Corrine Brown

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have one followup question: What does the gentleman think about the reverse Robin Hood procedure, robbing from the poor to give to the rich?

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman respond to a question?

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the topic of my discussion will be the rescission cuts. There have been many targeted, including children and the elderly, but worst of all have been the veterans, and I rise today in behalf of the veterans throughout this Nation. There is a national disgrace in this country that must be addressed now. We all know that American men and women in the prime of their lives willingly go to remote parts of the world to defend their country. Sometimes they do not return. Sometimes they return wounded. Sometimes they return with wounds that do not surface until years later. War is never without human cost, and for this reason we have a longstanding contract with our brave warriors that goes something like this: ``If you will stand in harm's way for me, I will care for you later.'' On February 24, a day of disgrace, the House Appropriations Committee with Republican leadership voted to rescind $206 million in fiscal year 1995 from the VA appropriations. During the full committee markup on March 2, the Republicans voted to support those cuts. This rescission money was intended to fund six VA ambulatory care projects totaling $200 million. It is a national disgrace that veterans' programs are a part of this rescission list, a list that was quickly and thoughtlessly compiled. These canceled projects prevent us from expanding our outpatient service, a national trend in health care delivery and making our health care system more efficient and cost- effective. These canceled projects are aimed at one of the most deserving groups in our society, veterans after World War II and the Korean conflict. These veterans and all veterans should expect and receive good care. If we cannot protect them at this time in their time of need, how can we ask them to stand in harm's way to protect us? GOP says veterans health is not a priority.--The Republicans' message is clear: the health of our Nation's veterans is not a priority. Clearly, they feel that reducing vital medical services to needy veterans is an appropriate way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. All these funds have been carefully considered.--The Department of Veterans Affairs has ranked the six targeted ambulatory care projects as priorities. In fiscal year 1995, the Department proposed to fund these projects, all of which have been authorized, as part of the veterans health care investment fund. Ambulatory care saves taxpayer dollars.--The ambulatory care projects are an integral part of the Department's plan to move away from costly inpatient care and provide more accessible, cost effective and efficient outpatient care. Ultimately, all of these projects will save the VA medical system more money. will allow VA to better meet the workload experienced by the transfer of expensive inpatient care to a less costly ambulatory setting. These projects will allow VA to deliver managed outpatient care and will greatly improve VA's ability to deliver primary care. These projects will correct serious safety and space deficiencies in ambulatory care areas of affiliated referral facilities or in undersized leased satellite clinics. Presently, the clinic space available at these proposed facilities was designed for workloads of 50 to 60 percent of current workloads. The lack of space results in appointment delays and overcrowding. Veterans take the hit to pay for taxcuts for the wealthy.--These cuts are not only ``penny-wise and pound-foolish,'' but also wrong. These cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable groups in our society--aging World War II and Korean conflict veterans and others who have sacrificed so much for our Nation. Members will have another chance to get their priorities straight.-- Support restoring this vital funding when this ill-conceived rescission package is brought to the floor next week. Do not let our veterans down. They deserve better. Orlando Satellite Outpatient Clinic and Nursing Home.--The fiscal year 1995 appropriation is $14 million. This project will allow the VA to better provide primary and preventive care and address long-term care needs in the Orlando area. It renovates the Orlando Naval Training Center hospital for use as a VA satellite outpatient clinic and nursing home care unit. It will replace the existing leased undersized clinic which was sized to accommodate less than one-half of the visits currently experienced in Orlando. The project will allow the VA to provide excellent primary and preventive care and long-term care in the Orlando area. Since June 1994, there have been 15,000 veteran patient visits to the Orlando Satellite Outpatient Clinic--120,000 visits are expected by the end of 1995. The existing clinic is in three separate buildings approximately one- half mile from each other and cannot be expanded further in present location. Unsuccessful efforts have been made for the past 6 years to obtain acceptable replacement lease space. Existing space lacks sufficient examining rooms, waiting areas, and bathrooms with no privacy for examining women veterans. This project will allow for 120 new beds without new construction by renovating an existing building. Gainesville ambulatory care addition.--The ambulatory care addition will be added to the main hospital building. Ambulatory surgery facilities and an outpatient pharmacy will be included along with clinic space. The addition will allow the VA medical center to provide primary and preventive care in an ambulatory setting, as well as correct severe space and functional deficiencies and add much needed ambulatory care space. The fiscal year 1995 appropriation is $17,812,000. The current ambulatory care facility was constructed in 1966. Present ambulatory care is 35 percent space deficient and handles over 133,000 visits a year. Services are spread over several floors making it confusing and physically difficult for many handicapped patients. The emergency room is a converted hallway with treatment and support spaces on either side of the hall. Administrative duties take place in the hallway along with movement of patient, supply, staff, and visitor traffic. Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Sanford Bishop].

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I want to spend a few minutes telling my colleagues about four public broadcasting television stations in Florida's Third Congressional District. WJCT in Jacksonville, WFME in Orlando, WUFT in Gainesville, and WCEU in Daytona Beach are truly community assets. They provide programming which enlightens, enriches, entertains, and touches the lives of thousands of north and central Floridians. These public broadcasting stations have been an integral part of our communities. They have been important partners in public education, providing instructional television and media technology resources to our schools since their beginning. Public broadcasting reaches 99 percent of all American television households. Its high quality educational and cultural programs have contributed significantly to the quality of life in north Florida. And it's a great investment. Public broadcasting is one of the best public- private partnerships ever developed, matching Federal dollars on a 5 to 1 basis. And it delivers these dollars to the local level. It is also at technology in education. For instance, through WJCT's National Teachers training Institute in Math, Science, and Technology, our local teachers learn the latest techniques for using technology in the classroom. Programs like ``Reading Rainbow,'' Sesame Street,'' and ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' are seen by school children and preschoolers in our community every day. Helping to prepare youngsters for school, and enhancing their education once they start school, are among public television stations' and our community's highest priorities. Federal dollars are extremely important to these stations. Without them, WJCT's ``Radio Reading Service for the Blind and Visually Impaired,'' and captioning of regularly televised local government meetings for the hearing impaired would not be possible. WCEU would not be able to produce programs like ``Mathline,'' a pilot project, which trains teachers in the latest mathematics techniques. WMFE could not provide programming for public school systems in grades K-12, audio reading services for the visually challenged and print disabled, and public affairs shows like ``Opinion Street.'' WUFT's daily half-hour News Five broadcasts, local television programs like the weekly ``North Florida Journal'' public affairs television programs, and the weekly minority affairs series ``Reflections'' would have to be reduced or eliminated. Public radio and television provide these and many other services nationwide at the remarkable low cost of $1.09 annually per person. On the local level, Federal funds make up approximately 14 percent of WJCT's budget, 17 percent of WFME's budget, 20 percent of WUFT's budget, and 34 percent of WCEU's budget. ``Privatizing'' public broadcasting means commercials, and dollar- driven programming, which would radically change the face of this unique broadcasting medium. If instructional/educational broadcasting could generate high profits, public broadcasting already would have become a commercial venture. As representatives of the people, we must be constructive, creative, and cost-efficient in achieving our national goals of good education and the opportunity for rich cultural resources for all of our citizens. If we realistically evaluate what public broadcasting actually offers to our communities, I believe that we will see the value of continued funding for this very cost efficient and successful, national educational and cultural institution. Thank you for allowing me this time to tell you about the importance of continued Federal funding for public broadcasting for my constituents in the cities of Jacksonville, Gainesville, Daytona Beach, and Orlando.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, last week the Republican members of the House Committee on Appropriations voted to rescind $206 million in the VA's budget for this year. These funds were intended for six VA facilities and medical equipment to provide better health care for our Nation's veterans. Of these six projects that were cut, two were in the Florida, Gainesville ambulatory care unit that has been on the list for over 18 years, and one in Orlando that is a win-win situation, an example of how Government works well. When the Base Closure Commission recommended closing the naval training facility, the Department of Defense, along with Veterans' Affairs, worked together to turn that facility over to the veterans who really needed the facility in the Orlando area. The amount of this funding was $14 million. There could be no backing down on this matter. A vote to keep our veterans projects is a vote to keep our promise to our veterans. These cuts targeted at veterans are another example that the Republican ``Contract With'' is a ``Contract on America,'' and a Contract on American veterans. Madam Speaker, one project was for a $14 million project to allow the VA to relocate from its present location to the Orlando Naval Training Center hospital, identified for base closure, for use as a satellite outpatient clinic and a 120-bed nursing home facility. The existing outpatient clinic in Orlando is a disgrace. It lacks sufficient examining rooms, waiting areas, and bathrooms. There is no privacy for examining women veterans and parking is severely limited. These veterans in east central Florida have already waited too long for access to a quality health care facility. The other funds were $17.8 million for a VA ambulatory care addition in Gainesville. Funds have already been obligated for the Gainesville ambulatory care addition. In fact, last week the VA announced a contract award for the project. This project has been identified by the VA as critically necessary to relieve outpatient overcrowding problems. Lack of space prevents the medical center from offering care in a timely manner. This Gainesville project has been designed to include an ambulatory surgery facility in renovated space, along with facilities for primary care, specialty outpatient care, and women's health. It is a national disgrace that Republicans cut these funds to provide better care for veterans. The list obviously was quickly and thoughtlessly compiled. Our Nation's veterans--men and women--who have been called upon to put their lives on the line in remote parts of the world and under the most difficult conditions. If they survive this ordeal, they should at least be able to have good care when they return to the United States. These canceled projects prevent us from expanding our outpatient services, a national trend in health care delivery, and making our health care system more efficient and cost effective. These canceled projects are aimed at one of the most fragile groups in our society-- aging World War II and Korean conflict veterans. These and all veterans should expect and receive good care. If we cannot protect them at their time of need, how can we ask them to stand in harms way to protect us?

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. In 1962, only 5.3 percent of the voting-age black population was registered to vote in Mississippi. There were only 500 black elected officials in the entire country. The year I was elected to Congress was historic--especially for Florida. For the first time in over 120 years, an African-American represents my district in Congress. Representatives Carrie Meek and Alcee Hastings also represent Florida in Congress. The Congressional Black Caucus has grown to 40 members, the largest ever. Sixteen new African-American Members, most from the South, were seated in the House of Representatives and one African-American Senator, Carol Moseley- Braun, was seated, expanding the number of Congressional Black Caucus members to 40. There are now 57 women, 19 Hispanics, 8 Asians, and 1 American-Indian. This is the highest number of minorities to ever serve in the history of the U.S. Congress. Despite these gains, less than 2 percent of the elected officials in this country are black. We still need the Voting Rights Act, we still have a long way to go. Let me tell you a little bit about Florida's first Member of Congress. Josiah Wells, from Gainesville, FL, was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1879 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 victorious election 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 from the South between 1870 to 1901. However, after 1901, when Jim Crow tightened his grip, no black person was elected to Congress from the South for over 70 years. As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, it is more timely than ever, to study what happened to black representation during Reconstruction. This period may seem like ancient history, but what happened then seems to be happening all over again. Although history was made with the 103d Congress, reaction to that history was the election of 1994--the revolution of the conservative right. Angry white men were not happy with the history we made in 1992. They have launched a contract on America and in just the first 50 days they have: Threatened school lunch programs; threatened Meals on Wheels for seniors; cut Pell grants; eliminated the Cops on the Beat Program that have provided more than $11 million for over 150 cops to the Third Congressional District; and threatened to eliminate affirmative action programs, including the 8(a) Small Business Program. For the first 100 years of America's history, African-Americans did not have the right to vote; they were enslaved. Eventually, the Constitution was amended to make African-Americans free. After the Civil War, some African-Americans were able to exercise their rights to vote but this lasted for just a brief time. After the Reconstruction period, things actually got worse and Jim Crow ruled the South. The civil rights movement exploded because African-Americans were fed up with living in America without real democracy. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we recently celebrated, and many others sacrificed their lives to have the Voting Rights Act passed into law. The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 but it has taken almost 30 years to implement in the South. The reason districts were redrawn was because of a long history of violations of the Voting Rights Act--we cannot lose sight of this. The Voting Rights Act was enacted because people that should have been represented were not represented. Too many have died for us to allow a few frightened individuals to steal back these long-overdue rights to representation. What matters most is not what the district looks like, but who is in them--those who have been left out. New attacks, just like the attacks on Josiah Walls, are from the good old boys from the bad old days who are trying to roll back the clock and send minorities to the back of the political bus. Congress now looks more like though there are more women and African-Americans in Congress than ever before, neither group is fully represented proportionately to their numbers in the general population. Blacks and women are still underrepresented even though we have begun to make progress. The voters of America should be outraged that a few people are trying to take away the representation blacks, Hispanics, women, and other minorities have been struggling for over 127 years to achieve.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I spoke with 95 little 3-year-olds in my district. Tonight, I rise on their behalf. The school lunch program has worked well since 1946--it's not broken. America's children are our most important resource for the future. Studies show that if a child is hungry, taxpayer dollars for education are wasted because when kids are hungry they can't learn. According to the Children's Defense Fund, millions of children will go hungry by cutting funds for school lunches, food stamps, child care, Head Start meals, and WIC programs. Republican double-talk says ``cuts to school lunches'' aren't ``cuts,'' but block grants to States. That deceives the American people. As a 10-year veteran of the Florida legislature, I can tell you that sending Federal dollars to the States as block grants does not ensure that these funds will go to child nutrition programs. This school lunch program began after the start of World War II when young men tried to enlist in the military and were rejected because they were malnourished and couldn't pass the physical. President Truman wisely determined that producing healthy youngsters was in the national interest. It still is today. Congress should not be cutting child nutrition and child care. These cuts take food out of the mouths of hungry children. No big federally subsidized defense contractor has seen a dime threatened. No wealthy individual has seen his special tax breaks cut. In fact, the reason they're making all these cuts is so that the wealthy can get additional capital gains benefits on the backs of suffering children. Republicans seem to think they can fool some of the people, some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The Contract on America is a contract on children, the elderly, veterans and the hardest working Americans. The school lunch program works, it feeds hungry children. As the saying goes, ``If it's not broke, don't fix it.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had an opportunity to speak to 95 3-year-olds and today I speak in their behalf, for the school lunch program that has worked well since 1946. It is not broken. America's children are our most important resource for the future. Mr. Speaker, studies show that if a child is hungry, taxpayer dollars are wasted because hungry kids cannot learn. According to the Children's Defense Fund, millions of children will go hungry by cutting school lunches, food stamps, child care, Head Start meals, and WIC programs. Republican double-talk that ``cuts to school lunches'' are not ``cuts,'' but block grants to States, and deceives the American people. As a 10-year veteran of the Florida legislature, I can tell you that sending Federal dollars to the States as block grants does not ensure that these funds will go to child nutrition programs. Republicans seem to think they can fool some of the people, some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The American people cannot be fooled. The Contract on America is a contract on children, the elderly and the hardest working Americans. The school lunch program works, it feeds hungry children. As the saying goes, ``If it's not broke, don't fix it.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join here with the mayor of Jacksonville and other distinguished guests to proclaim the accomplishments of our navy depot in Jacksonville. When it comes to value, NADEP is tops. Yesterday, the State of Florida selected the depot as a finalist for the 1995 Florida Sterling Quality Award. NADEP has a record of quality products, good labor/management relations, excellence in work, and cost containment. I am proud that NADEP has turned a profit of over $100 million the past 4 years.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gibbons-McDermott substitute to H.R. 831, the Health Premium Deduction for the Self-Employed. We all agree with the purpose of this bill which is to permanently extend the tax deduction for 25 percent of health insurance costs of self-employed individuals. This is an issue that was supposed to be addressed in comprehensive health care legislation in the last Congress. So while I support this tax deduction, I would ask that we not forget about the need in this country for health care reform. This is a bill that should not have been controversial. I believe that it would have been passed without any opposition. Unfortunately, Members of the majority are using this bill to begin their assault on affirmative action programs. This is clearly just the beginning of a larger effort to dismantle efforts to assure that minorities can truly have an equal opportunity in the American society. I stand before you tonight outraged and offended by the Republicans' decision to pay for this program by repealing the FCC's minority preference program. We all know that the tax code is filled with tax breaks for wealthy white men, and yet the Republicans have picked the only tax provision affecting minorities to repeal. Nearly 20 years ago, the FCC established a policy of providing tax preferences for sales of radio, television, and cable companies to minority-owned firms. This policy has been supported by the past four administrations, both Democrat and Republican. The aim of the program is to increase minority ownership of radio and television stations and thus promote the diversity of broadcast views. Since this program went into effect, there have been over 300 sales to minority-owned firms, and minority ownership has increased from 0.5 percent to 2.9 percent. However, it is clear that more must be done. Minorities are still vastly underrepresented in the broadcast business with more than 97 percent of all broadcast licenses being held by white men. Without this program, the number of licenses issued to minority- controlled businesses would be far less as would the diversity of broadcast views. That's why I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider the Gibbons-McDermott substitute. It's a good bill. The substitute finances the health care tax deduction by levying a punitive tax on wealthy people who give up their U.S. citizenship in an effort to avoid taxes and revises the rules governing foreign trusts. In addition, the substitute addresses legitimate concerns about the FCC's minority preference program. It requires minorities to demonstrate real equity ownership in the company; to prove voting control and management control of the purchasing company; and to hold the property for 3 years after the sale. My colleagues, I look forward to the day when we don't have to have these laws, but it is clear and evident from the data and statistics that affirmative action is still needed to reverse past racial and sex- based discrimination. I urge you to support the Gibbons-McDermott substitute.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7 is bad legislation and should be defeated. In the stated opinion of DOD, H.R. 7 is ``dangerous, wasteful, and unconstitutional.'' It is a Republican tactic to provide ``defense welfare'' for military contractors who seek lucrative Government contracts. H.R. 7 is dangerous because it sacrifices American military readiness for star wars. It is a wasteful Republican effort to spend $30 to $40 billion on star wars at the price of military readiness. These billions of dollars should be spent to make life better for American families and for decreasing the deficit. H.R. 7 is a Republican boondoggle. H.R. 7 is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of the President of the United States to fulfill his constitutional role as Commander in Chief of our military forces. It restricts his ability to utilize troops in a most effective manner by limiting the amount the United States can spend on operations with the United Nations. H.R. 7 cripples U.N. peacekeeping and destroys the idea of collective security. If H.R. 7 had been law during Desert Storm, America would have been prevented from successfully deploying necessary troops. If America insists on spending countless billions on star wars at the expense of our troops, if America retreats from global economic and military cooperation, if America refuses to feed, educate, and house her own troops and citizens at risk--the children, the sick, and the elderly--a bankrupt America will fall into economic and social ruin. For years, respected Members of Congress, such as former Congressman Charles Bennett who represented Jacksonville, have opposed funding for star wars. These Members believed that troop readiness was a top priority. Their efforts were focused on conventional warfare requirements and on providing all that was necessary for our troops to perform their duties with excellence. Today it is shameful that many U.S. troops live in substandard housing and use food stamps because they cannot stretch their pay to cover even the most basic needs for their families. This does not contribute to military readiness. We in Congress should demonstrate our interest in funding military programs that benefit our troops and our military families. We want our military dollars spent to keep our troops ready in every way.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7, as it is written, is bad legislation. It should be defeated. If America insists on spending countless billions on Star Wars at the expense of our troops, if America retreats from global economic and military cooperation, if America refuses to feed, educate, and house her own the elderly--a bankrupt America will fall into economic and social ruin. For years, respected Members of Congress, such as former Congressman Charles Bennett who represented some of my district, have opposed funding for star wars. Instead, these members believed that troop readiness was a top priority. Currently, many of our troops live in substandard housing, they are forced to use food stamps, because they cannot stretch their pay to cover even the most basic needs for their families. This does not contribute to our readiness. Let's reassure America that we in Congress are an intelligent group because we are interested in funding military programs that benefit our troops and our military families. We want our military dollars spent to keep our troops ready in every way.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an increase in the minimum wage--it is long overdue. If we really want to reward hard working families, this is the way to start. Today, I have the honor of welcoming to Washington, my constituent, Annie Busby, who traveled all the way from Apopka, FL because she believes in raising the minimum wage. She was once a driver for Wells Fargo but lost that job when she was injured. Annie Busby supports three children and has held a number of temporary jobs. Raising the minimum wage will make a difference to Annie and her family. Rev. Jesse Jackson says most Americans are working hard and working every day, but they are not making enough for that work to support their families. A 90 cent increase in the minimum wage will help raise the standard of living for a family of four. The extension of earned income tax credit helped lift hundreds of thousands of working families. Yet, by 1996, even the EITC is not enough to lift a family of four above the poverty line if they are making the current minimum wage. A 90-cent minimum wage increase can make a real difference to a struggling family. More than 70 percent of Americans want to see the minimum wage raised. Let us listen to working America and do the right thing.

Ms. BROWN of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Maloney amendment. I have strong concerns about the negative impact the unfunded mandate bill will have on children, the Nation's most valuable resource. As a Florida State representative for 10 years, I am personally aware that States and local government need flexibility and are facing increasing fiscal constraints. We must not eliminate the government historical role of protecting all citizens, especially children and the elderly. What has worked well is a partnership between all branches of government, at the Federal, State and local level. One branch cannot do it alone. Without these partnerships, we jeopardize clean water, clean air, and food safety. The results will be high levels of cancer from toxic air and polluted waters. Without these partnerships, we jeopardize the welfare of our children. The rate for childhood shots for some children is only 30 percent. Some Third World countries have higher rates. In the rush to pass a bill, Congress has endangered the health of our children. Let us not rush to pass an imperfect bill that would destroy a partnership and hurt those who most need our help.