[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3711-H3712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, let me try to respond a bit to the colloquy 
that has occurred in the last few minutes and say that it does not make 
any difference what CRS says or what we say. Ultimately, it is what the 
principals in our schools say about their School Lunch Programs that 
matters. And what they will tell you is that each time they get more 
children.
  The point I wish to make is, ultimately, what matters is what the 
principal says about how much money she will have to feed those kids 
through a School Lunch Program, given the growing number of children 
and the growing cost of feeding those children. That is what counts 
most.
  What is worse about this bill, H.R. 4, that you have in the Contract 
on America is that when you say you are going to increase funding 4.5%, 
that is just talk. Because, quite honestly, what you have done in H.R. 
4 in the Contract on America is you have changed the game. No longer do 
you guarantee a child that lunch.
  Because, see, you may want to give 4.5 percent increases. I may want 
to 
 [[Page H3712]] give 4.5 percent increases. We do not make the 
decision. The appropriators do in this House of Congress. And if the 
appropriators do not allocate your 4.5 percent increase, if they do not 
allocate a dime, those children do not get a dime.
  That is not current law. Current law does not leave itself at the 
whims of politicians to decide what children will get. Current law 
says, we do not want to put this in the political realm. Let us leave 
it for the children, and let us make sure they are guaranteed an 
opportunity to have a decent lunch or breakfast.
  Your bill, the Contract on America bill, does not do that, and that 
is perhaps the most important point. You can claim you are increasing 
funding by billions of dollars. You can claim percentage increases over 
what we have this year. It is all just a claim because you cannot 
guarantee you are going to do one thing or the other.
  In fact, you are already making changes to your own Contract on 
America welfare proposal from what was in writing and what you promised 
people in November 1994. So why should anyone believe that what you 
promised in November, which has already changed, is what you are going 
to do in 1997?
  Let me go on to something further I prefer to discuss because it is 
getting very little attention.
  For children who are disabled right now, we should beware. If you are 
a parent of a child who is disabled, it is tough enough right now to 
raise a family. But if you have disabled kids, I suspect you can tell 
just about anybody in this room, in this floor right now, that it is an 
even more daunting challenge, regardless of your income level.
  But if you are a parent trying to raise a family and if you are a 
parent trying to raise a family with a disabled child, beware because 
H.R. 4, the Newt Gingrich Contract on America welfare proposal, will 
tell your children you are no longer going to get supplemental security 
income which helps you supplement your family income to provide 
services to your disabled child.
  Beware because about 225,000 children in America are going to be 
dumped from a program where families are assisted in aiding their 
disabled child. And over the next 5 years, around 700,000 disabled 
children will be denied SSI as a result of the Contract on America 
welfare proposal.
  In Los Angeles, roughly 20,000 disabled children and also blind 
children receive SSI. H.R. 4 changes all of that.
  Now, we hear claims by the supporters of H.R. 4 that we have parents 
who are abusing SSI. The supporters of H.R. 4 say that the caseload in 
SSI for disabled children is growing because parents are teaching their 
kids to pretend that they are retarded in order for them to qualify for 
SSI.
  Are there parents abusing SSI? Are there 225,000 disabled children 
faking their disability? Well if there is fraud, then let us deal with 
that aspect within the eligibility process for SSI for disabled kids. 
But the political Contract on America goes too far. It is overkill.
  Let me give two or three quick examples.
  Six-year-old Jennifer suffers from congenital bowel malformation 
which requires a colostomy. She also suffers from eye problems and 
lacks peripheral vision which causes her to run into walls. At age 6 
she was not yet toilet trained.
  Kendra, 2 years old, suffers from a rare growth condition in which 
one arm is twice as long as the other, causing loss of balance, motor 
impairment and spinal curvature and a loss of lung volume.
  Both of these two young children probably will not qualify for SSI. 
So here we see it. Cuts to kids. Cuts to school lunch. And what else do 
we have? Cuts to taxes for the rich and wealthy. $66 billion is saved 
under H.R. 4. What is it for? Tax cuts for the wealthy. This is not the 
way to go.


                          ____________________