Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I take special pride in recognizing a very outstanding constituent of mine. She is a 19-year- old professional tennis player from Lafayette, LA. I speak of no other than Chanda Rubin, daughter of Judge and Mrs. Edward D. Rubin. I am proud to say that Chanda Rubin just completed her best ever grand slam performance at the French Open. Although Chanda fell short to the defending champion in the quarterfinals yesterday, she proved to be a tough fighter. Her courage has touched the lives of many individuals, particularly young people, across this Nation. I commend Chanda for her hard work and I wish her the best of luck in the future.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Without question. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. One of the points that I wanted to make was the point of the alternative minimum tax proposal that was eliminated in this piece of legislation. I in 1986 was because of the fact that we had about 130 to 250 corporations that pay zero in taxes. This was a big loophole in our tax law, so we passed this legislation so we could make sure that corporations paid their fair share. Now, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, even corporations, the very corporations that we are giving this big tax break to today as a result of the passage of this act a few minutes ago, if these corporations' board of directors would meet across the country, and if they are in the red, these board of directors members will not give their shareholders a tax dividend because they are in the red. This company, this country is in the red. It is in the red because we are facing a huge deficit. We are Members of Congress, we really are a board of directors for the United States of America. So I think it is our fiduciary responsibility as members of the board of directors for the United States of America to make sure that we not give a tax dividend to our shareholders when our corporation, which is the United States of America, is not as solvent as we want it to be. So if corporations themselves will not give shareholders a dividend when they are in a deficit, why would we as a corporation for the United States of America and as a board of directors give corporations themselves a dividend. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Mr. FIELDS

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to congratulate the Westfield High School concert band in Houston, TX, on recently winning the Sudler Flag of Honor, which is presented to the most outstanding high school concert bands in the United States and Canada. Under the direction of Mr. Philip Geiger, the Westfield High School concert band is just the 31st concert band to earn the Sudler Flag of Honor in the 12 years that it has been awarded. The award is presented by the John Philip Sousa Foundation and is intended to recognize and salute high school concert band programs of international-level excellence. Winning the Sudler Flag of Honor proves what many of us have known for along time: that the Westfield High School concert band is among the very best concert bands in North America. The Sudler Flag is designed in red, white and blue and features the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The flag becomes the property of the band. Each member of the band receives a personalized certificate and the band director receives a personalized plaque. To be eligible for the Sudler Flag, a high school must have maintained a fine concert band for at least 7 years. Although the band's concert activities receive the most attention in the selection process, the high school's band program must be a complete one and must include a marching band, small ensembles, and solo participation by its members in contests and festivals. Also, the band conductor must have been at the same high school for at least 7 consecutive years and is expected to be involved in professional band and music education organization and activities on the local, State and national level. Mr. Speaker, I know that you join with me in congratulating the young men and women of the Westfield High School concert band--as well as conductor Philip Geiger--on this significant achievement, and I know you join with me in wishing everyone associated with the band continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. FIELDS

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, those of us who have worked on issues important to the U.S. Coast Guard have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Comdr. William J. ``Woody'' Lee. Woody will retire from his position in the very near future after 21 years of active duty service in the Coast Guard, and I would like to take a moment to salute his efforts on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard. Since 1992, Woody has worked closely with many of us in the House on issues important to the Coast Guard. I worked especially closely with Commander Lee from 1993 to 1995, when I served as the ranking Republican member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. During those years, committee staffers, Chairman Gerry Studds, and I all relied on advice and information supplied by Woody to better understand the needs of the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard as they worked to carry out their many diverse missions. Throughout the years I worked with him, I was always impressed with Woody's tireless efforts on behalf of the Coast Guard, and his efforts to improve communication between top Coast Guard officials and those of us on Capitol Hill charged with overseeing the Coast Guard's activities. Commander Lee coordinated hundreds of Coast Guard presentations at congressional hearings and briefings, including annual budget briefings and updates on Coast Guard operations during the Cuban and Haitian refugee crises. Woody coordinated more meetings and appearances on Capitol Hill by the two Coast Guard commandants under whom he served than had been coordinated during the entire previous decade. Woody's efforts to foster a better relationship and improved communication between top officials of the U.S. Coast Guard and those of us in Congress resulted in widespread and bipartisan support in the house for the U.S. Coast Guard as it worked to carry out its many varied responsibilities. But Woody always believed that telling the Coast Guard story involved more than participating in congressional hearings. In his years as the Coast Guard's liaison officer in the House, Woody organized and managed more than 30 field trips for House staff members. Those trips provided staffers with invaluable first-hand information and a better understanding of Coast Guard operations, missions, and needs. In the same way, Woody understood the need for his fellow Coast Guard officers to better understand how the Congress works. That's why he volunteered to speak at the Chief Petty Officer's Academy and the Reserve Training Center Group Commander's course. That's also why he has taken the time to advise field commanders on how they can foster greater understanding of Coast Guard missions by the public as well as by Federal-level elected officials. A 1974 graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Woody deserves our sincere thanks for the 21 years of distinguished and selfless service he has given to the U.S. Coast Guard and to his country. Woody informs me that he's accepted an exciting and challenging position at Raytheon, and that he plans to continue his marathon running. I know you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues join with me in wishing Comdr. William J. ``Woody'' Lee--as well as his wife, Dona, and their two children--continued success and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to express my opposition to the constitutional amendment of term limits. Mr. Speaker, term limits of Members are already in the Constitution. According to article II, subsection 1, the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the people every 2 years. So we already have term limits, and for those people, I find it very ironic, Mr. Speaker, for the people who talk the most and the loudest about term limits are the people who have served in this body for over 12 years. So if we really want term limits, I make the suggestion let us lead by example. I want every Member who supports term limits to sign the term-limits pledge to our contract, which provides they would serve ``x'' number of years and then resign from office. So if you really are for term limits, then I suggest the Members of this body sign the pledge to say, ``I will voluntarily limit my term by a year certain,'' and if you really want to lead, lead by example and not by taking up some amendment that probably will not pass in the disguise of the Contract With America. Let us have a contract with our district and resign from office after 12 years.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman and we hope we are both hopeful that in the Senate there is a much more deliberative debate on these issues. Even if they are not cleared up in the Senate, we would hope that in conference that these issues are cleared up to the best interests of all the people across America. Even if they are not cleared up in that arena, we would hope that the President takes a very, very strong look at these rescissions as well as this Personal Responsibility Act and make sure that children and infants are not penalized as a result of some fault of some third party. I would like to at this time talk a little bit about term limits. As the gentlewoman from Texas knows, tomorrow we will be debating the issue of term limits on this floor. We will decide whether or not the terms of Members of Congress should be limited. I have been tussling with the idea of term limits now for about 7 years because when I was a member of the State Senate in Louisiana, being Chairman of Senate Governmental Affairs, I had to deal with the issue of term limits and wanted to give the best possible opportunity for those who felt that term limits was a good idea for America. But no one, even idea, has been able to convince me that term limits is good for America. You know when I walked into this Congress on January of this year, I raised my right hand and said that I would support and defend the Constitution. And every Member of this body said the same thing, we would support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, this Constitution. I look at this Constitution and article I, section 2 of this Constitution says in no uncertain terms, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' It is very clear in no uncertain terms. That is article I, section 2. I do not understand how one can say they are for term limits and not realize that term limits are already in the law. I think it is an insult to the average voter's intelligence to tell a voter in America that they do not have a right to select a candidate of their choice and we ought to have some self-imposed term limit. Well, I have decided to do something tonight that I would hope that all of my colleagues take heed to. For those individuals who believe and truly believe in term limits, we can have a self-imposed term limit and we can start term limitation tonight and all you have to do is sign this term limit pledge card. I want to make sure that every Member of Congress receives this pledge card because I am sick and tired of Members walking into that well and saying to the American people, we need to limit the terms of Members of Congress and many times those Members who walk into the well are Members who have served for 16 or 20 years. I do not understand that. I think that is what hypocritical to say the least. This pledge card is very simple. There is nothing complex about it. ``I,'' and you put your name in it on the line, ``pledge to the people of,'' whatever district you represent, whatever State you represent, ``that I will not seek reelection to the United States House of Representatives after'' X ``number of terms,'' signed by the Member and dated. And we put it in the Congressional Record, and then every Member should live up to that term limit commitment. You know my term is limited and your term is limited. You cannot serve over 2 years in the House of Representatives without the approval of the people of Texas. I as a Member from Louisiana. I cannot serve in this Congress after 2 years without the approval of the people, the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. When I raise my right hand, I take the oath of office for 2 years and 2 years only, and then I have to go back to my district and get reelected. So that, in itself, is a term limit. Now what puzzles me is how people say, well, term limits or the lack thereof is the reason why we have so many problems in this Congress. Well, the last three elections, over 200 new Members of Congress were elected. Two hundred new Members of the House now reside in this House of Representatives today. And they were elected in the last three elections, last three elections. The last three elections brought 200 new faces to this institution. You were one of them. I am one of them. What happened in the Senate? The past 10 years 55 new Senators are now sitting in that august body down the hall, new Members of the United States Senate. Now, if I am a Member of Congress and if I am doing my job and I do everything that I am supposed to do as a Member of Congress, then the people of Louisiana then make the decision as to whether or not I will return to Washington, DC, as their Congressman. But for this Congress to tell people in Louisiana in the Fourth Congressional District that they do not have a right to send Cleo Fields to Congress or Sheila Jackson-Lee from Texas, irrespective of what kind of job performance she had for the past 2 years or 4 years, is wrong. And it is taking away the voice of people.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for joining me tonight in the special order. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield on this final point. And I really think that what we do, we are saying, what we are saying to voters across America, we are actually reaching into every congressional district, 435 congressional districts across the country, and we are saying to people in those districts, you are too stupid to do what is right. You keep sending the same people here time and time again. Well, you know, to me that is an insult to a voter's intelligence. If they say people served in this Congress x number of years, it has only been because the people in that district evidently wanted them to serve.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I agree with the gentlewoman. Congress is, I mean, every 2 years we have to face the voters. I mean, I think we have the most awesome term limits there is probably in public life, because most offices are 4 years. The U.S. Senate, for example, every 6 years, but the Congress, every 2 years we must go and face voters. But let me ask the gentlewoman a question, because I have toyed with this question for a while in my mind. If I had to choose between a person who could serve only one term, because there is a term limit, and a person who can serve as long as he is responsible and as long as the voters choose to go to the polls and elect him or her, to me, I would feel more frightened by this person who has a term limit of one term, for example. He knows and she knows in his or her, in their own minds, that they cannot run for reelection, and you tell me, who do you think you would have the most trust in, a person who will never have to come and ask for your vote again; we going to have to appear on the ballot as a congressional candidate again. I got this other guy or lady who can run for reelection; and if they choose to do so, of course, then they will appear on the ballot. Now I don't know about you, but I just feel much more comfortable as a voter, not as a Member of Congress, as a voter. I feel much more comfortable with voting for this guy where we have got this carrot, and if he does a good job, I am going to send you back. That is what democracy is all about. You do a good job, I am going to send you back there, and I am going to keep you there. But this guy here, he knows that I know that he is not going to serve in Congress another day of his life. He does not have to return my phone calls because he does not need my vote. He does not have to do a good job. He can vote against everything that this district believes in. He does not have to hold one town hall meeting. Now you tell me, who do you feel, not as a Congresswoman but as a voter, who do you feel would be most representative of your views?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Half of the Members proposing it would not be able to serve tomorrow.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Does the gentlewoman know that many of the individuals who say they are proponents of term limits are some of the same, very individuals, who are on a bill to repeal motor voter? I mean, I just find it hard, and maybe, you know, maybe I do not have the wherewithal to understand it. I do not know. But I find it hard to understand a person standing in the well saying, ``We want to give voters greater access and we want the voters to be able to have more control of their Congress,'' on one hand, and then on the other hand, turn around and say, But we do not want them to register to vote at a driver's license place, we do not want them to register to vote if they are on some kind of government subsidized program, we do not want them to be able to register to vote as easy as they can under the motor voter law, we do not want that at a time when the voting participation is at an all-time low. It seems like if we really want this Congress to be more citizen-oriented, we ought to get more citizens involved in the process by making sure they have the process. I think another way we can deal with this problem of how we make sure incumbents are responsible, if that is the whole problem with Congress and with institutions, political institutions, and the thing that we want to address, why not have stronger campaign finance reform laws? You know, I would be for having very, very tough campaign finance reform legislation where the average citizen could, in fact, compete in an open election or in an election against an incumbent. You know, I think we can do something in this Congress to make the playing field a little bit fairer as it relates to incumbent versus challenger. I think that is real discussion. If we really want to give the average citizen, and I consider myself an average citizen, you know, for some reason or another, there is some thought that people in Congress are not average citizens. I mean, I wake up every morning, I go to work, I go home very week and work with constituents, and I do everything that the average people do. I mean, I work hard. I try to make a difference. But to give access to the so-called average citizen, Let us make this playing field a little fairer. But you cannot do that by having a $50 dinner, you know, because most Americans, the vast majority of Americans, cannot afford to pay $50 to go to a dinner where the funds will be put in some campaign coffer to elect and reelect Members of the Congress. I just find there is a conflict with this whole argument of we are looking out for the average Joe Blow on the street and we want the average Joe Blow to be able to have access to this Congress, and we are tired off all of these career politicians taking over Congress. I think we really insult the intelligence of voters in this country. I want to speak now not as a Member of Congress. I want to speak now as a voter. I do not want this Congress telling me that I cannot vote for somebody because they served two term limits. As a matter of fact, I just do not think this Congress has a right to tell me who to vote for, because that is basically what you are telling, who I cannot vote for, so you are telling me who I cannot vote for and can vote for, because if you are telling me I cannot vote for this guy because he served two term limits, then you have limited my options. I just do not think this Congress, I, as a voter, do not think this Congress should tell me I cannot vote for a person irrespective of how well Sheila Jackson-Lee represented me, and irrespective of how well Sheila Jackson-Lee represented me in the State of Texas; she got up every morning, she is my kind of Representative, she works hard, and when I call her, Sheila Jackson-Lee returns my call, and she has town hall meetings, and she also goes into schools and she talks to our children, and she is one of the best Congresspersons in America as far as I am concerned. And I would be insulted if this Congress tells me I could not vote for Sheila Jackson-Lee because this Congress wanted to clean the House out. That is my decision. If I wanted to clear Sheila Jackson-Lee out of the House, then I would do it with my vote, and you cannot tell me and you cannot speak for me, because I am going to do that very well, and I am going to do it at the polls, and I think that is what this argument is all about. Are we going to let the people decide who sits in this body, or are we going to pass a law saying, it is almost like we have a reputation of doing this sort of stuff, three strikes and you are out, now we have three terms, you are out. Everything is almost like a baseball game here. I do not understand it. I am speaking as a voter. I just do not want this Congress to tell me I cannot vote for a person that represents me well.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield. She mentioned the laymen's legislature and the citizens' legislature, and I have heard those terms throughout the night. But what I find, I find a fault with this argument of the citizens' legislature, laymen's legislature which I would think this legislature should be and every legislature should be. And if it is not, then the people should make the decision as to how it should be, what it should be made of and who it should be made of. But even States that passed term limits, I find it hard to believe, let us take, say, the State of California, passed term limits. And, by the same token, they talk about how they want to give greater access to people and then they are not implementing the motor voter law, for example. Giving access to people is by making people a part of this process, and I find it almost unfair to say we want to give people more access to this process and not try to make the voting process as easy as possible, and the voter registration process as easy as possible, because if you really want a citizens' legislature, for example, then you should do everything you can to make sure that citizens have access to the ballot. You cannot have access to the ballot box in this country if you are not registered to vote. So one of the elements of giving people access to the ballot box is by making sure that we have voter registration laws that afford every citizen the opportunity to partake in the voting process and then after we make sure every citizen can register and we do not have all of these prohibitions and all of these complicated ways of registering to vote, then we ought to make sure on election day every citizen is afforded that opportunity to go to the polls and vote on election day, and for example, and I will yield back to the gentlewoman, in this past Presidential election, only 35 percent or 37 percent of the people voted. On the average, the maximum we get is 50 percent of the people voting in America. So if you really want to give the citizens of America more access, you create laws that are conducive to giving more access to exercise their constitutional right, registering to vote and then actually exercising their right to vote on election day. We have four States, as the gentlewoman knows, we have four States in America right now that are refusing to implement the motor voter law, but yet we want a citizens' legislature. Well, afford every citizen in this country the opportunity to go and register to vote in the least complicated format possible, and then encourage them to go and vote on election day. Then maybe we will see some differences in this Congress and in State legislatures across the country if we really want a citizens' legislature. Let us have voter registration drives in every housing facility in this country, every public housing facility; when you register for section 8, you ought to register to vote at the same time. Public transportation ought to be an element of voter registration. Then we ought to encourage people to go out and vote, and maybe we would change this Congress and more so-called citizens and laymen will be in the halls of this body and other bodies across this country.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I do not understand the rationale and I will yield to the gentlewoman and then I want to talk about something else, I certainly hope the gentlewoman would stay, a little bit about term limits because I have heard some very interesting discussions tonight about that issue.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Be happy to be yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I am not removed from the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana. I return home every week. I meet with people. And at the point, if I ever get to the point that I am not returning home and I am not taking care of the business of the people of the Fourth District of Louisiana, they have every right and the responsibility to go to the polls and vote me out of office.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. You make a very good point. I have heard some arguments that we are to send Members back home, and they need to live with the people and live in the community and work with the folk in their respective communities. And then if they choose to come back then they could run for office after they sit out for 2 years. Well, my God, I do not know about you, but I go home every week.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If the gentlewoman would yield.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. The gentlewoman makes a very good point. I think one of the problems we have in this country is we are blaming the wrong people. When we had the S&l crisis, for example, that hit the TV screen for a few days, a few weeks. And we developed the RTC, and we are now getting to the point we are resolving that whole issue, multimillion dollars. And when a person who has food stamps, for example, walks into a store. I had the occasion of walking into a grocery store in my own district, purchasing food and standing in line. And then a lady in front of me with maybe one or two kids, who is about to purchase her food with food stamps, she turns around and sees me. And then, all of sudden, she forgot something. And she said, Go ahead, Mr. Fields, I forgot something. And in a real sense, she did not forget anything. But she was embarrassed because the whole nation is blaming her for the problems, blaming her for the deficit. Blaming her for everything that is wrong with America. And she did not want her congressman to see her purchase her food with food stamps. And it is a shame and a disgrace that we have poor people in America who are being blamed for every ill that we have in this country. For example, it is amazing that we would take $30,000 and we would put it in jails and persons, and it takes $60,000 to build a jail cell in this country. And it takes about anywhere from $28,000 to about $30,000 a year to maintain a prisoner in that jail. And we are spending all of that money to put kids in jail who violate the law. And we find out, we look at all the statistics and all the statistics reveal that 86 percent of the people who are incarcerated, who are behind jail cells, are high school dropouts. Now, it takes very little discussion and very little debate to pass that kind of appropriation. But if we tried to put more money in schools, we just cut $100 million out of infrastructure. Prisons and jails in this country are in better condition than our schools. but it would take a literally an act of Congress, not really knowing what the cliche of an act of Congress really means, to pass any appropriation to put more money in education. It is a clear correlation between education and incarceration, but the problem is, the question is whether or not we really want to address these real meaningful problems. I feel, and I may be wrong, but I feel the way we address these problems is not by pointing our finger at poor people but by lifting them up, by making sure that every parent receives job training and then provide a job so she can go to work. I am not against workfare. I am for workfare and making sure that deadbeat dads be responsible dads and make them pay child support for the kids that they bring into this world. I am for that. And I am also for a kid having a summer job. That hurts me the most because I know what it feels like to be a part of a summer jobs program during the summertime. And I have been taking this mike now almost every night because these are programs, maybe I am one of the few Members of Congress who has been through most of the programs that were cut, but I know what it felt like to have a summer job during the summertime. I mean it gave me self-esteem. It gave me pride. It gave me dignity. I was getting up and I was going to work. I went to work, Monday through Friday. And I made a salary. I got a check with my name on it. And I was able to buy my school clothes, and I was able to help my mother pay her rent. And that made me feel good. And that really taught me job skills; taught me responsibility. And now even the thought that this summer kids will not have the opportunity that I had when I was growing up in Baton Rouge, they will not be able to go into a summer job this summer because this Congress had the gall to cut 1.2 million kids off of the program in the spirit of fiscal reform and personal responsibility, and then talk about how we need to get kids off the streets, my God, where would I be today if I did not have a summer job, many of my friends, when we were growing up?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. That is right. We want her to pull herself up by the bootstraps. We are not going to teach you any job skills but we want to set an example. What happens, if the gentlewoman would answer this question, what happens if that baby, while we big Americans, Members of Congress, I do not know, I do not think any of us have to worry about eating at night, we make a pretty decent salary, what happens if that baby dies of infant mortality? Does that make us big Members of Congress? We are talking about maybe 1.7 percent of the whole budget goes to welfare programs, and we are going to solve the deficit problem by taking money out of this person's, this baby's mouth. And we are going to teach the parent to be responsible and, at the same time, we are going to give to big business over there or the individual who makes $200,000 a tax break.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Any reasonable man or any reasonable women of ordinary prudence would use that money to pay the debt. That is just something that reasonable people would do. Any irresponsible person would probably do just the opposite, use the money to do everything but to pay the debt. And I think that is one of the problems that we have here in this Congress. We take money from the poorest Americans in the world, I mean the country, in our country, the poorest Americans in the United States of America, and we give it to those who have. We take from the have nots and we give to the haves. I think that is not only unconscionable but unbelievable and unfair. For us to take infant formula, for example, from a baby because her mother so happens to be 17 years of age, we want to teach that mother a lesson because she should not have had this baby when she was 17, we are not going to give her baby any milk. We are going to teach her a lesson.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about two issues. One, I wanted to talk a little bit about what took place in the House of Representatives on last week and the week before last. On last week, we passed legislation, in a real sense an insult and also is an assault on young children, on babies, on kids, on infants, and we passed that legislation in a spirit of welfare reform. But I just wanted to talk about some of the impact that this legislation will have on children and infants all across this country. The cash assistance block grants that provides that no Federal funds for children of mothers under the age of 18 or less unless certain requirements are met, it is very easy and very popular to talk about how we should make parents more responsible, and I do not think there is a Member of this body who does not wish to make parents responsible or would not like to have responsible parents in our society. But the real impact will not be on parents. The real impact of these cuts will be on children. Nationwide, 70,000 children will be denied benefits. In my own State, about 600 children will be denied benefits because of this legislation that was passed. Now, I would hope that parents are responsible. I would hope that no parent or no woman, young lady who is not married, would not even have a child. I mean, that is a perfect world, a perfect idea, but it is not happening today. And since there are women who have children out of wedlock, I think the Government has an interest and should have an interest in children and should, to the degree that we can, make sure that not a baby in America goes to bed hungry at night. The other point of this legislation that we passed provides that no benefits will go to anybody after 5 years. Now, that sounds very good. That is a very popular statement to make, but the benefits are really not for the mother. If we want to call it irresponsible, then so do it. But the benefits are not designed for the mother, the so-called irresponsible mothers. Those benefits are for the children. They are to work. And we cannot chastise innocent kids in our country because of some faults or some mistakes of their parents. I would hate that this country get to the point that we not take care of those who can do very little for themselves, like infants and children, and those kids with handicaps. Well, 4.8 million children would be denied benefits as a result of this 5 years and you are off. In Louisiana, about 100,000 children. No Federal benefits for additional children born while a parent is on welfare. Well, parents ought to be responsible. But whose fault is it if a kid is brought into this world while his parent is on welfare? And who do we penalize in this piece of legislation? We penalize 2.2 million children across this country, and in Louisiana we penalize about 46,000 children. Now, my idea of welfare reform is the thought of giving parents, giving mothers, the opportunity to learn a skill, so that they can be productive, so that they can do for themselves. But in this legislation, we do not require job training. We do not have funds available to the extent that is necessary for real job training, so that we can teach mothers skills and parents skills, and then put them to work and provide them with a job so that they can provide for themselves. But we do have a provision in the bill that says 2 years and you are off. Well, 2 years and you are off is popular. It makes a good 30-second sound bite, but is it fair? You do not require the parent to learn any job skills or work, but if she is on welfare and does not have a job after 2 years, she is automatically off of the welfare rolls. Well, who really suffers as a result of that? Are we teaching the parent a lesson or are we really teaching the children a lesson? I mean, children cannot be responsible. Many of them are infants. These infants, all they know how to do is cry when they are hungry and want to be changed when they are wet. Many of them cannot even speak, they are toddlers. You know, they are 1 month old, 2 months old, 6 months old. They need somebody to take care of their self. And if the mother, because of whatever reason, be it irresponsible or be it because she does not have the wherewithal to do so, somebody ought to step in and have an interest in that child. And I just think that our Federal Government should have a compelling interest in children. So I just wanted to express that interest and that concern tonight, because I do think that this Congress has taken a step in the wrong direction when we penalize children simply because their parents are not responsible or because their parents do not have a job skill or because their parents are unemployed. I think we need to have more thought, a little bit more thought put into this welfare reform debate. I would hope when this legislation arrives in the Senate, that the Senate puts much, much more thought into it. School nutrition program. I mean, we have talked about that so much I am tired of talking about school nutrition, because every time you talk about school nutrition, there are folks who stand up and argue with you as relates to whether or not it is a cut, whether or not school nutrition will be sacrificed as a result of the block granting, and it almost makes me sick in the stomach, because the numbers are very real. I mention the numbers, many students in this country will not have the benefit of a balanced meal because there is no national standard for nutrition in this legislation that was passed, and many of my colleagues will argue that students will not be jeopardized. The reason why we took this program in the first place is because States were not doing a good job. When we get to the point that this Congress should not have an interest in the nutrition, school nutrition, that is the point we ought not have a Congress. That is just one of the interests we should have, we ought to have an interest in child nutrition, we ought to have an interest in making sure that every child who goes to school receives a balanced meal. I would feel a little bit better about this rescission package as well as the welfare reform legislation, and I do not want to get into the summer jobs debate again, if we would cut money that goes to other places in this world. You know, we cut domestic programs on one hand, and then we increase money to go overseas. I do not understand the rationale and logic. How do we say to our children that we cannot give them a summer job, but we can give them somewhere in the neighborhood of about $30 billion in jail cells and build more prisons, but we cannot give them a job this summer, and we expect our streets to be safer this summer? Of course not. We cannot expect our streets to be safer in this summer by taking some 1.2 million kids off of the payrolls. We are taking their parents off the welfare rolls, then taking their children, you know, taking their mother off the welfare rolls and taking the child off of the payrolls. To me, I mean, how inconsistent can we get? I mean, we are consistently inconsistent in this Congress when we do those kinds of things. And to me I think we need to really, when this legislation gets back to this House in the way of a conference committee, I would hope that we just stop for a second and really put more thought into it, and not jeopardize and not penalize poor innocent children in this country. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to stand here tonight, Mr. Speaker. Also, I want to talk about another subject, but I see my very good friend from Texas is on the floor, and it is always good to have her, because she is an eloquent person who cares about children in this country. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield very briefly to my very good friend from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I do not think he has missed a meal.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. It is quite hard to go home and explain to kids in Louisiana that will not have a summer job this summer if this proposal passes the Senate and is signed by the President of the United States of America. It is difficult to stand up in a town hall meeting and tell the parent of a kid who will not have a summer job that we just sent $20 billion to Mexico. Then to add insult to injury, while we cut domestic aid, we spend $14 billion overseas. It is all right if you live outside of America and you want a summer job, because we are going to spend $14 billion to do it. It is all right if you live outside of America and you want a balanced meal, because we are going to spend $2.2 billion to do that. The last point I want to make to the gentleman is we spent a lot of time on the balanced budget amendment. We should be spending some time on a balanced meal amendment, because under this proposal that will pass this House tomorrow, there is no standard, no national standard whatsoever. Yes, you got groups looking at it, talking about what should be done in the future, but there is no national standard. I think that is an insult to the children of our country.