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




                          SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] took 
the microphone earlier this evening and talked about the State of Ohio 
losing X number of dollars under the Republicans' proposal for the 
school lunch program. And we checked, and in fact under what we are 
proposing to do, compared to what would have happened had we done 
nothing, the State of Ohio gains $11.5 million.
  Then I think your colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] queried you and 
said, gee, why are we not on the same page here?
  The Congressional Research Service tells us that the plan the 
Republicans have proposed, a 4.5 percent increase gives Ohio $11.5 
million. Your response was, well, just ask PTA leaders or the teachers. 
We are supposed to be here providing the Nation with some information.
  Now, let us get it straight. Here are the facts:
  When the Democrats, and I went through this last night, when the 
Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the White House just 
last year, you made available for the school lunch program an increase 
of 3.1 percent. The President of the United States in his budget 
proposal for this year said, let us take it up to 3.6 percent increase 
this year. So we say how about 4.5 percent? And how about 4.5 percent 
for the next 5 years?
  Now, I would like to know what the assumptions are that you use to 
put your little stickers up on the map. What is the assumption that you 
use as to why there is a cut in the program when we are increasing it 
4.5 percent for the next five years, which is far more than the 
President has proposed in his budget? How does that become a cut?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The fact is you talked, the Republicans over and 
over and over again take credit for $7 billion in savings.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Wait, I reclaim my time. I will yield you time if you 
will and if you can respond to the question. And the question is this:
  The Congressional Research Service says, quite logically, if we 
increase funding for the school lunch program by 4.5 percent compared 
to what your President asked for, our President asked for, 3.6 percent, 
Ohio receives an $11 million windfall. Now, you have said
 Ohio is going to get cut. If you can and if you will respond to that 
question, I will yield you time. Comments I have no time for.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. There is an overall cut in nutrition funding. That 
money can be in at least one of these nutrition programs, children 
nutrition programs.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. We are talking about the school lunch program.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The fact is that with inflation, with more 
children in the program, with bad years that can happen when parents 
are laid off in a school district, that there will not be enough money 
for school lunches.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.
  That is what I thought. That is what I thought. The fact of the 
matter is that the Office of Budget and Management in the White House 
looked at inflation in the food market, looked at the trends in the 
growth of the school population for the whole country, and said if you 
want this program to continue to meet all of the eligibility 
requirements, if you want to produce the benefit, if you want to 
anticipate growth in the program, if you want to anticipate inflation 
in the food market, in the food basket, you are going to need 3.6 
percent in the coming fiscal year. We said we want to do better than 
that. We went to 4.5 percent.
  Now your hypotheticals are, well, what if there is a recession? What 
if children appear from another planet unpredicted by the White House? 
Now, come on, let us get serious.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, the President has a 
6.5 percent increase built into his budget. There is no----
  Mr. GREENWOOD. In the school lunch program?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. No. Overall in the child nutrition program.
  Children, it is not necessarily a national recession or children 
falling from another planet. It is a plant closing in a community when 
a lot of parents all of a sudden are out of work and there is no help 
for those families, they turn to the school lunch program.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time.
  So, in other words, the cuts on your map, despite the fact that we 
are increasing funding for every State, the cuts that you are 
illustrating on your map are anticipating hypothetical plant closings?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Hypothetical recessions, hypothetical depressions?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the gentleman let me finish a sentence?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Sure.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. The fact is you claim $7 billion in savings so you 
can fund tax cuts for millionaires, not deficit reduction.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time. That is a diversion. I am 
reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.
  The fact of the matter is that every time we try to pin you down 
about what these funny numbers are about compared to the realities, 
compared to the truth.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Where in the legislation does it say 4.5 percent? 
If the gentleman would yield? It does not. It is a number that you have 
manufactured to try to hide the cut in school lunches and cut in child 
nutrition.


                          ____________________