Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, when a terrorist's bomb tore a hole in the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, its impact was felt across the country. We all grieved with the families and we prayed that the rescue workers would find more survivors. Their grief leads us to want to affirm our country as both free and tolerant. Here is Congress, we must call on people of good will from both parties to repudiate extremist, paramilitary forces and provocative rhetoric that pushes people to violence and terrorism. By doing so, we do not politicize a tragedy, we live up to our responsibilities to respond to this tragedy. The images of bloodied babies being carried from the smoking rubble of the Murrah Building and the grieving families will stay with us for a long time. But, we should also remember the heroes of the Oklahoma City. Remember the rescue workers and the volunteers. And, remember the indominable spirit of the people of Oklahoma City. Our thoughts and prayers remain with them, today. And, we owe it to them, to both the victims and the heroes of Oklahoma City, to stand up to the forces that seek to divide us with words of hate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 12, the Milford District of the Quinnipiac Council of the Boy Scouts of America gathers to honor former Milford Mayor Alan H. Jepson with its annual Good Scout Award. This award is given to those who exhibit the high ideals that the Boy Scouts exemplify. Alan Jepson is such a man, and I would like to join the Milford Boy Scouts in paying tribute to this exceptional public servant who has also been a longtime family friend and personal mentor. Alan Jepson has devoted his entire life to serving others. Few are more deserving of the Good Scout Award than this gentleman who has lived his entire life by the lessons he learned early as a Boy Scout. Duty, honor and country guided his choices as he enlisted in the Navy at age 17 and then went on to serve his community as mayor and city clerk. Alan Jepson can still recite the Boy Scout oath from memory and has made those words the guiding force of his lifetime of service. The Boy Scouts helped prepare him for the rigors of World War II as he entered the Navy in service of our Nation. As with so many of the men and women who served our country during those trying times, Al Jepson was willing to make sacrifices on behalf of those who served with him. The early lessons learned from scouting and the hard lessons learned during his time in the service helped prepare Al to become one of our most respected community leaders. He served three terms as mayor of the city of Milford in the 1960's. His energetic and compassionate style earned him the respect of the entire community. His creative initiatives, like civic day, which he founded, continues to allow Milford's young people to learn about city government and its important role in their lives. The legacy of this program has inspired generations since then and will forever enhance the city of Milford. As the Milford Boy Scouts honor Alan H. Jepson, I am pleased to congratulate him, and to express my deep appreciation for all he has given us. He has earned a special place in the hearts of all of us whom he has touched and enriched through his leadership and guidance. Alan Jepson is well-deserving of the Good Scout Award, and I commend him for his many years of service.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it's nothing new for politicians to use the power of radio to send a message, but it appears that Republicans in this body are hoping to start their own station. WGOP radio--playing all the greatest hits from the 1980's, 24 hours a day. For the last 100 days we have been listening to the Republican Party's greatest hits compilation, entitled the ``Contract With America.'' It includes an array of golden oldies from the grand ole party. Among the easy listening favorites are the crowd pleasing, tax- cut fever, the cold war favorite, the theme from Star Wars. And, finally, that fairy tale put to music, puff the magic budget. Tax cuts for the wealthy, runaway military spending, and empty promises for a balanced budget--these familiar tunes have been playing 'round the clock on WGOP. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are hoping to find a new audience for these old songs, but the American people do not think that skyrocketing deficits and tax breaks for the wealthy and billionaires being able to renounce there citizenship so they can get a tax evasion, they do not think these are anything to sing about. And, Mr. Speaker, they are going to change the station.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this tax give-away to the rich. We do need tax relief, but it should be targeted at middle-class families who have been working harder for less for far too long in this country. The bill now before us does nothing to help working Americans. Households earning $200,000 are big winners. They receive an average tax cut of $11,266. Corporations are big winners. The alternative minimum tax is eliminated, but households earning under $30,000 would receive a paltry $124. Even this small break for ordinary people would be more than taken away through spending cuts. Whatever break seniors get, they will pay back with as much as $400 billion in cuts in Medicare. And whatever breaks middle-class families get, they will pay back in higher college education costs because of $13 billion in cuts in student loans. Do not be fooled. The American public should not be fooled. The rich and the powerful are the only winners in this very bad bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to come up here a few minutes ago and to suggest that a junior Senator in the minority party in the other body is responsible for a multimillion dollar tax break for Rupert Murdoch is ludicrous. Democrats have not been able to win one vote in committee in this body and in the other body since January. Newspaper accounts report that the Republicans supported the tax break after learning that Murdoch was the beneficiary of the legislation, and after consulting the Speaker of this House, according to six sources involved in the negotiations. However, if Republicans want to act on behalf of working middle-class families in this Nation, and on behalf of small businesses, and against a multimillion-dollar break for Rupert Murdoch and his taxes, they just need to ask the President of the United States ``Pull the bill back, support the concurrent resolution, and do away with this outrageous billionaire boondoggle.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days, pundits and politicos will take to the airwaves to grade the Republican Contract With America and the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. But, how you grade the Contract With America all depends on where you're sitting: For instance, if you're a billionaire tax evader sitting on a Caribbean beach somewhere, give the contract an A+, because Republicans have preserved the tax loophole that allows you to renounce your citizenship and avoid paying taxes. And, if you're a lobbyist or a corporate special interest sitting in a wood-paneled boardroom, give the Contract an A+, because it eliminates that pesky corporate minimum tax and rolls back health and safety regulations. But, if you're a senior citizen sitting in your New England apartment, the contract gets a failing grade, because it cuts your heating assistance for next winter. If you're a elementary school student sitting down to a reduced-price lunch in the school cafeteria, the contract gets a failing grade, because it cuts school lunch and deprives thousands of children the one balanced meal they get all day. And, if you're Victoria Dunn, a mother and college student who I met last week, the contract fails you twice. Victoria, a 37-year-old student who also has a daughter who is a college freshman, came to a student loan forum I sponsored on Friday in my district. She came because Republican cuts in student loans threaten both her's and her daughter's education. ``I'm scared to death about this,'' she told me. ``God forbid this happens and I can't finish my degree. It's my hope for my future.'' In Connecticut, the Republican proposal would increase the cost of a college education by $4,547 per student. Nationwide the Republican proposal represents a $13 billion cut that will result in the largest increase in colleges costs in history. That's an increase that will end the dream of a college degree for many students in my State. Students like Victoria Dunn. How you rate the first 100 days of the Republican-led Congress, all depends on your perspective. If you happen to be a lobbyist, a millionaire, a billionaire, or a corporate special interest--you're a winner. But, if you happen to be a child, a senior citizen, a student or a middle-class family, unfortunately, you lose. I would now like to yield to my colleague from North Carolina, Mrs. Clayton.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. I tell the American people that they need to take a look at the numbers, not to listen to what we have to say, but it is clear those who make over $200,000 in this country, the richest 1 or 2 percent in this Nation are going to get an $11,000 tax break. Those people who are working middle-class families who are making $30,000, $40,000, and $50,000 a year are looking at a pittance in terms of a tax break. They are looking at $274. Now, you tell me where that is equity. The other piece of this tax cut package says to the richest corporations in this Nation, let's repeal the alternative minimum tax, that floor that you have to pay in taxes to this Nation to contribute to the well-being of this country, let's eliminate and you pay zero taxes to the United States.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 282 I was unavoidably detained and could not record my vote. Had I done so, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the University of Connecticut's women's basketball team put the final flourish on a perfect season by winning the NCAA tournament and national women's basketball title. I join fans from all across our State in congratulating the players, the coaches, and the entire university for this historic achievement. We are so proud of you; you are true champions. The Huskies' achievement is even more remarkable when you consider the team had to come from behind to defeat the talented Tennessee Volunteers. Either team would have made a terrific champion, but 1995 is UConn's year. In fact the Huskies' undefeated season marks only the second time in the 14-year history of the tournament that a women's team has finished the season with an unblemished record. There was another piece of history made last night when President Clinton called to congratulate the team. It was the first time a President has called the NCAA women's champion after the title game. Let us hope that this tradition continues, along with the winning tradition of women's basketball at the University of Connecticut, the 1995 National Champions. Go Huskies.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the health care tax deduction for the self-employed is critically important to small businesses in my district and across this country. It is crucial that Congress move to extend the deduction and increase it. That is what is right about this legislation. What is wrong with the legislation is that once again House Republicans fail to ask billionaire tax-evaders to pay their share of taxes. The view that the super-rich billionaires can renounce their U.S. citizenship, the country that allowed them to make their fortune, in order to provide themselves with a tax loophole really is wrong and it is a sad commentary that Republicans today would condone and defend that kind of action. To my colleague who said we need to have a comprehensive study of this issue, where was their comprehensive study of the school lunch program, of cutting the funding for severely disabled children, of saying to the pregnant women in this country that we cannot provide you with some help to avoid a low-birthweight baby. The comprehensive study exists for the richest people in this Nation, for the billionaires and for the expatriates. What Members ought to be doing is standing up here and providing working, middle-class families with the opportunity to have a comprehensive study and not deny them what belongs to them. Stand up and fight for working middle-class Americans and not for the super-rich expatriates.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, while republicans in Congress may not be able to agree on terms limits, when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, they are all singing the same tune. Whether preserving tax loopholes for billionaires or eliminating corporate taxes, Republicans are in the same key. And who is paying for this medley of tax cuts? Middle class, working families, that's who. Just look at whom Republicans are turning to next to help finance their windfall to the wealthy. Middle class families trying to send their kids to school. Believe it or not, they propose 75 percent of the financial aid currently awarded to American students. Working middle-class families rely on student loan programs to provide a better future for their children. Speaker Gingrich and many Republicans in this body took out student loans to pay for their education. Do not deny that same opportunity to the students of today. Do not pull up the ladder behind you. Let us work to preserve students loans, not tax loopholes for billionaires.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the 103d Air Control Squadron of the Connecticut Air National Guard in Orange, CT. The Orange Unit's tremendous service to our country has earned it the 1994 Air Force Outstanding Unit Award. For more than a half-century, the Orange Air National Guard Unit has guaranteed our Nation's security and demonstrated that citizen militias--such as the ones that fought for and won freedom in this land over 200 years ago--are still effective and necessary. With support from a small number of full-time Air Force personnel, the Orange Unit fields more than 250 airmen and women. These members of our community serve the United States through the Air National Guard while keeping their commitments to careers and families. These National guardsmen and women deserve our deepest thanks for their selfless service. militias, today's Guard has adapted to keep up with the technological changes that have reshaped our Nation's fighting force. The Orange Unit exemplifies this progress. The unit's communications expertise enables it to coordinate air missions and track aircraft using radar and even satellite communications. The Orange Air National Guard Unit distinguished itself among all Air Force units to earn this well-deserved honor not only by standing at the ready, but by actively participating in numerous missions around the globe. Whenever duty called, they were there. The Orange Unit has worked hard to stem the tide of illegal drugs entering our country by tracking drug flights in the Colombian jungle, as well as on the Texas-Mexican border. As the first Air National Guard Unit to participate in Operation Deny Flight to prevent air attacks in the former Yugoslavia, the Orange Air Guard Unit ably replaced an active Air Force Unit and coordinated air operations over this dangerous area. The unit's communications support has been vital to U.S. forces in Haiti and NATO exercises in Turkey. In these and other missions, the Orange Air Guard Unit has set itself apart. Congratulations, and thank you for your dedicated service.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night, Republicans refused to crack down on billionaire tax evaders who renounce their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. But, preserving tax loopholes for billionaires is just the latest installment of the great tax giveaway of 1995. And, who is paying for this windfall to the wealthy? Middle class, working families. Just look at what is next on the GOP agenda: Republicans want to cut student loan programs to help finance their tax cuts to the wealthy. Four crucial student aid programs are on the GOP chopping block. Together, these programs account for 75 percent of the financial aid currently awarded to college students. In Connecticut, 39,176 students rely on Stafford loans. The average debt of these students is $13,835. The Republican proposal would increase the average debt by $4,547 per family. That means monthly payments will soar, from $164 a month to $202 a month. This may not sound like much to Speaker Gingrich, but it is real money to a 24-year- old in his or her first job. Many Members of this body took out student loans to pay for their education. It is wrong to deny that same opportunity to the students of today. Democrats will fight to preserve student loans programs, not tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, once again, Republicans are asking middle class families to sacrifice in order to pay for their tax giveaway to the wealthy. This time they have zeroed in on student loan programs that have helped educate generations of middle class kids. The Contract With America puts four crucial student aid programs on the chopping block. Together, these programs account for 75 percent of the financial aid currently awarded to college students. If these mean-spirited cuts are approved, it would cost students and their families $20 billion over the next 5 years--making this the largest increase in college costs in history. Middle class families rely on student aid. In fact, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey took out student loans to pay for their education. Now, they want to pull up the ladder behind them and deny that opportunity to the students of today. Don't let Professor Gingrich cancel class for hundreds of thousands of college students. Oppose cuts in student aid.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was proud last night to join all my Democratic colleagues in voting for real welfare reform. The Deal substitute was real welfare reform--it demands more responsibility by requiring that welfare recipients go to work after 2 years, and it provides more opportunity by making sure that that work pays more than welfare. But the Republican bill before us today is more intent on punishing our children than in putting welfare recipients to work. This bill would cut $2.3 billion from school-based nutrition programs and $7 billion from all child nutrition programs over the next 5 years. That means 2 million children would be thrown out of the School Lunch Program--20,000 in my home State of Connecticut alone. This Republican bill punishes children in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, the richest 1 percent of the people in this Nation. That is what this is all about. Today we can stop this war on kids. Vote against a bad Republican bill.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in mourning the passing of a true hero. Mr. John Willsher of Woodbridge, CT, died of a heart attack last month after helping to rescue two young boys, whom he had never met, from the freezing waters of Lily Pond in New Haven. Having stopped to buy gas, he heard the boys screaming from across the street and ran to help. As part of a brave and selfless rescue effort, he helped remove the boys from the frigid waters of the pond. After making the rescue, John Willsher suffered a fatal heart attack. Mr. Willsher died the same way he lived for 57 years--helping others. He was known among relatives and neighbors as helpful and generous. His countless acts of selflessness cannot be listed, but will long be remembered by those who knew him. Mr. Willsher is remembered by his friends and family for his good sense of humor, his interest in politics, and his love of cooking. He and his wife, Elizabeth (Buddy), to whom he had been married for 30 years, and his three children, Michael, Peter, and Jennifer, were very close. Mr. Willsher moved to the United States from Colchester, England in 1963. He worked as a plumber for 18 years at the AlliedSignal Corp. in Stratford and was 2 years away from retirement. John Willsher reminds us of the best in people. His generosity and selflessness renew our faith in ourselves. I am confident that my colleagues in the House join me as I send my deepest condolences to the Willsher family and my gratitude for the selflessness and bravery demonstrated by John throughout his life.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, during debate on the Young amendment to H.R. 1158 that restored funding for veterans' medical care and cut funding for the AmeriCorps national service program, it was charged that AmeriCorps is hurting military recruiting. This is an absolutely false charge concocted to justify an appalling amendment that pits veterans who served our country against young people serving their communities. There also is no evidence to support this charge. To refute this charge, I am submitting for the Record the following letter form Assistance Secretary of Defense for Force Management, Frederick Pang: Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1995. Hon. Bob Stump, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Stump: I understand that you are considering introducing an amendment to reduce funding for national service based on testimony from Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Harold G. Overstreet. This letter provides the Department's position regarding the possible effects of national service on military recruiting. During his testimony before the House Committee on National Security on March 7, Sergeant Major Overstreet discussed results from the Marine Corps' Youth Attitude and Awareness Study that suggested national service is a threat to military recruiting. This survey is administered twice a year to a sample of 800 unmarried men, ages 16-19 years, with no military service. In particular, Sergeant Major Overstreet indicated that 47 percent of the young men responding to the survey would consider enrolling in a national service program. He also said 56 percent of the respondents believed that national service offers a better way to obtain money for college than does the military. Unfortunately, Sergeant Major Overstreet's testimony did not include all the salient facts about national service from the survey. When asked if they were aware of national service, only 11 percent of respondents answered yes. The percentages mentioned above came after the interviewers had explained national service to the respondents. The proportions who indicated awareness of national service in October 1993 and in February 1994 were 15 and 8 percent, respectively. At yesterday's hearing before the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security, the Chairman asked the Service Personnel Chiefs if national service was causing recruiting problems. Each stated unequivocally that national service has not had a negative impact on recruiting. In addition, I am told that Lieutenant General G.R. Christmas further indicated that the types of people attracted to national service were very unlikely to be interested in joining the Marine Corps. While I share Sergeant Major Overstreet's concerns about future recruiting challenges, I believe he overstated the potential impact of national service on recruiting. Given the small size of the current national service program, the greater value of the military educational benefits (Montgomery GI Bill), and the greater depth of training available in today's Armed Forces, we maintain that military recruiting is in no danger from national service. Fiscal Year 1994 was the third best recruiting year in the history of the All-Volunteer Force. In terms of recruit quality, 96 percent of new enlistees were high school diploma graduates and 72 percent scored above average on the enlistment test. Recruiting also is going well in Fiscal Year 1995. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the Department's position on this issue. Sincerely, F. Pang.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last night, we showed how the Republicans are playing a shell game with the Nation's child nutrition programs. We illustrated that the Republicans would rob Peter to pay Paul in order to support programs, such as school lunch, school breakfast, and WIC. Tonight, no games--just the sad, sorry truth. The truth is if the Republican welfare reform proposal is enacted, thousands of children in this country will lose their access to a nutritious school lunch. The number I am placing on this map tonight represents the 3,600 children in my homestate of Connecticut who will be dropped from the School Lunch Program under the Republican proposal--and that's in the first year alone. The Republican plan cuts funding for school lunch and by doing so it cuts kids. The Republican plan takes money away from programs, like school lunch, which are efficient, effective, and working to keep our kids healthy and productive, for one reason and one reason only--to pay for tax cuts for the rich. This is the truth. This is why the Republican welfare proposal must be defeated. I urge my colleagues to look at this map and contemplate the horror of these number. These numbers represent children--children who need our help and who are relying on us to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to remember their needs when the time comes to cast this important vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero- Barcelo].

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues once again in exposing the myths that the Republicans keep repeating about their welfare reform proposal and its impact on child nutrition programs. Later this evening, two of my colleagues will demonstrate how the Republicans are misleading the American people and how this block grant plan clearly cuts funding for essential child nutrition programs. But before they begin, here are the facts. The Republicans claim their block grant does not cut funding for child nutrition programs, only the growth rate of these programs. They would like everyone to believe that their proposal increases funding for programs, such as school lunch, by 4.5 percent each year. The truth is their 4.5 percent increase in funding for School Lunch is a fabrication. In fact, the bill doesn't even designate funding specifically for the school lunch, breakfast, or any other school-based meal program. The Republicans' numbers are nothing more than assumptions--I repeat, assumptions--of how much States may choose to use for lunch programs. Even if States spent all of the money they receive under this block grant, this mythical funding increase would fall $300 million short of the amount necessary to meet real needs. That is because the Republicans' plan won't keep pace with expected increases in program enrollment, inflation, or a possible recession. These needs require a 6.5 percent increase, so even the mythical 4.5 percent increase falls woefully short. The Republicans' mythical funding also includes only cash assistance and not the value of direct purchases of food goods such as cheese and fruit. These direct purchases of food are a critical part of the school lunch program. In the first year, Republicans cut $51 million from direct food assistance. Over 5 years, they cut $600 million. That is a total shortfall of $1 billion even if they live up to their hollow promise of a 4.5 percent increase in cash assistance. That 4.5 percent promise comes with all kinds of trap doors that will drop even more kids from the school lunch program. The first trap door is that States would be required to use only 80 percent of the school block grant for school meals. Governors may transfer 20 percent to other programs. That means a potential additional loss of $5 billion dollars from the program--$1 billion a year. In my home State of Connecticut, if the Governor had this kind of discretion today and exercised it, the School Lunch Program would lose $2 million in 1995 alone. The second trap door is that these funding increases are not guaranteed--they will be subjected to the political whims of the annual budget process. So the Congress each year will be able to vote to reduce funding even more and drop even more kids from the program. The Republicans also claim that their bill will cut bureaucrats, not kids. They couldn't be further from the truth. If Republicans were only interested in cutting administrative costs they would have done their homework: The entire administrative budget for all USDA feeding programs is $106 million per year. The Republican plan would cut $860 million in 1996 child nutrition programs alone. The bottom line is their cuts far exceed what is needed to control administrative costs. The truth is, if the Republican proposal is enacted, 3,600 kids will be dropped from the School Lunch Program in Connecticut in the first year alone, and over half a million kids will be dropped nationwide. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded the Republican proposal will cut $2.3 billion over 5 years from school based nutrition programs and $7 billion from all child nutrition programs over 5 years. Republicans though don't want to admit this. They actually believe that these are not cuts. They boast that their plan provides savings. I ask you, how can you have savings, if you don't have cuts? This is the biggest Republican myth of them all. The tragedy in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that these Republican myths are being perpetuated so that drastic cuts can be made in a program that everybody agrees is working--and working well. And the savings--the money that will no longer be used to pay for a child's school lunch--will be used to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans. It's shameful. It's mean spirited. It's just plain wrong.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, thousands of children and their parents staged a ``Lunch-In'' on the steps of the Capitol to protest Republican plans to cut the School Lunch Program. The message that these families sent to the Republican majority is simple: Stop the war on kids. We all agree that there is waste in Government and that there are programs that do not work and should be eliminated, but the School Lunch Program is not one of them. The School Lunch Program works. It works to help our kids stay healthy, alert, and ready to learn each day. If we are going to cut spending and reform Government, why not start by cutting corporate welfare. We could save $5 billion if we eliminate the tax breaks given to pharmaceutical companies to manufacture offshore. Why not start there, instead of starting by cutting programs for our children.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for real welfare reform that puts people to work. The Deal substitute does that--it demands more responsibility of welfare recipients by requiring that they go to work after 2 years, and it provides more opportunity by making sure that work pays more than welfare. The Deal substitute is real welfare reform. But the bill before us, the Personal Responsibility Act, is not welfare reform at all. This bill is more intent on punishing our children than in putting welfare recipients to work. This bill would destroy the School Lunch program and other federal nutrition programs in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That is wrong, and we must defeat this bill. The School Lunch program works to provide many of our children with the one balanced meal they eat all day. But this bill would cut $2.3 billion from the School Lunch program over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that 2 million children will be thrown out of this program-- 20,000 in my home state of Connecticut alone. That is only the beginning of the assault on children. Altogether, this bill cuts $7 billion from important federal child nutrition programs. And it immediately eliminates Social Security benefits for 250,000 low-income children who are severely disabled or blind. Supporters of this bill have come up with all kinds of creative excuses to defend these cuts. First, they claim they are cutting bureaucrats, not food for kids. But the entire administrative budget for all U.S. Department of Agriculture feeding programs is just $106 million per year--just 1.5 percent of these programs' total budget. The Republican plan would cut eight times that amount--$860 million--in child nutrition programs in 1996 alone. That's cutting kids, not bureaucrats. Then supporters of this bill claim they are increasing funding for the School Lunch program by 4.5 percent annually. Even if that was true, this increase falls far short of keeping up with inflation, increased enrollment, or a downturn in the economy. This program grows 6.7 percent each year. Therefore, we are 2 percent short, but the fact is, this promise of a 4.5-percent increase is just that--an empty promise. And the odds are, it is a promise that will never be kept. That is because this bill lumps the School Lunch program in a giant, underfunded block grant, with no guaranteed levels of funding for any specific program. I intend to vote for real welfare reform that puts work first, but I cannot vote to punish children. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Personal Responsibility Act. Our children are our future-- let's not abandon them.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 17, 1995, the Branford Elks, Lodge 1939 will honor William ``Bill'' O'Brien as Irishman of the Year. Bill's commitment to voluntarism and the people of his community have had a tremendous impact on Greater New Haven. I am pleased to pay tribute to this extraordinary man. Bill O'Brien truly symbolizes the spirit of Connecticut's Irish- Americans. Devoted to his community, profession, and family, Bill has always given freely of this time and talents. For decades, he has been a great source of strength and inspiration. Many local organizations have benefited from Bill's leadership and talent for putting ideas into action. From his work as President of the Walter Camp Foundation to his service for the United Fund Campaign, Bill O'Brien is making a real difference for people. In particular, as past president and chairman of the Branford Festival, Bill helped to make this annual event a tremendous success, bringing together many families and friends while building the festival's financial prosperity. A devoted family man and successful banker, Bill O'Brien has earned the respect and friendship of an entire community. I know that this wife, Maureen, and two sons, Michael and Gregory, take great pride in Bill's remarkable accomplishments. I am delighted that the Branford Elks are recognizing his outstanding achievements and I congratulate Bill on this well-deserved honor.