Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican welfare reform plan. Some on the other side have complained that the work requirements contained in the Republican plan are too strong, and the States will not be able to meet them. What are those work requirements? It would require over a period of years, over the next 6 years, to have 50 percent of the caseload working. I suggest if we tell the American people that those standards are too tough, they will find that statement laughable. Most people say, why should it not even be tougher? Why only 50 percent? One provision in the GOP welfare plan that I think is very good is the ability of the Governors to count the net reduction of the caseload toward their participation rates. In other words, if a State has 40,000 on welfare one year and they drop that caseload to 30,000 the next year, those 10,000 cases they have reduced on their welfare rolls can be counted towards their work participation rate. That is our goal, to see a net reduction, to see people permanently leaving the welfare rolls. One of my concerns about the Castle-Tanner substitute, which I assume will be offered tomorrow, is that their approach would gut the idea of a net reduction in the caseload. They would allow the Governors to count routine caseload turnover toward the work participation rates, so any AFDC recipient who obtained work for a period of 6 months after leaving the rolls could be counted toward the participation requirement. This would make the work requirements virtually a sham. There is always, there is always a regular turnover in AFDC caseload. Hundreds of thousands of recipients obtain jobs and leave AFDC every year, and an equal number, almost an equal number, enroll on our caseload every year. By claiming credit for individuals who obtained a job and left AFDC, a Governor would automatically meet at least 10 percent of the participation requirement without in any way altering the existing welfare system. Nearly all States would be able to meet their requirements for the first and second years without the least change in the status quo. I do not believe that is what the American people want. I do not believe the American people want a welfare reform system that says it is not really reform, it is just more of the status quo when it comes to work. We have success in the drug war, not when we get people off drugs, but when we keep young people from ever getting on drugs. It is the same way in welfare reform. The greatest success is not just in turnover, getting them off and having them come back on. The greatest success in welfare is when we dissuade people from ever getting on welfare. That comes from real work requirements. The President said: Give me a bill with real work requirements, tough work requirements that is good for children, and I will support it. We have such a bill. Let us pass this tomorrow. Let us not take a substitute.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3643, legislation to extend through December 31, 1998, the period which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is authorized to provide priority health care to certain veterans who were exposed to agent orange or who served in the Persian Gulf war and to make such authority permanent in the case of certain veterans exposed to ionizing radiation. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has demonstrated a long history of bipartisan support for those veterans who may have been exposed to chemical or environmental hazards during their service in the Southeast and Southwest Asian theaters of war. specifically, the bill extends priority health care to agent orange and Persian Gulf veterans to December 31, 1998. With regard to agent orange, this bill incorporates those provisions accepted by the full committee in the last session and were dropped out during conference with the Senate. As you may remember, the provisions recognize the categorical list of diseases and their respective association with agent orange exposure to provide priority health care for veterans suffering from diseases in the first three of the five categories. The provisions neither alter nor have any bearing on the recent decision of the Secretary to presumptively service-connected veterans with prostate cancer and peripheral neuropathy. The bill also makes permanent priority health care for radiation- exposed veterans and creates a VA committee on the care of severely chronically mentally ill veterans and centers for mental illness research, education, and clinical activities. This provision, originally introduced by subcommittee Ranking Member Chet Edwards, would require that committee members be VA employees with expertise in the care of the chronically mentally ill and that it submit annual reports to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on ways of improving care to this priority treatment group. Over 40 percent of VA's patients are treated for mental health problems. The bill would also require the VA to establish centers of excellence in mental illness research and clinical activities with the acronym MIRECC. The purpose of the MIRECC's would be to facilitate the improvement of health care services for veterans suffering from mental illness, especially from conditions which are service-related, and to develop improved models for the furnishing of clinical services. MIRECC's would be modeled after the successful Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers [GRECC's]. Under the provisions of this bill, the VA is authorized to appropriate the amount of $3,125 million for fiscal year 1998 and $6.25 million for the fiscal years 1999-2001. The bill also makes technical changes to title 38 to facilitate the training of physicians and dentists in any VA facility and suspends special pay agreements for physicians and dentists who enter residency training programs. Two amendments which encompass the committee's bipartisan concern for veterans were added to the bill during the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health care markup. The first amendment, offered by my friend and colleague Jack Quinn, provides that those veterans who served in Turkey and Israel during the time period of August 2, 1990, to July 31, 1991, be included in the definition of Persian Gulf veterans for the purpose of priority health care. The Department of Defense has estimated that approximately 8,145 veterans served in Israel and Turkey during the 11-month period. Under the current definition of the gulf war theater, these veterans are excluded and therefore not eligible for priority health care as provided under this bill. Jack has also been a leader in the fight for mammography sceening at VA facilities, and has introduced legislation which has been incorporated into the second amendment, offered by Congresswoman Corrine Brown, which would reinstate reporting requirements through 1998 on the number of women who receive VA health care services; requires VA to assess barriers that may prevent women veterans from receiving proper health care; and identifies patient privacy deficiencies and makes recommendations on the correction of existing deficiencies. It also requires VA to adopt the same mammography standards used by the private sector and HHS. Finally, it directs that the mental health needs of women veterans who are chronically mentally ill be addressed by the Committee on the Care of Severely Chronically Mentally Ill Veterans. The hard work of Mr. Quinn and Ms. Brown is invaluable and I appreciate all they did to strengthen this bill. I would also like to recognize the bipartisan efforts of Lane Evans and Gerald Kleczka, who have worked hard to ensure that language which would transfer VA land to the State of Wisconsin to facilitate the building of a new Milwaukee Brewers stadium is included in the bill. Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Committee Chairman Bob Stump, Ranking Member Sonny Montgomery, and subcommittee Ranking Member Chet Edwards for all the hard work they have done in ensuring that this bill is brought to the floor today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the institution of marriage and this bill, which seeks to uphold and preserve traditional heterosexual marriage, the fundamental building block of our society. Mr. Chairman, it is true that the institution of marriage, understood to be the social, legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, has been the foundation of every human society. In 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court described marriage, quote, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution. In the 1970's, the Minnesota State Supreme Court went further by stating that, quote, the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman uniquely involving the procreating and rearing of children within the family is as old as the Book of Genesis. Most Americans who are still up at this hour will think it odd that we are actually considering legislation to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual monogamous institution when, in fact, in the history of our country marriage has never meant anything else. It is inherently reserved for one man and one woman. As Webster's Dictionary states, quote, marriage is the institution whereby a man and a woman are joined in a special social and legal relationship. Furthermore, I believe that marriage is a covenant established by God wherein one man and one woman are united for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. H.R. 3396 solidly reinforces these previous U.S. and State Supreme Court findings by simply restating the current and long-established understanding of marriage as the social, legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman. The President, who has promised his support for this legislation, and promised to sign this bill, said it very well at the National Prayer Breakfast this past January. He said, ``We know that ultimately this is an affair of the heart, an affair of the heart that has enormous economic and political and social implications for America, but, most importantly has moral implications, because families,'' he said, ``are ordained by God as a way of giving children and their parents the change to live up to the fullest of their God-given capacities.'' The President is absolutely right. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that our country can survive many things, but one thing it cannot survive is the destruction of the family unit which forms the foundation of our society. Those among us who truly desire a strong and thriving America for our children and grandchildren will defend traditional heterosexual marriage and will vote for final passage of this bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stump-Solomon- Montgomery amendment to the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The amendment, as we know, would add 40 million much needed dollars to the VA's medical care account. We all know that $40 million will not solve the funding problems being experienced by the VA. However, it will permit the VA to add to its flexibility in providing services such as community nursing home care and adult day care to our Nation's veterans, and it will allow the VA to continue to establish more access points in its further effort to bring VA care to the communities across the Nation right where the veteran is. As chairman of the Hospitals and Health Care Subcommittee, I have seen over and over again how often our veterans have in fact been shortchanged. Our veterans are aging. As they get older, there are greater needs that they have. They experience more acute care needs. The cost of providing that health care is increasing every year. Yet we have seen over and over in the discretionary spending, the veterans taking a disproportionate amount of the cuts. And so earlier this year the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the full committee in which Sonny Montgomery for years was chairman, on which Bob Stump is doing such a wonderful job, in its views and estimates to the Committee on the Budget, recommended a $505 million increase in VA medical care. This increase of $40 million will not get us there, but it will at least move us in that direction. It will get us closer to what the full committee recommended. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a responsible amendment, and that it will move this spending bill in the direction of helping our veterans and meeting our commitment to our veterans. I strongly urge my colleagues to endorse the Stump-Solomon-Montgomery amendment to the VA- HUD and that we work toward this. Our veterans have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. I am hopeful that that tradition will continue today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3376, bipartisan legislation which authorizes major facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, as well as a number of other important provisions which ensure effective strategic planning and management of the Veterans Health Administration. I would like to thank Chairman Stump, along with the ranking member, Sonny Montgomery, and my subcommittee colleague, Chet Edwards, for their efforts to meld this bill into an effective piece of legislation which addresses the highest priority facility construction needs within the VA system. H.R. 3376 authorizes the appropriation of $422.3 million for 21 projects which includes the construction of 8 outpatient clinics, renovation of 10 priority patient environment projects, and the correction of major seismic problems at 3 California medical centers. The legislation also authorizes $12.2 million for six major medical facility leases. I would like to strongly reiterate that this legislation does not add one hospital bed to the system but instead puts the focus on needed improvements for patient privacy, safety, and renovation of the valuable infrastructure of aging and often historic mental health facilities. Since 1969, the VA health care system has closed over 54,000 beds to adjust to the changes in health care and this legislation seeks to assist the VA in its continued transition from a hospital-based system into a health care system. I would like to highlight a very significant provision in this bill which requires the VA to develop a 5-year strategic plan for its health care system. Within the development of the plan, the VA is required to address such factors as veteran population trends, resource distribution, cost of patient care, the capacity of non-Federal providers within their geographic planning networks, the missions of each facility within the network, and specifically, the distribution of the important specialized services on both the network and national levels. Effective planning will make the VA a more effective and efficient provider of quality health services able to better serve veterans by placing services where veterans need them. Over the years, many of my colleagues and their veteran constituents have voiced concerns about the unequal distribution of VA resources. This bill represents a significant step in creating parity for veterans by requiring VA to compare expenditures of veterans by geographic networks and then shifting resources to follow the veteran. In strengthening strategic planning the bill also requires that as part of the annual authorization process the VA provide a report on the top 20 major medical construction projects, the relative of each project by category, and a description of the factors that account for the rank of each project. In this era of public accountability, it is critical that each major expenditure speak to the highest priority needs of veterans. The bill also raises the threshold for major construction projects from the current level of $3 to $5 million. It would also limit the scope of the so-called grandfather clause and require that major projects be authorized annually to ensure facility need and accountability in the major construction program. The bill removes the requirement that the Veterans Health Administration be organized along certain clinical specialties and allows the Under Secretary greater flexibility in the organization of the headquarters staff. Last and most importantly, this bill honors three great Americans by naming VA facilities after them. They are G.V. Sonny Montgomery Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Jackson, MS; the James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in Johnson City, TN and the H. John Heinz III Veterans Affairs Nursing Care Center, Aspinwall, PA. The rapidly changing health care environment, coupled with our joint responsibility to the veteran and the taxpayer, are satisfied by the provisions of this legislation. I strongly urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially give my personal tribute to the gentleman from Mississippi, G.V. Sonny Montgomery, a true friend of veterans and no one more deserving of this recognition and this honor. My predecessor, a long-time member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, John Paul Hammerschmidt, regarded Sonny as his dearest and closest friend in all of Congress, if not all the world. I share that same affection and am glad to pay that honor to him today and to support this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I just wonder where all of this passion was 2 years ago when Democrats controlled this Chamber, controlled the other Chamber and controlled the White House. Not once, not once, was a minimum wage proposal brought up before the full House, before a committee, or before a subcommittee. What we are seeing now is rhetoric. What we are seeing is election year politics. I rise to oppose increasing the minimum wage, not because I do not want to help working Americans, but because I do want to help them. We know, we know, that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. It will take opportunities away from those who we claim we want to help the most. I point to Melody Rane and her family who own two Burger King franchises in Eureka, CA. A minimum wage hike will force her to lay off four full-time and eight part-time workers at her stores. She will also be forced to raise her prices, which will hurt everyone, especially the working poor, whom we claim that we have compassion for. According to Melody, raising the minimum wage will hurt teens more than anyone else she employs because she will no longer be able to provide entry-level jobs for them. The young people that she has hired have not stayed on at minimum wage for very long. They learn their jobs and they move up quickly. All her managers started at minimum wage and her top manager today has been with them since he was 16 years old. We know that raising the minimum wage is a job killer on the most vulnerable people in our society. A 1993 study by the American Economics Association of over 22,000 economists found that 77 percent of them said that if we raise the minimum wage, there will be significant job loss in our economy. We know it is inflationary, because if they do not lay them off, they have to raise the price of their goods and services, and that disproportionately impacts poor people who are going to have to pay more for those products that they buy. Raising the minimum wage is the poorest way to target working poor people. The last time we raised the minimum wage, in 1991, only 17 percent of the new benefits went to people living below the poverty line. Most of them are teenagers living at home with mom and dad. Only 17 percent went to those who are working poor. Now, I suggest to my colleagues that there is a better way. If we really care about working poor people, there is a better way to do it. I propose that we reform and we refocus and we retarget the earned income tax credit, a program that has enjoyed support from the 1970's on from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I have been perplexed. I have asked and I have asked and I have asked Members of the other side of the aisle why this was not done 2 years ago. If they feel so passionate about it, if this is the great means by which we are going to help poor working people, why, when they held the House, when they held the Senate, when they held the White House, they did not bring this to the floor. Well, I think I know why, because the President at that time said that raising the minimum wage is the wrong way to help poor working people. That is why they did not do it. They knew that this is not really going to help the working poor of this country. The Democratic Leadership Council said the same thing, and still says the same thing, that raising the minimum wage is the wrong way to do this. Joseph Stiglitz, the President's own former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, when he was an economics professor, this is the man who worked for the President, he said ``only about 10 percent of the people in poverty work at jobs that pay at or near the minimum wage,'' and then he said, as he concluded, ``the minimum wage is not a good way of trying to deal with problems of poverty.'' That is why it was not done. That is why it should not be done now. The reason this is being done is because there is an election in November. It is the wrong way to help the working poor. I think Gail Robbins, and here is a picture of Gail, is a good example of why we should not raise the minimum wage. Gail began waitressing at a truck stop when she was 15 years old to escape her abusive parents. She moved on to work at a Howard Johnson's in New Jersey for 47 cents an hour. She is now 55 years old. She is working on her college degree. She and her husband own a Pizza Inn franchise where she hires disadvantaged individuals at minimum wage. Many of these people are mothers living on food stamps. Gail is adamantly opposed to an increase in the minimum wage because she will no longer be able to offer minimum wage jobs to the people who need them most. It is a very poor way of really helping the working poor, if that is what our goal is, and I trust it is. Where does it go? According to the U.S. Census Bureau data, more than 35 percent of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal to raise the minimum wage by 90 cents live with their parents. Surprisingly, maybe not surprisingly, more than 80 percent either live with their parents, live alone, or have a working spouse. Now listen to this. Only 2.8 percent of those who will get an increase under this minimum wage proposal are single parents with children, only 2.8 percent. So I suggest to my colleagues there is a better way. We can reform, we can refocus and we can retarget the earned income tax credit. We can in fact raise the take home pay of those who most need it, the working poor, those on minimum wage with children, and we can do it in a way that does not have the negative impact of a minimum wage increase. That 90-cent increase on the minimum wage, where does it go? Well, that person will find that 21 cents they will lose in a reduction in their food stamp eligibility. They will pay 8 cents more out of that 90 cents in FICA taxes. They will lose as much as 14 cents an hour from their earned income tax credit. If they happen to live in public housing, they will pay 27 cents an hour more in their rent at their public housing. That leaves them, under this scenario, about 20 cents out of the 90 cents that we are increasing the minimum wage. I suggest to my colleagues that common sense and logic would tell us that is the wrong way, if we really care about the working poor. There are compassionate alternatives. Republicans have come up with compassionate alternatives to show that we can help the working poor without costing a half million jobs among those who need them most. How can we say we care about those who are working minimum wage and then say we are going to, in a political season, to gain a few political points, rob hundreds of thousands of those who need those jobs most of their employment? Tell that single mom with two children, ``You lost your job because we wanted to score political points.''

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest to the impassioned gentleman that I, in fact, did not lead the charge, as you have wrongly, inaccurately alleged to cut EITC. In fact, if you check the facts, I was involved in the conference committee. I was involved in working with Senator Nickles. In fact, under the Republican proposal on EITC, with the $500 per child tax credit, as I think you accurately know, not one American would have been worse off. Not one working American would have lost anything in EITC. In fact, they would have been far better off under that proposal. I would like to note for the record that the State of California will face a loss of 63,100 jobs if the minimum wage is increased and up to 500,000 jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be eliminated nationwide. So I would remind my good friend that this unfunded mandate will cost millions of working families and taxpayers over $13 billion according to the CBO.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond. I rise in support of the rule; I support the rule because it, in fact, will give us a clean, straight up and down vote on the minimum-wage increase, and I applaud our leadership in allowing that vote. I am going to vote against the minimum wage because I think it is misdirected, it is election year politics, it is not real compassion, it is a job killer, and that is the truth. It is not the economists, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], alone that are saying that, but the overwhelming economists in this country. In 1993 a survey of 22,000 economists in the United States; I suppose they probably are all right-wing extremists, those 22,000 economists, 77 percent of which said raising the minimum wage will lead to a loss of jobs in this country. So I suggest to my colleagues this is not real compassion, else they would have raised it 2 years ago when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House and it was never even brought up for a vote. What it is is election year posturing. This is not real compassion; it is not compassion to take that single mother with two children and say, ``You are going to lose your job so we can play politics with the American economy.'' That is wrong.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and agree entirely that Jim Talent has been one of the strongest advocates for the family in the U.S. Congress. I know now, with the birth of Christine Lyons, that he will be an even stronger proponent of the $500 per child tax credit and a more fervent than ever advocate for the family in the U.S. Congress. So, our best wishes to Jim and Brenda.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise on behalf of all of my colleagues of the U.S. House of Representatives to congratulate my very good friend, Congressman Jim Talent of Missouri, who last Thursday was responsible for bringing another young Missourian into the world. Jim and Brenda Talent are the proud parents of newborn Christine Lyons Talent, who was born at 1:53 p.m., last Thursday, and weighed in at 8 pounds and 7 ounces. Young Christine is fortunate indeed to enter this world into a loving home with very loving parents. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Canady of Florida.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I find the use of the term ``extremist'' in reference to the Republican budget rather ironic when looking at the section dealing with veterans' health care spending. The veterans in this country want a balanced budget. They know what it is to sacrifice for our country, and they want a balanced budget, but they want a balanced budget that is fair, in which we do not attempt to balance the budget of this country on the backs of our Nation's veterans. The President's budget seeks to balance the budget on their backs at their expense. That is why the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs rightly said that the President's budget would be devastating to the veterans' health care spending in this country, and that is why the national commanders of four of our major veteran service organizations wrote the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs this week saying that in fact there was not adequate funding for a viable health care system in the President's budget and urging that it not be supported and saying that they would oppose it and all other budgets that fail to provide for our veterans. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] earlier called the President's budget the UFO budget. I rather like that and think that is rather accurate. But if we look at the veteran section, we can call it the big dipper budget because in the next 4 years in the area of VA medical spending there is a 20-percent cut in veteran spending for health care in the President's budget. That is devastating. It would reduce from $17 to $13 billion over the next 4 years. It is over a 20- percent cut in medical care. We cannot tolerate that. The President's budget would spend $5 billion less on veterans' medical care over the next 6 years than the Republican House budget. The House budget even next year spends $100 million more on VA health care than does the President. There is nothing extreme about that, but there is fairness to our Nation's veterans. Again I say, Mr. Chairman the veterans of this country want a balanced budget, but they want a balanced budget that is fair. They do not want, as this chart indicates, a 20-percent cut in medical care spending with no explanation of how those cuts will be achieved, simply putting them at the expense of our Nation's veterans. That is not right, it is not fair. The President's budget fails the fairness test for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to oppose this Clinton budget.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill H.R. 3286, a measure which would help families defray adoption costs and promote the adoption of minority children. Today, there are more couples who want to adopt and more children in need of a loving home then ever before. According to estimates by the National Council for Adoption, at least 2 million couples would like to adopt. Yet only about 50,000 adoptions occur annually. Tragically, this number has been dropping since the 1970's. During the last quarter century we have experienced a dramatic rise in numbers of children born out of wedlock, children being raised by single parents, and children entering the foster case system because of abuse and neglect. At the same time there has been a decrease of almost 50 percent in the number of formal adoptions. As we continue to see the disintegration of the family, it is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to enact legislation which promotes and encourages adoption. We need to make it easier and more affordable. The average cost of adopting a child is $20,000. This legislation provides for a $5,000 tax credit to help offset the costs of adoption as well as a $5,000 tax exclusion for employer-sponsored adoption assistance. Perhaps more significantly this bill will go a long way toward assisting the adoption of children currently in the foster care system. Today there are approximately 500,000 children in the custody of various State foster care programs. Unfortunately, many States have enacted laws and regulations which allow agencies to delay placing a child in an adoptive home on the basis of cultural or ethnic differences. As a result 40 percent of African American children spend more than 4 years waiting to be adopted while only 17 percent of white children wait that long. H.R. 3286 would prohibit State and private agencies from delaying or denying the opportunity to become an adoptive parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the child or the applicants. There is also a myth that families only want to adopt healthy, newborn children. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many families adopt special needs children. The National Down's Syndrome Adoption Exchange reports a waiting list of over 100 couples who would like to adopt a child with Down's syndrome--more than enough to accommodate parents who want Down's children given up for adoption. Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Arkansas Department of Human Services. They discussed with me the success they have had in placing special needs children. One of the adoption specialists told me that in the last 16 years she has made 357 placements in a seven-county area of northwest Arkansas--over 75 percent of them special needs children. I was told of one family who already had two birth children when they adopted a sibling group of two, a sibling group of three, and two African American infants with spina bifida. Several of the children have emotional or behavioral problems, and several are learning disabled. Another family was unable to have birth children. They adopted a child privately and then added two African American children with disabilities. Still another family, with grown children, adopted an African American foster child with many physical and developmental disabilities and have sacrificed a comfortable middle age to meet this child's needs. These are only a few of the many families in northwest Arkansas who have opened their hearts and their homes to children in need. Finally, Madam Speaker, the subject of adoption is one that hits very close to home for me. My legislative director is herself adopted. She described her feelings of adoption to me in the following way: ``Mom and Dad took me home, gave me their name, their protection, and their love. They shared with me their family--brothers, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and grandparents--who claimed me as their very own. Together they provided a foundation from which I have been able to return a small portion of the abundant love and care that they have given me to the world in which I live.'' Madam Speaker, would that every child in America be able to make such a statement. I urge the swift passage of H.R. 3286.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill, H.R. 3286, a measure which would help families defray adoption costs and promote the adoption of minority children. Today, there are more couples who want to adopt and more children in need of a loving home than ever before. According to estimates by the National Council for Adoption, at least 2 million couples would like to adopt. Yet only about 50,000 adoptions occur annually. Madam Speaker, the subject of adoption is one that hits very close to our office. My legislative director is herself adopted. She described her feelings on adoption to me in the following eloquent words: Mom and Dad took me home, gave me their name, their protection and their love. They shared with me their family-- brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents--who claimed me as their very own. Together they provided a foundation from which I have been able to return a small portion of the abundant love and care that they have given me to the world in which I live. Madam Speaker, would that every child in America be able to make such a statement. I urge the swift passage of H.R. 3286.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill which seeks to give more protection to our most vulnerable and innocent citizens--our children and our seniors. More specifically, H.R. 2974 would amend the 1994 crime bill by requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to issue tougher punishment for crimes against children and the elderly, due to an increase in crimes targeted at these two populations. According to the Department of Justice factsheet on missing children, every year there are between 1,600 and 2,300 stranger abductions of children under age 12 in the United States. Mr. Chairman, this is tragic and unacceptable. We must send a clear message to criminals who prey on the defenseless--their actions will result in swift and certain punishment. Last summer in my congressional district in Arkansas, Morgan Nick, a 6-year-old girl, was abducted from the Alma ballpark while attending a little league baseball game. After 11 months of tireless searching, Morgan has still not been found. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that there has not been a day that has passed in which Morgan's family and friends haven't pursued every avenue that may lead them to Morgan's recovery. Morgan's mother, Colleen Nick, has been in touch with me on several occasions since last June to appeal for my assistance in this heartbreaking situation. At Christmastime, Mrs. Nick appeared on an Oprah Winfrey segment about the recovery of missing children. She has also met with the President in Little Rock to ask for his assistance. Additionally, information about the case has been broadcast on two segments of the television show ``America's Most Wanted.'' Children in Arkansas, and everywhere in America, deserve the full protection for the law. They are virtually defenseless, yet they are the future. Adopting tougher penalties is a vital part of ensuring greater protection of society's most vulnerable citizens, while sending a clear message to the violent criminals of tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I believe that those who are truly committed to our children and to the elderly--to citizens like little Morgan Nick--will support H.R. 2974. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to the gentleman who just spoke, Republicans are in favor of helping the working poor, but we are in favor of doing it in a way that will truly lift their take-home pay, to lift their wages. Raising the minimum wage will not have that effect. The fact is economists, 90 percent of them, agree that raising the minimum wage will, in fact, cost jobs; it will cost the jobs of those that we most want to help, the low-skilled worker. The last time we raised the minimum wage, in 1991, only 17 percent of the new benefits went to people living under the poverty level. That is not the effective way of helping those who are the working poor. Raising the minimum wage will not only cost jobs, it will be inflationary, costing those whom we want to help more in their goods and services that they need to purchase. It is the wrong way to help those who are the working poor. There is a better way of doing it. We can do it. I suspect the gentleman who just spoke supported the increased funding for EITC 2 years ago, and there is a better way of doing it, as we take that proposal that has had the support of Republicans and Democrats and focusing it upon those who are truly in need, the working poor, the families with children. We want to help them, but we want to help them in a way that will not hurt the economy and take jobs away from the most needy.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend a destructive tornado hit northwest Arkansas. As a result of the devastation which was wrought by this natural disaster, I spent yesterday assisting my constituents in the district and consequently missed two rollcall votes. I would like the record to show that had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 127 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 128.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, to the House floor. It is time that the full House take action on this issue, and this open rule would allow such a debate to take place. The Truth in Budgeting Act would simply take four trust funds off budget: the Highway Trust Fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. These are dedicated user funds which can only be used for infrastructure investment. For those concerned that H.R. 842 will somehow allow infrastructure spending to grow unrestrained, I would point out that the legislation establishes automatic spending safeguards. Identical to the safeguard already contained in the Highway Trust Fund, H.R. 842 will ensure that the remaining trust funds are deficit proof and operate on a pay-as- you-go basis. The Secretaries of Transportation and Treasury Department will have to review the Aviation Trust Fund annually to determine if expected receipts will cover the authorized aviation expenditures. If the trust fund does not cover unfunded aviation authorizations, then those authorizations must be reduced on a pro rata basis until the shortfall is covered. The Army and Treasury Secretaries will review the Inland Waterways and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds in the same manner. For over 20 years now the spending from these trust funds has been capped in order to make the Federal deficit look smaller. This has allowed Congress and the administration to hold back funds from infrastructure development and instead spend additional money on social programs. While many of these programs have merit, they should not be paid for by holding back money from these trust funds. My colleagues on the other side of this issue say by taking the trust funds off budget we will increase the deficit, and I would remind them again that by law these trust funds can only be used for transportation purposes, and if the trust funds are being used to pay for social programs or other programs, then we have got to find an alternative way to fund those programs or we must cut them back and restrain the growth in spending. Mr. Speaker, this is first and foremost a tax honesty issue. As my colleagues know, every time a motorist buys gasoline or a traveler buys an airline ticket, taxes are paid into the highway and aviation trust funds. Congress imposed these taxes with the assurance that the collected funds would be spent for infrastructure improvements and infrastructure improvements only. Most people in our Nation take our infrastructure for granted. We are very fortunate to have the resources and the planning needed to create a first-class system or a class system. But much remains to be done, and much deterioration is in our infrastructure. The cost of upkeep and maintenance alone runs very high. So it is essential that we take these trust funds off budget. Currently, the Department of Transportation estimates that the backlog of needs for our Nation's highways and bridges totals $315 billion. Simply maintaining our current transit system is estimated to cost $8 billion annually for the next 20 years, and according to airport groups, airport investment needs are $10 billion a year. As I said, the issue is truly one of honesty. In the President's first year in office he was interviewed by a reporter in my district in Arkansas, and my district happens to be the largest metropolitan area in the United States without an interstate highway. We are working on it, but that kind of need is so essential across this country, and the President was asked the question, ``What can you do, Mr. President, to insure the construction of this highway needed in my district?'' His response was, ``The most important thing this administration can do is to take the highway trust funds off budget.'' I do not know what his position is on this today, but he was absolutely right when he made that statement. The most important thing we can do for building the infrastructure of this country is to take these funds off budget and be honest with the American people about the needs we face and the need that we have in the deficit. Let us be honest with the American people, lets be fair with them, by taking these trust funds off budget.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We have a supermajority requirement, a three-fourths requirement, to raise the income tax in Arkansas. The evidence is very clear that the legislature has been more reluctant to raise the income tax levels for hard-working Arkansans. Now, we have a lower threshold for raising the sales tax, which many believe is a more regressive tax. The fact is they have fallen back many times on that regressive sales tax, which hurts poor people more than affluent individuals. I believe the supermajority across the board, whether it was a two-thirds or three-fourths, would make a lot more sense. But Arkansas today has one of the lower tax levels and one of the lower tax burdens in the United States. That is why people are moving to Arkansas. That is why our economy is good in Arkansas. In my particular district, we have got unemployment down around 3 percent, virtually full employment in my district, companies moving in, people doing well, because the tax burden, heavy as it is on the Federal level, has not been that onerous on the State level, partly because of that super majority provision.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It worked in Arkansas. It worked when President Clinton, then governor of Arkansas. I certainly believe it will work for our country.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. None whatsoever. I think the American people would rise up in arms, the people of Arkansas would rise up in arms if that were to occur. Quite to the contrary, as is happening in the antitax movement across this country, there are initiatives efforts, there is lots of talk about actually putting on the ballot a requirement to put all tax increases to a vote of the people. I do not necessarily support that. What I am saying is there is certainly no sentiment at all to repeal our supermajority tax issue.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and compliment Mr. Barton from Texas for his leadership on the balanced budget amendment and on this constitutional amendment we will be debating and voting on today. As Americans hasten to file their Federal income tax returns by midnight tonight, many families will again remember how much of their family budget is paid to the Federal Government every year. Today they will be reminded and we will be reminded that the average American family pays $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. We will be reminded that the average American family spends more on taxes than on food, on clothing, and on shelter combined. Sadly, we will also be reminded that the average American family can expect to work at least until May 6 before being able to dedicate any of the earnings to anything other than Federal, State, and local taxes. The average worker today spends the first 3 hours when he gets to work each morning just paying his debt to the Federal Government, State government, and local government before he can ever begin to labor for himself or for his family. With approximately 38 percent of the average family's budget being used to meet their total tax burden, it is high time that the U.S. Congress take action to make further tax increases more difficult. Our country has run chronic budget deficits for 25 years. We have pretended that we were going to do deficit reduction by raising taxes in the omnibus budget laws described as deficit reduction acts, and yet spending continues more and more. A perfect example for the necessity of such an amendment can be found in the middle class tax cut that was the centerpiece of President Clinton's 1992 campaign for President. Despite his record in Arkansas of having raised taxes and fees 128 times during his tenure as Governor of my home State of Arkansas, the American people still trusted him to make good on his promise. Just 1 month into his Presidency, however, the President betrayed that trust and traded his promise of a middle class tax cut for the largest tax increase in history. This record tax increase was pushed through Congress in 1993 and was approved by a 51- to-50 vote in the Senate and a 218-to-216 vote in the House. A single vote switch in either body would have killed the legislation. A supermajority requirement easily would have saved our economy from yet another oppressive tax increase. It is clear that increasing taxes is not the answer to our deficit problems, that increasing taxes is not the way we are going to deal with the growth of the national debt. Every time in the last 40 years this Congress has raised taxes $2, we have increased spending $3. Raising taxes is not the answer. We simply must make it more difficult for this Congress and future Congresses to raise taxes. If that was not enough, our President vetoed the middle class tax cut that this Congress passed and gave to him this past December 6. That is why there will be no tax cut this April for hard working families. In one stroke of the pen, the President denied tax cut benefits to 28 million families and 59 million children in our $500 per child tax credit. We will not see capital gains tax relief, we will not see the job creation that would have accompanied it, the relief from the marriage penalty, the estate tax, and on and on. We would have done that and much, much more. But, instead, the temptation is going to be there in the future for Congress to start raising taxes again. That is the temptation, to try to solve deficits by raising taxes, and is simply will not work. It is time to make Washington start working for families, instead of making families work for Washington. That is why I rise in strong support of this supermajority rule as a necessary component strategy, to shrink the size and power of the Federal Government and limit the power of Congress to tax the American people.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that would establish an English-language proficiency requirement for immigrants arriving in the United States under the diversity immigrant program and under the employment-based classification. These are people who are coming here with the stated purpose of working here, living here, being permanent residents here, and hopefully, eventually becoming citizens of the United States of America. There are a whole host of other immigration programs in which people come in on a different basis and which this amendment would not involve at all, but these are people who live here permanently. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is our common language, English, that unites us and brings us together as a nation. Proficiency in English is the civic responsibility of all U.S. citizens, as well as those individuals residing in this country while seeking citizenship. Being proficient in English is an indispensable part of educational, social, and professional assimilation into our society and into our culture. 1930 It is clear that we have an increasing number of immigrants entering our country, entering our society, who are not proficient in the English language. In my district in northwest Arkansas, in one school district, the Rogers school district, in the last 4 years the English as a second language program has increased from 80 students in the 1991-92 school year to 760 students this year. That is a ninefold increase in 4 years. That is just one evidence, and I think that story can be repeated over and over again across our country and throughout our society, that we have this great increase of those coming into our country not proficient in the English language. The Canady amendment does not solve all of those problems, but it is a start. It is narrow, it is targeted, it is modest, but it is a step, and it addresses the issue of speeding the success of immigrants in our society, a goal, I believe, that we all share. By requiring immigrants arriving in the United States under certain programs to demonstrate a firm command of the English language, we recognize English, our common language, as part of the glue, as a component of the bond that brings us together as a people, as a society, and as a culture. I believe that anyone who truly desires that we have immigrants in our society who are better equipped to assimilate and thrive in America, those Members of this body who want to speed the success of those coming into our society, making contributions to it, will support the Canady amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, back on March 30, 1993, George Stephanopolos, said the President's proposal would try to preserve flexibility of the States to make these tough decisions, but, in fact, they issued an Executive order that resulted in the striking of a constitutional provision in our Arkansas Constitution, voted on by the people of the State of Arkansas, stripped because of a bureaucrat's order out of Washington, DC. That is wrong. That is why we need this provision.