Dale Kildee

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the gentlewoman's language?

Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the gentlewoman's language?

Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC program. That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they just did not work. The savings were minimal. That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion that enabled 1\1/2\ million more the WIC program. Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost containment systems. I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my amendment on competitive bidding. Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract. Would that qualify?

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, under present law we require competitive bidding, not just cost containment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment.

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let me give my colleagues an example. I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked-- left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them. Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that. Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the bill with her amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat of the bill.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, for nearly 50 years Congress has shown a bipartisan commitment to alleviate the worst of human suffering in our Nation, especially hunger. Today we begin debating a proposal that would end this commitment. The Nation's nutrition programs are cost-effective and target the truly needy. Study after study shows that children who get a school meal perform better academically. I am puzzled as to why we would want to fix a program that works so well. The National School Lunch Program came into being for a strong national purpose in 1946. Many recruits failed physical examinations for the draft because they were found to have been malnourished during their formative years. Republicans claim that they are increasing funding. But everyone recognizes that compared to current law there will be less money for each child who receives a school lunch. The bottom line is either less money for each child or fewer children eating. Why are we putting this program into a block grant? To save money? To reduce the deficit? No; it appears that the savings will be used to pay for tax cuts for those who are not as needy as our children. If the motive of this bill is to save money--why does it remove the requirement in the WIC Program for competitive bidding for infant formula? Most States were not using competitive bidding before Congress required them to do so in 1989. When we enacted this law we found that it saved over $1 billion a year. What can the savings be used for? That billion dollars can be used to serve 1\1/2\ million more women and children per month in the WIC Program. It bewilders me, in this time of budget crunching, why we would want to give the three infant formula companies $1 billion if our purpose is to better serve women and children. For the richest nation on Earth to deny food to its own children is a shortsighted betrayal of our values and our future. It is also unnecessary. In the name of our Nation and its children, we call upon reason to prevail in Congress. The 104th Congress should not be remembered as the Congress that abandoned our Nation's most vulnerable--our children.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to 14 members of UAW Local 599, who will be recipients of the Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award. On Sunday, March 19, 1995, these individuals will be honored at the Walter and May Reuther Twenty Year Award Banquet. Local 599 has always had a special place in my heart because my father was one of its original members. Over the years, Local 599 has developed a strong and proud tradition of supporting the rights of working people in our community, and improving the quality of life for its membership. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to recognize these special individuals who, for 20 years, have diligently served their union and community. During this time, each one of these UAW members have held various elected positions in the union. And there is no question they have represented their brothers and sisters well. It is very fitting that these 14 people be recipients of the Walter P. Reuther Distinguished Service Award. Walter Reuther was a man who believed in helping working people, and he believed in human dignity and social justice for all Americans. The recipients of this award have committed themselves to the ideals and principles of Walter Reuther. They are outstanding men and women who come from every part of our community, and they share the common bond of unwavering commitment and service. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in honoring Robert A. Johnson, Charles Whitten, Kenneth Knauff, Bob Wright, Timothy M. Bank, Earl D. Oram, Daniel C. Neeley, Bryce Stanton, Ron Dodge, Mary Shumpert Coleman, Joseph D. Niedzwiecki, Dan Kiefer, Butch O.L. Robinson, and Kenneth Kagen. I want to congratulate these fine people for all of the work they have done to make our community a better place to live.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, in the debate about child nutrition in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities we witnessed the triumph of ideology over practical public policy and the best interests of our children. The Republicans, who espouse a free- market economy, recently rejected my amendment to require States to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC Program. Only one Republican had the courage to vote for my amendment. The only winners from this action are the big three infant formula companies. The losers are pregnant women and infants, many of whom will suffer from malnutrition or anemia, and the taxpayers who will get less efficient use of their tax dollars. Some would say that the States will continue to use competitive bidding. I would point out that fewer than half the States used competitive bidding prior to passage of the 1989 Federal law that required them to do so. When this amendment was adopted we found that it saved over $1 billion a year and enabled us to serve 1\1/2\ million more pregnant women and infants a month. The committee voted to drop this requirement. Weakening cost containment measures will mean a less efficient, less effective program that gives taxpayers less return for their dollars but helps the three infant formula companies improve their balance sheets. Mr. Speaker, this program was designed to help poor women and children, not a few mouths of babies.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in paying tribute to a great city in Michigan's Ninth Congressional District. Imlay City is celebrating its 125th anniversary during the week of August 2-6, 1995. Imlay City, located at the intersection of I-69 and M-53--the Gateway to the Thumb Area of Michigan from Detroit--was named after William Imlay, an Eastern Seaboard capitalist who moved to the area in 1828. The village was settled in 1870 when the construction of the Port Huron and Lake Michigan Railway was completed as far as Attica, MI. The chief engineer of the railroad, Charles Palmer, selected Imlay City as a likely produce market between Lapeer and Capac. He then purchased 240 acres of land which he surveyed and proceeded to plot. Since the township was called Imlay, he decided to name this site Imlay City. The city celebrated its 100th anniversary in 1970. Also in that year a change was made from a village home rule to a city form of government. Today, this eastern Lapeer County community is home to several farming operations, commercial facilities and industries. The city is continuing to grow and prosper as many people move into the area from throughout the State of Michigan. I have had the privilege of representing this area for many years. I have come to know many fine people in this community and consider them to be friends and advisors. The area surrounding Imlay City is rich with agricultural history. Businesses and industries have seen the potential for this area and have located their factories in this area, creating great economic opportunities for Imlay City. But throughout the years, with all the growth, Imlay City has retained the best features of a small town, with an excellent educational system and a friendliness that has remained constant though those 125 years. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor and a privilege for me to rise before my colleagues in the House of Representatives to honor this great community for celebrating its 125th anniversary. It is a shining jewel in the Ninth Congressional District of Michigan.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, in this contract hysteria, let us not lose sight of the things that came into being for a strong national purpose. The voters in November did not mandate the destruction of a program that has worked well for half a century. Repealing the National School Lunch Act, which has successfully fed hundreds of millions of hungry children since 1946, will affect children in public and parochial schools, regardless of income. In 1981, the Reagan administration slashed over $1 billion from the school nutrition programs. As a result, over 2,000 schools were forced to drop out of the program, leaving 2 million children without a nutritious school lunch. Under this block grant proposal, States would receive $2 billion less for school meals over the next 5 years. Due to drastically reduced funding, a State may choose not to subsidize meals for children who pay full price, forcing the school to raise prices.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the volunteers of Genesee County for their commitment to our community. National Volunteer Week, scheduled for April 23 to 29, is a fitting time to honor the men and women who give so generously of their time and talents. Every day, countless volunteers throughout our community work to address the fundamental necessities of our people, educating our youth, protecting our environment, caring for those in need. From children who help older Americans after school to volunteer firefighters who guard our neighborhoods while we sleep, these dedicated individuals bring a sense of hope and security to everyone whose lives they touch. Their service makes us stronger as a nation, setting a powerful example of leadership and compassion to which we all can aspire. Since the founding of our democracy, the ideal of community service has been an integral part of our national character. We all owe a deep debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who take the time to volunteer to serve the needy of our community. Their efforts make our community a better place in which to live, work, and raise families. They have our sincerest thanks.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. I support the gentlewoman on her position on nutrition. School lunch, school breakfast are extremely important programs. They will all be apparently put into this nutrition block, although we have not been given the information as to how this will be done. They say it will be somewhat separate, but we know we have so many needs in that School Lunch Program. We have different students, those that get the free lunch, the reduced lunch, the paying students, and we have just finished and completed a deep study of the nutritional values of those lunches. I am afraid this will be lost in this block grant also, because they have not shared with us yet what they intend to do with the School Lunch Program. the persian gulf war: we voted our consciences But I came over here tonight primarily to speak on another subject very briefly, and I really appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has yielded to me. While I was sitting in my office listening to the monitor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], my good friend, and he is a very good friend of mine, I have great respect for him, from San Diego, stated that the Democrats, the majority party, had turned their back on our troops in the Persian Gulf. That really hurt me, particularly coming from a friend like the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and I voted differently on that war. We both voted our consciences. The position I took was shared by Gen. Colin Powell, a great American. I voted my conscience, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] voted his conscience, and by voting my conscience, I was not turning my back on our troops. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when the war began in Iraq, the first person who stood at that podium right there the following morning, the first person was Dale Kildee from Michigan saying that while we had disagreed on policy, now that the war had started we should give our troops our full and complete support. We were not turning our backs on our troops. I took particular offense, because that statement came from a friend of mine, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. I took another offense, too, Mr. Speaker. I have two sons who are lieutenants in the U.S. Army. My one son is beginning Ranger training. When he finishes that, he will go to Korea. My votes on the policy of how we deploy our troops do not make me less concerned about the safety of our troops, and I would hope that in the next 2 days as we debate the defense of this country that we not question the patriotism of one another or the support of our troops. The 440 Members of this House, 435 voting Members and 5 nonvoting Members, are loyal Americans who want nothing to happen to our troops. I want all the sons and daughters of America who serve in the Armed Forces to be treated as I would want my own two sons to be treated, with full support. But because we may disagree, as we disagreed on the Persian Gulf war, does not make one less loyal or less American or less supportive of our troops. Now, I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] did not realize the full ramifications of his statement, but that debate we had was one of the best debates, no, not one of the best debates, the very best debate that I have heard in my over 18 years in the Congress of the United States, and that is why this is a deliberative body. Because someone may vote one way and another another way should not call into question the patriotism or loyalty or support of the our troops.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the pages for their outstanding service this year. You have been just tremendous. Each and every one of you can be proud of yourselves, and I am very proud of each and every one of you. I see a former page, the former Clerk of the House, Donn Anderson, standing back there with them, one who has really taken them under his wing and given them his wisdom and his guidance. You have seen history at work here. You have seen the House of Representatives at work here. You have seen us at our best and at our worst. You have seen us working together trying to make this a better country. You have witnessed some real history. You have seen Nelson Mandela walk down this aisle and speak from the podium where every President since Woodrow Wilson has stood, a man who had been in prison almost half his life who spoke of love and reconciliation. You heard the State of the Union Message here, a very long State of the Union Message here, just the other night, and you witnessed the orderly transfer of power in this House from one party to another after 40 years. That is democracy at work. And in that orderly transfer of power, you saw me being transformed from chairman of the Page Board to the ranking minority member of the Page Board to be followed by the one for whom I have great admiration, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who is now the chairman. I look forward to working with you in the future. Anytime any one of you need a letter of recommendation, I will give you each one a great one. You are good people. Eight or nine years from now you can be a Member of this House, and as I look around, Mr. Speaker, some of the new Members, they look almost that age, some of the newer Members this year. That was a great transfer of power, too. Thank you for what you have done. You are great people. God bless you. Godspeed.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal gratitude to all of the Pages who have served so diligently in the House of Representatives during the 103d and 104th Congresses. We all recognize the important role that congressional Pages play in helping the House of Representatives operate. This group of young people, who come from all across our Nation, represent what is good about our country. To become a Page, these young people have proven themselves to be academically qualified. They have ventured away from the security of their homes and families to spend time in an unfamiliar city. Through this experience, they have witnessed a new culture, made new friends, and learned the details of how our Government operates. As we all know, the job of a congressional Page is not an easy one. Along with being away from home, the Pages must possess the maturity to balance competing demands for their time and energy. In addition, they must have the dedication to work long hours and the ability to interact with people at a personal level. At the same time, they face a challenging academic schedule of classes in the House Page School. The fall 1994 class of pages witnessed many important and historical events and debates, including the approval of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, President Clinton's address to Congress and the Nation on his health care reform proposal. The Pages also were present for the historic speech by President Nelson Mandela of South Africa to the joint session of Congress, and had the opportunity to meet and speak with President Mandela. The Pages also witnessed the orderly transfer of power in the House from the Democrats to the Republicans--a tribute to the strength of American democracy. I am sure the departing pages will consider their time spent in Washington, DC to be one of the most valuable and exciting experiences of their lives, and that with this experience they will all move ahead to lead successful and productive lives. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Page Board, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this group of distinguished young Americans. They certainly will be missed. Departing Pages: Fall 1994-95 Amy E. Accavitti, Seth A.G. Andrew, Matthew D. Atkinson, Bart M. Bartlett, Rebecca J. Berkun, Jacqueline A. Bethea, Joanna L. Bowen, Jessica Brater, Allison Burdick, Erin C. Carney, Michael A. Carter, Krista Clarkson, Keyundah Coleman, Janey C. Crawford, Amy J. Crocker, Robert Cuthbert, Anastasios C. Drankus, Kathleen K. Duffy, Michael D. Ellison, Cathryn Caroline Fayard, Michael P. Fierro, Kristin M. Francis, Janine D. Geraigery, Jennifer C. Gerard, Melissa A. Hayes, Joseph R. Hill, Derek J. Johns, La Toya Johnson, Julia C. Kelly, Lisa N. Konitzer, Marcos A. Lopez, Ross C. Maradian, Sabrina M. Meier, Ryan D. Offutt, Neil A. Reyes, Hannah R. Riordan, Claudia V. Rocha, Michael J. Ryan, Estevan O. Sanchez, Tarik D. Scarlata, James D. Stone, Rosalind V. Thompson, Corey S. Tucker, Lakisha M. Vaughn, Emily J. Waldon, Brian R. Wellman, Hubert E. Wells, Vincent G. Wilhelm, John C. Williams, Aaron B. Willimson.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal gratitude to all of the pages who have served so diligently in the House of Representatives during the 103d and 104th Congresses. We all recognize the important role that congressional pages play in helping the House of Representatives operate. This group of young people, who come from all across our Nation, represent what is good about our country. To become a page, these young people have proven themselves to be academically qualified. They have ventured away from the security of their homes and families to spend time in an unfamiliar city. Through this experience, they have witnessed a new culture, made new friends, and learned the details of how our Government operates. As we all know, the job of a congressional page is not an easy one. Along with being away from home, the pages must possess the maturity to balance competing demands for their time and energy. In addition, they must have the dedication to work long hours and the ability to interact with people at a personal level. At the same time, they face a challenging academic schedule of classes in the House Page School. The Fall 1994 class of pages witnessed many important and historical events and debates, including the approval of the General Agreement on Trade and tariffs, President Clinton's address to Congress and the Nation on his health care reform proposal. The pages also were present for the historic speech by President Nelson Mandela of South Africa to the joint session of Congress, and had the opportunity to meet and speak with President Mandela. The pages also witnessed the orderly transfer of power in the House from the Democrats to the Republicans--a tribute to the strength of American democracy. I am sure the departing pages will consider their time spent in Washington, DC to be one of the most valuable and exciting experiences of their lives, and that with this experience they will all move ahead to lead successful and productive lives. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Page Board, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this group of distinguished young Americans. They certainly will be missed. Departing Pages: Fall 1994-1995 Amy E. Accavitti, Seth A.G. Andrew, Matthew D. Atkinson, Bart M. Bartlett, Robecca H, Berkun, Jacqueline A. Bethea, Joanna L. Bowen, Jessica Brater, Allison Burdick, Erin C. Carney, Michael A. Carter, Krista Clarkson, Keyundah Coleman, Janey C. Crawford, Amy J. Crocker, Robert Cuthbert, Anastasios C. Drankus, Kathleen K, Duffy, Michael D. Ellison, Cathryn Caroline Fayard, Michael P. Fierro, Kristin M. Francis, Janine D. Geraigery, Jennifer C. Gerard, Melissa, A. Hayes, Joseph R. Hill, Derek J. Johns, La Toya Johnson, Julia C. Kelly, Lisa N. Konitzer, Marcos A. Lopez, Ross C. Maradian, Sabrina M. Meier, Ryan D. Offutt, Neil A. Reyes, Hannah R. Riordan, Claudia V. Rocha, Michael J. Ryan, Estevan O. Sanchez, Tarik D. Scarlata, James D. Stone, Rosalind V. Thompson, Corey S. Tucker, Lakisha M. Vaughn, Emily J. Waldon, Brian R. Wellman, Hubert E. Wells, Vincent G. Wilhelm, John C. Williams, Aaron B. Willimson.

Mr. KILDEE

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing today, the Industry-Based Education Act, a bill to build upon and strengthen the work that is being carried out under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act in the areas of curriculum development, professional development, and technical assistance for our Nation's vocational education programs. As the school-based education component of our Nation's developing school-to-work transition system, vocational education is critical both as an ongoing program to prepare students to be productive members of our Nation's work force and as a tool for improving the Nation's high schools. The 1990 reauthorization of the Perkins Act created a framework for assisting State and local efforts to ensure that vocational education programs are responsive to the needs of the workplace, and that they support integrated vocational and academic education that improves the educational achievement of all students. By focusing on curriculum development, professional development and technical assistance, the Industry-Based Education Support Act will give States and local school districts additional support to help them develop and implement programs that meet the vocational and academic needs of their students and communities in an integrated manner. It is vitally important than any discussion of the future of Federal assistance for vocational education take into consideration the need to support State and locally developed curriculum development, professional development, and technical assistance. This bill is being introduced to help stimulate that debate.