Corrine Brown

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act or what I call the Anti-Florida/ Anti-Juvenile Justice Act. Although the author of this bill is from my home State of Florida, this bill does nothing to assist Florida's juvenile justice system. As a former Florida State representative, with a degree in criminology, and a longstanding member of the State Corrections Committee, I can say that Mr. McCollum's proposal is anti-Florida and does nothing to address crime prevention. According to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, H.R. 3 should not be mandatory and connected to purse strings. The proposed Federal mandate will eliminate the State's attorney's discretion to prosecute adolescent offenders in juvenile court. In fact, the bill will have the opposite effect of what it is intended to do. With the discretion of the Florida State's attorney, the majority of 15-year-olds receive tougher sentence in a juvenile correctional facility. If tried as an adult, H.R. 3 will actually give Florida's 15-year-olds lighter sanctions. I thought Mr. McCollum wanted to increase juvenile punishments, not reduce them. Under H.R. 3, 75 percent of the funding formula will be given to county governments. Florida has a State-financed and operated juvenile justice system. Instead of providing money for existing State programs, this bill will create yet another level of bureaucracy. I don't understand why the author of such legislation would want to bypass his own State's juvenile justice system. Now let's talk about the children. Under H.R. 3, juveniles as young as 13 can be tried and jailed as adults, their records will be opened to public scrutiny, and they will live side by side with society's most violent criminals. To punish these young children as adults is severe, to say the least. This so-called juvenile justice bill doesn't care much for children. H.R. 3 will put more 15-year-olds in jail with violent adults than ever before. I don't think child abuse, rape, and suicide of jailed children is a justifiable punishment for simple misdemeanors and property crimes. As leaders of our country, we should give our children opportunities to excel and reasons to turn away from crime and delinquency. It is proven that focus on prevention and early intervention are most effective at deterring juveniles from committing crimes. H.R. 3 does nothing to prevent crime or offer solutions to juvenile crime. If you're in favor of putting these children with child abusers, rapists, and murderers, vote for H.R. 3. If you want to contribute to the problem of overcrowded correctional facilities, which is our Nation's fastest growing industry, vote for H.R. 3. Instead of increasing the prison population and encouraging our children to become career criminals, let's spend our time and resources finding ways to contribute to our children's future, not destroying it. Vote against H.R. 3, the Anti-Florida/Anti-Juvenile Justice Act.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the time is right for funding equity. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support funding equity when the House considers the ISTEA reauthorization bill. According to a GAO report, the current funding formula used to distribute billions of transportation funds is flawed. My State of Florida is a perfect example of what is wrong with the formula. Florida is the fourth most populated State, third in the number of automobiles on the road, third in the number of automobiles miles traveled, third in the amount of money that our citizens contribute to the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Yet, Florida's average return on each dollar has been 79 cents since 1956, 45th in the Nation. Under the fourth year of ISTEA, Florida will drop to 77 cents for every dollar, 46th in the Nation. The ISTEA reauthorization bill must include a formula that is based on current reasonable and appropriate factors.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997 is also known as the Pay Reduction Act. Today, millions of workers depend on overtime pay--just to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. How cruel to consider this overtime pay as optional. Today too many people depend on overtime pay to survive. Their survival is not optional. It is employers--not employees--who get grater flexibility from this bill. The bill does not contain necessary safeguards to assure that the employee's decision to accept comptime is truly voluntary The overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act both protect workers from excessive demands for overtime work, and, by requiring premium pay for overtime, provide an incentive for businesses to create additional jobs. There is no doubt that American workers prefer pay for their overtime work--instead of comptime. Unfortunately, too many do not get paid. The Employment Policy Foundation, a think tank supported by employers, estimates that workers lose $19 billion a year in overtime pay due to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is a disgrace to American workers. In the last several days workers from all over my district have come to Washington to ask me to vote against this bill. Those working constituents do not want their pay reduced by a Congress out of touch with the American work force. Let me repeat that. Those working constituents do not want their pay reduced by a Congress out of touch with the American work force. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this bill is a vote for a pay cut for the workers. H.R. 1, the Working Family Flexibility Act of 1997, is also known as the pay reduction act. Today millions of workers depend on overtime pay just to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. How cruel to consider this overtime pay as optional. Today too many people depend on overtime pay to survive. Their survival is not optional. Mr. Speaker, it is employers, not employees, who get greater flexibility from this bill. This bill does not contain necessary safeguards to ensure that the employee decision to accept comptime is truly voluntary. The overtime provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act protects workers from excess demands, from overtime work, and by requiring a premium pay for overtime provides an incentive for businesses to create additional jobs. There is no doubt that the American workers prefer pay for their overtime work instead of comptime. A recent poll by Peter Hart found that the American worker prefers pay for their overtime instead of comptime by a margin of 64 to 22 percent. Unfortunately too many workers do not get paid for overtime. The Employment Policy Foundation, a think tank supported by employers, estimates that workers loose $19 billion a year in overtime pay due to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Why should we give managers more control and give workers less money? A worker who was forced by management to take comp- time instead of overtime pay is being required to take a voluntary pay cut. Mr. Speaker, I refuse to support less pay for workers.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Recently in Eatonville, a little town in my district, a young lady came up to me and asked me did I know Mrs. Alexis Herman because she was from Mobile, AL. And speaking of family values, she told me about her mother who was the librarian in the little school there and taught them the importance of taking care of what they had since they did not have much. Her father was a community leader and sent best wishes to Ms. Alexis Herman. So when we talk about family values, it is important to understand that Alexis Herman comes from the kind of roots that has made this country great. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mrs. BROWN of Florida

Mrs. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Alexis Herman, who is the most appropriate person to head this country's Department of Labor. As many of my colleagues know, Mrs. Herman has spent much of her life preparing for this job. Almost 20 years ago, Mrs. Herman headed the women's division of the Department of Labor under President Carter and she has been building on that success ever since. Mrs. Herman has spent most of her working life as an advocate for minorities in businesses, including the corporate sector. She has been an effective leader, and she has looked out for the interests of the working people of this country. Because of her efforts, this country is now a better place for business and for the workers. Mrs. Herman has done a great job heading the President's liaison office for the last 4 years, and she will do even a better job as heading the Department of Labor. As an African-American and a woman, Mrs. Herman has overcome many obstacles in her rise to become one of the leading advocates for business and economic development in our country. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to confirm the nomination of Alexis Herman without delay. Ms. Herman has earned our support and our confidence. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard] for a colloquy.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order today. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?

Mr. BROWN of Florida

Mr. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this year as we observe Black History Month we should reflect on the all-out attack that has occurred on civil rights, voting rights, and affirmative action programs. We need to renew our commitment to progress on these political fronts. We have witnessed the Hopwood case in Texas, the attack on affirmative action, as well as a number of majority-minority districts being found unconstitutional and ordered to be redrawn by State legislatures. This happened in my district, the Third Congressional District of Florida, as well as districts represented by Representative Sanford Bishop, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Representative Eva Clayton, Representative Melvin Watt, and just late last week Representative Bobby Scott, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. To say the least, the past 2 years have indeed been hostile. I, and others, would not have the privilege of serving in Washington today, if it were not for the courage and sacrifice of those great leaders who led the way. The progress we, as a race, have made could not have occurred without the groundwork having been laid by great African-Americans like former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, educator Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune, tennis great Arthur Ashe, poet Zora Neale Hurston, Gwen Cherry, Mary Singleton, and James Weldon Johnson, composer of the Negro National Anthem. Let me share with you a little information about Florida's first Member of Congress. In 1879, Josiah Wells was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Gainesville, but his election was challenged and he lost his seat after only 2 months in office. However, by that time, he had already been reelected to a new term. Believe it or not, his next term was challenged after ballots were burned in a courthouse fire. And, thus ended the congressional career of Florida's first black Representative. Once Reconstruction began, 21 black Congressmen were elected in the South between 1870 and 1901. Following 1901, Jim Crow tightened his grip and it took over for 70 years before another black person would be elected to Congress in the South. For the first 100 years of American's history, African-Americans did not have the right to vote because they were enslaved. Eventually the Constitution was amended to change the status of blacks from three- fifths of a person to a whole person. Following the Civil War, some African-Americans were able to exercise their right to vote but this lasted for only a brief time. After Reconstruction, things actually worsened and Jim Crow ruled the South. The civil rights movement exploded because African-Americans were fed up with living as second-class citizens in America, ``home of democracy.'' Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and numerous others, sacrificed their lives to have the Voting Rights Act passed into law in 1965. It has, however, taken almost 30 years to implement in the South. The initial reason majority-minority districts were redrawn was because of a long history of violations of the Voting Rights Act. Following the 1996 congressional elections, many journalists reported that the fact that myself, Cynthia McKinney, Eva Clayton, Melvin Watt, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Sanford Bishop won reelection proved that blacks no longer needed majority-minority districts to be elected to Congress. Therefore, as majority-minority districts continue to be challenged, it is important that we not lose sight of the fact that had it not been for the creation of majority-minority districts through voting rights remedies, it is very likely that many Members of the freshman class of 1992 would not have been elected. Keep in mind it took 120 years before Florida elected another African-American to Congress. As African-Americans continue to make progress in education, business, and government, there will continue to be attacks. It is important that we continue to press ahead because there are still people who would like to turn back the hands of time and return African-Americans to the back of the political bus. Congress now more closely resembles America than it has in the past. Furthermore, it is important that African-Americans continue to fight for their right to vote for a candidate of their choice, civil rights, and for affirmative action programs that help promote diversity in the workplace. It is important that we continue to support affirmative action programs because they give qualified minorities and women the opportunity to work in professions they, historically, had not been represented in. While we have made gains, there is still a long way to go. As we approach the new millennium, it is crucial that young African- American children are prepared and able to walk across that bridge to the 21st century.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in the passage by the House of the conference report for H.R. 3539 which reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration. As a member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I've worked in a bipartisan fashion with Chairman Shuster, Chairman Duncan, Congressman Oberstar, and Congressman Lipinski to develop this important legislation to authorize funding for our Nation's airports and to address serious aviation security issues in a noncontroversial bill that could be enacted by the end of the fiscal year in order to avoid disruption in AIP funding for the Nation's airports. The future ability of our Nation's airports to provide safe and convenient air transportation strongly depends on the AIP Program. I was especially pleased with provisions in the bill regarding the Military Airport Program. Nationwide, there is $30 billion of military airfield infrastructure that can be converted and used to meet the capacity needs of the national aviation system. In addition, the bill changes the criteria for the FAA's distribution of discretionary AIP funds to address issues raised by airports in Florida. Unfortunately, I remain opposed to the conference report as long as it contains a provision added in conference for a particular company. This antiworker provision would make it very difficult for employees of this company to organize as a union. It is unconscionable that this provision was attached at the last minute, without the benefit of hearings, to a bill that has broad bipartisan support. I hope that the Senate will do the right thing, and take this controversial provision out of the bill so that it can be signed into law by the October 1 deadline.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my colleague the Honorable Harold E. Ford. He has achieved an uparalleled reputation of providing service to his constituents, and his fellow colleagues. He has demostrated commitment to improving the lives of all perople. He effectively represents ubran districts through his assignments on the Ways and Means Committee. He has played a pivotal role in the legislation of health care reform, taxation, and welfare reform. Knowing you, retirement is not the end of a career, but the beginning of some brand new one. It has been my pleasure serving with you, and it gives me great joy to wish you an abundance of happiness during your retirement.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago the House considered and passed H.R. 3308, the U.S. Armed Forces Protection Act, a misnomer, which I strongly opposed. I voted against this measure as a matter of upholding the intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution established Congress and the Presidency with equal powers in the area of military affairs. Congress is responsible for raising and maintaining forces and legislating policy. The President, as Commander in Chief, is responsible for setting up the chain of command within our forces and executing congressional policy. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I am aware of Congress' need to protect its powers. However, I believe it is also my duty to acknowledge the President's role under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. This measure, which originated in the flawed Contract With America, is a partisan attempt by the Republican majority to selectively use congressional prerogatives. American Presidents have directed U.S. forces to serve in allied forces since the Revolutionary War. Examples include World War I, World War II, NATO operations, and Operation Desert Storm. Under H.R. 3308, in 1990 President Bush would have been prevented from sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to contain Saddam Hussein. H.R. 3308 specifically limits the powers of the Commander in Chief to direct U.S. forces and, therefore, it is unconstitutional. I believe the American President, regardless of political party affiliation, should decide when, where, and how to deploy U.S. military forces. Secretary of Defense Perry and Attorney General Reno have stated that H.R. 3308 is unconstitutional. In a letter to House Minority Leader Gephardt, Secretary Perry wrote, ``I believe that H.R. 3308 is both operationally unjustified and unconstitutional.'' In terms of operations, H.R. 3308 is a misnomer because, if enacted as law, it will in fact endanger the lives of American military men and women by preventing our forces from wearing protective United Nations identification insignia. The UN insignia in question are blue helments and blue shoulder patches designed to enable American forces, as well as others, to recognize friendly forces. Insignia are a proven method of protecting our soldiers' lives. They are worn to ensure the safety of our men and women. They help prevent friendly fire and make it possible to impose a recognized force on enemies. Furthermore, the United Nation has established rules for protecting its forces by punishing those enemies who are against UN forces. These punishments can only be used to protect Americans who are fired upon while wearing UN insignia. On this important issue of wearing insignia, all American military men and women must follow the commands of our Commander in Chief. Discipline is key to maintaining order in our services and, ultimately, to protecting our national security. Only one American soldier has been court-martialed over the issue of wearing UN insignia. Thousands of American men and women have obeyed their President and served in multinational commands wearing U.S. uniforms and Allied forces insignia. These American military personnel have always retained their ultimate allegiance to the United States of America, while wearing UN or NATO insignia. Americans serving in multinational commands have always followed the directions of the American President, from Allied operations in World War II, to the United Nations Command established for the Korean war, the Desert Storm Coalition in the Persian Gulf war, and multiple NATO operations, including the present NATO Implementation Force [IFOR] in Bosnia. During these operations, command of our military men and women has ultimately resided with the President as our Commander in Chief and our military leaders in the Department of Defense. Finally, Presidential Decision Directive 25, a classified directive issued early in the Clinton administration, established steps to allay concern over U.S. troops under UN control. A declassified summary of this directive states: The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces. On a case by case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council [the UN security agency over whose decisions the U.S. has veto power]. The greater the U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale mission that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions. There is nothing new about this Administration's policy regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. U.S. military personnel have participated in UN peace operations since 1948. For all of these reasons, I strongly believe H.R. 3308 should not become law. Since the House has already passed this bill, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to oppose this measure. And, if this irresponsible legislation does pass the Senate, I support President Clinton's pledge to veto it.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this was a bad House bill, a bad Senate bill and the conference report did not fix it. It is still bad. You can judge a great society by how it treats its children, its senior citizens. This bill guts our future. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this conference report. The House welfare reform bill was a bad bill, the Senate bill was a bad bill and the conference report does not fix it. This legislation is so bad that it can't be fixed. This bill will have a horrible impact on the children in my State. In Florida, at least 235,000 children would be denied benefits under this legislation. In Florida alone, 48,000 would be pushed deeper into poverty. Children will be hungrier if this bill becomes law. In Florida, 111,926 children would be denied aid in the year 2005 because of the 5 year time limit. In Florida, 42,714 babies would be denied cash aid in the year 2000 because they were born to families already on welfare. In the year 2000, 80,667 children in Florida would be denied benefits if the State froze its spending on cash assistance at the 1994 levels. In addition to the travesty this bill does to our children, this bill will pull the rug out from under our seniors who are legal immigrants. For a State like Florida whose population has such a large number of legal immigrants, the impact will be extremely high. There is another troubling aspect of this bill we need to look at. No victim of domestic violence, no matter how abused nor how desperate, could know that if she left her abusive spouse, that she would be able to rely upon cash assistance for herself or for her children--even for a short period of time until she was able to secure employment. I have always believed that the sign of a great society is how well it treats its most vulnerable--children and seniors. Our children are America's future. This bill prevents the future generation from meeting its potential to contribute to American society and instead dooms today's poor children to deeper poverty and no chance to take their place as productive members of our society.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. I want to submit my statement for the Record, Mr. Chairman. But I want to point out that the Florida department of environment protection officers seized more cocaine last year than the U.S. Customs. This year the Florida State law enforcement officer of the year was a marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting outside of Miami. The COPS Program is an excellent program for Florida. We received over 200 cops, and in fact a child was killed in a campsite in a Florida park in 1993 before the COPS Program. In light of some of the other incidents going on around the country, I would suggest that we do not cut this program and in any way prohibit the States from having park police or marine patrol participate in the program. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest opposition to any attempt to cut COPS awards from park police or marine patrols. I am outraged that Members, some from my State of Florida, have erroneously criticized the award of COPS funds to park police in general and specifically to the Florida Marine Patrol. I am disappointed that a Member of this House would complain about a grant award that benefits their State and their constituents--that provides badly needed assistance that officials in that State have told the Federal Government they need. Claims that grants to Park Police are not appropriate uses of Federal crime fighting funds are absurd. Park Police provide important protection and crime prevention in our Nation's parks and waterways. This is critical for my State of Florida. Scores of Florida law enforcement agencies have already applied for, and been awarded, badly needed crime fighting resources through the COPS Program. Thus far, the Third Congressional District has received almost 200 additional cops in 23 different communities through the COPS Programs and crime has gone down as a result. Park Police and Florida Marine Patrol officers have helped bust drug dealers in Florida parks. In fact, Florida Department of Environmental Protection officers seized more cocaine last year than U.S. Customs. This year's Florida State Law Enforcement Officer of the Year was a marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting outside Miami. These important officers are doing more than guarding a coral reef. They are on duty 24 hours a day. In fact a child was killed at a campsite in a Florida park in 1993 before the COPS Program was put in place. In light of the terrible murder earlier this year of two young women in the Shenandoah Park, it makes no sense to cut back on Park Police in areas that have acknowledged that they need extra help. Mr. Chairman, this is a horrible amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms BROWN of Florida

Ms BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest opposition to any attempt to cut COPS awards from park police or marine patrols. I am outraged that Members, some from my State of Florida, have erroneously criticized the award of COPS funds to park police, in general, and specifically to the Florida Marine Patrol. I am disappointed that a Member of this House would complain about a grant award that benefits their State and their constituents--that provides badly needed assistance that officials in that State have told the Federal Government they need. Claims that grants to park police are not appropriate uses of Federal crime fighting funds are absurd. We are not talking about fictional ``Baywatch lifeguards,'' as one of my colleagues misstated to the press. These are badge-carrying, sworn officers with full arrest authority. The officers are on duty 24 hours a day and put their lives on the line every time they go to work. The underlying fallacy of the criticism of COPS funds for park police or marine patrols is that there is no crime in parks. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the nature of criminal activity in these parks is no different than any other community. Unfortunately, murders, sexual batteries, arson, child abuses, assaults and other heinous crimes cannot be kept outside of park boundaries. Serial criminals, escaped convicts, and other dangerous felons often drop out of society and seek out parks and woodlands as temporary campsites. Park police provide important protection and crime prevention in our Nation's parks and waterways. This is critical for my State of Florida where shore areas make up such a large part of our State and where over 2 million people visit Florida parks each year. Park police and marine patrol officers are not guarding coral reefs, as some have erroneously claimed. They are patrolling on bike and on foot protecting campers, hikers, boaters, and families trying to enjoy our parks. Scores of Florida law enforcement agencies have already applied for, and been awarded, badly needed crime fighting resources through the COPS program. Thus far, the Third Congressional District has received almost 200 additional cops. State-wide, Florida has received 2,200 officers through the COPS programs and crime has gone down as a result. Park police and Florida Marine Patrol officers have helped bust drug dealers in Florida parks. In fact, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Officers seized more cocaine in Florida last year than U.S. Customs. This year's Florida State Law Enforcement Officer of the Year was a marine patrol officer who was involved in a shooting outside Miami. Just 2 weeks ago, a park officer was hospitalized after apprehending a violent suspect of domestic violence. In fact, a child was brutally murdered at a campsite in a Florida park in 1993 before the COPS program was put in place. In light of the terrible murder earlier this year of two young women in the Shenandoah Park, it makes no sense to cut back on park police in areas that have acknowledged that they need extra help. Mr. Chairman, this is a horrible amendment and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I would also like to include in the Record a letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and a news article from the Tampa Tribune. Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, July 24, 1996. Hon. Corrine Brown, Congressional Representative, District 3, U.S. House of Representatives, Jacksonville, FL. Dear Congresswoman Brown: Recently, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has been criticized for receiving a grant award under the United States Department of Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Congresswomen Tillie Kidd Fowler, District 4, and Congressman Bill McCollum, District 8, were quoted in July 16, 1996 Investor's Business Daily article expressing their displeasure with COPS funding being provided to the FDEP's Division of Law Enforcement. Particularly disconcerting is the fact that neither of your Florida Congressional colleagues contacted our agency to determine the proposed usage of the funds before making the disparaging comments, which included comparing our Division of Law Enforcement's Marine Patrol officers to ``Baywatch lifeguards.'' On the positive side, it was nice to receive support from your office and I will attempt to provide a brief explanation of the function of the FDEP's Division of Law Enforcement and our intended use of COPS grant dollars. FDEP's Division of Law Enforcement is comprised of four bureaus, three of which are the Bureau of Florida Marine Patrol, the Bureau of Florida Park Patrol, and the Bureau of Emergency Response. The Bureaus of Marine Patrol and Park Patrol employ over 450 State of Florida certified sworn law enforcement officers. These officers are duly constituted police officers for the State of Florida, pursuant to Florida State Statutes, Chapter 943, and are authorized to make arrests for all misdemeanors and felonies occurring within the State of Florida. The officers of the Marine Patrol and Park Patrol are represented by the Police Benevolent Association, the same collective bargaining entity that represents the Florida Highway Patrol and other state law enforcement officers. The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) is Florida's oldest state law enforcement agency, dating back to 1913. Officers in the Florida Marine Patrol enforce boating laws, environmental laws, conservation statutes, and fisheries laws as a primary duty. Incidentally, these officers are required to enforce crimes against persons and property, and to provide frontline enforcement of laws prohibiting the importation of dangerous drugs into our nation. The Florida Marine Patrol was the first state law enforcement agency to be deployed to the Northwest Florida area impacted by Hurricane Opal last year. FMP officers were summoned due to their advanced training and specialized equipment available, allowing these officers to rapidly assist in aiding hurricane survivors, protecting the barrier island homes from waterborne looters, and providing general law enforcement for the citizens and visitors in the affected area. Similarly, in Congressman McCollum's district, FMP officers are currently augmenting federal law enforcement authorities in providing law enforcement for the Orlando soccer venue for the 1996 Olympic Games. Florida Marine Patrol officers, like landborne officers, are frequently placed in danger while making arrests. FMP officers have been confronted with gunfire, physical attacks, and even assaults by felons armed with spear guns. The State Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for 1996 was FMP Officer Kurt Kaloostian, who engaged in a battle with drug traffickers outside the waters of Miami, Florida, eventually arresting both after an extended chase into the Atlantic Ocean. FMP officers are often the first available search and rescue asset available to distressed boaters, waterborne immigrants, and other law enforcement agencies needing marine assistance. The Florida Park Patrol is responsible for patrolling over 500,000 acres of State of Florida park properties, greenways, and trails. With over 145 parks and less than 80 officers to patrol these facilities, the task at hand is difficult. Over two million people visit Florida parks each year and the nature of criminal activity in these parks is no different than any other community. Unfortunately, murders, sexual batteries, arson, child abuses, assaults and other heinous crimes cannot be kept outside park boundaries. Serial criminals, escaped convicts, and other dangerous felons often ``drop out'' of society and seek out parks and woodlands as temporary campsites. Professionally trained, well equipped law enforcement officers are vital to ensure that park visitors are protected, thus the reason for our initial COPS grant application. The COPS funding for the FMP officers assigned to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has received criticism from individuals who probably are unaware of the scope of the law enforcement needs for an area the size of the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. To assert that these officers will be ``watching coral'' is insulting, degrading, and shows a lack of understanding for the nature of police work in protected areas. I can assure you that the COPS funds we sought are destined for quality law enforcement service, to protect the people and resources of the State of Florida from further harm. Again, thank you for the opportunity to explain our duties and purposes. Your assistance is greatly appreciated by the many officers who place their lives in harm's way daily to make the State of Florida a better place. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (904) 488-5600, extension 76. The Florida Marine Patrol can be reached 24 hours a day at 1-800-DIAL

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the COPS Program. I want to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, who has brought this forward. Many times we get some erroneous information from the paper, and we want to clear this up. We want to be sure that everybody understands that Florida is not Baywatch.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare reform proposal. Instead of solving the welfare problems in this country, this bill creates new ones. By relying on block grants to distribute money to States, the neediest and most vulnerable people of this country could be left out in the cold. Sending money in the form of block grants is a virtual guarantee that rapid growth States like Florida will either have to make up for the loss of money on their own--or deny assistance to the neediest families in their jurisdiction. We need to balance this country's budget in a way that holds everyone responsible--not just the poor and the needy. By cutting the earned-income tax credit, the Republicans are simply punishing low-income working families. And by getting rid of job training programs, the Republicans are eliminating the chance that welfare recipients will have the necessary skills to get a job. The Republican proposal is a mean-spirited attempt to punish those who are already suffering.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, freedom if religion and freedom of speech are the two most precious rights in our American society. Implicit in our freedom to worship the God of our choice is the freedom to worship without fear. It is a very sad day when the right to worship without fear has been jeopardized by the unconscionable torching of houses of worship. I am pleased to join my colleagues in strongly supporting H.R. 3525. However, as much as we try through legislation to stop the fires, the most important change must come in the hearts of those who hate. I just have a message for those out there: Remember what you plant will come back to you. I do believe that there is a God, and you are creating a fire here, but know that there is going to be a great day, and that fire will burn eternal.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, to whom God has given much, much is expected. These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are simply unacceptable. Well, I know my Republican colleagues do not like the word ``cuts,'' so let me try this. This gutting of Medicare and Medicaid is simply unacceptable, especially when they are the result of a huge tax break for the wealthy. This budget conference proposal cuts Medicare funds by $168 billion over the next 6 years, and the Medicaid fund by $72 billion. Approving this budget is promising this country that in the next 6 years the most needy people in this country will not receive health care. Perhaps the most confusing of all these proposals is the cuts to student loans. More than 35 schools in my State, the great State of Florida, including the University of Florida, will be hurt by these cuts. Let me close by saying once again to whom God has given much, much is expected.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to talk about a very important issue that affects veterans in my district in Florida and veterans around the country. Right now, a veteran who has bravely served our Nation cannot collect VA disability payments while collecting payments for early separation from the armed services. Although a person may be eligible for both, under current law, a disabled veteran can't receive both. To me, that just doesn't make sense. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am proud to introduce the Fairness for Disabled Veterans Act of 1996 to correct this injustice in current law. The language of the bill is simple. The bill repeals the requirement that amounts paid to a member of the Armed Forces under special separation programs shall be offset from amounts subsequently paid to that member by the Department of Veterans Affairs as disability compensation. The repeal would be retroactive to the date this rule went into effect on December 5, 1991. Here's how this works in practice. If an individual received an SSB payment of $30,000, he would not receive the first $30,000 of VA disability compensation to which he would otherwise have been entitled. This legislation would allow eligible individuals to receive the full amount of disability payments regardless of prior SSB or VSI payments. In the early 1990's, Congress established early military separation benefits to help the Defense Department reduce the size of the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense [DOD] currently offers certain military personnel the opportunity to leave military service voluntarily in return for cash payments under two programs, the Special Separation Benefit [SSB] and the Voluntary Separation Incentive [VSI]. The SSB program offers a one-time cash payment, while the VSI program provides an annual payment over many years, depending on length of service. Servicemembers who leave service under these programs have the option of choosing either program. When this law was passed, Congress also included restrictions on these programs preventing military personnel who receive early separation benefits from receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs until the separation benefits are repaid. Today, thousands of the veterans who accepted the payment and left the military are suffering from service-connected disabilities such as gulf war syndrome and other health problems. These disabled veterans are unable to work and their families are faced with financial hardship. SSB and VSI benefits are for services rendered as well as compensation for the veteran's participation in DOD's downsizing. Disability pay is compensation for mental or physical disabilities incurred in that service. These are two separate compensations. That's why I believe it is unfair to offset one payment with another. If the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs offers a benefit to a retiring member of the Armed Forces, that person deserves to receive that benefit. That's why I've introduced this bill. Let's tell our disabled veterans that we care about them and that we will fight for what's right. I urge my colleagues to support the Fairness for Disabled Veterans Act of 1996.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the budget presented by the Congressional Black and Progressive Caucuses. Unlike the Republican budget, which steals from the needy in order to pad the pockets of the wealthy, this budget is fair. It achieves a balance in 6 years through shared sacrifices. And it does so without bankrupting the poor and the working people of this country. This budget also retains two of the most important aspects of the Federal Government. They are Medicare and Housing, perhaps the most essential services our Government can offer its citizens. By protecting our Medicare and Medicaid recipients we can do our best to assure health care for the poor, the old, the veterans and children of this country. In my State alone there are more than 3 million senior citizens. They make up more than 20 percent of the population. The least we can do for these people is guarantee them a bed in a nursing home, and medical attention when they need it. Another area that the caucuses' budget protects is housing. Public housing is often the last safety net that poor people have before becoming homeless. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible budget that champions the values of this country. ``To whom God has given much, much is expected.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Republican budget which, once again, balances the budget of this country on the backs of our poor, our elderly, our veterans and our children. This budget represents the philosophy that those who have the money make the rules. It rewards those who have, and punishes those who have not. Instead of evenly distributing the burden of responsibility in this fiscally challenging time, the Republicans have decided to rob the poor and working people to pay the rich. In other words, more reverse Robin- Hood. Mr. Chairman, this budget denies assistance to children if they're born into a family already on welfare. It cuts $20 billion from the earned income tax credit--which currently helps the poorest in this country who are working for a living. It cuts Medicaid by $72 billion, so that disabled people, senior citizens, children and pregnant women will suffer unjustly. In my State alone there are more than 3 million senior citizens. They make up more than 20 percent of the population. This budget is a slap in their faces. Another inefficient move by the Republicans is cutting job training and education programs, which will have an adverse effect on this country. It ensures that poor people will have an even harder time getting student loans, financial aid and work study. And it guarantees that people who need the job skills won't get them. This isn't sound fiscal policy. This isn't just a bad budget, it's a mean-spirited budget. I urge my colleagues to accept the responsibility of representing the people of this country in a fair and decent manner. Oppose this budget. In closing, I would like to say that ``To whom God has given much, much is expected.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on the last amendment adopted, the Klug amendment, I voted ``yes.'' I intended to vote ``no.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am constantly appalled by the discrimination that women veterans experience. This issue is just another example of how women are treated differently than men. There is never a discussion of cost for health care for men, but only for women. When it's women we're talking about we get all kinds of attention and charts, and so forth. The military is not the appropriate place for this Congress to play moral policeman. Let's leave these women alone. Let's, instead, focus the debate on military readiness--and the best way to prepare the military to protect and defend our Nation. Let's put fairness back in the system. Let's treat men and women the same. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment. This bill contains a provision to continue the practice of restricting a woman's access to a safe abortion while she is stationed at an overseas military facility. I believe that this is wrong. In 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive order declaring that a woman who was stationed overseas could obtain an abortion if she paid for it privately. With the recently enacted fiscal year 1996 Defense bill, this Congress overturned the President's Executive order. This bill continues the same wrong-headed rule. Congresswoman DeLauro will offer an amendment to overturn this provision, so that the law reflects the President's Executive order. The military is not the appropriate place for this Congress to play moral policeman. Let's leave these women alone. Let's, instead, focus the debate on military readiness--and the best way to prepare the military to protect and defend our Nation. The potential danger in requiring a long wait for a woman to return to the United States to receive medical care may adversely affect our readiness. If a woman wants to use private funds to pay for an abortion, it is our responsibility to ensure that she can get a safe one at a military facility. The bottom line is very clear: Prohibiting a woman from obtaining an abortion if she is stationed overseas will not improve military readiness. I support women having the ability to exercise their constitutional right to have an abortion while serving in the military overseas. Especially if she is willing to use her own private money. It is the right thing to do. It was the Clinton administration policy. It was the Reagan administration policy. It made sense then. It makes sense now. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Valazquez amendment, which sets a minimum rent of up to $25, and allows for a waiver to be granted in cases of extreme hardship. In Florida, a $50 minimum rent will affect 2.100 households. This would mean an average annual rent increase of $340. That may not seem like a lot of money to some of my wealthy colleagues in Congress, but for some of our Nation's public housing residents, that could mean the difference between buying a child a warm winter coat, or buying that same child the correct-size shoes. This truly is a matter of having food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their heads. Public housing in our Nation is the last resort for many of our citizens. It is the final safety net before low-income folks end up homeless and on the street. If we can make some responsible and appropriate changes in the current law to improve public housing, by all means, let's do it. Many of the people who reside in public housing are low-income veterans. Forty-one percent of residents in public and assisted housing are seniors or are disabled. The remainder are families with children. This Congress should be doing everything it can to provide safe, affordable, units for our Nation's low-income citizens. That's the kind thing to do. That's the compassionate thing to do. That's the right thing to do. Support the amendment.