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


[[Page H3536]] going to be cut off the rolls in Maryland.
                    SCHOOL-BASED NUTRITION PROGRAMS
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this 
evening's special orders, but I was sitting in my office answering mail 
and became a little vexed about the discussion and decided I needed to 
come over and maybe engage someone on that side in some discussion, on 
the same subject of child nutrition programs.
  I am a member of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities that worked very carefully to try to craft this bill, 
particularly as it relates to the school-based nutrition programs.
  It angers me to hear over and over again the use of the term ``cut'' 
for these programs. It is not fair. It is not accurate. And if we want 
to elevate this argument to a place maybe we could find some agreement, 
we have to start agreeing on what is indisputable.
  What is indisputable is that we are not proposing a cut of one penny 
in the school lunch program, not a penny. In fact, we are proposing an 
increase that far exceeds, frankly, what your side of the aisle did 
when you had all of the tools available to you to set the budget.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Greenwood, like you, I was waiting for 
my turn, and I also serve on the committee with you. And let us talk 
about that ``not cut'' a minute because we served on that committee, 
and we tried to take away, and there was an amendment in committee to 
eliminate the block granting of the school nutrition.
  And it was generally a party line vote, as I recall, to take away the 
school lunch in this process and say, okay, let us do welfare reform 
without touching school lunches. And it was defeated on a party line. 
So the Republican majority in our committee said school lunch is a part 
of the welfare reform bill.
  You say you have an increase, but let me talk about and ask you about 
if this is correct.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Let me reclaim my time for a moment to state my case, 
and then I will be happy to engage you in further discussion.
  Last year when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and 
the White House, what you did in your budget was increase the school 
lunch program by 3.1 percent. We are proposing 4.5 percent for 5 years, 
which is about 50 percent better for the kids that we are doing in our 
proposal than you ever did.
  The President in this year's budget proposal, the President of the 
United States, the one who went to visit the school children in 
Maryland for lunch, he proposed a 3.6 percent increase this year. And 
we proposed 4.5 percent.
  Now I want to know who has the gall to call the difference between 
the President's 3.6 percent and our 4.5 percent a cut.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If you would yield again to me.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I would yield if you would respond to my question.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. The difference between the President is 3.1.
  I will give you an example. In the State of Texas, we are actually 
growing 8 percent instead of 4.5.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will let you reclaim your time since Mr. 
Hoke wouldn't let some Members reclaim their time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I will be happy to have anyone respond to me if they 
will indeed respond to me.
  The issue is this. I have heard Members from your side of the aisle 
all night tonight talk about a cut in the child nutrition program, 
particularly the school lunch program. I just want to know how you 
square that with these facts.
  When you ran the show here, you did 3.1 percent more in the current 
fiscal year for school lunch programs. The President of the United 
States proposes 3.6 percent, and we offer 4.5 percent for 5 years. I 
want to know what you have to complain about compared to what you did 
when you were in control and what the President proposes.
  Ms. PELOSI. The difference, my colleague, and thank you for yielding, 
is that we are talking about a block grant versus an entitlement. When 
you are talking about a block grant you are talking about a limitation 
on the number of children and the kind of nutrition they would get.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Let us talk in those terms.
  Ms. PELOSI. That is an important point because when you are talking 
about an entitlement, then the money will be there for the children.
  You are talking about a block grant that has several shortcomings. 
First of all, it is a limitation on the amount of money that will be 
spent regardless of the growth and need for children who are hungry.
  Second of all, your block grant requires that the Governors only 
spend 80 percent of that money on the school lunch program.
  Third of all, your block grant removes the nutritional requirements 
so what the children are getting does not relate to what the children 
may need nutritionally. So you can spread it out among more kids so 
that they meet certain criteria for the block grant, but it may not be 
more kids who need the school lunch. Therefore, the nutrition that the 
really needy kids are getting is good.
  Fourth of all, you are talking about the school-based lunch program, 
and you are cutting out the summer program and the afternoon program 
and the child care program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                          ____________________