[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2312-H2313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EFFECTS OF THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ON WOWEN AND CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gene Green] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments, but let us talk issues instead of speak personality.
  When the Republicans talked about the contract for America, they did 
not tell anyone it would be women and children first. The first round 
of cuts were in the school breakfast and lunch programs. The second 
round of cuts include funding for safe and drug-free schools and the 
summer jobs program.
  The Speaker may not believe liberals and even call some of us liars. 
This report that I will insert in the Record from the Houston Post 
talked about the ``foes are lying about children.'' He says they are 
lying this last weekend.
  Well, I am a Member from Texas. I am not lying about what my Texas 
State agency and my school district told me about the school lunch and 
breakfast program.
  We would sustain a cut of almost 4 percent for our lunch and 
breakfast programs. I would hope we could tone down the rhetoric and 
talk about issues. I share the concern of my colleague who just spoke.
  Again, we could see a definite cut of 4 percent in our Texas program 
and a half-million dollars in the Houston independent school district, 
the largest school district in the State of Texas.
  The school breakfast and lunch programs, as estimated by the Texas 
Education Agency, will lose for the children of Texas $261 million in 
1996. On the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, we 
tried to strike the nutrition programs from the Republican reform bill, 
but we were outvoted on a party line vote by the Republican majority. I 
will go to that in a few minutes. Let us look at what this new amended 
contract for America talks about, not only cutting children nutrition 
programs and the WIC Program. Let us see now; we are having $11 million 
for two new executive airplanes for the Army that they did not request, 
$20 million more for a new runway for
 a base that is on the base closure commission list, a million dollars 
for a bike trail in North Miami Beach.

  One thing that is apparent in this new amended Contract With America, 
there is no clause that our children will have a hot nutritious meal or 
a clause that our children will have a safe and drug-free school or 
that our children may have a summer youth job program.
  Let me continue with the children's nutrition. A TV consumer reporter 
in Houston just last night said that it took the Republican majority 40 
years to gain control of the House but only took them 40 days to cut 
food to children. The school-based nutrition grant program overall 
funding would be $104 million less in fiscal year 1996; $101.3 billion 
would be transferred out of the block grant in 1996 for nonfood 
programs, which would compromise the health of children.
  The school-based nutrition block grant would eliminate the standards 
that guarantee America's children access to healthy meals.
  There was an amendment adopted in the committee last week that said 
for the first year the States can all come up with 50 nutritional grant 
programs, but at the end of that year there would be some national 
standards. Well, we already have some national standards that apply 
whether you are in Texas or New York or California. We are building in 
additional costs into this program by having 50 States to develop their 
nutrition plans and then have to comply with some national standards.
  The new school-based nutrition block grant would not respond to 
recessions or recoveries. If this bill had been enacted in 1989, it 
would have resulted in the 70-percent reduction in funding for school 
meals in 1994 alone. Between 1990 and 1994, the number of free lunches 
served to low-income children [[Page H2313]] increased by 23 percent. 
During that period, the number of free meals served in child care 
centers increased by 45 percent. The block grants would not respond to 
the change in the school population, which is expected to increase by 4 
to 6 percent. In the State of Texas alone we would lose 4 percent of 
our funding. Every September and all during the year we have new 
children who show up at our doors and qualify for these programs. We 
are not only cutting 4 percent, but if those new children show up, they 
would not have it.
  Yesterday morning, before I left Houston, I went to a nutrition 
program in the Heights part of my district at the Field Elementary 
School. That is a school that has 90 percent of their children have 
free or reduced lunch. What 4 percent would we cut from those 90 
percent of those children and next year when we have at least 20 more 
kids who show up or are qualified, are we going to tell that principal 
or that teacher or that food service worker, who does a hard job there, 
that they cannot serve those children?
  There are reforms we can do in the program, but not cutting off the 
meals that those children have. I saw that meal. They had cereal. They 
had the option of orange juice and milk. A number of kids actually 
drank both the orange juice and the milk. They had some little 
sausages.
  I noticed this last Friday the Committee on Agriculture cut the 
effort for the Food Stamp Program.
  I am glad they are concerned about that, but I know we have some 
concern about the food stamp abuses. But I know I saw those children 
eating that food. I would hope that the Republican majority would see 
the err of their ways on school nutrition and also change that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article to which I 
referred.

                 [From the Houston Post, Feb. 26, 1995]

School Lunch Debate Serves Up Hot Rhetoric But Few Cold Facts--How Kids 
                    Would Fare Under Change Unclear

                            (by Wendy Koch)

       Washington.--Uncle Sam would no longer guarantee poor kids 
     a free school lunch if a Republican measure now gaining 
     momentum in Congress becomes law.
       Instead, states would be free to decide who gets what.
       Democratic critics say kids would suffer because funding 
     would fall, and states won't have enough money in case a 
     recession strikes. Republicans argue kids would benefit 
     because the system would be more efficient.
       But no one really knows--yet.
       The GOP bill, which scraps the 49-year-old school lunch 
     program, passed a House committee last week but needs the 
     approval of the full House--considered likely--and the 
     Senate--expected to be more difficult.
       Even if it passes, its impact will depend on how each 
     governor handles the new responsibility of feeding kids.
       Still, there's no shortage of red-hot rhetoric.
       Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to starve 
     kids. ``There are an awful lot of poor kids, and some not-so-
     poor kids, who will go home hungry,'' says Wisconsin Rep. 
     Dave Obey, senior Democrat on the House Appropriations 
     Committee.
       ``Absurd,'' responds Michigan's GOP Gov. John Engler, a 
     leading proponent of giving states greater flexibility to 
     administer programs. He says it's ``offensive'' to say 
     Republicans would harm kids.
       The school lunch program serves 24 million children every 
     day. Lunch is free for those whose parents earn less than 130 
     percent of the poverty line and is heavily discounted for 
     those whose parents earn less than 185 percent. It sets a 
     small subsidy, 20 cents a lunch, for all other kids.
       The school breakfast program serves about 5 million 
     children daily and operates similarly.
       Every child who meets the eligibility criteria is 
     guaranteed a free meal if his or her school participates in 
     the program. If a recession hits, federal funding increases 
     to meet greater demand.
       The meals must meet federal dietary standards, nationally 
     recommended for all Americans.
       The Republican measure, part of the effort to reform 
     welfare, would end the federal guarantee that poor kids get 
     meals. With that goes the nutritional guidelines.
       It would instead lump school meal programs together and 
     give states a set payment, or block grant, to administer as 
     they choose. It also would allow states to set their own 
     dietary standards.
       The measure would allow legal immigrants--but not illegal 
     ones--to get subsidized meals.
       Proponents argue that by cutting the middleman--federal 
     bureaucrats--less money would be wasted on paperwork and more 
     would be spent on meals for poor kids.
       They say their block grants would increase funding by 4.5 
     percent annually--more than the rate of inflation.
       Yet Democrats say the increase is less than they would 
     receive under the current system, which adjusts for the 
     rising number of eligible school-age kids. And thus, they 
     call it a cut.
       ``Every state will get less funding,'' says Walt Haake, a 
     spokesman for the U.S. Agriculture Department. Overall, USDA 
     estimates funding will be $309 million less next year and $2 
     billion less over five years.
       He criticizes the GOP bill for allowing states to use up to 
     20 percent of their school lunch money for other programs.
       Critics also say governors of poorer states--even if they 
     wanted to help kids--would have a tough time meeting the 
     greater demand in a recession because their funding would not 
     automatically adjust.
       ``That is the unknown, and the scary part,'' says Tami 
     Cline, director of nutrition for the American School Food 
     Service Association, which represents the administrators of 
     school meals.
       Yet Republicans bristle at the notion that governors, who 
     face re-election, won't be responsive.
       ``Why would state and local officials do that?'' asks Kelly 
     Presta, majority spokesman for the House Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities Committee, which passed the bill.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Houston Post, Feb. 26, 1995]

                    Gingrich: Foes Lying About Kids

       Roswell, GA.--House Speaker Newt Gingrich lashed out at 
     political opponents Saturday, saying anyone who claims 
     Republicans want to hurt children is lying.
       ``They're going to argue meanness. They're going to argue 
     Republicans are for the rich. And they're going to argue 
     Republicans want to hurt children,'' he told a gymnasium full 
     of loyal constituents here during a 2\1/2\-hour town hall 
     meeting.
       ``It will be a deliberate, malicious lie. And they will 
     repeat it, and repeat it and repeat it.''
       The Georgia Republican was addressing recent criticism from 
     Democrats who charge that GOP proposals to end federal 
     nutrition programs for children as well as Medicaid benefits 
     for the poor would victimize the weakest members of society.
       ``Any liberal who tells you that we are cutting spending 
     and hurting children is lying--L-Y-I-N-G,'' said the House 
     speaker.
     

                          ____________________