Jim Greenwood

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Morella amendment to the Smith language. I believe that every Member of this body who calls him or herself pro-choice should be a yes vote on the Morella amendment but so should every Member of this body who calls him or herself pro-life but also supports family planning, who also supports child survival programs around the world. The language in the bill gives every Member of this body who is pro- life anything they could possibly want. It prohibits use of U.S. funds for abortion. But it also, unfortunately, produces a result that no Member of this body could possibly want, and that is to deny life saving services to innocent people around the world, many of them children. Mr. Chairman, whether we are talking about a hospital in Russia, a community center in India or Bangladesh, a hospital in Kenyatta, where on one side of the hospital, with private funds, abortions are being performed and they will continue to be performed with or without this language, precisely because those nations lack family planning services. And on the other side of the hospital services are being provided that all of the Members in support of my friend's amendment say they support, family planning services, also providing services of child nutrition, child inoculation, services to save young lives. This amendment would cut off funds to those institutions, simply because in another wing of the hospital, unrelated [[Page H5498]] to those services, not using American money at all, abortions are performed. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, those of us who do not want to see abortion used as a method of birth control or family planning but do want to see that family planning continues internationally along with American funds for child survival programs should support the Morella amendment. The Morella amendment amending the Smith amendment is a good compromise that we should all support.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding military leader from the Eighth District of Pennsylvania upon his retirement from the U.S. Army. Colonel Joe Marm retired yesterday as the Senior Army Advisor to the 79th Army Reserve Command Headquarters stationed at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base, Willow Grove, after more than 30 years of service through leadership to our country. Joe Marm first led men as a platoon leader with the First Cavalry in Vietnam, he taught at West Point, served as a legislative liaison under the Secretary of the Army and just prior to his most recent assignment, was the Chief of Staff of the 157th Separate Infantry Brigade. He has been awarded a chest full of medals, including the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, and Army Commendation Medal. But it was 30 years ago this fall that he earned the medal worn above all others. As a young lieutenant in the vicinity of the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam, Joe placed his life before those of his fellow soldiers and earned the Congressional Medal of Honor. While enroute to assist another unit surrounded by enemy troops on that November day in 1965, Joe's platoon was forced to take cover. Seeing that his men were under intense fire, Joe broke away from the group and brought down four attackers. He then realized that a concealed enemy machinegun was raining fire on his platoon. In order to locate this weapon, he deliberately exposed himself to its bullets and launched an anti-tank missile in its direction. As the gun continued to fire, he charged the position, hurling grenades and then finally, although severely wounded, he finished the assault armed with only his rifle. Fellow platoon leader, Lt. Dennis Deal, recalled in Lt. General Harold G. Moore's bestseller, We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young, that ``Joe Marm saved my life that day and the lives of many others.'' The official certificate commended his ``gallantry on the battlefield and his extraordinary intrepidity at the risk of his life,'' praising his actions as being ``in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflecting great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of this country.'' It was later confirmed that in silencing the machinegun, Joe singlehandedly killed a North Vietnamese officer and 11 soldiers. Joe Marm was the only man to receive the Medal of Honor, America's highest decoration for valor, in the Ia Drang Valley campaign. Sadly for us, the Marms will be moving on this summer, leaving Pennsylvania after 9 years of service to pursue other interests in North Carolina. From his wife Deborah's efforts to both the business and military communities as the past executive director of the Horsham Chamber of Commerce, to Joe's service to the Horsham community and the Army family in and around NAS Willow Grove, their move is our loss. But the Marm name will live on in the ranks of our Army. Joe Marm's youngest son, Will, plans to take the Army's oath of allegiance this summer as a member of West Point's entering Class of 1999--continuing the devoted Marm family service to the defense of our Nation.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Mink substitute. It not only retains our failed social welfare system, but embodies the tenets that have converted our social safety net into a trap of dependency and irresponsibility. The Mink substitute retains AFDC as an entitlement program and continues the failed practice of providing cash benefits to teenage mothers. It is not compassionate to simply give a girl, with a child, a meager monthly check. I worked with abused and neglected children, and I know from experience that cash assistance is not the only assistance a pregnant child needs. She needs guidance to assume the responsibility of being a parent. In this debate, my party has been unfairly accused of not caring for children. But the real brutality, the true cruelty is to turn our eyes away from the existing failed system and allow children, trapped in the welfare syndrome, to stay there. H.R. 4 offers a responsible, humane solution to reducing and discouraging out-of-wedlock births. While this bill ends direct cash benefits to teenage mothers, it ensures that both children--mother and child--receive proper care. H.R. 4 provides teenage mothers with the education and parenting skills needed to achieve self-reliance and economic independence. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Mink substitute.

Mr. GREENWOOD

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. GREENWOOD. Sure.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Hypothetical recessions, hypothetical depressions?

Mr. GREENWOOD. We are talking about the school lunch program.

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. GREENWOOD. In the 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. 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. 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. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. No, I have not spoken.

Mr. GREENWOOD. It was a procedure that your side began earlier in the evening.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Would that be the gentleman to whom I yielded half my time last night objecting?

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be substituted for that of Mr. Ewing.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Actually, my intention is to yield some time to your side because I think the Nation deserves a little debate. Mr. Brown, if you would like to step up, I would like to yield some time to you so we could have a colloquy here because I was mystified by your comments.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I simply want to quickly respond to two previous speakers. The gentlewoman from Connecticut made reference to cuts in the School Lunch Program in her State. Actually under our proposal Connecticut will receive more than $3 million over what they received in this year's allotment. The gentlewoman from New York also referenced reductions. We will actually increase funding under the Republican proposal by $29.78 million in the State of New York. So this discussion of cuts in the School Lunch Programs is pure mythology.

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. I would yield if you would respond to my question.

Mr. GREENWOOD. Reclaiming my time.

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. GREENWOOD. I will be happy to yield.

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. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREENWOOD

Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. I simply asked for the time so I could respond to the comments of my very good friend, the gentlewoman from California, because frankly, she brought the debate back to where I think it should be and that is a fair debate. The previous speaker raised legitimate issues about the difference between an entitlement program and a block grant. That is the level of the discussion that we ought to have. If we have that level of discussion, then we can talk about different strategies to balance the budget. I came over here fairly upset because I am so angered to hear over and over again the use of the term ``cutting'' the funding for this program. It simply is not true. It really should not be said. The level of debate will be elevated tremendously if we talk about different strategies, whether it is entitlements or block grants. We can do that. We can have honest differences of opinion. We might actually learn from each other and find some common ground. I really would encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop using the terminology of cutting funding for this program, when in fact the facts are, and I will repeat them, when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the White House, they provided this program with a 3.1 percent increase and the president, in this year's budget, proposed 3.6 percent, and we have offered 4.5 percent for the next 5 years. If the appropriators do not do that, that is a discussion for another day. And perhaps we will join some of you in voting against an appropriations bill that does not live up to the 4.5 percent authorization. But let us be honest about where we are in the process.