Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we had a member from the majority side a few minutes ago talking about joining the debate on welfare reform. I would be more than happy to join the debate with him, talking about the fallacies of both the original H.R. 4 that was introduced but also the H.R. 1214 that we are considering today and this week and which reminds me, since last year I heard from so many talk show folks about, I wonder how many of those people have read H.R. 1214 who are now talking about it as the greatest thing since sliced bread? It is not as big as some of the bills we have considered but it is almost 400 pages and I hope that some of the proponents who talk about how great it is have had a chance to read it, like some of us have who were on the committees who dealt with it. The school nutrition program will be hurt if we pass the, what is now H.R. 1214. The Republicans' shell game continues with our children hanging in the balance. As this flier states, ``When It's Budget Cutting Time, You Always Shoot at the Easiest Target.'' You can see how the impact of that will be when you talk about the WIC program, or you talk about the children's nutrition program. Your argument should be that we do need to reform welfare, and I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but this bill that came out of both the Committee on Ways and Means and out of the committee I serve on was not a debate, it was just, ``We have a plan and we are going to run over you as Democrats. We're not going to agree with you that we need to address children's nutrition through the School Lunch Program. We're just going to block-grant it. We're going to do what we want to do.'' So there was not a debate. It was the majority saying we are going to do it the way that we want instead of really making it a bipartisan effort. When I came to Congress in January, I thought that welfare reform would be a bipartisan effort, but I do not think we are going to see it today or this week because it has not been. I agree we need to reform welfare. We need to take away the incentive of someone or the tragedy of a person being on welfare. But we do not need to cut the programs that provide the most effective safety net that we have for our children. We should require people to work. We should require a time limit about how long they are on there. We should require them to go to job training. We should require them to do all sorts of things. But when you take the school nutrition program and you say we are going to increase the authorization, whereas now a child shows up in school, they have a guarantee of that lunch if they are qualified and say we are going to authorize 4 percent more but next year in the Committee on Appropriations it may be cut and then we are going to let the State take 20 percent and spend it on something else because of the block granting. That is why this poster is so relevant: ``When it's budget cutting time, the easiest target is a child.'' Last week a colleague of mine from Texas talked about some of the highway demonstration projects in the rescission bill that were untouched. Yet we cut AmeriCorps, we cut job training, and most of these projects were transportation department. How is it equitable that we cut school lunches but not highway projects? The chief financial officer for the State of Texas has estimated that if this welfare bill passed today, this H.R. 1214 passes, it will cost the State of Texas over $1 billion in our next biennial, 1996-97. The Department of Human Services estimates that if this bill passes, it would cost the State of Texas $5.2 billion. The CBO has said that with growth in population and inflation, this reduction would be $2.3 billion. I know I am throwing out lots of numbers and some of them may disagree, but no matter how you cut it, the people who are going to pass this bill this week really do not know what it is going to do because all they are doing is running that train and saying we are going to pass a welfare reform bill, even if it does cut WIC or school nutrition, or it cuts a lot of other programs that are really important and have a great deal of support. If any of these are reduced fundings, particularly the one from the Congressional Budget Office estimates for savings and administrative costs, we are talking about stopping children from having a hot lunch. Yesterday I was in my district at J.P. Henderson Elementary School in Houston trying to show that the claim of the welfare reform is missing the point. Those children are eating that hot lunch and that is at a school that has easily 80 percent of the children have a reduced and free lunch. We should not continue to be playing games with our children's future. We need to do welfare reform. We can take school nutrition programs out of the welfare reform just like the majority took the senior citizens nutrition out of welfare reform 3 weeks ago. It is just that again it is too often popular to hit the easiest target and not the senior citizens. We do not consider buying text books, computers, or desks as welfare. We should not consider school nutrition welfare.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to address the Committee for 2 minutes. I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the restoring of $10 million with the $482 million cut is to small. Just recently, a Wall Street Journal--NBC poll showed that 79 percent of Americans believe cutting the Department of Education funding is moving in the wrong direction. So that means even restoring $10 million is moving in the wrong direction. Let us look at what the rescission bill does to education as a whole. As my ranking member now of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], said, $105 million from Title I of Chapter I funds, in the State of Texas we are losing $9 million out of this bill on just title I alone. Title I was reauthorized last year, and allowed for more flexibility in our school district and now we are actually cutting it. Drug-free schools, a $481.9 million cut, again, and a $10 million restoration will not go anywhere all over the country to help; it is literally a fig leaf. Diana Kelly, President of the Galena Park Area Council PTA, stated that eliminating these programs would be catastrophic not only to her district but to our Nation's youth. Cutting the safe and drug-free schools by $472 million, if this amendment is adopted, is robbing from our kids by providing tax breaks for the wealthy. The tax cut is already out of the Committee on Ways and Means. Tech-Prep was cut $108 million. Tech-Prep, every witness in our committee this year called by the Republican majority supported Tech- Prep, and yet we are zeroing it out because we are taking away money from current education. Seventy-nine percent of the people say they did not want to cut education funding, yet this House, by thee Republican majority, is doing that. This represents the Goals 2000, which was many years in the making by President Bush and now President Clinton, is actually being cut $142 million. This is not the way the American people want us to go.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about two programs. First this week we will be considering a rescission bill and the activities that I was involved in over the weekend, but also talk a little bit about the School Lunch Program. But first let me talk about the rescission bill that Congress will be voting on this week. This last Saturday in Houston, I had the opportunity to, at 8 o'clock in the morning, to go to our city hall in the city of Houston and see hundreds of young people and not so young people who were there at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning getting prepared to go out and work in the community. The rescission bill we are going to vote on this week will definitely cut part of the national service, the Americorps Program that serves Houston, and I have served Houston Program in Texas. We started with really no program last year and we have become such a great serving institution for the community. Let me talk about the Corporation for National Service on a nationwide basis and then bring it down to how it affects Houston: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, and the Senior Corps. They work full or part-time in local organizations addressing community needs. We have 60 of them in Houston that serve Houston, 60 positions. I wanted more but we couldn't do it as a startup, 33,000 more with 1995 moneys and 47,000 more with 1996 moneys, but again, the rescission bill will cut us back. Congress made with our young people with the National and Community Service Fund Act of 1993, but we cannot do it if we pass the rescission bill this week with those cuts. Learn and Serve America, elementary and high school and college students participate in activities that address community needs and they enhance their own academic skills. Approximately 375,000 elementary and secondary school and college students participate, growing to over $588,000 if we had the 1996 funds. The Senior Corps, Americans 55 or older serve in local communities on a part-time basis and they provide, for example, modest stipends for foster grandparents, and I have received a lot of mail and phone calls this week from senior companions, 480,000 seniors participate today, and if we could take it out of the rescission bill, we would be able to increase that just a small amount to 510,000. The cuts in the Americorps is wrong and should not be because it is one of the best programs we have. If we are really going to reform welfare, we need to make sure we reform it by giving people that job experience and those jobs. Let me talk about another example of the Saturday I was with the Summer Jobs Program that is sponsored by Houston, works at the cooperative effort in a number of our local governments. We have 2,000 jobs in my district that are summer jobs that are part of that program, 6,000 in Harris County alone. And my concern, by the rescission bill that cuts those 6,000 jobs, we are going to lose out and three or four individuals who were there Saturday who were graduates of the Summer Jobs Program. We have a young lady, Marilena, who now works at a radio station in Houston who got her start in the Summer Jobs Program. Wilbert, who now is a supervisor for the city of Houston in waste water, got his start in a summer jobs program. Laquista is a young lady who made the news in Houston who got her start working at a summer jobs program and now is supervising cleanup in our community for the city of Houston. Arti, who not only works in my office, but is also a student who got her start in the Summer Jobs Program. Too often we hear that the majority party now says that there is no benefit to these summer jobs program, but there is a benefit, and Saturday morning I had four people who were graduates who are now productive citizens today because of the Summer Jobs Program. And to cut out 2,000 young people in my own district or 6,000 in the county or thousands all over the United States for a 6-week Summer Jobs Program is wrong because what we are doing is we are having some short-term savings that provides for some short-term tax relief; but in the long term, the American people in our country will lose the values of those talents of those young people whether it be in the Summer Jobs Program and productive citizens or whether it be in the Americorps and Serve Houston where we are losing not only their talents now in helping our community, but we are going to lose the experience they are getting now through Serve Houston and through Americorps for the future of our country. We cannot be penny wise and pound foolish and lose that effort right now. And that is my concern, that the Congress this week needs to make sure that we do not cut these programs out of the rescission package. We do not need to cut those programs now and say we are going to provide for additional tax cuts now and cut out those 2,000 young people in my own district who have a summer job for 6 weeks.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as reported yesterday, it appears an overburdened and overworked committee staff person realized that the Republicans forgot to add 57,000 children to the Welfare Reform School Lunch Program for the children of our military personnel. That little mistake could cost an additional $10 million. To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen, ``A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money.'' This is often what happens when the Republicans rush like a runaway train to reform our welfare system and include programs like school nutrition programs, which should be dealt with in the education system and not welfare reform. This runaway train left 57,000 kids of military personnel at the station. But who else is left at the station? I will tell you. Twenty- eight hundred children in my district alone, and thousands in the State of Texas will have no school lunch. Again, the Republican shell game of promising an increase but cutting appropriations proves that in this shell game our children are going to be the losers. Let us not forget our children, whether it is their school lunches, whether it is their job training, or whether it is their education that they are also cutting next week in the rescissions.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans should stop playing the shell game with promising increased funding for school lunches but not guaranteeing that increase. The Republican welfare reform bill removes the guarantee of school lunches, but it does provide an increase in the spending authorization. Promising an increase in one bill at the same time passing this week massive education and school rescissions in another bill proves to America that no program is safe from the budgetary axe of the majority party, including school lunches. I ask my colleagues from Texas to contact the State agency which is running the school breakfast and lunch program. They estimate a cut in meals to children. We may wish to waive this off as a reduction of an increase, but what about the increase in population which has occurred in Texas and particularly in Houston. Let us be fair, take school lunches and breakfast program out of welfare reform and put it back into education. A hungry child is not a good student. These programs could be streamlined, but Congress should guarantee that meal at school. Under the Republican bill, we lose the lunch guaranteed by this shell game, promising an increase, taking away an appropriation and yet letting the State transfer 20 percent.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last night and this last weekend we heard the Republican majority defend their school lunch changes. It is the great Republican shell game for school lunch. They promise a 4.5-percent increase under one shell, but they do not tell us what is under the Appropriations Committee shell. What is under the State shell, when they can cut 20 percent from the School Lunch Program and transfer it to other programs? The Republicans are playing budgetary shell games with school lunches. They are taking a guaranteed school lunch for children and subjecting it to the authorization process, to the appropriations process, and then subjecting it to whatever a State may want to do up to 20 percent. On one hand they promise an increase in funding, on the other hand the Committee on Appropriations has been cutting the summer youth jobs and other programs for children. Are we going to protect the lunch program, or are we going to subject it to the Committee on Appropriations and what they are doing now? Will school districts be forced to end programs when massive rescissions bills come down after they have already bought food? Maybe we should go to the kids during the year after they have already had that luncheon say, you need to give it back. Why is Congress trying to fix a program that has been working since 1946?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a number of us are taking the floor tonight in an attempt to respond to some of the misinformation used to justify the repeal of the Davis-Bacon, a law that requires fairness for our workers. The Davis-Bacon Act provides a process in which the Federal Government and many local governments must pay workers in a specific area the same wage on federal contracts as any other contract. There are several arguments put forth by the Republican majority or at least some of the Republican majority, because I would like to insert into the Record a letter from President Reagan in 1981 showing his support for Davis-Bacon Act. We Agree With President Reagan Just Say ``No'' to Repeal The White House, Washington, September 29, 1981. Mr. Robert A. Georgine, President, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: I want to acknowledge the Building and Construction Trades Department letter of September 11 concerning efforts to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. I have asked the Secretary of Labor to respond directly, but I want to assure you and your General Presidents that I will continue to support my campaign pledge do not seek repeal of the Act. With best wishes. Very sincerely, Ronald Reagan. The arguments revolve around the act being racist, as barring minorities from earning prevailing wages and adding costs to Federal contracts for multiple reasons. Let us take the issue of Davis-Bacon being racist Federal law. This argument is based on language that was passed, was discussed when this original bill was passed in 1931. I would submit to the House that many things said in 1931 and the early 1930s on this House floor could not be used today, but that still means that Davis-Bacon is not a racist law. A Congressman Upshaw from Georgia in 1927 asked Congressman Bacon if this bill was based on preventing a large aggregation of Negro labor, and Congressman Bacon vehemently stated that any influx of labor, union or nonunion, regardless of race, being paid below prevailing wage would be detrimental to a local job market. Stating that Davis-Bacon is racially biased also assumes that minorities are not earning a prevailing wage. That argument that repealing Davis-Bacon helps minority workers goes against documented proof to the contrary. I would also like to insert into the Record a resolution from the NAACP in its July 1993 convention supporting Davis-Bacon and the continuation of Davis-Bacon. July 1993 v. labor and industry 1. Davis-Bacon Act--Concurred. Whereas, people of color have entered the construction industry in increasing numbers in the past. Today, they are threatened with the loss of many of the economic and social gains made over the last several years; and, Whereas, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 protects the wages of all construction workers, including minorities and women, who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation; and, Whereas, shocking examples of the exploitation of minorities and female workers on the construction site, even in the face of the Davis-Bacon Act, the law designed to prohibit such exploitation, are legion, Therefore, be it resolved, that the NAACP supports the Davis-Bacon Act, takes steps to strengthen its enforcement, and supports the creation of opportunities through training and apprenticeship programs. A 1991 wage survey by the Department of Labor, reveals that the percentage of minorities employed by Federal contractors was 20.12 percent as opposed to nonfederal projects of 20.56 percent. A difference of 0.4 percent in three categories, craftsman, operators, and laborers. Federal contractors have a higher percentage of minorities participation than nonfederal contractors. This also goes against the Senate report language which states that Davis-Bacon protects small businesses, especially minority small businesses, from being undercut in labor costs by large contracts. Davis-Bacon makes no distinction between race, gender or other characteristic. It simply requires an employer pay a prevailing wage, a fair wage. That is it. The next argument is that Davis-Bacon is a union wage. In the State of Texas we are a right to work State which prevents anyone from being forced to join a union. Contractors, the perfect example of small business, the engine of job creation, are the only respondents to job surveys that are sent out by the Department of Labor. Wage surveys are sent out and in a geographic area to obtain the wage and benefits paid by contractors and subcontractors. They are not sent to union halls or to union officials. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that at no time does a union official send in a wage survey. It is actually the employer who sends them in. A contractor who decides on his own to be a union contractor obviously sends in that survey, but he does not represent the union. On the form contractors use to report wage information, form WD 10, it calls for a contractor to respond. There is no area for a labor leader or any other labor representative to respond. The process allows contractors of all sizes in a geographic area to decide what level they will pay their workers, while protecting the job market from large multistate contractors. In recent surveys on building trades, the Department of Labor showed that 38 percent of the respondents were union, 38 percent. To say that this wage is union wages is just not correct. If that is to say that 38 percent make up the distinction on this survey by the Davis-Bacon source book, then we Democrats in the House are now in the majority, Mr. Speaker, because we could control it with 38 percent. We should not run headlong into repealing a law that for 60 years has stood in its stead. It is based on falsehoods and wishful thinking, particularly that Davis-Bacon was based on racist assumptions, and also that it is a union wage that they are saying, with 38 percent only provided. Studies of 10 States where 50 percent of the highway and bridge construction occurs reveals that workers paid double that of low wages built 74 miles more roadbed and 32 miles more bridges for $557 billion less. My colleague, the gentleman from California, pointed this out, and I am proud to be here tonight with my colleagues, not only from Connecticut and California, but myself being from Texas, to talk about the benefits that we have by having a prevailing wage in Davis-Bacon being on our books since 1931.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is a day for the State of Texas. It is Texas Independence Day. I wanted to ask the House to sing just one chorus of ``Texas, Our Texas,'' but I did not get much response. Unfortunately, I looked at it and looked at the Republican Contract on America and realized that they are celebrating giving women, children, and senior legal immigrants independence from nutrition programs. They are celebrating by putting in jeopardy Social Security. Today is also Sam Houston's birthday, the first President of the Republic of Texas. But he was not born in Texas. Actually he was born in Virginia and was a Federal officeholder in Tennessee and in Texas. But under the bill that passed out of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee last week, he would be ineligible for programs under that Republican bill. Because of the Republican bill, the USDA estimated that $1.3 billion would be cut over 5 years for the school breakfast and lunch programs. The Texas Education Agency estimated the welfare bill would cut school lunches in Texas $261 million.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me give an example, like the gentleman did. I have a family that I grew up with. Their children are my same age now. They have lived here all their life. Their mother is still alive. She is not a citizen, she is here legally. The children were all born here. The children are now in their forties, and they are law enforcement officers, they are managers of business, they are superintendents at companies, and those children are providing--and that mother raised those children here. They pay taxes with their father, and they have lived here, and yet to tell that elderly senior citizen that now, I'm sorry, you are 77 years old, and even though your children are hard-working and paying lots of taxes, because I know their income, that she is not going to be able to have the socialization and the hot lunch with the senior citizen center that is 7 blocks from her house. I do not think that is the Americanism that we all understand, and the compassion for people, and also the feeling that we have for everyone who, again, tries to obey the law and is a productive citizen. That is why I think hopefully the committees will change, the other committees, because we were not able to in ours, because of the abbreviated session, and I don't know if we would have had the votes anyway, even if we had the time to have the amendment. But I hope when it comes to the House floor we will at least make that correction so we can address it for legal immigrants, and particularly for legal immigrants who are also veterans, who again have put down their lives and sacrificed their time in defense of the freedoms that they now enjoy, but we may be taking some of them away if we pass this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, these are people who had permission to come here, like the gentleman said. If we want to say, today, March 1st, we are not going to let any more people come in legally, if that is the decision this Congress wants to make, or the American people want to make, but not tell someone who has invested not only their life in some cases, and particularly with our veterans, they could have invested their life in defense of our country and not make them eligible even though they have paid the bill just like everyone else. I always use the example that our forefathers were not citizens of our country. All of us came from somewhere. I am glad my great-great- grandmother happened to be born in Baltimore Harbor, because that made my great grandmother a citizen. I guess we have to recognize that, that we are a nation of immigrants, because every one of us came from somewhere. Even Native Americans walked across the Alaska bridge to come here. We need to remember that when we are talking about it and not say that someone is here legally, because for many years we had no immigration controls at all. When a lot of our forefathers came, if you could make it here, that was fine, because we were building a country. We are still building a country, but we have immigration controls, and we are asking people to abide by the law, and yet these people who have abided by the law, we are now saying, No matter how many years you have invested in this country that you wanted to come here, nobody forced you to come here, that you have invested, now we are going to take these benefits away, or take something away from you.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to be here tonight and talk about some of the issues involving legal immigration. I am glad you differentiated between illegal and legal immigration. Because the two stories you told of the families, I think anyone in this chamber, not just tonight but when we are actually here, could relate to that because we all have family or friends who we know who have come here as legal residents and worked their way into becoming full-fledged citizens. During that time that they are legal residents, they also experience the same thing as someone who is here as a citizen. They experience job growth, as you have shown. They pay taxes. They raise their children. But they also may have problems. They may be laid off, whether they be in Texas or California or anywhere else. And because of that, they are here legally, they should also benefit from the services of the system that we have. You and I sit on the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee that considered and marked up a portion of the welfare reform bill last week and the Republican version of the welfare reform bill. I had an amendment during that time that we did not get to that would have said, the bill obviously exempted anyone from any public service who is a legal resident, who is not a full citizen. I had an amendment that would have exempted legal immigrants, would have allowed them to be eligible for these programs if they at least paid taxes for five years over and above being a legal resident. We did not get to consider that amendment because, one, we had a two-day markup on probably the most important bill that we may see this session, and so our amendment was cut off, and I hope when we do get to that legislation in the next two weeks, we will see it. We also had an amendment that was available that maybe the Ways and Means Committee, in their section, will deal with it. But even a legal immigrant who is in the United States, who laid their life down maybe for our country would be ineligible for benefits under the bill that came out of our committee. I know the other committees may be addressing it. I hope they do so we do not have to tell a veteran in my district in Houston that may have fought in World War II, may be a legal citizen and yet they cannot go and have a senior citizen nutrition meal because they are not 79 years old. I think there are some travesties in that bill. I am glad you asked for this time tonight to talk about it. I wanted to add to a little bit of what you have said. In that bill, a legal immigrant would be ineligible for Pell grants, for example, even though they pay taxes and their families may have paid taxes to the Federal Government. As you said, 240 billion in earnings and 90 billion in taxes and only 5 billion in social services or welfare. So they have paid taxes. A good example of that bill, 111 legal residents in Houston participating in Pell grants right now would be ineligible for those programs. These are legal residents who very well may have paid their taxes, and we were trying to provide that ability for. Like I said earlier, it seems ironic that we would, in our bill that came out of committee, that a legal immigrant would be ineligible for a hot meal at a senior citizen center or a meals on wheels. Under the bill, they would be eligible if they are 79 years old, I believe. Hopefully, we will be able to address that again when that bill comes up next week or the week after. Or maybe it could be addressed in the other committees that have jurisdiction. But these centers, I have a number of them in my district, they do not check people's citizenship much less whether they are legal or illegal, because that is not their job. They are mainly concerned about providing a hot meal and the social contact that we need for these seniors that is provided under the Older Americans Act. Let me remind my colleagues that we are not talking about someone who broke the law. We are not talking about somebody who came here illegally. We are not talking about somebody who is just taking jobs as we are worried about. We are talking about somebody who has admitted, who may have waited, as you said, for many years to gain legal residence, who obeyed the rules and still is not allowed to partake of some of the good things that maybe our country may provide them, whether it be low income housing, income energy assistance, or even job training for adults and disadvantaged youth. Someone who comes here legally and because of the out of a job and they would not be eligible for some of the job training that we have and that we are trying to expand more and even consolidate so it is more effective. I guess the difference is we are trying to ask Congress to differentiate between someone who is here legally, who obeyed the rules, and someone who is not here legally. And that is all we are saying. Do not tell a senior citizen that you cannot have a hot meal even though you may have lived here 30 years and raised your family and have, like you said, some great examples of young people who have grown up in the country and obviously productive citizens. And their family would not be eligible to have a hot meal at their local community senior citizen center. Several times during the discussion, members of the committee, particularly from the majority side, said that we have limited resources and we should provide for citizens first. And, of course, that assumes we are pitting our citizens against legal residents. As if any of us would say, we are going to support withholding assistance to citizens to help a legal immigrant. I think that is not what we are all about. We are about providing the services to people who are here legally, whether you are born here or whether you are here as a legal immigrant. We should not argue with the citizen, argue citizen over legal immigrant. We should try to discuss the needs of the people on our committee, particularly when we are talking about a welfare reform bill or a reform bill that deals with social services. If a person cannot afford their electricity bill during the summer or their heating during the winter, we should not mandate that the local agency play the INS agent. For one thing, if that person is here legally, whether it be in L.A. or Houston or anywhere else, are we really going to ask that HLNP in Houston or some agency to verify their papers? That is just not the case. It could work, and work efficiently. I think we are building even more cost into our cost, and particularly after November 8 we surely do not want to build more government bureaucracy. Restricting legal immigrants from assistance also does not affect that they pay into the system, again, as you said, they pay taxes just like everyone else. They pay sales taxes in Texas, they pay school taxes. If they rent, I have people all the time who say they do not pay any taxes. The last time I looked, even rental property has to pay property taxes, and if they pay whatever they pay per month, their property taxes are built into it, because as someone who owns property, hopefully I do not lose money on renting that property.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Reed amendment. Let me, before I get into my remarks, respond that the, I never heard trickle down, Mr. Chairman, referred to in a positive way, particularly from this side of the aisle. But the chairman's opposition to the amendment talks about that it did not work under President Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush or President Clinton. But the OMB has the authority to, under any rule, to designate as a major rule that would truly have significant regulations and so we would not have it fall through the crack based on $50 or $100 million. So we would hope that the OMB would be able, whether they are under President Clinton or under President Ford or Carter and the other President, they could have made that designation and decision instead of being stuck by an arbitrary dollar figure. My support for the amendment talks about the dollar figure and recognizing what the sponsor of the amendment, my colleague from Rhode Island, talked about, that if we used $100 million in 1975, it is different than 1995 and reflects that the need for it. But even more so, I have some concern about the amendment. It also addresses a provision in the bill on page 8 where the language that says, not only the $50 million that we would change to $100 million but striking out lines 12 through 20, some of the language in that bill. I am concerned on this bill but for a number of bills. Let me say that I supported the bill yesterday. I voted for the bill yesterday that in title II had $100 million in it. I know there was other thresholds in the bill yesterday, but the risk assessment bill yesterday also had $100 million even in title II. But the provisions in this bill that we are striking out have some language, I think, that it will be hard for a court to decide, particularly in section C where it says, ``significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity.'' We are writing a statute here. That needs to not be so subjective. I think, where are we going to define ``significant adverse effects''? The oil crisis of 1980's in Texas had very significant adverse effects on Texas economy, but oftentimes we could not get the response that we needed out of the various agencies to loosen up on some of the regs that would have us be able to compete better. The provisions of the amendment not only are good because it raises from 50 to 100 and reflects more 1995 dollars, but it also strikes out lines 12 through 20 that gives other criteria that, frankly, the OMB can make that decision already without putting in there language that is not defined in the bill as far as I can see and very difficult to define anyway. Major increases in costs or prices for consumers, we can define that many times. Again, major increases sometimes affect certain geographic areas of the country where it may not others. That is why I rise to support the amendment and think that it is a good amendment and makes this bill much easier to support, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not going to talk about the Brady bill, being from Texas. But let me talk about school lunch programs and the importance of making sure that we save that program. In the Houston Independent School District next year we would lose a half-million dollars for the school lunch and breakfast program. In the State of Texas, we would lose $261 million in a 4-percent cut. The first round of cuts included the school breakfast and lunch programs. The second round of cuts last week from the Committee on Appropriations included funding for safe and drug-free schools. I think this is a war on schools and a war on education and a war on children, and I would hope that we would then look at this Contract With America and see whether providing increased funding, including $11 million for two new airplanes the Army did not request, $20 million for a new runway for a base that is on the Base Closure Commission, $1 million for a bike trail in North Miami Beach, I think we see the priorities have changed. We are taking money away from breakfast and lunch programs and providing it in this new Contract on America.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but let us talk issues instead of speak personality. When the Republicans talked about the contract for America, they did not tell anyone it would be women and children first. The first round of cuts were in the school breakfast and lunch programs. The second round of cuts include funding for safe and drug-free schools and the summer jobs program. The Speaker may not believe liberals and even call some of us liars. This report that I will insert in the Record from the Houston Post talked about the ``foes are lying about children.'' He says they are lying this last weekend. Well, I am a Member from Texas. I am not lying about what my Texas State agency and my school district told me about the school lunch and breakfast program. We would sustain a cut of almost 4 percent for our lunch and breakfast programs. I would hope we could tone down the rhetoric and talk about issues. I share the concern of my colleague who just spoke. Again, we could see a definite cut of 4 percent in our Texas program and a half-million dollars in the Houston independent school district, the largest school district in the State of Texas. The school breakfast and lunch programs, as estimated by the Texas Education Agency, will lose for the children of Texas $261 million in 1996. On the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, we tried to strike the nutrition programs from the Republican reform bill, but we were outvoted on a party line vote by the Republican majority. I will go to that in a few minutes. Let us look at what this new amended contract for America talks about, not only cutting children nutrition programs and the WIC Program. Let us see now; we are having $11 million for two new executive airplanes for the Army that they did not request, $20 million more for a new runway for a base that is on the base closure commission list, a million dollars for a bike trail in North Miami Beach. One thing that is apparent in this new amended Contract With America, there is no clause that our children will have a hot nutritious meal or a clause that our children will have a safe and drug-free school or that our children may have a summer youth job program. Let me continue with the children's nutrition. A TV consumer reporter in Houston just last night said that it took the Republican majority 40 years to gain control of the House but only took them 40 days to cut food to children. The school-based nutrition grant program overall funding would be $104 million less in fiscal year 1996; $101.3 billion would be transferred out of the block grant in 1996 for nonfood programs, which would compromise the health of children. The school-based nutrition block grant would eliminate the standards that guarantee America's children access to healthy meals. There was an amendment adopted in the committee last week that said for the first year the States can all come up with 50 nutritional grant programs, but at the end of that year there would be some national standards. Well, we already have some national standards that apply whether you are in Texas or New York or California. We are building in additional costs into this program by having 50 States to develop their nutrition plans and then have to comply with some national standards. The new school-based nutrition block grant would not respond to recessions or recoveries. If this bill had been enacted in 1989, it would have resulted in the 70-percent reduction in funding for school meals in 1994 alone. Between 1990 and 1994, the number of free lunches served to low-income children [[Page H2313]] increased by 23 percent. During that period, the number of free meals served in child care centers increased by 45 percent. The block grants would not respond to the change in the school population, which is expected to increase by 4 to 6 percent. In the State of Texas alone we would lose 4 percent of our funding. Every September and all during the year we have new children who show up at our doors and qualify for these programs. We are not only cutting 4 percent, but if those new children show up, they would not have it. Yesterday morning, before I left Houston, I went to a nutrition program in the Heights part of my district at the Field Elementary School. That is a school that has 90 percent of their children have free or reduced lunch. What 4 percent would we cut from those 90 percent of those children and next year when we have at least 20 more kids who show up or are qualified, are we going to tell that principal or that teacher or that food service worker, who does a hard job there, that they cannot serve those children? There are reforms we can do in the program, but not cutting off the meals that those children have. I saw that meal. They had cereal. They had the option of orange juice and milk. A number of kids actually drank both the orange juice and the milk. They had some little sausages. I noticed this last Friday the Committee on Agriculture cut the effort for the Food Stamp Program. I am glad they are concerned about that, but I know we have some concern about the food stamp abuses. But I know I saw those children eating that food. I would hope that the Republican majority would see the err of their ways on school nutrition and also change that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article to which I referred. [From the Houston Post, Feb. 26, 1995] School Lunch Debate Serves Up Hot Rhetoric But Few Cold Facts--How Kids Would Fare Under Change Unclear (by Wendy Koch) Washington.--Uncle Sam would no longer guarantee poor kids a free school lunch if a Republican measure now gaining momentum in Congress becomes law. Instead, states would be free to decide who gets what. Democratic critics say kids would suffer because funding would fall, and states won't have enough money in case a recession strikes. Republicans argue kids would benefit because the system would be more efficient. But no one really knows--yet. The GOP bill, which scraps the 49-year-old school lunch program, passed a House committee last week but needs the approval of the full House--considered likely--and the Senate--expected to be more difficult. Even if it passes, its impact will depend on how each governor handles the new responsibility of feeding kids. Still, there's no shortage of red-hot rhetoric. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to starve kids. ``There are an awful lot of poor kids, and some not-so- poor kids, who will go home hungry,'' says Wisconsin Rep. Dave Obey, senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. ``Absurd,'' responds Michigan's GOP Gov. John Engler, a leading proponent of giving states greater flexibility to administer programs. He says it's ``offensive'' to say Republicans would harm kids. The school lunch program serves 24 million children every day. Lunch is free for those whose parents earn less than 130 percent of the poverty line and is heavily discounted for those whose parents earn less than 185 percent. It sets a small subsidy, 20 cents a lunch, for all other kids. The school breakfast program serves about 5 million children daily and operates similarly. Every child who meets the eligibility criteria is guaranteed a free meal if his or her school participates in the program. If a recession hits, federal funding increases to meet greater demand. The meals must meet federal dietary standards, nationally recommended for all Americans. The Republican measure, part of the effort to reform welfare, would end the federal guarantee that poor kids get meals. With that goes the nutritional guidelines. It would instead lump school meal programs together and give states a set payment, or block grant, to administer as they choose. It also would allow states to set their own dietary standards. The measure would allow legal immigrants--but not illegal ones--to get subsidized meals. Proponents argue that by cutting the middleman--federal bureaucrats--less money would be wasted on paperwork and more would be spent on meals for poor kids. They say their block grants would increase funding by 4.5 percent annually--more than the rate of inflation. Yet Democrats say the increase is less than they would receive under the current system, which adjusts for the rising number of eligible school-age kids. And thus, they call it a cut. ``Every state will get less funding,'' says Walt Haake, a spokesman for the U.S. Agriculture Department. Overall, USDA estimates funding will be $309 million less next year and $2 billion less over five years. He criticizes the GOP bill for allowing states to use up to 20 percent of their school lunch money for other programs. Critics also say governors of poorer states--even if they wanted to help kids--would have a tough time meeting the greater demand in a recession because their funding would not automatically adjust. ``That is the unknown, and the scary part,'' says Tami Cline, director of nutrition for the American School Food Service Association, which represents the administrators of school meals. Yet Republicans bristle at the notion that governors, who face re-election, won't be responsive. ``Why would state and local officials do that?'' asks Kelly Presta, majority spokesman for the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, which passed the bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the small business I worked in was established in 1878, and it was never going to be a large business. So I do not know if even 6 months more would have helped us, but the gentleman is right. There are differences that we apply Federal law to and to safeguard small business, and the gentleman used a great example, the ADA and the Family Leave Act, and I have an amendment in a few minutes on family leave that will impact that and help us with that. But again, what you are doing is just putting off 6 months for small business. You are not alleviating the regulations as much. You are maybe giving small businesses more time to comply. But I would hope that we would still see some differentiation through the agencies, and maybe we ought to look when we pass statutes, whether it be the EPA or anyone else, and again as an example is printing companies, or small dry cleaners, if you have experiences like I have in my district where because of the EPA regulations in our cities and States, those small dry cleaning operations have so few employees, yet they have to go through some of the things my chemical plants have to. I sympathize and empathize with you, but I do not know whether the next 6 months would do anything but cause confusion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate]. Mr. Chairman, Members, I support small business. In fact, for 23 years I worked and helped manage a small business of 13 to 20 employees, so I understand the frustration the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Tate] is experiencing with his amendment or expressing with his amendment. The concern I have though is that we could make it counterproductive. Typically the regulations that we have from the Federal Government do not distinguish, and that may be the problem, but, for example, if we have a TV station in New York compared to a TV station in a small or medium market in Texas, may have less than 100 employees. Now that TV station may say, ``We would like to have more than 6 months compared to that larger one.'' I think there is some concern that maybe our goal, and I had hoped to support the moratorium, because typically I like moratoriums, I like sunset provisions, because I think every Federal agency and regulation, just like every State regulation and agency, needs to be looked at over a period of time to make sure they are still responding to the need, but I think what we are seeing in this bill with the exceptions that we are adding and just a general confusion to private business, that we are going to actually increase the Federal paperwork for those small businesses. For example, to my small business I was at, we had no more than 20 employees during the 20 years, and until the Federal Government let the economy go in the tank in the State of Texas in 1980, we went down to 13 employees. But we are going to see what about OSHA regulations when we come in? It is a printing company, for example, and we compete also with larger printing companies, so we are going to have different standards for a company that has over 100 employees as compared to their competitor who may be bidding on the same products that is less than 100. I think we are going to add confusion by adopting this amendment. I know this amendment was considered in committee. In fact, I think I may have voiced it earlier or something. I say to the gentleman, I know where you're coming from. I just wish there was a different way we could get to it because I do think small business needs to be treated differently, but I think by developing two different standards and ultimately setting two different effective dates we might be causing those small businesses more confusion than we're trying to help them, and again that comes from, one, having to live with some of those regulations, whether it be OSHA, or whether it be new EPA regulations, and our biggest concern in small business is so often we would get something from one of the national groups we were a member of, whether it be the U.S. Chamber or someone else, and we would get all panicky about it, and then all of a sudden we would find out, well, that may not be affecting us in our particular printing company. So, Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman's intentions are great, and I am just concerned that we may be causing more problems, not just with his amendment, but some of the amendments that we have considered, and some have been accepted by the majority, some have been voted on, and that is why I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say in response to both the gentleman from Indiana Education and Economic Opportunities, again my concern is the delay because of the need for clarification on the rules, that if this is not exempted from the bill, we would see additional delay for businesses who need these definitions. The definitions include health care provider, to include them so they would know what type of health care provider would actually be responsible for that. The other definition here is health condition, to clarify the circumstances for employees. The bill that we are talking about has been amended already with certain exceptions. Again, we have a law that was passed in 1993 that businesses have already waited 18 months. Again, to be able to have some clarification, they should not have to wait again another 6 months. Mr. Chairman, again, what we have is an effort to try and make sure government works, and that is what I think we are all here for. Again, a law that was passed in 1993 that we have a delay in the regulations, because of the 6-month time frame for the input from our constituents and our businesses, and yet because they may get caught up in this, and as my colleague from Montana said, the Senate will very well correct this. I have some concern about the effective date of this act. In fact, I was hoping as a member of this committee I could support this. I went to the markup with the hope to be able to support it if we could have picked another date other than November 20. We should pick a date for a moratorium that is much later so people can plan and have some kind of idea on both their business decisions and everything else they do. This amendment would just address one small facet of it. Obviously if we were able to make the deadline or the effective date of the act, instead of November 20, with whatever date we pass this, or some date even this year, businesses could make that decision. But without doing that and going back to November 20, it is necessitating the number of amendments we see to say okay, there are regulations that are so close to being in place that unless we exempt it, you are going to cause more confusion out there in the marketplace, and that is not what we need to do, and this Congress has caused more confusion for business. That is why this amendment is needed, so we will continue with the efforts, so people will know how to enforce the Family and Medical Leave Act, because it did pass overwhelmingly here in 1993, and I hope that we could clarify it, and if not today, then maybe the other body will be able to do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of our committee. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Essentially the same, but again they are trying to define some of the terms so businesses and employees would have that as definitive instead of depending on the original rule.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. That is what I understand in the final rules of the clarifications that were requested by--for definitions, for example, for serious health condition.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the house this afternoon. I was so ecstatic this morning when I came in because I am only a second-term Member but I found out I had arrived. I found out that last night I was called by name on Rush Limbaugh, but the only thing he missed, he did not say I was Gene Green, he called me Mr. Green Jeans, and I am glad for that recognition even though he did transpose the names. The reason he talked about it though was because I talked about how the breakfast and lunch program will cut children in Texas by 4 percent, and yesterday the House majority Republicans on the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee voted to deny thousands of school children in the State of Texas their breakfast and their lunches. Last year during the fall when people asked me what I thought a Republican majority would be in Congress I jokingly described it as nuclear winter. Well, if it is, then we are subjecting ourselves to the fallout now. The Committee on Appropriations yesterday cut $17 billion out of many programs. Safe and Drug free schools cut by $481 million. School-to-Work cut by $24 million. Displaced Workers was cut by $99 million. In nondefense rescission bill this week job training was cut by $200 million. Veterans Administration will be cut by $206 million. NASA reduced by $66 million. Federal Highway Administration cut by $421 million.