kidding. We took out most nutrition and most taste and made it inaccessible to them.

Let's face it, the only way to benefit from milk's essential nutrients is to consume it. We are not force-feeding anybody anything. This is about choice. When students turn away from milk, they often opt for far less healthy alternatives that are highly caffeinated, sugar- sweetened, or lack key nutrients.

These regulations also perpetuate baseless claims that milk is bad for our kids. Research has shown time and time again that whole and 2 percent milk are not responsible for childhood obesity and other health concerns. In fact, these beverages are so nutritious that research shows positive health outcomes for kids who consume whole milk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record academic studies from researchers around the world, including from top institutions such as Boston University and Tufts, who have studied the health effects of full-fat dairy.

[From the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition]

Whole Milk Compared With Reduced-Fat Milk and Childhood Overweight: a

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Childhood obesity has tripled in the past 40 y, with nearly

1 in 3 North American children now overweight or obese (1-3).

Over the

same period, consumption of whole-fat cow-milk has halved

(4). The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian

Paediatric Society recommend that children switch from whole-

fat cow-milk (3.25%) to reduced-fat cow-milk (0.1 to 2%) at 2

y of age to limit fat intake and minimize the risk of

childhood obesity (5, 6). European (7), British (8), and

Australian (9) health authorities have provided similar

recommendations. Healthcare providers (10) and families (11)

frequently follow this guideline, and school and child-care

nutrition policies (12-14) often reflect them. Since 1970

whole-cow-milk availability has dropped by 80% in North

America, whereas reduced-fat milk purchases have tripled (15,

16).

Given that cow-milk is consumed daily by 88% of children

aged 1 to 3 y and by 76% of children aged 4 to 8 y in Canada

(17) and is a major dietary source of energy, protein, and

fat for children in North America (17, 18), understanding the

relation between cow-milk fat and risk of overweight or

obesity is important. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on

the relation between total dairy consumption and child

adiposity have had conflicting findings. According to these

studies, higher cow-milk intake in children is associated

with taller height and better bone and dental health (19-21).

Although these studies evaluated total dairy consumption,

they did not consider cow-milk fat specifically. The

objectives of this study were to systematically review and

meta-analyze the relation between whole-fat (3.25%) relative

to reduced-fat (0.1 to 2%) cow-milk and adiposity in

children.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was

conducted. The study was designed according to the Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

guidelines (PRISMA-P) (22) and registered as a PROSPERO

systematic review and meta-analysis (registration number:

Mr. Chairman, these studies show, among other things, that full-fat dairy foods have little to no association with high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, blood pressure, or cholesterol.

In fact, several of these studies show that full-fat foods help improve or lower negative health outcomes for children who drink more full-fat dairy beverages.

Mr. Chairman, additionally, since whole milk was removed from school lunchrooms, the childhood obesity rate has increased, according to the CDC and several case studies. Whole milk is not the problem.

For our children to excel in the classroom and beyond, they must have access to more nutritious options, not fewer.

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act will allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to serve all varieties of flavored and unflavored milk, including whole milk.

It is important to remember that this legislation does not require any student to drink, or any school to serve, whole milk. Rather, this legislation simply gives schools the flexibility to serve a broader variety of milk in the school lunchroom.

Additionally, if students have a documented medical condition or disability that prohibits them from safely or comfortably consuming milk, schools are required to offer them an alternative beverage. This legislation would not change that standard.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to have 134 bipartisan cosponsors from 44 States.

The bottom line is the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is about ensuring students have the necessary nutrients to learn and grow.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Scott for his time and leadership in this matter.

I rise today in opposition to this bill. Monday night, the Rules Committee considered my amendment, amendment No. 16, to H.R. 1147, which would have provided an alternative, a healthy alternative to our young people, people that cannot digest milk.

I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that this was a choice. Well, if there were a choice, then why not add soy as a choice. Soy gives the equivalent of the nutritional values as whole milk, but it does not have the negative impact that whole milk has on a large swath of people in our community.

I will tell you those numbers. Ninety-five percent of Native Americans have lactose intolerance. Ninety percent of African Americans are lactose intolerant. Sixty-five percent of Latino Americans are, in fact, lactose intolerant. Asian Americans, 90 percent. These are real numbers. This is not about taste. This is not about profit. This is not about bottom line. This is not about a powerful lobby. This is about the safety, nutrition, and well-being of our young people.

We cannot ignore the impact that ingesting or attempting to digest things that your body cannot and what impact it has on one's ability to concentrate or do well in the classroom.

My colleagues and I formed a diverse group, represented by chairs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Asian Pacific American Caucus, and a vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus respectively. We all firmly believe that the full House should be allowed to debate this important measure, making sure that we were given the opportunity on the floor to debate this amendment. I believe if given the opportunity to be heard, even the other side could have and would have been able to support.

What is most perplexing is how this amendment aligns with the purpose of the underlying bill, to expand choice and to deliver healthy beverages to the school counter. Our amendment is based on the text of my bill, H.R. 1619, the ADD SOY Act. It amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Program to strike the onerous ``milk note'' requirement and to stipulate that the USDA reimburse school districts to make a plant-based dietary alternative that is nutritionally equivalent to cow's milk available in school. Yes, a choice, a real choice.

When Congress enacted the milk mandate 80 years ago, the United States was less diverse, and we did not understand the exact science surrounding lactose intolerance. Between 70 to 90 percent of African Americans today are lactose intolerant. Ninety percent of Asians, 95 percent of Native Americans, and 65 percent of Latinos are, in fact, lactose intolerant.

The National Institutes of Health reports the majority of all people have reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and it adds that it is also very common in people from West Africa, Arab, Jewish, Greek, and Italian descent.

Currently, if a student wants a nutritionally equivalent alternative to milk, they need to get a doctor's note or parent's note to obtain a plant-based beverage. Oftentimes, parents are working two jobs. Oftentimes, unfortunately, parents don't pay as much attention or are as in tune and have an opportunity to get to the school or even have healthcare to go to a doctor to get a note. Should that child still be punished and forced to drink something that their body simply cannot digest?

How do you concentrate in the classroom when you are drinking and attempting to digest something that your body cannot? What happens to that child when they belly up to the desk and have to study or pay attention but their body is telling them that they have eaten something that does not agree with them? It causes a problem. It causes ridicule. It causes the ability or inability to concentrate and perform at their highest level. Because of this high barrier to entry, kids often don't. Many skip school or don't do well in school as an alternative.

If 75 percent of African Americans are lactose intolerant, which is true in my family, why should three-quarters of kids have to get a note. It is not a medical disability to be African American. It is not a medical disability to be Vietnamese American. It is not a disability to be Native American. It is not a disability to be Latino.

Lactose intolerance is genetic. This isn't complicated. Kids should be given

a healthy fluid beverage option that doesn't make them sick. Our amendment would have provided a sensible solution. Allow the USDA to reimburse school districts for soy milk, which so far is the only plant-based milk that has been recognized under the latest formulation of the 2020 American Dietary Guidelines to be healthy and nutritionally equivalent to cow's milk.

Moreover, there is a primary reason that more than half of all milk given to children is thrown into a cafeteria trash can unused, carton after carton after carton of discarded cartons of milk that have never been opened. At some point kids realize it isn't good for them and they don't drink it. Whatever nutritional value you thought you were affording by giving milk doesn't happen if young people can't consume or digest it.

Many kids don't want milk because it makes them sick. According to the USDA, 29 percent of cartons of cow milk served in our schools are thrown into the garbage unopened. This comes out to be somewhere around $300 million in annual waste of taxpayer funds for milk cartons. It is clear that not only is it a food waste issue but a failure on the NSLP to supply food to kids that are consumed and meet their daily nutritional requirement. The present rate of food waste and taxpayer losses is not acceptable.

Mr. Chair, I ask whether my Republican colleagues think it is a good policy. Is that good stewardship of our tax dollars? Is that delivering good health outcomes for all kids?

If they believe it is, then they should agree and recognize that adding a true alternative is a good thing. I remind my colleagues that it is not a medical condition to be Black, Latino, Asian, Jewish, or other ethnicities.

This is an issue of racial equity and inclusion, as well as tightening government spending and waste. It is both a matter of squandering tax dollars and a matter of fairness. The kids who have the least and who have the most difficulty raising their voices are being denied a food staple that they simply cannot stand.

We must fix this. Let us strive to do better for the next generation and equip them with the nutritional sustenance at the lunch counter that can give them an opportunity to not just survive but thrive.

Mr. Chair, I implore you to think about the children. Don't think about the profits. Don't think about the lobby. Don't think about the efforts of a winner or loser. Let's put children first.

Let's make sure that we, as a Congress, recognize the value of fighting for those who have not been given the opportunity to fight for themselves.

Add soy. Create true alternatives. Do not force people to digest things that their bodies simply cannot.

Mr. Chair, it is for this reason and this reason solely that I cannot support this measure without true alternatives.