[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3536-H3537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Since I yielded half of my time last time, would the 
gentleman yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. BECERRA. I would be more than willing to yield if I have some 
time at the end of my remarks, and I probably will have. If I do, I 
would be more than happy to yield.
  I think the gentleman from Illinois a while back stated it best, Mr. 
Durbin, when he said folks probably watching this do not understand 
what is going on. Is there a cut? Is there not a cut? Are the 
Republicans providing less? The answer is yes.
  I visited some elementary schools and high schools recently, and I 
was talking to those that do provide school lunch programs, and the 
principals will tell you the price of food is going up. The number of 
kids in schools is growing.
  When you tell that principal that today the dollar that that 
principal has to provide a school lunch to a child is the same dollar 
or just a slight bit more than the principal will have to feed that 
same child or the child's younger brother or sister coming up, that 
principal will tell you, ``If the school population has grown and 
inflation is cut into the value of my dollar, there is no way that I as 
a principal will be able to feed the number of students that need free 
or subsidized school lunches.''
  Let us not make any mistake about that. The Republican proposal cuts 
the amount of moneys that would be available for child nutrition 
programs in this Nation. It cuts them because it does not square the 
fact that we have inflation in this country and we have growing student 
populations. If they kept pace, then we would be okay.
  And the problem that a number of us have as Democrats is that the 
current law says that whether or not we in Congress play political 
games with the moneys for our school kids, it makes no difference 
because the law protects 
[[Page H3537]] children. The law preserves that opportunity for the 
child to be able to pay a subsidized price for that school lunch or, if 
the child is very poor, then to get the lunch free because the law 
provides that right now.
  But under the new Republican proposal, not only would there not be a 
keeping of the pace with inflation and the growth of school population 
but at the same time the Republican bill guts that protection for 
children under the law that says you will get fed. Because we 
understand and have recognized under the law that it is important to 
make sure that you have the nutrition you need to be able to learn.
  The Republican bill says, no, you will get fed if the Committee on 
Appropriations in the House and if the Committee on Appropriations in 
the Senate agrees that they will fund certain levels.
  So when the Republicans talk about their funding levels of 4.5 
percent increases, they are speculating because they haven't provided 
those moneys. Those aren't there, and they will not be there until the 
appropriating committees in each House each year decides that they will 
allocate the moneys.
  Let me tell you, I have very little faith that future Congresses will 
allocate the moneys that are authorized to be spent.
  Why do I say that? Well, last week we just finished, and I voted 
against this, proposing and adopting a bill that cut moneys. Where did 
it cut? Well, it did not do much to defense. It did not do anything to 
programs that are out there to subsidize the wealthy.
  What it did do was it cut from students, from the elderly, from 
veterans. And if I look at how they were able to make cuts in those 
programs, I have very little faith that a program like school 
nutrition, which will no longer be protected under the law, will be 
protected from cuts in the future, especially if anyone in this 
Congress is serious about trying to balance the budget.
  So whether we want to say we are providing more money or not, the 
reality is that under current law our kids are protected from the 
shenanigans and politics of Members of Congress under the Republican 
proposal that is gone, and we have to hope that not only will they 
provide the money they say but they will see the light and provide the 
actual dollars needed for that principal to provide not just the same 
meal but provide it to the growing number of kids in the school.
  What does all this do to a place like Los Angeles, CA, a place that I 
represent? Well, if in fact we are going to lose the $2.3 billion over 
the next 5 years that the Republican bill will cost us, which is about 
a 6 percent cut, then I know in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Unified 
School District, which is the second largest school district in the 
Nation with something over 600 and some odd thousand students in it, 
close to 550,000 of those children who receive subsidized or free 
lunches will not be able to eat, will not be able to eat the same 
amount, or will be told to wait until tomorrow.
  That is a lot of meals. That is a lot of kids. I think we have to 
start doing something differently.


                          ____________________