Cleo Fields

Mr. FIELDS

Mr. FIELDS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take a moment to wish two very special people well as they prepare to join in holy matrimony this Saturday in Texas. Mark ``Bo'' Bryan Wilburn of Dayton, TX, will marry Kathleen Sue Bowes of Houston at the Heaven on Earth plantation in Missouri City, TX, this Saturday. ``Bo'' is a peace officer in the Houston area, while Susie is a fifth grade teacher at Timber Elementary School in Humble. Following their wedding, the couple plans to live in the Humble area. ``Bo'' is the son of Tom and Janet Wilburn of Dayton, TX, and Susie is the daughter of William and Barbara Bowes of Houston. Since I first took office in January 1981, Barbara has served as my district coordinator, while Bill has for many years served as chairman of my Service Academy Nominations Board. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to observe this upcoming union, and thank you for joining with me in wishing ``Bo'' and Susie much happiness on their wedding day and throughout their lives together.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Very few. As a matter of fact, I do not know any right off the bat, any of my constituents who would spend that kind of money. It goes to show you this whole debate is not about helping poor people and making them self-sufficient. It is about taking as much as possible away from the poor and giving it to the rich. It is no surprise that 68 percent of these cuts are coming, laying on the backs of poor people and children. And there is certainly no surprise, the fact that we got people who live on trust funds who try to tell people on welfare how to live. When they talk about how they want to make people self-sufficient and then they penalize babies and they say, we are not penalizing babies. This is not a surprise to me, and I am sure it is no surprise to you that an infant cannot wake up in the morning and buy milk. An infant just cannot do that. When you take milk away from an infant, you are penalizing the baby. You are not penalizing the mother as much as you are penalizing that infant.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. National Service is a prime example, National Service. The Republican party decided to take money away from National Service, a program that gives young people an opportunity to earn their way through college, not welfare. But a workfare program, a program where young people go to work every morning and work with civic service organizations and then pay their way through college. Cut it out. Is that real welfare reform? And is that real, is that what we do for our young people in America? I think not. I think that is one of the problems in this country. It is all about what we do for those who have the most.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If not more. The problem I have with that, the kids have a right to be concerned about their school nutrition program, because the fact of the matter is if you look at the Republican proposal, there is no nutritional standards in the school nutrition program. Not only that, 20 percent of their money can be used for other purposes. So I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank these kids and all these teachers for writing these very, very distinguished scrolls.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding. I just wanted to echo some of the sentiments of my colleagues about the need to create jobs and the need to improve the minimum wage. We have people wake up every morning, as each of you know, and they go to work everyday, and at the end of the day they are still poor. It is not because they are lazy, but simply because we need to raise the minimum wage. We have Members of this Congress who have the gall to walk into this august body making $560 a day and telling people making $680 a month that they do not deserve a minimum wage increase, and then we say we need to get people off of welfare and we need to put people on payrolls. And if we really want to put people on payrolls, I mean, does the gentleman realize last week we took 600,000 or 1.2 million young people off the payrolls? So if you really want to put people on payrolls, you do not do it by cutting summer jobs. So I think all this is all somewhat inconsistent. But if I may, if the gentleman would yield a few more seconds, I would like to make note of a scroll I received from my district, to change the subject a little bit, because students at Queensborough Elementary School received a lot of criticism, the teachers as well, by Rush Limbaugh, because these students decided to write a scroll and send this scroll to Washington, DC, concerned about their school lunch program. I just take strong issue with anybody criticizing students for writing their Member of Congress.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This whole debate is really not necessarily about mothers, it is really about children. And I think all too often we lose sight of the fact that this is really about 15.7 million children who cannot make the decision and could not make the decision about what household they are born in, they cannot make the decision as to whether or not they are handicapped or not handicapped or have some type of birth defect. But we can help in the area of prenatal care and we still find ourselves in this Congress cutting money for prenatal care where we have babies dying, high infant mortality all across this country, and I just want to commend the gentlewoman from Texas for taking out the time at this very late hour in talking about the need to preserve some of these programs, because these programs actually affect real people and those real people so happen to be children.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. We are never going to do it voluntarily, because you have decided not to do it yourself.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I do not have the time, but I would be happy to engage with the gentleman on the debate of term limits. But I do not control the time, but I would certainly suggest to the gentleman that if he really wants to be true on the issue of term limits and true to the American people he himself ought to not seek reelection.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just wanted to respond to some of the comments that the gentleman from Florida made in terms of term limits. It is very popular to stand in the aisle or stand up in the well and talk about how one is for term limits, but it is very interesting to know that the gentleman who is for a proposal to limit a Member's term to 12 years he himself has served in that body for 15 years and about to serve one more year which would be a total of 16 years and is not for retroactivity. I just find it amazing that Members of Congress, those who speak the loudest about term limits, are those who have served in this Congress for 16, 20 and some have served as long as 25 years. If the gentleman is really for term limits, then I would suggest to the gentleman that he not run for reelection and commit to the American people and basically practice what he preaches and say to the American people here tonight that since he is so committed to this term limit ideal that he is not going to seek reelection.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule will not allow my two amendments in order. My two amendments are aimed at ensuring that the changes proposed by this bill for the school meals program will not result in reduced quality of school meals. States have enormous pressure to squeeze funding from programs, especially education programs. My amendments limit the discretion to squeeze school meals programs too much. The first amendment requires that school-based nutrition block grant funds are actually used for school based meals, not other purposes. The bill allows States to transfer up to 20 percent of the school nutrition funds to other block grant purposes--for example, a State could spend 20 percent of the school lunch funds on its food stamps program. I am convinced it is unwise to give States this discretion. When faced with difficult budget choices or a fiscal emergency, State legislatures would quickly seize upon the available 20 percent. It is important to remember that children are not able to protect their own interests in the legislative process, while others have strong advocates. Furthermore, there are good reasons why the school lunch program was brought to the Federal level in the first place--when States did have complete control over school meals, many defaulted on their obligation to children. While there are reasonable arguments that States should have the ability to decide how best to spend funds, this is a very difficult point the full House should decide. The second amendment I offered simply ensures that school meals comply with minimum nutritional standards. Why give States the discretion to serve school lunches that do not meet basic nutritional standards? With minimum nutrition standards, States are free to develop their own standards for more healthful meals. The bill calls for a National Academy of Sciences study to recommend minimum nutritional standards, but does not require States to meet those standards. My amendment requires States to meet the current nutritional standards set by the Secretary of Agriculture, or the standards of the required National Academy of Sciences study. Currently, the standards set by the Secretary are that meals must meet one-third of the daily requirement of certain nutrients. Reducing the nutritional standards is an easy way for States to reduce the cost of school meals. Guaranteeing a minimum level of nutrition is a statement by Congress that the health of children is a national concern. Furthermore, our other investments in education are ineffective if children do not have adequate nutrition. Promoting the health of school children is wise all around. Even if one believes States can operate this program more efficiently, we can provide the guarantee that, at the least, school meals will be healthful. Of course whether or not funds for this important program should go to States with certain minimum conditions is a question on which reasonable people can disagree, and it is important enough to be decided by the full House. I believe these amendments should be considered and decided by the full House of Representatives.

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. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. The issue is, first of all, distorted. The issue is not about the irresponsible mother in America. The issue is what is in the best interests of the child, what is in the best interests of our children in America. We talk about in 2 years a mother will be off of welfare and will not receive the benefits. First of all, the benefits we send to these so- called mothers is not money for the mother. This money is for the child. The reason we send it to the mother is because the last time I checked, an infant cannot wake up in the morning, grab a check out of a mailbox, and go to the bank and cash it, so that is why we send the money to the mother. It is for the child. It is in the best interests of the child. Mr. Chairman, we talk about ``Two years and you are off.'' That sounds real good, but who is going to suffer? Children are going to suffer. In 2 years, children are going to be dying of malnutrition in this country, because they will not have milk to drink. We say they have to work. If they do not work in 2 years, that parent is off. Why not mandate that the States provide job training? Mothers cannot get up and work in the morning if they do not have day care. If Members will take some time and think about this proposal, they will know that in order for a mother to go to work and learn a skill, she has to have somebody to take care of that baby. We have to talk about what is in the best interests of the children in this country. Lastly, child nutrition. The gentleman from California said we did not cut money in child nutrition. That is absolutely incorrect. The proposal was 5.2 percent. This proposal is 4.5 percent. Anybody who is not even a mathematical wizard knows that is a cut. Not only that, under this block grant proposal, 20 percent of the money could be used for other purposes and not child nutrition.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I rise in strong opposition to this gag rule, Mr. Speaker, and the reason why I rise in strong opposition is because I had several amendments that will address several serious, serious problems in this Nation, one being the summer jobs program. I say to my colleagues: If you vote for this rule, this rule would not allow us to address the summer jobs program. There are 1.2 million young people that will be on the streets as a result of this rule and as a result of this rescission packet, 14,000 young people in a time that we need to get young people off the streets and into jobs and in a time that we want to take young people, older people or mothers off of welfare and put them on the payrolls. This amendment would not allow us to keep young people working during the summer. Mr. Speaker, this amendment further takes away all the money--this rule will take away all the money for drug-free schools and communities. I have an amendment that would restore that money, but I will not be able to offer that amendment simply because this rule will not allow that. Mr. Speaker, at a time when young people are using more drugs in our schools and communities, more guns in our schools and communities, we are still taking away all the money for drug-free schools and communities. I offered three separate amendments to delete rescissions and restore funding for the TRIO Program, job training programs, and for safe and drug-free schools. Each of these amendments is not allowed under the rule we are currently debating. The rule calls for offsetting rescissions to be made within the same chapter/appropriations subcommittee and within the same programs which have already been rescinded. Under this rule, I would have to further cut into chapter VI. This chapter contains rescissions for programs I am committed to. I do not wish to further cut programs within this chapter. In my opinion, we have cut too far already. If I was going to cut I would cut further into the foreign operations chapter. Foreign operations appropriations were only cut $93.5 million. This accounts for only 0.5 percent of rescinded funding; 99.5 percent of all funding cut was to domestic programs. Of these programs $5.89 billion has already been cut from Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs. Below, I list programs which I would have had to find further cuts in to make my amendment in order under this rule. Should I have cut deeper into the funding to keep this Nation healthy so that I could delete rescissions for training the youth of this country to be productive citizens and taxpayers? This is the type of decision we are faced with. I could not cut foreign operations programs. Chapter VI--Labor-HHS-Education--$5.89 billion has already been cut from this chapter. Labor: $2.3 billion cuts; of those cuts, I would have to make cuts beyond: Training and employment, $2.285 billion; community service employment for older Americans, $14.4 million; State unemployment insurance and employment service, $12 million; OSHA, $16.1 million. Health and Human Services: $1.727 billion cuts; of those cuts, I would have to make cuts beyond: Health and human resources, $82.8 million; Centers for Disease Control, $8.9 million; National Institutes of Health, $70 million; Health Care Financing Authority, $38.2 million; LIHEAP--low income home energy assistance--$1.3 billion; community services block grant, $27 million; Children and Family Services Program--crime bill--$25.9 million; foster care and adoption assistance, $150 million. Education: $1.626 billion cuts; of the cuts I list below, I would have to make cuts beyond: Education reform, $186 million; title I for disadvantaged students, $113.3 million; impact aid, $16.3 million; school improvement programs--construction--$746 million; crime bill, $11.1 million; bilingual and immigrant education, $38.5 million; vocational and adult education--tech prep and literacy--$232.4 million; national and community service, $210 million; public broadcasting, $141 million; student financial aid, $83.4 million; higher education, $102.3 million; libraries, $34.7 million. These are just some of the programs that I would have to cut further to comply with the rule. This is rediculous and uncalled for. I oppose the rule and urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the dismantling of our National Summer Youth Job Programs. Mr. Speaker, 1.2 million children will lose the opportunity to be employed and educated this summer. In my State $19 million would be eliminated, canceling 13,000 summer youth jobs. That is right, Mr. Speaker, this summer we will have an additional 600,000 young people nationwide on the streets with nothing to do, at a time when we should be encouraging work, and discouraging crime. I submit, Mr. Speaker, this rescission is a crime and we should defeat the rescission proposal when it arrives to the floor. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look beyond our whips, look beyond our caucuses, look beyond our party positions. Let us not look beyond our consciences. Let us stand up for our young people and say ``yes, you will have and deserve the right to work this summer.''

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. I thank the gentleman for spending this time with me on this special order. I thank the gentleman for making the comments that he made about all the programs that are in this rescission package. Let me just close by simply saying, in basic contracts, when I was in law school, Professor DeBassenet, who was my contract professor, taught me, we often, I guess about almost half a semester we talked about what is a contract. I learned that a contract was a manifestation to enter into a bargain so made as to justify the other one's consent to that bargain will conclude that bargain. We entered into a contract with the American people. We entered into that contract in 1994 in this hall, in this Congress. We told the American people that we were going to fund this program and that program, meaningful programs so that we could promote the general welfare of this country. We come right herein 1995 and we rescind or violate that contract. We call it a rescission, but it is not really a rescission. It is a violation of the contract. We entered into a contract with the American people. Now we are rescinding from what we agreed to do. We are talking something away. Like that little kid at Kenilworth who said, what is a rescission? It is when you rescind something, when you take it away. We entered into a contract, and now we are talking it away. I want to thank the gentleman, and I want to thank the Speaker for giving us the opportunity to talk about these very important issues. I certainly hope that my colleagues, once this debate reaches this floor, really will just put away their partisanship, throw away their Democratic buttons, throw away their Republican buttons, but do not though throw away their conscience.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There has been a lot of talk about contract and we often talk about our own contract, our contract being the United States Constitution. Within our contract, the preamble of our contract, which is the preamble to the Constitution it states in no uncertain terms that we must promote the general welfare of our citizens in our country. And it appears that this rescission package certainly violates that contract, when you take money away from kids in school, you take money away from summer jobs and you put more kids on the street, but let me just add a couple of other things. Did the gentleman know that under the job training program, youth training program that provides direct training to help economically disadvantaged youth in my State, $7 million will be eliminated from this program, cancelling about 2,500 young people's jobs this summer? Did the gentleman further know that I have the poorest area in the whole country in my State, in Lake Providence, and we have been fighting very hard and profusely to get a job corps center and under the 1995 budget. There were four new job corps centers in the budget and the state--certainly Louisiana was an area that would fall right in line with obtaining--appreciating one of those benefits. The benefits of one of those programs, simply because it is so economically depressed, particularly is teenagers. We have more teenagers who are impoverished and who are dropping out of school than probably any other state. A total of 100,000 participants would be entirely canceled as a result of this job corps reduction in this rescission package, and we are going to have to cancel about 1,600 positions that we anticipated that we had the opportunity to get this program. Did the gentleman further know that we talk about getting people off of welfare and adults need to go out and learn a skill and go to work, but under this rescission package how can people get out of welfare and learn a skill had we cut funding for adult training? I mean, employment training for adults and disadvantaged and dislocated workers, as you stated, is eliminated. My State will lose $700,000. And a thousand participants will be effected. That is going to take place as soon as this rescission package passes this body and the other body and perhaps signed by the man on Pennsylvania Avenue. We didn't state the impact that it may have on housing. Let's talk a little bit about those people who live in public housing, for crying out loud, in this country. I think people in public housing need to know that 63,000 families will lose housing assistance as a result of this rescission package; 12,000 homeless families, homeless. These are people who don't have homes. They are going to lose any kind of housing assistance that they may be entitled to under this rescission package. To add insult to injury, 2,000 disabled individuals. I just think that is just a--it is almost a slap in the face, and I just want to close with the damage that it does to veterans. I mean, I don't know if the gentleman has served in the military, but I know people in my district who have served in the military and I tell you, nothing makes me prouder than to see a man in uniform who serves this country. I mean, we sit and talk in this hall, in this Congress, and we enjoy the freedoms of this country and we enjoy the protection of this country, and we engage in debate and it is the kind of debate where you are at one mike and I am at another, but these are people who put their lives on the line and go and fight for our freedom so we can be free and have this kind of exchange in a Democratic society. But what do we do for them? Well, they are going to suffer $206 million in cuts, $50 million from equipment, $156 million in construction projects, and approximately 171 hospitals and clinics will be affected by the loss of this funding. I mean, if we can't protect our children, can't protect our elderly, can't protect our veterans, and particularly the poor, I mean, even the Bible says the poor shall always be with us.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Goals 2000 last year we appropriated $371 million. This year we took away $142 million. Louisiana, my State, will lose $8,200,000, money that is needed to develop our educational system. School improvement programs last year we appropriated $320 million. This year we took away $60 million. How would it affect my own State? Seven million dollars the State will receive, $1.3 million will be rescinded from the State. Education for the disadvantaged, we appropriated in this Congress $6.7 billion. We took away $105 million. Louisiana will lose $2.9 million as a result of this recisioin package. What about education for the homeless, children, and youth? We are supposed to be family friendly. We appropriated last Congress $28 million. How much did we appropriate this year? Zero. We took it all back. These are no monies for 1996. These are monies that we committed for 1995. We just zeroed the budget. How would it affect my State? Seven hundred ninety-five thousand dollars in my State, gone. Do we have a children and youth problem and homeless problem in our State? Yes. Tech prep, I have received more faxes from people across my district about this program. Vocational and adult education program, Federal funding, we funded for 1995 $108 million. In this recision package we took each and every dollar away from that program, $108 million rescinded. In my State $2.2 million, gone. Every student can't go to college. Every student--some students just don't want to go to college. But should we say we should have nothing between high school graduation and college? If you graduate from high school, and you don't go to college, then no programs? I don't think so. The only thing we got between school and college are jails. We rescind all of the money for tech prep and educational programs that helped kids. State student initiative program, took away all that money. My State will lose $901,000. And let me start closing by talking a little bit about summer jobs and yield to the gentleman from South Carolina. I really have real difficulty with the summer jobs program--I have real difficulty with the elimination of the summer jobs program. One point two million children will lose the opportunity to become employed and educated over this summer. Many students use this as an opportunity to buy school clothes, opportunity to buy school supplies. And here again I take a moment of personal privilege. I guess I reflect my district because I benefitted from many of these programs. And it would be hypocritical for me to not stand on this floor and defend some of these programs because maybe some people here think that these programs are just pork-barrel programs and they don't really affect real people. I couldn't wait for the summer--not to play, not because we didn't have school. I wanted--I was waiting for the summer because I was ready to go to work. I wanted to be on somebody's payroll. I wanted to help my mother buy my school clothes. I wanted to be able to buy books and supplies. Can you imagine not a student will be able to benefit from the summer jobs program this summer? And we want to decrease crime? So not only are we going to take mothers off welfare rolls, we want to take students off payrolls. How do we in good conscience in this Congress just wipe out a jobs program for young people overnight? You have to have very little conscience or just no idea how these programs affect people. In Louisiana, for example, 19 million eliminated. How many summer jobs? Thirteen thousand students in Louisiana will not go to work this summer. What are they going to do? Well, we are building $10 billion more in jails, putting $10 billion more in jails. It is almost the attitude we are not going to give you a job, we are not going to improve your schools, and we may not even give you lunch, but we are going to give you a jail. I can't go back to my district or to my State and tell 13,000 young people that they don't deserve a summer job this summer. They are not committing crimes. They are not on drugs. All they want to do is work. They want to work. They want to wake up every morning, go to work, and then come home at the end of the day. And lastly, many say we do this to balance the budget. We ought to cut some of these programs. I would be the last to state that we should not cut the budget. But I have strong debate and strong, strong opposition to this rescission package because where are the poor people, people who can put up the least amount of defense. And if we really want to balance the budget, then why not rescind the $14.4 billion that we are going to send outside of this country? How can we tell kids in Texas and South Carolina and Louisiana--I certainly can't go back to my direct and tell kids in Baton Rouge and Appaloosa that they can't have a summer job but we are going to give Russia $1.2 billion. I cannot tell them that. I can't tell a child in one of the high schools that you may not have a balanced meal but we are about to send $1.2 billion in foreign aid to other countries. How can you tell them they are not going to have a summer job when you send economic aid to the tune of $2.3 billion outside of this country? How can you even tell them we cannot spend money on people in America when we just signed a $20 billion note for Mexico? Yes, I want a balanced budget, but if we are going to balance the budget, let's be real. If we are really balancing the budget, then let's not give Mexico a $20 billion loan and let's not give these other countries $14 billion. And I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for being patient, and at this time I want to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the Speaker that at some point in the discussion I will be yielding to my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], to enter into a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I had the opportunity to meet with young students at Kenilworth Middle School in Baton Rouge, LA. I had an opportunity to meet with them for breakfast and talk with them about the school lunch program and the breakfast program. At that breakfast meeting, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to see young students with real dreary eyes, and they were not Democrats, they were not Republicans. They were simply hungry. They wanted the opportunity to have breakfast and go to class and start the class day. At lunch they had an opportunity, after staying in school for 4 hours, or so, to go to lunch. But one student had asked a very significant question. He walked up to me after a briefing that we did at the school, and he asked the question, he said, ``Congressman Fields, what is a rescission?'' And I explained to him that a rescission was something that you rescind, something that you take away, something that you grant and then at a later time you take it away, and I guess I want to start tonight explaining what actually took place and what is taking place here in Congress and what took place in the subcommittee and the full committee as relates to the rescissions that are taking place in education. Last year we had an opportunity to review the budget and review the priorities of this country, and we granted different budget items, and now we find ourselves in this Congress rescinding many of the dollars that we were able to allocate last year. Many local school boards, many local governments, and many people in many departments across the country find themselves in a very awkward position preparing for their fiscal year, relying on the confidence of Washington, the Congress, as a result of them approving a budget in 1994, and now we find ourselves here rescinding the very dollars that we committed to them. Now, I rise tonight because I represent, Mr. Speaker, a very, very poor district. Last year I represented the poorest congressional district in the entire country, but because of redistricting, now I represent the second poorest congressional district in the country. It really amazes me, because according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priority, 53 percent of all of the rescissions fall on the backs of poor people, low-income people in America, and I want to talk a little bit about how these rescissions will affect my own State, the State of Louisiana. Nationally, $5 billion will be cut from the school lunch program. How would that affect Louisiana? one hundred sixty four million dollars in the school lunch program, the nutrition program, will be taken away from the State of Louisiana. Now, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that, ``We did not cut funding for school lunch and school nutrition programs. We, in fact, increase funding.'' Increase is in the eye of the beholder. Let us talk a little bit about the increase versus the decrease. I submit to you today, Mr. Speaker, there was an actual decrease, because last year we committed a 5.2-percent increase for 1995. This year we rescind that, and we only give a 4-percent increase. So according to my mathematical knowledge, that is a 1.2- percent decrease in the school lunch program. The difference in the annual increase will result in the loss of $1.3 billion nationally and $78 million to Louisiana. That is how much money the State of Louisiana will lose as a result of this rescission package. Now, Louisiana has a very strong reputation in the area of school lunches. I am proud to stand on the floor of the House tonight and state that Louisiana is right at the very top as it relates to its nutrition program, and they should be commended for that. Now, there is also the need to be some clarity as it relates to what type of lunch programs we are talking about, because many people when you say school lunch, many people think it is free lunch. There are actually three tiers of the school lunch, many people think it is free lunch. There are actually three tiers of the school nutrition program. First, there is the free-lunch students who can take advantage of the free-lunch programs. Students can take advantage of the reduced-price lunch program, or they can take advantage of just paying the regular cost. And the way this program is set up under the current law, if a family income is 130 percent of the poverty level or less, they receive free lunch; 185 percent of the poverty level or less, they receive reduced lunches; and those families that are more than 185 percent of the poverty level, they receive a simple, regular lunch. If you look at the statistics, you find most schools cannot even maintain their school lunch program based on the revenues from free lunch or reduced lunch and, therefore, those individuals who come to school every day and are able to have the wherewithal to pay the full price for lunch or breakfast actually help sustain the lunch program. Under this proposal, many of those individuals will be basically knocked away. The other problem is 57 percent of all students actually participate in the school lunch program. In Louisiana 76 percent of the people, of the students, who attend public school, attend school in Louisiana, participate in the school lunch program. That is 622,000 students in Louisiana that take advantage of the school lunch program. Why do we have such a disproportionate number in Louisiana versus the national average? The national average is 57 percent, Louisiana 76 percent. Well, because Louisiana is a poor State. That is one of the problems I have with this school lunch program, the revised version, the rescission package that passed the committee. What is going to happen is it is not going to award States that have a very, very high poverty rate. It only awards States based on their participation in the lunch program, based on the number of students who participate in the school lunch program. In my State, I am going to be judged by other States that are very, very wealthy States. They do not have the are going to get a disproportionate amount of money appropriated to our State simply because this formula that this committee adopted did not give any deference whatsoever to those States that have a high, high poverty level. Let us talk a little bit about how this block grant will actually work and how it will affect local government. But most local governments, they like the idea of block grants, because they feel they have the opportunity to manage their own affairs. That sounds great, Mr. Speaker. That sounds great, Mr. Speaker, but the problem with that, first of all, it gives local governments the opportunity to cut 20 percent or to use 20 percent of the 100-percent funding in that block grant for something else. They do not have to use it for school nutrition, so we are going to be sending money to local governments with a blindfold, money that is appropriated for the purpose of feeding children, who cannot afford to buy meals, children who can only pay a reduced price for their meals, and students who, in fact, can pay the full price, 20 percent of these dollars can be allocated for other programs. So that is a 20-percent cut in and of itself, so we are not actually allocating a hundred percent block grant. We are only allocating an 80-percent block grant. We also give a 2-percent--give local governments the opportunity to use 2 percent for administrative costs, so that is, in fact, 22 percent that would not go on the tables of cafeterias all across the State of Louisiana and cafeterias all across American, and I think that is a crying shame, to add insult to injury. The whole though and the whole idea of giving local governments the opportunity to manage their own affairs--from people, for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they say the reason we want to do that is because we want to cut out the bureaucracy, we want to cut out the Federal Waste. But what we actually do is we create more bureaucracy. I would be the last to say or state on this floor that Federal Government is not a bureaucracy, but what we are doing is we are dismantling the Federal bureaucracy, and we are creating 50 separate State bureaucracies under this program that passed the house. The other problem that I have with it, and the biggest problem that I have with this proposal, is that it gives no consideration what so ever to what we feed children. We put the blindfold on, and we send millions upon millions of dollars to the States, and we do not them that they have to feed children a balanced meal. Now, my God, if the Federal government does not have an interest in the well-being of individual students in this country, then what do we have an interest in? Why should we not make it a requirements of every State who receives one of these block grants, participate and live up to a certain nutrition standard? I, along with other members of my--of other colleagues of mine will be introducing legislation, introducing amendments trying to amend this legislation so we can take out the 20 percent. We are going to be making serious attempts on this floor to try and take out the percentage that gives local governments the opportunity to just use money however they see fit. We are going to try to put nutritional standards within this block grant proposal because we feel that it will be a step in the wrong direction to just give States an opportunity to take--to use money and not give them any guidelines in terms of nutrition. States, some States, may adopt policies. I think the fast-food market will just take over the school system at school lunch programs. We are going to be serving our kids french fries, and who is to say one State would not choose to choose to serve kids peanut butter and jelly? No standards whatsoever. Mr. God, do we not have an interest in what children eat? But according to this proposal we do not. But do we have an interest in what we feed prisoners? Yes, we do. It is a crying shame in this country that this very Congress, we appropriate $10 billion to build more prisons, and another 20 billion for more prisons and other programs for prisoners, and every prisoner that walks into a jail cell receives three balanced meals a day, and they regulate it, and if they do not receive one, they can complain, and then the Federal courts in this country will come to their rescue, and the Justice Department will come to their rescue, but we are going to have child who walk into school houses all across this Nation, trying to learn, get a decent education, and then when that stomach growls, walk to the cafeteria. There is no guarantee any one of them will receive a balanced meal. But if you are a prisoner, you can receive a balanced meal. So I think it is wrong that we choose to try to fix something that is not broke. I want to also Mr. Speaker, about infant mortality, another rescission, $25 million from Food and nutrition services, WIC. Only $3.5 billion remain. Fifty to a hundred expectant parents, expectant mother, women pregnant, just cut off the rolls. In my State I take a moment of personal privilege because in my State we lead the Nation in infant mortality. We have more babies that die after they are born in Louisiana than from anything else. So I just think this Federal Government should have an interest in children once they are born, and the only way you can have an interest in children once they are born is by taking an interest in the mother while she is pregnant. That is the way we reduce infant mortality rates in this Nation. According to GAO, WIC saves $3.50 for every dollar we spend, so this is, in fact, a cost savings. We are now going to spend less money by cutting this nutrition program by $25 million. We are going to spend more money. Healthy Start and other very, very important programs for expectant mothers cut. One hundred million dollars remain, $10 million cut, not to mention elementary and secondary education infrastructure. I mean every time I walk into a school house in my own State and many States across this country, many times the ceilings leak, the air condition does not work, heating system does not work, kids in buildings that were built in the 1950's, lead paint, asbestos, and here we have the audacity to take $100 million for infrastructure for public schools and in the same breath appropriate $10 billion to build more jails. And we tell our kids that in the future--education is the future. Teach the children well, and let them lead the way. I believe the children are our future, and we take $100 million in building schools and building schools' infrastructure so they can be safe, and we spend $10 billion more in building jails. So, if you are a prisoner in this country, you get three square meals a day, and you walk into a prison where the air condition works during the summertime, the heat works during the wintertime, and the ceilings do not leak. But if you are a kid, wants to get an education in this country, your food program is in jeopardy. No standards for national nutrition. Your ceilings will continue to leak, air condition will continue to not work, and you may freeze during the wintertime, but we care about your education, and we care about our children. You know, 86 percent of the people who are in jail in this country are high school dropouts for crying out loud. There are some serious correlations between education and incarceration. If we reduce the drop-out rate, then we can reduce the prison rate, and it just appears that we put more time and emphasis on putting people in jail than we do in educating a young child. Twenty-eight to $30,000 a year to incarcerate a prisoner, but, if you are a child, we only spend about $4,000 a year to educate you. We have kids who walk in public school every day that do not have a book for a subject, and I think there is something wrong with that, and we continue to cut money from education. Public broadcasting, another rescission, $141 million cut over 2 years. Promise that we have made to kids all across America, it is cut, and I commend the Speaker who decided to give $2,000 a year to public broadcasting. But with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, $2,000 compared to $141 million does not even come close. How can one cut $141 million out of a program and then and kids to jump for joy? We know about the violence that we have on our networks. I mean last year we debated that issue in committee. We had all the major networks to come to this Congress, and thank God for our Attorney General Janet Reno who tried to make these individuals more responsive in their programming, and yet we still take away this very viable, clean, wholesome opportunity for children to learn. Twenty-eight million dollars we take out of the drop-out program. How much money remains? Zero. Why take issue with that? Because in my State we lead the Nation in high school dropout. So I cannot be happy tonight. When we were saying $28 million from a drop-out program, you would think, based on this budget, we have no drop-out problem. Everything in education is perfect. So now, kids, the message is it is okay to drop out of school because we are not going to give any money to try to keep you from dropping out. Literacy program; you would think we led the Nation, lead the world, in literacy. We all know that is not the case as much as I would like to stand in this House tonight and say, ``America leads the world, all of our citizens are literate, we don't have a drop-out problem, we don't have an educational problem.'' If you look at this budget, you would think that is the case, $54 million from literacy programs. Here again a direct impact on the State I represent, direct impact on the district that I represent. I have a literacy problem in the district I represent, and in the State we rank high in the Nation. You know, I was looking at this budget with staff the other day. I said, ``Maybe Louisiana is not a member of this Union anymore, or maybe the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Economic Opportunity know nothing about Louisiana's statistics.'' Eleven point two million dollars for Trio program, a program that is designed to help young people who are disadvantaged, who had a tough start, who may have one parent at home versus two. Maybe the parent died, one of the parents died. You know, I also take personal privilege on that program, Mr. Speaker, because I am a product of that program, as I am the lunch program. You know all parents, all kids, do not have two parents because one parent walked out. Some kids have one parent because one parent died, like it was in my case, and this government thought enough of me to give me a Trio program to help me to give teachers an incentive to help me believe in myself. Do we still have that problem today? We know that the number of kids who are coming from single parent households went up, did not go down. Who does this budget represent? Drug-free schools and communities, safe schools and drug-free schools. Now it does not take a rocket scientist to know that in this country we have a serious problem with drugs, and guns, and violence within our schools. Does this budget represent that? Absolutely not. How much money do we appropriate for safe and drug-free schools? Well, we committed $481 million. We committed to Louisiana $10 million. They have already planned to spend that money because there is a serious problem there. How much did we put in this budget? Zero. We cut $481 million, the entire safe and drug-free schools budget, out of this rescission package. Now I do not know about in other States, but in Louisiana we have a drug problem in schools and a violence problem in schools. We have kids who bring guns to school. Problem needs to be addressed. And I do not come from the school of thought that you just throw money at problems, but you should have a structure there to assist teachers, and parents and school administrators to deal with these very, very serious problems.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to talk a little bit about some of the rescissions and some of the things that have taken place here in Washington, DC, just to change the subject just a minute, and I am going to yield back to the gentleman because I think the gentleman has just received another invited guest.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say to the gentleman that I too appreciate his efforts and I think on this very floor I have expressed my appreciation and my gratitude to the gentleman for all the commitments he has made to civil rights and voting rights in this country, and while the gentleman was walking across the bridge in 1965 I was only 2 years old, a little bit better than 2 years old, and I just want to thank the gentleman for, irrespective of the dogs and irrespective of the tear gas and irrespective of the police officers and the fire hoses, the gentleman still found the gall and the courage to march for what was right, and I just want to thank the gentleman. I think even today the gentleman would probably realize that the Voting Rights Act is still under attack. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mel Watt, mentioned about the case in Louisiana, but in his own State there is a challenge in terms of the redistricting of his congressional district and the district that he represents. In the State of Georgia, in the gentleman's own State, there is a challenge in redrawing the congressional districts in the State of Georgia and in the State of Texas, and on the 19th the Supreme Court will hear both the Georgia and Louisiana cases. I want to thank the gentleman; irrespective of the outcome of that case, he certainly has made his mark on this institution, and I rightfully am here largely because of people like you who have opened up the doors for people like me, and I thank you for that.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, when men look through the halls of time, it is leaders in our community who literally stand out, those who shake the very ground on which we walk. It brings me great pleasure to take this moment to recognize a leader not only in my State, but a leader in this entire Nation, Bishop Roy Lawrence Hailey Winbush, who was recently elected the chairman of the Congress of the National Black Churches, an organization that has an active participation of over 65,000 churches nationwide. Bishop Winbush took this esteemed position it will be 40 years ago. He served as a community leader, and made an incredible mark on this country as a leader who recognizes and represented the cities of Alexandria, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Monroe, and Shreveport. Bishop Winbush also is a general board member of the Church of God in Christ, an organization that represents over 5 and a half million members nationwide. Bishop Winbush is also a public servant. When faced with the problem of crime, community, and family, President Clinton requested his presence, along with others, to address the problem within the African-American community. I am happy to say this gentleman lives in my community, and I commend him today.

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana

Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I was delayed in my district today and was not able to make rollcall vote 200 because I was doing a briefing on school nutrition with school children and cafeteria workers. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''