jeffrey toobin, thanks very much for joining us. that's it for me. thanks very much for watching. be sure to join us again tomorrow in "the situation room." watch us live, dvr the show so you won't miss a moment. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." now let's step into the "crossfire" with stephanie cutter and newt gingrich. washington's latest attempt to impose rigid uniformity on every aspe specspect of our liv today's case, school lunches. >> when you hear republicans talking like that, you know there's an ulterior motive. actually they want to kill the whole school lunch program. the debate starts right now. >> tonight on "crossfire" michelle obama takes on congressional republicans. >> parents have a right to expect their kids will get decent food in our schools. >> a war of words in the war on fat. on the left, stephanie cutter, on the right, newt gingrich. in the "crossfire," margo wutan of the center of science and the

public interest and genevieve wood of the heritage foundation. who should decide what's in your child's lunch? science or the food industry? tonight, on "crossfire." welcome to "crossfire." i'm newt gingrich on the right. >> i'm stephanie cutter on the left. in the "crossfire" tonight, guests who disagree on what our kids should eat at school. the first lady summed up the argument, i quote, as parents we always put our children's interests first. our leaders in washington should do the same. yes, they should. but they aren't. in 2010, at the urging of michelle obama, congress passed higher nutritional standards for school lunches. based on science, if kids eat healthier they'll do better in school. 90% of schools are already doing this, implementing these standards but 10% are dragging their feet. today house republicans are using ridiculous nanny state excuse to undo the standards.

spending $11 million a year of taxpayer dollars on school lunches. let's not spend it on lunch. leads to higher rates of obesity and higher health care costs. i'm a new mom. i don't think you need years of parenting experience to know what the house republicans are doing is just right. newt, it has nothing to do with a year delay in these nutrition standards. they are trying to undo the standards altogether and undo the school lunch program. >> i can also claim to be a parent and grandparent. >> you have much more experience than i do. >> my only point -- what i want to start with is this whole notion, people should actually read the language. i've never seen this much hysteria over a very narrow amendment. we'll get to that. in the "crossfire," margo wutan, nutritional advocate and genevieve. let me start. >> i've read it. >> you're an expert in this area. it says only a district that verifies a net loss from operating a food service program for a period of at least six months can apply -- what they're applying for is a one-year delay. and yet the hysteria on the left

is as though this was a bill to eliminate the school lunch program. >> well, they've been talking about this as providing very narrow flexibles on issues like salt and whole grains, but it's not. this would allow schools to opt out of all the school nutrition standards for a year. this would take us back in time to the days when schools were selling unhealthy foods and allow junk food back into the school lunch program. >> wait, wait. >> i've read it. >> all it says is the department of agriculture could waive for one year. >> all the nutrition -- >> you're suggesting that this is sort of the classic conservative liberal problem in america. you're suggesting that there are school districts in america that dislike their children so much that they are so eager to get their children junk food that they're going to use this loophole to do vicious things to their own children? >> you know, actually, newt, there is evidence to show that before these school nutrition

standards went into effect, less than 15% of schools were serving healthy school lunches. now under the new standards, 90% are, so the standards are working. why roll them back? >> we're talking about very small number of schools are having problems. most schools are -- that's not true. you're punishing 90% of the kids for a very small problem. genevieve, i have a question for you. the school lunch program serves 30 million kids most of whom are from needy families, most of whom this is their biggest meal of the day. we're spending more than $11 billion on this program. why wouldn't we want the most nutritious foods to be served to these kids? >> well, i think that we do, but i would of course ask why the obama administration who gives out a lot more money in food stamps to -- >> we're talking about the school lunch program. >> i understand. that's government sponsored and we let people -- >> do you believe -- >> no, i don't think there ought to be regulations on that.

let me explain. school wlunlunches should have standards whatsoever. >> this isn't about the standards. it's about implementing them. can schools actually did it? you said 90% are doing it. that's right. they're finding out it's costing a lot more money than they have in their budgets to do this. you have some schools saving money because they're getting higher participation. >> no, you do not have higher participation. >> you actually do. >> you actually had over a million students drop out of the school lunch program last year which after decades of us actually having students increase in the program -- >> that's not true. >> let me finish. you had over a million drop off because they don't like the food and -- >> going down since 2007. >> this decrease in participation is of concern, and it's something that we've been focused on. but it's been going down since 2007. >> why do you think it's happening? >> it's a mix of things. i think it's kids bringing their lunch from home because the food wasn't healthy. and a lot of parents opted out of the school lunch program because they didn't think the

food was healthy enough. many of them don't know about these changes that have been taking place and that the food has been getting better. >> in the first full year of implementation last year, that's when you lost a million kids. so they were dropping out because they did not like -- >> that's now troot. >> i don't think you have the facts right. the fact is they don't like the food. schools are saying we can't afford this. some schools are taking money out of their teaching budgets to make up the difference here. let's be clear. what are our schools' number one priority? teaching kids how to read, how to do math. they're already failing in that category. so now michelle obama thinks we need to come in and tell everybody how to eat. >> okay. let me get clear on this. do you believe there should be any nutritional standards in our school lunch program? >> we have nutritional standards. >> do you think they should be upgraded? >> i don't know that the federal government is the one who ought to be setting them. how about -- >> who should? who should? >> how about the national -- the school nutritional association that says they're wanting this

delay because they want -- >> how do you enforce standards? >> what do you mean? if i live in massachusetts and my standards aren't as good as in georgia, you go to your school board and say, mr. school board and mrs. school board, we would like you to make changes here. >> the $11 billion we're spending on this program, we think schools should decide amongst themselves what they should serve. >> i think schools -- i think people at the local district, i think the national school board association who has asked for the waiver, school nutrition association group asked for the waiver on this, know more about the nutrition group. >> knows more than -- >> this is not a local program. this is the national school lunch program. >> exactly. >> states and localities kick in less than 10% of the money. these are federal dollars for a federal nutrition program. if we're going to spend all these billions of dollars -- >> they're saying, the schools are saying the money coming from the federal government is not enough to do what the federal government is asking them to do. >> i'm sure you know where this program started.

harry truman started the school lunch program because too many young people were being rejected from the military because of malnutrition. if there's a supporter bigger than the u.s. military for this program right now, i don't know who it is. we need to get healthy meals in their schools. >> i understand that. >> why on earth where you're giving $80 billion a year in food stamps and you have parents buying food for their children, and they're buying -- >> this is not food stamps. >> those are federal dollars -- guys, you are talking about -- we're talking about federal dollars -- >> we're talking about school lunches. >> federal dollars for food. right? that's what we're talking about. >> let's talk about the program from the standpoint. this is part of why the country is increasingly, i think, opposed to the federal government. these things are all implemented locally. they are local people hired in a local cafeteria run by a local -- with federal money -- but i'm just saying, if somebody

locally, and it's the school nutrition people who came back and asked for this waiver. they said, we have enough problems of implementation locally. people in washington say, oh, we know better. now, you know, we just asked the question the other day, should government play a significant role in reducing obesity? the country overwhelmingly is concerned about obesity. 81% say they're concerned. but by 54%-42%, the country said the federal government shouldn't. i think the reason is just you're living through the veterans administration meltdown, you're living through the failure to control the border, living through obamacare, living through the irs having all sorts of problems and people look up and say this is another federal thing that is clumsy. >> it's working. it's working great. >> why can't -- why can't you say -- >> i do accept 90%. and so that 10%, the answer to the struggles that a couple of

schools, a handful of schools are having on a few standards is not to feed unhealthy food to our kids. it's to help those schools do better. to give them technical assistance and training so that they can do -- >> you guys are not -- you're not putting the real numbers out there. there's a government accountability study that looked at this. >> which i've read. it doesn't say that. >> it said 48 states said they were having trouble, their schools were having trouble. >> i have to go to a break. i would suggest for the average american to be told that the federal government is not going to help you fix the problem the government gave you -- >> it happens every single day in our schools. next, i want to share with you what the government sees as the latest threat to the nation's health. the potato. first, today's "crossfire" quiz. how much did the government spend on good stamps last year? is it $20 billion, $50 billion, or $80 billion? we'll have the answer when we get back.

this is the first power plant in the country to combine solar and natural gas at the same location. during the day, we generate as much electricity as we can using solar. at night and when it's cloudy, we use more natural gas. this ensures we can produce clean electricity whenever our customers need it. ♪

welcome back. today, house republicans beat back a democratic attempt to enforce rigid government standards for the food schools served to students. it showed another example of massive government intervention which almost always backfires. here are some more examples. a couple years ago, new york city discovered 20% of the students in its breakfast in the classroom program were eating two breakfasts. one at home then another at school. the excess calories were making them fat. a recent studty shows consumption of school lunches is the strongest single predictor of childhood obesity and a long-term study found young girls on food stamps are 43%

more likely to be overweight which brings us to the answer to our "crossfire" quiz. the government spent almost $80 billion in food stamps last year, a record. m margo wootan and genevieve wood are here with us. just before the break i held up my potato which is actually the wic program, another government food program. the government has now decided that people, women should not be allowed to buy white potatoes under the wic program because people buy white potatoes, okay? since you already buy white potatoes because you really like them, you can't buy white potatoes with this money because we decided you can't buy the thing you like. my question for you is this. i think this is fully as legitimate as stephanie's belief that republicans are going to abolish the school lunch program on tuesday. fact is, people can say, so let's say next year the government decides we should all be vegetarians. or the government decides in two years that no one should eat

beef or that butter is now bad. so, at what point does the nanny state become so absurdly opposed to popular culture that you have to back up a long step and say, wait a second, do i really want you in my life on every front? >> we're not trying to get in your life on every front. we're not going into your refrigerator, not telling you what to buy. the wic food program is called the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children. the goal of that program is to provides food and nutrients that are lacking in low-income women and children's diets. and so it's not like food stamps where it just gives family resources to buy whatever food they want. there's a list of foods that are part of the wic food package and those foods are designed to meet specific nutrient deficiencies that are common in low -- >> you mean this is not a nutrition deficiency? is that the point? >> turns out that the potato industry is -- >> doing just fine and plenty of

women ate them. >> people are buying potatoes. nobody are saying potatoes are bad but saying this is a supplemental food package to fill your -- >> they're already getting access to it. >> the design is to fill nutritional gaps. there's no gap in potatoes so there's no need to provide extra money to people to buy potatoes. >> part of the country's reaction i think to what's going on in washington, this has been a growing feeling for at least 30 years is the elites have decided they will now tell us what they have decided, their experts have told them we should do and who we should be and how we should do it. >> that's not the case. so the school lunch program, we're spending all this money, we're providing it to schools to serve a healthy lunch to kids. we need to say what a healthy lunch is. so there are standards. if you're going have a nutrition program, you should have nutritious food. >> why don't we let the nutritionists at the state level and local level go to the school as i'm sure you did? we don't think the nutrition in georgia and new york, places don't know what good nutrition is? >> if it was a local program --

>> only michelle obama knows what good nutrition is. >> michelle obama did not set the nutrition standards. she's not a nutritionist and understands that. >> we have the nutrition association saying we need time to implement it better. >> they supported the law -- >> they're asking for time and you're saying no. >> look, guys -- >> genevieve, i want to ask you a question. >> education, health care, now apparently even what we can eat. >> you know what, if you guys -- >> here's a question for you. a study that newt cited about the best indicator of childhood obesity is school lunch programs. what that study was actually talking about is the old standards, not the current standards. it cites actually the new standards are the best solution to childhood obesity in our school system. i talked to a couple of nutrition officials today at the

one of them in burke, georgia, since these standards have gone into place, and this is according to donna martin, her test scores are up. graduation rates are up. >> that's wonderful. >> their football team that was diagnosed by the cdc with malnutrition has gone on to win the state championship. >> wonderful. >> so that is an example of it's working. and she credits these nutritional standards. >> nobody is saying they're based on sound science. >> i know you want to toss science around as though the rest of us don't believe in science and good nutrition. that's just not true. number one, nobody is saying to that school they've got to change. the question is if it's working for them, let them do it but if there is another school saying we are having to take money away from our teaching, our football team, whatever happens, then we need to find -- >> the same study led to childhood obesity. >> you want to say because it works here, it will have to work in these 100 other places. and it doesn't work that way. and stephanie, you know, that come on. >> these are nutrition standards that outline food groups and nutrients that things should be.

>> and nobody is changing that. >> the local district implements those and decides which foods to offer. >> is that called choice? if figuring out what exactly to offer based on nutritional standards? that sounds like choice to me. >> schools have a choice whether to take the federal money or not. >> that's right. >> if they choose not to take the money, they can -- >> this is like a -- you need to expand your medicaid roles, but if you don't do it our way, we won't give you the money. come on, that's called blackmail from washington. you did it in obamacare and now you're doing it here. >> you have to meet some nutrition standards. >> come on. so you're saying that some of the poorest districts in america who are the ones that have this problem. remember, the 90%. >> the 90% is not -- a lot of those are poor districts. >> right. >> that are doing well. >> there are also districts that are saying this is costing us a lot of extra money. i guess what gets to a lot of us is the arrogance of washington saying no, no, we've never

visited your town. we have no idea. >> we have visited your town. >> come on. you haven't visited all these places. >> usda has been going around and visiting schools all around the country. and they are offering flexibility. not one school has been fined over these new nutrition standards. when a school is struggling, they provide them -- >> then why are so many schools complaining? >> we're going to have to take break. >> they don't enforce. >> they don't get rid of the standards. >> everyone, stay here. we want you at home to weigh in on today's fireback question. should government require healthier school lunches? tweet yes or no, #crossfire. we'll have the results after the break. also we also will have the outrages of the day, including an outrage claim by a thin-skinned movie star. you can guess who. what can i do on a $7 a month android plan from tracfone?

check the weather. borrow ted's wheelbarrow. post big tomato pics. buy a birdhouse for sparrows. download gardening apps. answer my wife's texts.

search how to sculpt hedges into a t-rex. i can do all that with my android from tracfone for as low as $7 a month. [ male announcer ] unbeatable nationwide coverage, no contract. for a limited time, save $50 on the zte valet. now just 49.99. tracfone. do everything for less. [ chainsaw buzzing ] humans. sometimes, life trips us up. sometimes, we trip ourselves up.

and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

trwith secure wifie for your business. it also comes with public wifi for your customers. not so with internet from the phone company. i would email the phone company to inquire as to why they have shortchanged these customers. but that would require wifi. switch to comcast business internet and get two wifi networks included. comcast business

built for business. welcome back. now it's time for the outrages of the day. i'm outraged about something gwyneth paltrow said. in a recent interview, the actress complained, quote, you come across online comments about yourself and your friends and it's a very dehumanizing thing. it's almost like how in war you go through this bloody dehumanizing thing. sorry, no. i've read plenty of nasty things about myself online. and those viewers out there, you know who you are, and i don't like it, but it comes with the territory. and while i haven't been to war, have i plenty of people in my life who have. and i think it's quite a bit harder, more dangerous, require morse sacrifice than reading mean comments written by an anonymous online posters. so gwyneth, please stop talking.

instead, go to a hospital and visit wounded troops. you'll understand what war really myron, it's an amazing comment on her part. here at home with incompetent politicians always need more money. they just took taxation to new heights of absurd di. if you get your carpet cleaned, you'll pay a new tax. a new tax on bottled water if you have a it delivered. yoga studios and gym membership news carry a new tax. so in d.c., you can't be clean, healthy, or thirsty without being taxed. patiently d.c. politicians have decided they're in competition with new york city to be the capital of the nanny state. but there will probably be a tax on that too. let's check on our fireback results should. government require healthier school lunches? right now 72% of you say yes. 28% say no. i'm going to put it back to you two, for i'm sure will be a very rigorous debate on the results of that. >> actually, that's very similar

to national polls that show the overwhelming majority of parents want healthier food in schools. >> of course, who doesn't want the kids to eat healthier? and we want the school lunches to be healthier. of course we do. the question is how do you go about it and are you take aing away in some cases as apparently we are what the school's core function is education and funneling programs that they can't afford into this. i think we ought to be giving schools a year to figure it out. that's the least we can do. >> it's interesting difference. i think if you asked the question should struggling districts have some flexibility to meet federal standard, you would have gotten an almost equally large number. we'll try that out one night. >> i'm not surprised by the results myself. thanks to margo smooth wootan and genevieve wood. the debate continues online as well as on facebook and twitter prchlt the left, i'm stephanie cutter. >> from the right, i'm newt gingrich. join us next time for another edition of "crossfire." "erin burnett outfront" starts right now.

next, another major setback on the hunt for flight 370. have searchers been looking in the wrong spot the entire time? and then pour the fifth time in one month, two planes involved in a near collision in the united states. and an "outfront" investigation. rampage killings by affluent young men. did their parents make a huge mistake by sending them to therapy? let's go "outfront." >> good evening, everyone. i'm "erin burnett outfront." "outfront" tonight, breaking news. embattled clippers owner donald sterling declaring war on the nba. we also have a report from the los ange