Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) wants poor kids to sweep the cafeteria to pay for their lunches. He talks about them learning "the value of hard work" and that there's "no such thing as a free lunch."
You'll notice that he's not suggesting that kids from rich families do any work. (After all, their parents can afford to buy them lunch.) And it's not like that work could possibly repay the cost of the program. (In fact, he admits that making kids do janitorial work would actually make the program MORE expensive.) So this is all based on the assumption that kids with poor parents are lazy and don't understand the value of money - which just happens to be the exact opposite of the truth.
I went to a small high school where more of the students were from families wealthier than my own. The rich kids did not work significantly harder than I did, and they were not more appreciative of the value of money. In fact, they worked less, and got more. (The latest fashions, winter tans, birthday parties in the Hamptons.) And just like the poor kids, they got their lunches for free - because their parents paid for them. (It doesn't matter if that lunch is paid for by Uncle Sam or Daddy Warbucks; in either case, someone else is buying the kid's food, not the kid.) It's the rich kids who need the lesson in the value of money, not the poor kids who have to scrimp and save to buy what they need.
Kingston clearly assumes that the poor are poor because they're lazy spendthrifts... obviously it has nothing to do with, say, having limited opportunities because of a lack of access to a good education. (Kingston's dad was a widely published university professor, but the way, and he was raised both in the US and Africa.) But maybe, as a thought experiment, Representative Kingston could spend a few months working as a waiter or an Amazon.com warehouse clerk. Then he would get to see just how hard you have to work if you're unlucky, and how little you are paid for it.