Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical that we restore funding for much needed VA outpatient clinics so that I will vote for this outrageous amendment. But I find it unconscionable that this amendment offsets this restored funding by making further cuts to the already hard-hit national service program. It is appalling that this amendment forces us to choose between serving our veterans and providing college education for our children and needed services to our communities and a program, national service, that is working all over this United States. This is nothing more than a pointed and a personal attack on the President of the United States, and I want to say to the American public that the pawns in this game are the 20,000 young people who will be sent home in the middle of their year of service. The offset in my amendment would have made a cut of just 1.4 percent in the NASA budget rather than this 72 percent cut in the national service budget. But thanks to the Republican gag rule, I could not offer my amendment on the floor of this House, the people's House, so that we have been gagged at every step of the way, and that is wrong. Let me tell my Republican colleagues that the veterans are not likely to forget that you cut $206 million from their projects, and neither will the young people of this country or their parents forget what you have done to their children today.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that Speaker Gingrich failed to disclose GOPAC's involvement in his college course when he asked for Ethics Committee approval. Mr. Gingrich's spokesman said that GOPAC's involvement was irrelevant. But that is not what Mr. Gingrich's colleagues at Kennesaw State College were saying. In a letter to Kennesaw president Betty Siegel, Robert W. Hill, the chair of the English department, put it best: Because of Mr. Gingrich's congressional incumbency and because of his direct statements against inviting opposing viewpoints into his course and now with the evidence of GOPAC's direct and improper involvement, I do firmly object to its bearing academic credit. Mr. Speaker, GOPAC's involvement in Mr. Gingrich's college course appears to be in violation of the ethics rules and tax laws and underscores the need for an outside counsel to investigate this mess.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore the much needed funding for veterans' health care facilities and equipment. It restores $206 million for veterans' health care and provides for an identical offset in NASA's science, aeronautics, and technology account. The total NASA budget is $14.4 billion so this amendment cuts only 1.4 percent of the NASA budget so that we can afford better health care for veterans. Mr. Chairman, there is little debate that this funding for veterans' health care is needed. This amendment restores funding to build six critically needed VA outpatient clinics and to replace worn-out medical equipment at VA facilities. Each of these clinic projects has been carefully considered and authorized. They are an essential part of the VA's effort to move away from costly inpatient care to delivering cost- effective outpatient care. This shift will provide better care for more veterans at lower cost to taxpayers. As I stated, the amendment provides for offsetting rescissions in NASA's science, aeronautics, and technology account. Total 1995 funding for this account is $5.9 billion, and it includes several unauthorized programs that are either new starts at a time when we can ill afford new starts or received large increases in 1995. While these NASA programs undoubtedly have merit, we do have to make tough choices. So I ask my colleagues, what is more important, authorized projects to improve veterans' health care or unauthorized projects such as building new rockets and satellites? The clear choice must be veterans. In fact, the cuts are in two programs: The advanced space transportation program and the veterans' small satellite technology program. The cuts would be sufficient to provide for the offset of $206 million. Funding for these two programs total $224 million, $18 million more than necessary for the offset. The advanced space transportation program is funded at $162.1 million, and it is aimed at developing a reuseable launch vehicle to replace the space shuttle. This program is unauthorized. It was not thoroughly debated in either the authorization or appropriation committee. It is high risk, and it is extremely expensive. The advanced small satellite technology program also is unauthorized. Despite that, this program received a budget increase of 400 percent. Let me repeat that, 400 percent, from $12.5 million in 1994 to $61.9 million in 1995. How in the world can we afford to increase funding for satellites by 400 percent when we cannot afford better health care for our veterans? Mr. Chairman, I know that there are several Members on the other side who will argue that they plan to offer different amendments that restore the VA funding with offsets in the national service program. I find that appalling in that it would force us to choose between serving our veterans and providing education for our children and needed services for our communities. Let me say to my colleagues, this amendment provides a fairer offset for restoring the veterans' funding. The amendment cuts only 1.4 percent of the NASA budget. In contrast, the Stump-Solomon alternative would result in total rescissions of 72 percent of the national service budget. That would promise to thousands of young people who are serving our communities across this country. Mr. Chairman, the amendment sets the right priorities. It restores funding for veterans' health care. It prevents devastating cuts in the National Service Program, and it cuts NASA's budget, again, by only 1.4 percent. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, block granting child nutrition programs is a bad idea, but it is not a new idea. In 1982, members of this body felt it necessary to pass a bipartisan resolution opposing nutrition block grants and one of the signers of that resolution was House Speaker Newt Gingrich. And in the resolution it said, ``Whereas the nutrition benefits provided to our Nation's schoolchildren contribute significantly to the development of their learning potential, the Federal Government should retain primary responsibility for the child nutrition programs and such programs should not be included in any block grant.'' And that is a quote. These statements, Mr. Speaker, are as true today as they were in 1982. Our Federal child nutrition programs work. They help to fight hunger. They keep our kids healthy, alert, and ready to learn every single day. Block granting child nutrition programs was a bad idea in 1982 and it is a bad idea in 1995. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that sunshine is the best disinfectant, so I rise today to join my colleagues in shedding some light on the Republicans' plan and its devastating impact on Federal child nutrition programs and specifically the school lunch program. The Republicans are at it again, insisting that their proposal actually preserves and strengthens the school lunch program. The very opposite is true. As these charts behind me show, each year that the Republican block grant is in place, school meal programs will be cut. Over 5 years, funding for school meals programs will be cut resulting in a total loss of $2.3 billion in the year 2000. funding for the child nutrition programs under the family-based block grant program, which amounts to $4.6 billion, child nutrition programs will be cut by $7 billion over the next 5 years. What the American School Food Service Association--don't take my word--the American School Food Service Association says, and what our Republican colleagues do not tell us, is that inflation with regard to this program rises 3.5 percent every year and school enrollment rises 3 percent every year. That is 6.5 percent. My Republican colleagues tell you that they are going to increase the program 4.5 percent. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 4.5 from 6.5 is a 2-percent cut in this program. What they do not do is to include increased school enrollment, the increased cost of food prices, and a downturn in our economy. Also, according to the American School Food Service Association, the bill cuts funding for school meal programs and places our children at risk in the following ways: First, the Republican plan means an end to free meals for the poorest children in America. Currently children from the lowest income families receive their meals free. In my State of Connecticut, more than 13 million free meals were served last year. I went to the Simon Lake School in Milford, Connecticut, yesterday. In that very small community they served 96,000 free meals last year. The Republican bill states that these children in the future may or may not receive free or reduced priced meals. And then it requires the States to spend only 80 percent of the money that they receive under this block grant toward providing free and reduced meals. They cut back the cost, then they say to the State: If you want you can spend only 80 percent; 20 percent of that money you can spend on anything else that you would like to. The bill also eliminates current requirements that low-income children pay no more than 40 cents for a reduced price meal. Schools would be able to charge these kids any price they choose, 50 cents, 75 cents or even $1 per meal. This is a hardship that many working families simply could not afford. Second, in addition to cutting $2.34 billion from the program, the school nutrition block grant would allow Governors to transfer up to 20 percent of the funds they receive to another block grant program. Further, Governors would no longer be required to make a State matching contribution to the program. I will give you my own State. If the Governor of my home State of Connecticut had this kind of discretion and he chose to exercise it, the School meals program in Connecticut could lose $2 million this year. Let me conclude. As my colleagues have said, school lunches are an essential part of every child's day and benefit every American child in the public school. We should not be tampering with a program that works. I say, leave the school lunch program alone and protect the children of America.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans cutting school lunches for our children, heating assistance for our seniors, and health care for our veterans? To pay for yet another tax cut for the wealthy. Last week we finally got a look at the Republican tax giveaway, and we found that 50 percent of the benefits of the Republican tax cuts go to people making $100,000 or more. The capital gains cut is worth $8,000 to families making $200,000 or more, while working middle class families making $30,000 or less would only get a tax cut worth $92. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague who just spoke, yes, that is a fact, it is a diet, it is a diet for the working middle class families of this country. Cutting services for the most vulnerable to benefit the most privileged 2 percent of Americans is wrong. The reverse Robin Hood politics of the Republican Party is shameful.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, cutting funding for veterans to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy is wrong. Clearly, my Republican colleagues from the House Appropriations Committee disagree. Last week, under the continued assault of the Contract With America, veterans learned that Republicans cut $206 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs budget to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. These cuts represent more than just money--they represent the breaking of a solemn promise Congress made with sick and disabled veterans across the Nation last year. These cuts target some of the most vulnerable groups in our society--aging World World II and Korean conflict veterans and other who have sacrificed so much for our Nation. This funding is sorely needed. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been counting on this assistance to pay to replace worn our medical equipment. This was not money unwisely appropriated. In the case of the ambulatory care projects, each of these projects have been carefully considered and authorized. Further, they are an essential part of the Department's plan to move away from costly inpatient care to delivering cost-effective outpatient care; part of the Department's plan to invest taxpayers dollars and make the VA medical delivery system more efficient. One of these projects, the West Haven VA Medical Center, is located in my district in West Haven, CT. The West Haven VA Medical Center serves the entire Veterans Administration's medical system. It is the site of the National Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Research Center and the only VA AIDS diagnostic laboratory. Despite its notable reputation, the center's buildings are in extremely poor condition. The proposed ambulatory care clinic at West Haven would connect the two main, deteriorating buildings and provide the space that is necessary to respond to the number of outpatient visits at the hospital which have doubled since 1984. Madam Speaker, this, in the words of Lauren Brown, a nurse at West Haven, is not any way to treat ``* * * vets [who] served their country regardless of party affiliation or which party was sitting in the White House.'' In Connecticut, we are lucky. The West Haven Project is supported by the entire delegation--Republicans and Democrats alike. It is my hope that Members will follow the example Connecticut has set and stand in support our veterans by restoring funding for the Veterans' Administration. Madam Speaker, our obligation to our veterans must be kept. These cuts are mean-spirited. They do not save money. They must be reversed. When there cuts are debated on the floor next week, I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that will restore this crucial funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs medical construction and equipment accounts.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Congress have begun their assault on one of the most important workers' rights acts of the 20th century, the Davis-Bacon Act. This important law protects the American standard of living by ensuring that workers on federally-funded construction projects are paid at the wage rates that prevail in their communities. To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act would be a slap in the face to the American worker. The Davis-Bacon Act was passed in 1931 and signed by a Republican President. It was the first Federal wage law to provide prevailing wage protection to nongovernment workers. Now, Republicans in Congress are threatening to repeal this historic legislation. At a time when the number one concern of middle-class working families is a declining standard of living, repealing the Davis-Bacon Act would be devastating. The very heart of this law is protecting the American standard of living. But you do not have to take my word for it. Just look at what has happened in States that have present repealed prevailing wage laws. Economists at the University of Utah have written a comprehensive study of the effects of repealing prevailing wage laws in nine States during the 1980's. The University of Utah study found that the repeal of prevailing wage laws had a destructive economic impact. From their analysis of these repeal States, authors of the report project that the Federal Davis- Bacon Act would hurt the national economy in the following ways: Federal income tax collections would fall by $1 billion per year because of the decline in construction earnings. As a result, the Federal deficit would dramatically increase. Each construction worker would see his or her annual earnings fall by $1,477. The total national loss due to this reduction in construction earnings would be $4.6 billion each year. A massive increase in cost overruns and use of expensive change orders. In the case of Utah, which repealed its State prevailing wage law in 1981, cost overruns on State financed roads tripled over the next decade due to the low-ball bidding practices. The lack of a prevailing wage will encourage similar overruns at the national level. Prevailing wage laws were designed to achieve a simple goal: to prevent government from using its purchasing power to undermine the wages of workers. It is a law that works. It works for our economy. American workers are already on an economic treadmill, working longer hours and earning less, struggling to buy homes, struggling to send their kids to college. The Davis-Bacon Act helps many American workers to keep pace. To repeal it now would turn up the speed on the economic treadmill and put the American dream out of reach for too many working families. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight with several of my colleagues who are going to address this very, very important issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague has put her finger really on the crux of this issue. I say do not listen to all of us tonight, listen to us, but talk to the people in our districts who run these programs. These are successful programs. They work. They are living up to the objectives that they were created for, and it is foolish for us to unravel these very fine programs and create difficult problems for our youngsters and, quite frankly, for our economy in the future. And once again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my Republican colleagues over the last several days get up here and tell the American people that by cutting the School Lunch Program that they will be able to feed more children. I think it is time to set the record straight. In the fantasy world of the Republicans, higher food prices and larger school enrollments simply don't exist. But they do exist in the real world and current law allows funding for child nutrition programs to keep pace automatically, especially during difficult economic times. This is where the Republicans' block grant proposal fails and where our kids would get hurt. Republicans argue that their proposal would increase child nutrition program funding by 4.5 percent every year. But this is deliberately misleading. Their so-called increases would not keep pace with food price inflation and rising program enrollments. Under the Republicans' plan, according to the Center for Budget Priorities estimates, school- based nutrition programs would be cut by $190 million in 1996 and $2.3 would be cut by $680 million in 1996 and $4.6 billion over 5 years. The Republicans say their plan frees up more money for food by making the programs less bureaucratic. This is preposterous. The Republicans' proposal would actually make the programs more bureaucratic by creating 50 new bureaucracies to administer 50 new programs. This will only increase administrative costs for the States, and ultimately mean less food for children. The fact is the Republicans would not be cutting Federal bureaucracy, they would simply be cutting Federal funding. I am especially concerned about the impact this block grant proposal would have on the School Lunch Program--a program that serves free and reduced priced lunches to over 104,000 children in my home State of Connecticut every day. I met today with two special people who run a program in my district called Boys Village. This program provides community-based and day treatment services for at-risk children. Every day, Boys Village feeds breakfast and lunch to all the children enrolled in its program. To help do this, they receive $30,000 a year from the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The budget for this remarkably successful program is small. If funding for its nutrition programs was substantially reduced, or eliminated, which is possible under the Republicans' proposal, Boys Village would have to make some tough choices. Those are not pleasant choices, Mr. Speaker. And they're choices that all School Meal Programs will be forced to make. They will have to either eliminate meals, increase prices, or reduce the quality and quantity of the well-balanced, nutritious meals that kids currently receive. Newt Gingrich, who spoke so highly of the Boys Town of yesteryear, should wake up and see what the Boys Villages of tomorrow will be like if he has his way. They will not feature the smiling faces of the movie version. It will be more like the Dickens' version, with hungry children holding out their tin cups and begging for more. Child Nutrition Programs in this country will be a pale imitation of what they are today. Enrollment will decrease, nutritional standards will diminish, and the health of our children will suffer. It is a vision of hungry kids who are not healthy, alert, and ready to learn--all this so the Republicans can pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. This Republican scheme must be stopped. I urge my colleagues to keep up the fight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, over and over again on the floor of this House we have heard from the Members of the majority party. We have heard them talk about their concern for America's children. They claim that it is our children that they are fighting for. However, when it comes to one of our most crucial and direct commitments to children, the School Lunch Program, the Republicans were eager and willing to sacrifice our children on the alter of their capital gains tax cut. Today the hypocrisy grows even greater. The Speaker of this House will be visiting a school in Anacostia, the Moten Elementary School, to give out checks as a part of his Earning for Learning Program. Children get $2 for every book that they have read. However, while he doles out the cash payments, the fact is that these children will be suffering a devastating loss at the hands of the Speaker; 397 of the 422 children in this school take part in the School Lunch Program. Since the funds will be slashed, these kids will not have the money that they need to have that program, and many of them in fact will go hungry. We know what that does to learning. In the words of Richard Nixon, who strongly supported this program, ``a child, ill fed, is dulled in curiosity, lower in stamina, distracted from learning.'' Please, we must have the School Lunch Program. The Speaker is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to get up and tell us that what they did last week is untrue, they are, in fact, cutting the child nutrition programs. They are cutting the breakfast program. They are cutting the school lunch programs. Do not let them get away with it. Mr. Speaker, as the American people learn more about the uncaring and extreme agenda of the Gingrich revolution, they are realizing that the Contract With America is not worth the laminated paper it is written on. This New York Times poll released today confirms what Democrats have been saying--that we need to focus on crime, jobs, and health care. Those are the core challenges of our time. But, instead of fighting crime by taking guns off our streets, the Gingrich revolution promises to overturn the assault weapons ban. Instead of focusing on job creation, the Gingrich revolution promises to cut programs like the Summer Youth Program that creates public- private partnerships that put kids to work during the summer. Instead of focusing on health care reform, the Gingrich revolution has produced legislation that will dessimate the Medicare Program, hurt seniors, and shut down hospitals. Contrary to what they want to say, Gingrich Republicans may walk in lockstep toward their 100 days, they are clearly out of step with the American people.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the ethical cloud hanging over Speaker Gingrich's head grows darker each day. Despite the Speaker's contention that his college course is purely an academic venture, Kennesaw State College officials, where the course was once taught, tell a different story. According to news reports, Timothy Mescon, the dean of Kennesaw College, now says that political and academic resources were commingled in the class. In 1993, 40 of Speaker Gingrich's colleagues at Kennesaw College wrote to the dean to protest the political nature of his course. They wrote: ``It appears that we are all acting as a part of the reelection campaign for Mr. Gingrich, or laying the groundwork for his future political ambitions.'' Finally, Lois Kubal, who helped put the course together, said: ``The class * * * was intended to be partisan and very political.'' If these latest allegations by former Gingrich allies are true, the Speaker's course is in violation of both campaign finance laws and tax laws. They underscore the need for an independent, outside counsel to investigate this mess.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today, as Republicans plan yet another celebratory press conference to congratulate themselves for doing the jobs they are paid to do, many Americans are not celebrating. Children are not celebrating the fact that Republicans will pay for their so-called reform by eliminating all Federal nutrition programs, including the School Lunch Program. Senior citizens are not celebrating the fact that Republicans will balance the budget by putting Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Police officers are not celebrating the fact that the Republicans' idea of crime control means taking cops off the street and putting guns on the street. And, finally, working families are not celebrating the fact that the Republicans' idea for cutting waste, means cutting crucial student loan programs that have helped to educate generations of middle class kids. Once the rhetorical fireworks are over and the smoke has cleared, we will be able to clearly see who stands behind the Republican contract-- the very special interest lobbyists they once vowed to drive from this town. The first 50 days of the 104th Congress have given the special interests plenty to celebrate.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, if I described a Government program that enhances our national defense, saves taxpayers money, and creates jobs, most of my colleagues would be jumping up to support it. Well, there is such a program, and it's called the Technology Reinvestment Project, or TRP. But rather than support such a program, this bill would kill it. That's a sad case of misplaced priorities, and I hope funding for TRP will be fully restored before this defense supplemental appropriations bill is sent to the President. TRP was created in 1993 to deal with two conflicting realities of the post-cold-war world. The first reality is that our national security depends ever more on superior technology. The second reality is that in an age of huge budget deficits, we often can't afford to develop such technology solely for defense. The answer to that dilemma is the concept of dual-use technology-- cutting-edge technology that has both defense and commercial applications. The TRP program is the centerpiece of our dual-use strategy. TRP awards matching funds to industry-led projects that have the potential both to strengthen our national defense and to develop competitive commercial products. I want to underscore two critical aspects of this program. One is that projects are competitively selected purely on the basis of merit. Two, the program requires private industry to put up matching grants. For an investment of less than $500 million a year, TRP has leveraged billions of private dollars for research and development. To me, that sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer. I know that TRP works because I've seen the results in my own district. TRP funding has made possible a partnership in Wallingford, CT, between Dow Chemical Co. and United Technologies Corp. to develop lighter, quieter, more fuel-efficient materials for aircraft construction. These new materials will be used on both the F-22 advanced tactical fighter and commercial aircraft. Because of these commercial opportunities, production costs for the Defense Department may be reduced by as much as 50 percent. There are winners all around. The Defense Department wins because its getting a better jet fighter. Taxpayers win because they're paying less for critical defense technology. The two companies involved win because they're developing whole new commercial markets. And the people of my district win because good-paying jobs are being created. At the direction of then-chairman, Ron Dellums, the National Security Committee staff last year surveyed TRP grant winners from the first year of the program. Responses were received from less than a fourth of the winners. But even that small number estimated a potential annual commercial market of $4.7 billion for their new technologies, creating or sustaining 18,000 jobs. Keep in mind that's the gain from only some of the winners and only the first year. Let's give TRP a chance to work. Canceling it now would be yet another example of the Congress being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues here tonight to talk about what we have been doing over the course of the past 2 years to address a major concern of the American people-- reducing the size of the Federal Government and making it work better for them. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Hoyer, Mrs. Maloney, and Mrs. Thurman, who have already spoken. And I want to add my voice to theirs in welcoming our House Republican colleagues who have joined the efforts of congressional Democrats and the Vice President to remake our Federal Government. While some of our efforts have been mentioned by previous speakers, I believe they bear repeating because I'm not sure the magnitude of our successes has gotten the attention it merits. Why? Because there are those who, in order to try to score political points, would have the American people believe nothing has changed. But President Clinton and Vice President Gore ran on a platform of change in 1992, and together, change is what we have delivered. We passed legislation that has produced a record amount of deficit reduction--more than $600 billion. For the first time since the Truman Administration, we have reduced annual deficits for 3 consecutive years. And the deficit will soon be the smallest its been in nearly 20 years relative to the size of our total economy. We have enacted legislation that will reduce the number of Federal employees by 272,000. Already, we have cut more than 100,000 jobs and we will soon have the smallest Federal Government workforce in nearly 40 years. We have cut 300 programs, eliminated others altogether, and we have cut more than one-quarter of a trillion dollars in spending. My colleagues, we should all be proud of these accomplishments. We are delivering on what we set out to do. But these numbers don't tell the whole story. Not only have we made dramatic cuts, but we have set out to fundamentally re-tool the way our Government conducts its business so that it provides better service to its customers--the American people--while it gets more for each tax dollar it spends. Let me give you one example from my home State. The Defense Contract Management Area Operations office in East Hartford, CT, manages Department of Defense contracts in parts of four northeast States, including most of Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and part of New York. Recently, this office overhauled its method of operation to improve oversight of defense contracts by changing to a team approach to customer service. Under this new system, whenever a contractor has a problem, with one phone call it gets rapid assistance from one team of expert professionals whose job is to solve the problem. In the old days, that contractor might have had to make several phone calls to people with overlapping responsibilities before it could get that same problem resolved. As a result of this new system, 23 fewer employees are covering the same 33,000 square miles of territory. So the taxpayer wins--to date nearly $1 million has been saved--and the Government wins--it is better assured of receiving high quality products that can be delivered on time. For their efforts, the employees of the Hartford Defense Contract Management Office have been recognized by the Vice President as heroes of reinvention and they received the Hammer Award for doing their part in responding to the National Performance Review. And their success in employees in dozens of agencies all across our country. These dedicated men and women have proven that they are a far cry from the stereotyped lazy unproductive Federal worker. They have taken their cue from the Vice President, embraced his call for change and are producing for all of us. But we cannot rest on our laurels. Our task of making Government smaller and more effecient continues. I remain committed to working with my colleagues to carry on with this effort, and I look forward to hearing about more success stories this evening. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for spearheading this effort tonight and really being in the forefront of the fight not only to reinvent government but about trying to get the message out and the word out about what has been done over these past 2 years. And I want to compliment the gentlewoman for her efforts tonight.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, on Friday, I visited a School Lunch Program in my district and met with school officials and State food service directors to talk about the devastating impact that the Contract With America will have on child nutrition programs. Under the Republican welfare reform plan, Connecticut will lose $49 million in Federal food aid in 1996 alone. And, the program that will take the biggest hit? The School Lunch Program. Each day, 104,000 children in my State receive reduced or free meals through the School Lunch Program. It is a proven nutritional program that helps keep our kids healthy and ready to learn. Madam Speaker, the Contract With America is a political document. It was written to meet the advertising deadline of TV Guide, but it does not meet the needs of our children. We can reform welfare without hurting our kids, if we work together. But, Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans trample on the rights of children in a relentless march to meet Newt Gingrich's 100- day deadline.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I'm pleased to honor a distinguished citizen from Hamden, CT, Sgt. Lewis J. Perry, Jr. After 25 years of exemplary service, Sergeant Perry will retire this week from the Hamden Police Department. I have known Lew Perry for many years and have always found his dedication and compassion inspiring. Lew is well known to our community for his extraordinary commitment to his public responsibilities. An exemplary police officer and a caring individual, Lew finds the time to help at every level. During his long career, Sergeant Perry has received over 35 commendations and letters of recognition for exemplary performance. In 1982, he was honored as the Police Officer of the Year and earned the respect of his superiors who promoted him in September 1992 to administrative assistant to the chief of police. Lew Perry stands out as a shining example of the positive effect that one person can have in his community. Sergeant Perry is also a prominent leader in his hometown of Clinton, CT. He serves as a selectman and as chairman of the Democratic Town Committee. He has given of his time in the past as a member of the Board of Finance and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Lew Perry has compiled a remarkable public record and I know that his wife, Pamela, and his two sons, Michael and Lewis, take great pride in his many accomplishments. Sergeant Perry is admired by all who benefit from his work and his public commitment. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to salute and honor Sgt. Lewis J. Perry, Jr. I commend him on a lifetime of invaluable service to the citizens of our community and wish him well in his new position as associate director of public safety at Southern Connecticut State University.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this unnecessary, irresponsible and dangerous bill. The Republican defense bill is unnecessary because it is based on the false premise that our military is ill-prepared. That is an insult to our troops and an invitation to would-be aggressors. The truth is that we face no national security problem so urgent that it cannot be fixed through the much more thoughtful and much more bipartisan approach of the authorization process. This bill is irresponsible because it completely rewrites our defense and foreign policies after just as few brief hearings and only a limited amount of debate in this Chamber. What is the rush? The only rush is to check off another item on a political scorecard. Of all the issues, the national security policy of post-cold-war America demands more than that. Most of all, this bill is dangerous because it puts a higher priority on a boondoggle in the sky called star wars than on our troops on the ground. Star wars is going to cost billions of dollars and the people who are going to pay the highest price are our men and our women in uniform. The cost of Star Wars is going to come out of their training. It is going to come out of their salaries and their housing, and it is going to come out of the modern weapons that they need to reduce risk in battle. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the price of the Republican defense bill may very well be paid with the lives of our troops. With this bill, the Contract With America literally becomes a contract on the men and the women who serve in uniform. It does them a disservice. Support our troops and vote no on H.R. 7.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder amendment to allow local law enforcement officials to use funding under this bill to enhance safety at health care clinics, and I congratulate the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] for her leadership on this issue. It is perfectly appropriate, and it is one of the reasons we are here as people who serve in this institution at the Federal level; it is appropriate that the anticrime bill should help law enforcement agencies better protect patients when they seek medical care, including reproductive health care. After the tragic events of the past few months where health care providers have been attacked and murdered, who can doubt the need for this amendment? Indeed, this amendment is the necessary next step to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that we passed in this body last year. We have traveled a long road to enact that measure. Now let us make sure that the promise of that new law can be realized. We need to do everything that we can to ensure women have access to the health care that they need, access free from threats, intimidation, or harassment, violence or even murder. That is a proper role for a Member of Congress. It is outrageous that woman and health care providers fear for their safety and that of their families when they seek or provide constitutionally protected reproductive health services. The opponents of this amendment believe it is unnecessary. They believe the language we adopted yesterday is sufficient to protect all facilities, including health facilities, threatened by crime or violence. I disagree. We must send a strong message to local communities that we will help them enhance health car clinic security. So today, let us put teeth in that law we passed last year. Let us help local law enforcement agencies stop the killing, the violence and the fear-mongering. Let us pass the Schroeder amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, last year, Congress made a promise to put 100,000 new police officers on our streets. Today, Republicans are ready to break that promise. The Republican crime bill does not devote a single dollar for cops on the beat. Instead, it creates block grants to the States, which may sound like a good idea, but we have been down this road before. The last time we tried a similar block grant program for law enforcement, States used the grant money to buy land, cars for politicians, jet planes, financial investments, and to pay for consultants. By contrast, the crime bill we passed last year is already working to put more police in our neighborhoods. My hometown of New Haven, CT, has nine new officers on the beat, already. Our local law enforcement, our mayors, our chiefs of police, and our sheriffs have all thanked us for the cops on the beat program. Members of Congress have a choice to make today. Will you stand with law enforcement, or will you stand with the practitioners of politics-as- usual? Stand with the cops, pass the Conyers-Schumer amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in opposing H.R. 728, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Act, and in supporting the Conyers-Schumer substitute which will be debated later this evening. The streets of my district, the Third District of Connecticut, are safer today because of the 1994 crime bill. Streets are becoming safer across this country because we are putting more police officers on the beat. Mr. Chairman, last weekend I met with local law enforcement officials for community policing, and they asked me, ``Why are you unraveling this bill? It is working. Give it more of a chance to work.'' The 1994 crime bill was passed and signed into law just last August. It is not even into effect for 6 months. They regard this as a bill that has already provided funding for 32 additional officers in 10 municipalities in my communities. They were united in their support for the course of this landmark legislation, and the course it has charted. The 1994 crime bill struck the right balance between prisons, police, and prevention. The bill was tough on criminals, as it should be, but it also recognized that the best way to deal with crime was to prevent it from happening in the first place. That means more community policing, more cops on the beat. The 1994 crime bill guarantees that 100,000 more police will be on our streets by the year 2000. The Republicans' bill does not guarantee that even one new police officer will be hired over the next 5 years. Without the kinds of guidelines that were included in the 1994 bill's block grant programs, there is no guaranty that State and local officials will ever spend any resources in support of community policing and cops on the beat. My police chiefs reminded me of prior law enforcement block grant programs that did not have guidelines, the kind we are talking about in the 1994 bill. They told me that they saw spending on cars for politicians, airplanes, and cash for consultants; even, I might add, armored tanks. The Conyers-Schumer substitute would restore funding that the 1994 crime bill promised the States and localities by putting back money into the Cops on the Beat Program. This was a promise that was made to the American public. I urge my colleagues to support our police and our communities by keeping our commitment to the cops, keeping our commitment to this program, programs that are making our streets safer, and the people who live in our communities feel more safe. Take a stand in support of our cities, our police, and our youth, Mr. Chairman, and support the Conyers-Schumer substitute.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the streets of my district are safer today because of the 1994 crime bill. Streets are becoming safer across this country beat. Sadly, in the name of politics, the Republican majority wants to undo our progress. The 1994 crime bill struck the right balance between prisons, police, and prevention. This bill was tough on criminals, as it should be. It also recognized that the best way to deal with crime was to prevent it from happening in the first place. And this means more community policing, more cops on the beat. The 1994 crime bill does it right, with the Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act, better known as COPS. Next week we will consider a bill that would destroy this effective program and replace it with an approach that does not guarantee a single new cop on the beat. This new bill is absolutely unnecessary. Why would we ever want to destroy a program that is working? I can only conclude that it is because of politics, and that is sad, because politics should not be allowed to threaten programs that save lives and improve safety. Mr. Speaker, when I voted for the 1994 crime bill, I made a promise to the people of the Third District of Connecticut. I promised them that I would help put 1,500 more cops on the streets of our cities, and 100,000 on the streets of this Nation by the year 2000. The President is doing his part to keep the promise he made when he signed the 1994 crime bill into law. His budget for 1996 includes $1.9 billion to hire 20,000 more police officers and to support community policing programs across this country. When combined with last year's appropriations, there will be 40,000 more police officers hired and trained this year. In my district alone, funding has already been awarded to hire 32 police officers in 10 municipalities. Like the President, I believe we have an obligation to our communities to continue the Community Policing Program. I know how this program works, because I have seen it firsthand. I have seen the difference that it has made in my district, in cities like New Haven and Stratford, CT. In 1990, my hometown of New Haven had the unfortunate distinction of having the highest crime rate of any city in Connecticut. Then police and community leaders came together and implemented a Community Policing Program. Three years later, New Haven has a much prouder distinction. Crime was reduced by 7 percent in the first year of the program, and by 10 percent in the second year. In fact, New Haven's Community Policing Program has become a model for this Nation. But under the Republican bill, other municipalities may never have a chance to replicate this model. The Republican bill destroys the COPS Program. The Republican block bill grant does not guarantee that States and municipalities will ever spend one penny on this kind of crime prevention, and the track record of existing block grant programs is not encouraging. According to the National Association of Child Advocates, the states spend only 7 percent of the money that they receive through the Byrne Law Enforcement Block Grant Program on prevention activities, including community policing expenditures. I support giving flexibility to local officials and using the resources that we provide. The last year's crime bill did provide flexibility. It struck the right balance between flexibility, accountability, and security. I urge my colleagues to support our police and our communities by keeping our commitment to the COPS Program. Let us put COPS on the beat. I have walked in my neighborhoods with the police. I have driven around with them. I have seen how its program is working. I want to the businesses with the cop on the beat and have felt their sense of security with the police officers being there. This is a program that keeps our cities safe, our streets safe, and our businesses more in tune with what they want to do, which is keep their business without being concerned about what crime is going to do. Let us maintain the Cops on the Beat Program. It is in fact making our streets safer.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, tonight National Empowerment Television, the taxpayer-subsidized station which broadcasts Speaker Gingrich's college course, is holding a $50,000 a plate fundraiser. But it is the Speaker, not the filet mignon, that is the main course. This lavish dinner speaks volumes about who Republicans represent. They are dining with the elite, at the same time Republicans are opposing a minimum wage increase for American workers. A full-time minimum wage worker would have to work 5\3/4\ years to buy a seat at Mr. Gingrich's table tonight. Those lucky enough to have a spare fifty grand to buy a ticket for tonight's fundraiser will be rewarded with a nifty $19,800 tax break. You see, National Empowerment Television operates as a nonprofit, even though it is the only TV station devoted solely to a particular political ideology. Like tonight's dinner, this is another example of the commingling of politics and special interests that has led to the calls for an outside counsel to look into and investigate Mr. Gingrich's political and financial dealings.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join President Clinton and my Democratic colleagues this morning in announcing our plan to raise the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour. I am proud because I believe that raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. Consider this: A family of three with a full-time minimum wage worker lives below the poverty level in America. By raising the minimum wage by 90 cents over the next 2 years, we can lift that family above the poverty line. People who are working full-time at honest jobs should be able to support their families. More importantly, raising the minimum wage is crucial to welfare reform. We cannot ask people to move from welfare to work unless we make work pay again. Mr. Speaker, it is time we value work again in this country. More importantly, it is time we value our workers. People who work hard and play by the rules deserve to make a living wage. Let us raise the minimum wage.