Karen McCarthy

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today I walk with my head held high and with great pride as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Last night Members from both sides of the aisle stood together and said to families across this Nation that their Government does support title X funding. Title X is part of the Public Health Service Act, sponsored by then-Congressman George Bush, and signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. I am proud to be a part of a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with the common sense to set family planning funding as a priority. The title X program has been reauthorized six times since 1970 and has always received broad bipartisan support. The 104th Congress has put aside partisan politics and restored adequate funding for family planning and health care services. In my district, title X means women can afford preventive health services like pap smears and gynecological exams. In my district, title X means women can afford vital pre- and neo-natal health care to prevent problems with pregnancies. In my district, title X means women can afford contraceptive health services to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In my district, title X means men can afford screening tests for prostate cancer. In my district, title X means that a woman's income level will not control her health or that of her family. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this week, when I return to my district for the August work period, I can tell the women of Jackson County MO, that the House is committed to their family planning and health care needs. I can now go back to my district with pride for the work this body has done to preserve a 25-year commitment to the families of this Nation. It is unfortunate, however, Mr. Speaker, that I will be unable to tell my constituents that I voted for the overall Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill of which title X is a part. The measure contains extreme and unfair cuts to valuable, proven programs that educate children, invest in working people, and protect our Nation's health and safety. We must invest in our country's future by supporting education and training to promote long-term economic growth and higher living standards. We must continue to invest in programs like Cradles and Crayons that benefit our children. I regret that this bill does not represent the priorities Jackson Countians want.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Medicare's 30th anniversary. It was approved by this great legislative body on July 27, 1965. We sometimes take for granted Medicare and the impact Medicare has had on our seniors. Prior to Medicare, only 46 percent of our seniors had any health insurance. While those over 65 suffered the highest poverty rate, with almost a third living in poverty, today virtually every senior has health insurance. Medicare has been enormously successfully in ameliorating the suffering of our seniors while providing them with the dignity of knowing that health care will be there when they need it. As a freshman, I was somewhat perplexed and surprised by my Republican colleagues' attack on this program without offering real reform. I have recently studied the history of Medicare enactment. President Harry Truman first introduced Medicare legislation in 1952. For 13 years until its signing in law by President Johnson, Republicans voted overwhelmingly and consistently against Medicare. Republican antipathy on Medicare remains. They continue to try to dismantle this very successful program. This Congress should work to preserve what has been successful in improving the lives of our seniors. On Sunday, let us celebrate a happy 30th birthday to Medicare and pledge to our seniors our support in protecting this successful program.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment to H.R. 2076, to preserve a program that is a success in communities such as my own, and throughout the land. Community policing programs are supported by policy professionals and public officials of both parties. Cops on the beat enables communities to combat crime in a cost effective way. For people living in the grip of fear, for people peering out barred windows into once-friendly streets, community policing offers results. The familiar figure of a neighborhood officer, who knows the residents and cares about them and for them on a personal level, is the best tool we can employ in our fight against crime. Many communities in my district, including Kansas City, Blue Springs, Lee's Summit, and Raytown, have filled out the 1-page application and joined the Federal Government in a partnership to fight crime. They have come to the Justice Department with innovative community policing plans and have been rewarded. But these cops on the beat are just the beginning in our efforts to take back the streets. Eventually, the President plans to place 100,000 police officers on America's streets. That means even more police on the streets of the communities I represent. [[Page H 7645]] We need targeted programs with the set mission of preventing crime; community policing is a proven program that reduces crime. With the will of this body, it can continue to be a cost-effective crime buster. Please join me in supporting our cops on the beat: support the Mollohan amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is another good example of a local and Federal partnership, and again where those dollars leveraged have been a great boon to the communities. So I do urge defeat of the amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson]. Mr. Chairman, the National Trust is an American success story. In over 1,000 communities across this great Nation it has worked to help revitalize our downtowns, our Main Streets, and throughout the land since 1980, Mr. Chairman, it has been a very real positive effort in 39 of our States, creating [[Page H 6985]] over 23,000 new businesses, over 85,000 new jobs, over 33,000 building rehabilitation projects, and $3.6 billion in new investment and actual physical improvements. Every dollar spent by a local Main Street organization leverages over $25 from other sources. Mr. Chairman, the committee chose to reduce the appropriation by one- half and to phase out Federal involvement. This amendment would abruptly end one of America's success stories. It is untimely to do so in such a success story. I, who do support efforts for fiscal responsibility and balancing our budget, do not want to encourage that membership to abandon our downtowns, to abandon our local communities. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and respect that I rise today to bring to your attention, and to the attention of my colleagues, the fine work and outstanding public service of the Very Reverend J. Earl Cavanaugh. On Sunday, May 21, 1995, I was honored to join with the congregation of the Grace and Holy Trinity Episcopal Cathedral of Kansas City, MO, as well as the greater Kansas City community, to salute Reverend Cavanaugh on the occasion of his retirement after 19 years as dean of the Cathedral. Reverend Cavanaugh was born in Philadelphia, PA, on May 22, 1930. After graduating from Lycoming College in Williamsport, PA, in 1953 with an A.B. degree in English literature, he attended Drew Theological School in Madison, NJ, receiving a master of divinity degree in 1956. Upon completing a year of special study at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, he was ordained to the priesthood on June 18, 1958, diocese of Los Angeles, CA. During the period 1958-1976, Reverend Cavanaugh served as vicar of St. Peter's Church in Rialto, CA 1958-1961; vicar of St. Bartholomew's Church in Poway, CA 1961-64; rector of St. Barnabas Church and chaplain to Episcopal students at Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA 1964-68; and rector of the Church of the Holy Faith in Inglewood, CA 1968-76. In March 1976, Reverend Cavanaugh became dean and rector of Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral in Kansas City, MO, the heart of the heartland and my hometown. As he had in his previous ministries, Reverend Cavanaugh not only embraced his pastoral duties to his congregation but became an advocate and a leader in many areas of concern and challenge to the community at large, establishing the place of the Cathedral as a center of worship and service to both the greater Kansas City community and the diocese of West Missouri. As dean of Grace and Holy Trinity, he extended participation in the worship ministry to both women and men at all levels; encouraged and facilitated the development of congregational diversity by age, socio- economic and cultural background; advocated and implemented the ordination of women to the presbyterate; and strengthened the relationship of the Cathedral with other Christians and members of other faiths through joint worship, study and community service. As Dean of Kansas City, Reverend Cavanaugh, working with the Grace and Holy Trinity congregation, provided vision and leadership in support of the community's efforts to address the growing human needs and suffering of the Kansas City population, in particular the residents of the downtown area and our more troubled neighborhoods. As part of Downtown Ministries, Reverend Cavanaugh and the Grace and Holy Trinity congregation worked hand-in-hand with the Catholic Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Grand Avenue Temple, United Methodist Church, and St. Mary's Episcopal Church to minister to area youth, the elderly, the hungry, and the needy. From the beginning, Reverend Cavanaugh became involved publicly and pastorally in dealing with the very difficult issues of the AIDS epidemic, working to instill throughout our community a sense of true compassion and concern for those inflicted with this terrible disease. He dedicated his spirit and his energies to creating a climate of ecumenical cooperation and to fostering within our community a heightened awareness of the continuing need for social, racial, gender, and economic justice. Among his many community activities, Reverend Cavanaugh has served with distinction as a member of the U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East; as a member of the Downtown Council Board of Directors; as chaplain of the Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Award Foundation; as a member of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Interfaith Coalition; on the Kansas City Community Joint Committee on Homelessness; and on the mayor's task forces on AIDS and on hunger and poverty. Within the Episcopal Church, at the national level, Reverend Cavanaugh has served on the executive council; was elected nine times as deputy to the general convention of the executive church; served as a member of the Committee on the State of the Church; and served as a member of the House of Deputies Committee on Evangelism at the General Conventions held in 1973 and 1979. In 1954, Reverend Gingrich married Nancy Gingrich Cavanaugh of Philadelphia, PA. Mrs. Cavanaugh graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with an A.B. degree in economics. She attended Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, CA where she received a master's degree in education. Prior to the family's relocation to Kansas City, Mrs. Cavanaugh worked for the Federal Reserve System, the California Department of Public Assistance, and the Rialto, Los Angeles, and Inglewood California School Districts. Since 1977, she has taught second grade at the now-Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City. While actively involved in her own career, Mrs. Cavanaugh has been an integral partner in the great works and the great successes of Reverend Cavanaugh. One of the greatest gifts Reverend Cavanaugh shared with Kansas City was Nancy Cavanaugh. She became a true citizen of our city embracing with her heart our cares and concerns, dedicating her personal time and energy to seeking solutions to our problems and to celebrating our gains. Reverend and Mrs. Cavanaugh are the proud parents of Helen Mary, who I had the distinct pleasure of having as one of my students when I was on the faculty at the Sunset Hill School. Helen is an attorney and is married to Paul Stauts. Helen and Paul live in Northern California and have four wonderful children: Sydney, Alexander, Ethan, and Jacob. Helen's tribute to her father on Sunday, May 21, brought tears of joy to my eyes. In 1976, when Reverend Cavanaugh came to the heartland of America--to Kansas City--he opened his heart to the congregation and to our community. During his 19 years as dean at Grace and Holy Trinity, Reverend Cavanaugh played an extraordinary and critical role in our community. He touched the lives of so many people. His contributions will long be remembered. Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and our colleagues join me, the congregation of the Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral, Reverend Cavanaugh's family, and the citizens of Kansas City, MO, in recognizing Reverend Cavanaugh's outstanding achievements and selfless contributions and in extending our congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of his retirement.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, why are Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the privileged few? That's the question my constituents like Joan and Dale Hunt are asking. Republicans started by taking school lunches from children, and now they are going after our senior's Medicare. I am committed to balancing our budget by downsizing government, and by streamlining and eliminating Federal programs which have outlived their usefulness. I have not committed to balancing the budget by slashing funding in Medicare by $283 billion and Medicaid by $184 billion. We have a moral obligation with our seniors. Seniors who have worked hard all their lives, and through their sacrifice and toil, have made this the greatest Nation in the world now are finding out to their amazement that Republican promises to protect their entitlement were empty promises--and simply a ploy to provide a $353 billion dollar giveaway to the wealthy. For our seniors, medical care out-of-pocket expenditures have ballooned to 21 percent of their disposable income. These two constituents, Joan and Dale Hunt of Raytown, have visited with me and have expressed their concerns with the Republican's proposed cuts in Medicare. The Hunts, in their early 70's, remain active in their church and continue to volunteer to make our community better. Dale was a meat-cutter at our local Kroger grocery store for 45 years, and Joan worked at numerous jobs to raise their son and to make ends meet. Last year they had $4,300 in out-of-pocket medical expenses. These two seniors, who have worked hard all their lives and played by the rules are realizing that their very subsistence is at stake. They have a very limited discretionary income and have been unable to buy needed medical supplies. The Hunts live on a fixed income and have put off buying hearing aids and glasses for Dale and needed dental work for Joan. They have instead fixed their furnace. Now with the Republican budget proposals the Hunts will pay $3,500 more for out-of-pocket expenses over the next 7 years. $3,500 dollars may not seem like very much. For the Hunts, glasses, hearing aids and dental work will again have to be put off, their budget will be faced with additional cuts; will they be able to fix their furnace the next time it breaks, and will they be able to buy the necessary medicines, or the necessary food to keep them healthy? I am committed to making the difficult choices necessary to balance the Federal budget, but I will not be party to a balanced budget formula which gives tax breaks to those most advantaged, while slashing the programs of our parents--the seniors. Take your [[Page H5159]] tax breaks off the table and we will work together to leave a legacy to our children we can be proud of, and not a legacy which impoverishes the elderly. I will not forget the Hunts whose love has endured. Joan has given up the notion of replacing her lost wedding band, and the Hunts have given up traveling to be with their son and grandchildren--they are luxuries they can no longer afford. We must not give up on the Hunts, and 36 million seniors like the Hunts who live on a day by day basis to meet their basic needs of food, medicine, and shelter. Is this the American Dream promised by the Republicans? If hope is a number in the GOP budget math, I must declare that in my district, reality springs eternal--we can't make it on hope alone. Keep your promise and give up your tax breaks for the wealthy.

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in the figures on Missouri which were discussed just briefly, the loss to Missouri in revenue would be $5.2 billion. That averages out to $3,004 per senior on their Medicaid cuts, Medicare cuts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thought this document from the Committee on the Budget would be helpful in clarifying the loss to my State and the loss to individual seniors.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the members of this body that on Sunday, May 13, the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Missouri will pay tribute to the late Dick Bolling, a Member of the House of Representatives from 1949-1983. We come together this weekend to dedicate the Federal Building in downtown Kansas City as the Richard Bolling Federal Building. Dick Bolling represented my congressional district for 34 years and it is a fitting tribute that this building be named in his honor. This building resulted from his vision--the vision of a man who understood how vitally important it is for the employees of the Federal Government to live and work in local communities like Kansas City throughout the country. Dick Bolling will long be remembered as a giant of the House, and a voice for his constituents on the national political stage. He is a shining example of the generation we so recently honored on VE Day, a generation that fought economic depression, went overseas to defend our freedom, and returned to build a new society with opportunity for all. Initially intent on an academic career after college, World War II intervened and Dick Bolling enlisted as a private and emerged 5 years later as a lieutenant colonel with a Bronze Star. Continuing as he began, Dick Bolling battled entrenched forces all of his life--the armies of ignorance, segregation and machine politics. His first post- War job brought him to Kansas City as Director of Student Activities and Veterans Affairs at the University of Kansas City, now known as the University of Missouri-Kansas City. While at the University Dick Bolling became very active in the American Veterans Committee and the Americans for Democratic Action. His political activities led to his decision to run for Congress in 1948 against the Pendergast machine candidate in the primary and against a one-term Republican who was perceived to have a lock on the district. Mobilizing a core group of activist veterans, Dick Bolling characterized his election on President Truman's coattails as a fluke. He went on to be re-elected, by overwhelming victory margins, to 16 additional terms. It is difficult to describe in a few short sentences the career of a man who served in this institution for 34 years. He was passionate about the House of Representatives. He was not afraid to be critical of the House as he was in his best known book, ``House Out of Order,'' and he devoted much of his career to reform of its shortcomings. Known for his parliamentary skills, he was particularly proud of his contributions which led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first meaningful civil rights legislation enacted after Reconstruction. Dick Bolling served as an adviser to many of the great political personalities of his time: Speakers of the House of Representatives, Presidents and presidential contenders, and other national leaders. I have also been moved by the statements of his colleagues made in tributes at the time of his retirement from the House in 1982 and at the time of his death in 1991. He was a mentor to many of those elected to serve in this body and clearly the hero of countless more both inside and outside of the House of Representatives. Perhaps Dick Bolling's greatest contribution to those who knew him or who know of him was his spirit. He never shied from fighting for a cause in which he believed. He urged his fellow members to work hard, to serve their constituents, to be honest, and to have the courage of their convictions. He is a role model to me and to countless others of my generation who have chosen public service. His leadership is a contribution which will not be forgotten in his congressional district or by the country. On behalf of the people of the Fifth District of Missouri I am proud to join in the dedication of the Richard Bolling Federal Building.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts on behalf of sound legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. My State of Missouri is a land of mighty rivers, and clean water is a gift from our ancestors and our legacy to our children. H.R. 961 would mean the end of our coordinated efforts to improve the quality of this national resource. The strange patchwork of waivers and credits envisioned by this bill would allow polluters to choose the way they will diminish our water quality. Mr. Chairman, the nine States in the Midwest which suffered devastating floods in 1993, including Missouri, are working to expand wetlands that will help absorb the shock of future flooding. The National Conference of State Legislatures agrees that title VIII of this bill will cripple those efforts, expose Midwesterners to greater risk of flooding, and expose U.S. taxpayers to greater risk of having to pay for future flood cleanups. While the funding formula currently in the legislation would provide for additional pollution run-off funds for Missouri, H.R. 961 does not explain to the lifeblood of their State, the great Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, run thick once again with pollution. It does not explain how to pay for new homes and businesses when the rivers overflow their banks. I hope that as we debate amendments to H.R. 961 we will focus on quality of life, and that includes not only new jobs but a clean environment. I hope, too, that we adopt amendments to strike a proper balance between increased State authority and preservation of minimum Federal standards. These goals are compatible; the Clean Water Act has proven that time and again.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1215, the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995. However, before I enumerate the concerns I have with the bill, let me make a few general remarks about tax legislation and the process that brought this bill to the floor for consideration. As the former chairperson of the Ways and Means Committee in the Missouri House of Representatives, I take great interest in the tax legislation before the House today and bring considerable knowledge and experience in crafting bipartisan tax legislation. However, if I have one lament about moving from the state legislature to the national body, especially as we enter the denouement of the contract period, it is the intense level of partisanship that exists in this body when it comes to formulating policy. Here was a prime opportunity, that has now been lost, for Democrats and Republicans to work together on important tax reform issues. Because Republicans insisted on keeping to a political schedule instead of working to craft sound tax policy, they lost the opportunity to work with me and other Democrats who favor tax reform. This is not to say that I opposed all the provisions in this tax bill. In fact, there are a good many provisions in the bill that I favor. The provisions on IRA's, capital gains and other tax reforms notwithstanding, I believe this legislation is fatally flawed because it turns its back on the most compelling issue facing this Congress, which is the need for deficit reduction. The Republican attitude regarding deficit reduction ignores the message elicited at the town hall meetings that were held throughout the country earlier this year by Mr. Kasich and the Budget Committee, where people overwhelmingly expressed their support for deficit reduction over tax cuts. Adding an additional $660 billion over 10 years to the deficit, when we currently face annual budget deficits of $200 billion, is not in line with the commitment I made to balance the budget, nor in line with the wishes of the people in my district. Any change to the tax code produces winners and losers. What is troubling and what has been made clear throughout this debate on the items in the Republican contract is who the majority has elected to help and who they have elected to disregard. As I have stated, I am not opposed to certain tax reforms. I have, however, serious problems with the way the tax cuts in this bill are structured and who the majority relies on to pay for their tax cuts. For example, the Republican majority decided to cut child nutrition programs, loans for college students and programs for the elderly, as well as increase taxes on Federal employees, to pay for tax cuts that mainly accrue to the top wage earners in this country. It is worth noting that many conscientious Republicans (106) also made clear their opposition to the way the tax bill was structured when they signed a letter to the Republican leadership stating that providing tax credits to families earning up to $250,000 was not advisable. In addition, it is estimated that 70 percent of the tax savings from the capital gains cut will go to those making $100,000 or more. Another concern is the impact this legislation will have on State revenues. Because of linkages between the Federal and State tax systems, the State of Missouri is estimated to lose $1.2 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. This potential revenue lose could leave an enormous budget hole for Missouri. This body recently passed legislation to shift enormous Federal responsibilities back to the States. We are now telling the States in this legislation that you will have even fewer dollars to carry out those obligations. For these, and many other reasons, I cannot and will not support this legislation. Put simply, the Republican tax measure is not sound tax or fiscal policy.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare bill that we are debating has one clear result, save $69 billion over 5 years by creating block grants to the States with fixed, capped funding. The proposed legislation does little to assist individuals to become self-sufficient by helping them find work. It has no guarantees that it will reform the welfare system. Instead, this is a package geared toward reducing the deficit and guaranteeing that the affluent receive a capital gains cut, by cutting benefits and resources to our children. On February 23, the National Governors' Association sent a letter to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee signed by the Governor of my State, Mel Carnahan, and Republican Governors Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and John Engler of Michigan. The letter states: ``The Governors view any block grant proposal as an opportunity for Congress and the President to provide needed flexibility for States, not as a primary means to reduce the Federal budget deficit.'' They continue in this four-page letter to list other objections they have with the bill in its current form, including provisions that limit State flexibility or shift Federal costs to States. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full text of the letter appear in the Record after my remarks. I understand the need to reform the welfare system. I do not understand, however, why we need to forge ahead with legislation that is so poorly thought out that it simply abdicates our legislative responsibility to the Senate, whom we hope will take the time necessary to craft a bill that truly reforms the welfare system. Those of us who have extensive understanding of State welfare programs feel we have not been given adequate opportunity to help shape the welfare debate going on today. Because of the way this legislation has been rushed through this body and in light of the fact that the bill does not meet the fundamental principle of moving people from welfare to work, I cannot support H.R. 1214 in its current form. The letter referred to is as follows: National Governors Association, Washington, DC, February 23, 1995. Hon. Bill Archer, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our views on the Personal Responsibility Act, as amended by the Subcommittee on Human Resources. The Governors appreciate the willingness of the subcommittee to grant states new flexibility in designing cash assistance and child welfare programs. We are concerned about a number of the bill's provisions, however, that limit state flexibility or shift federal costs to states. The Governors believe Congress has at this moment an enormous opportunity to restructure the federal-state relationship. The Governors urge Congress to take advantage of this opportunity both to examine the allocation of responsibilities among the levels of government and to maximize state flexibility in areas of shared responsibility. We believe, however, that children must be protected throughout the structuring process. In addition, although federal budget cuts are needed, the Governors are concerned about the cumulative impact on the states of federal budgetary decisions. The Governors view any block grant proposal as an opportunity for Congress and the president to provide needed flexibility for states, not as a primary means to reduce the federal budget deficit. The Governors have not yet reached consensus on whether cash and other entitlement assistance should remain available, as federal entitlements to needy families or whether it should be converted to state entitlement block grants. We do agree, however, that in either case states should have the flexibility to enact welfare reforms without having to request federal waivers. federal standards for block grants If Congress chooses to pursue the block grant approach proposed by the Human Resources Subcommittee, the block grants should include a clear statement of purpose, including mutually agreed-upon goals for the block grant and the measures that will be used to judge the effectiveness of the block grant. cash assistance block grant The Governors believe that a cash assistance block grant for families must recognize the nation's interest in: Services to children; moving recipients from welfare to work; and reducing out-of-wedlock births. Although the Governors recognize the legitimate interest of the federal government in setting broad program goals in cooperation with states and territories, they also believe that states should be free from prescriptive federal standards. We appreciate the flexibility given to states in the bill to design programs, to carry forward program savings, and to transfer funding between block grants. We must oppose, however, Title I's prohibitions on transitional cash assistance to particular families now eligible for help and ask instead that states be given the authority to make these eligibility decisions themselves. Some states may want to be more restrictive than the bill--by conditioning aid on work, for example, sooner than two years--while other states may decide it is appropriate to be less restrictive. The federal interest should be limited to ensuring the block grant is used to aid low-income children and families. in the past federal restrictions on eligibility have served to contain federal costs given the open-ended entitlement nature of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Such restrictions have no place, however, in a capped entitlement block grant where the federal government's costs are fixed, regardless of the eligibility and benefit choices made by each state. Similarly, while Governors agree that there is a national interest in refocusing the welfare system on the transition to work, we will object strongly to any efforts to prescribe narrow federal work standards for the block grant. The Governors believe that all Americans should be productive members of their community. There are various ways to achieve this goal. The preferred means is through private, unsubsidized work in the business or nonprofit sectors. If the federal government imposes rigid work standards on state programs, such standards could prove self-defeating by foreclosing some possibilities, such as volunteering in the community, that can be stepping stones to full-time, private sector jobs. A rigid federal work standard would also inevitably raise difficult issues about the cost and feasibility of creating a large number of public jobs, and the cost of providing child care for parents required to work a set number of hours a week in a particular type of job. child protection block grant Governors view the child protection block grant as overly prescriptive and urge Congress to refocus it on achieving broad goals, such as preserving families, encouraging adoption and protecting health and safety of children. We also oppose the mandated creation of local citizen review panels. We believe that it is inapprorpiate for the federal government to dictate the mechanism by which Governors consult the citizens of their state on state policies. block grant funding We appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to create block grants whose funding level is guaranteed over five years rather than being subject to annual appropriations. It is essential, however, that block grants include appropriate budget adjustments that recognize agreed-upon national priorities, inflation, and demand for services. The cash assistance block grant does not include any such adjustments for structural growth in the target populations. While some growth is built into funding for the child protection block grant, it is not clear whether it will be adequate especially given that states are likely to be required by the courts to honor existing adoption assistance contracts. Governors will continue to protect abused and behalf and we believe that federal funding must continue to be available for these services. Governors also ask that any block grants include funding adjustments to provide for significant changes in the cyclical economy and for major natural disasters. An additional amount should be set aside each year for automatic and timely distribution to states that experience a major disaster, higher-than-average unemployment, or other indicators of distress. While the bill does include a federal rainy day loan fund, we are concerned that this loan fund will prove to be an inadequate means of addressing sudden changes in the need for assistance. States experiencing fiscal problems will not be able to risk taking out federal loans that they may not be able to repay. Furthermore, one billion dollars over five years may not be sufficient if many states experience economic downturns or natural disasters at the same time, as was the case with the last recession or with the midwestern floods. Finally, an unemployment rate in excess of 6.5% may not be a sufficient proxy for identifying increases in need and should not be the sole trigger for increased aid. We also urge the committee to change the funding base year and formula for the two block grants. We believe that initial allotments to states for the cash assistance and child protection block grants should be the higher of a state's actual funding under the consolidated programs in fiscal 1994 or a state's average funding during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. This change would help protect states with recent caseload growth from receiving initial allotments far below actual need. accountability in block grant programs We believe that block grants should include a clear statement of purpose, including mutually agreed-upon goals for the block grant and the measures that will be used to judge the effectiveness of the block grant. We are concerned, however, that the reporting requirements in both the cash assistance and child protection block grant go far beyond what is necessary to monitor whether program goals are being achieved. We encourage the committee to restrict reporting requirements to outcome and performance data strictly related to the goals of the program, and hope that those reporting requirements can be mutually agreed upon by Congress, the administration, and ourselves. We agree that states should be required to use the block grant funding to provide services for children and their families. We do have questions, though, about how broadly the bill's audit provisions would be applied. Would the audit process be used, for example, to determine whether the block grant goal of assisting needy children and families was being achieved? We would also suggest that rather than the federal government reclaiming audit exception funds, that these funds remain available to a state for allowable services to families and children. Implementation Governors also ask Congress to recognize that moving to a block grant structure raises many implementation issues. Almost every state is operating at least one welfare waiver project. We believe that states with waivers currently in effect should have express permission either to continue their waiver-based reforms, or to withdraw from the waivers, and be held harmless for any costs measured by waivers' cost neutrality provisions. Savings from individual state's waivers should be included in the state's base. Some states have negotiated a settlement to retain access, subject to state match, to an agreed upon dollar amount of waiver savings. Legislative language converting AFDC to a block grant should not terminate these agreements and thereby preclude states from drawing down the balance of these previously negotiated amounts. Implementation of block grants would also pose enormous difficulties for state information systems, and we are concerned that there may not be sufficient funding or lead time to allow states to update these systems as necessary to implement the legislation. While states that are ready should be able to implement any new block grants as soon as possible, other states should be allowed at least one year after enactment to implement the new programs. We also believe that a consultative process between Governors, Congress and the administration would be necessary to ensure that the transition to a block grant system is made in an orderly way and that children's needs continue to be met during the transition. Federal Aid to Legal Noncitizens and Federal Disability Benefits The Governors oppose the bill's elimination of most federal services to legal noncitizens. The elimination of federal benefits does not change any state's legal responsibilities to make services available to all legal immigrants. Policy adopted by the Governors clearly states that since the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over our nation's immigration policy, all costs resulting from immigration policy should be paid by the federal government. This bill would move the federal government in the opposite direction, and would shift substantial costs to states. The Governors also oppose the bill's changes to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. We recognize that the program is growing at an unacceptable rate, and that serious problems exist regarding the definition and diagnosis of disabilities. The changes in the bill go far beyond addressing those problems and represent a substantial and unacceptable cost shift to states. The Governors believe that Congress should wait for the report of the Commission on Childhood Disability before acting to change eligibility for disability to children. We also ask that Congress allow last year's amendments regarding the substance abuse population to be implemented before enacting new changes in that area. If changes in SSI are enacted that deny benefits to hundreds of thousands of families and children, the result may be a sharp increase in the need for aid from the new cash assistance block grant at a time when those funds would be capped. Thank you for your consideration of our views on the first four titles of Chairman Shaw's bill. We are also reviewing the child support provisions and will be forwarding our comments on them to you separately. Sincerely, Gov. Howard Dean, Chair. Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, Vice Chair. Gov. Tom Carper, Co-Lead Governor on Welfare. Gov. John Engler, Co-Lead Governor on Welfare. Gov. Mel Carnahan, Chair, Human Resources Committee. Gov. Arne H. Carlson, Vice Chair, Human Resources Committee. There is one last point I would like to make. Last week my staff received an invitation to attend an all-expense-paid trip to visit Navy bases in the Pacific. Now Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many staffers are going to take this trip--I know mine isn't--and for all I know the Navy may need to have staff review their operations in the Pacific. However, my question is this: If budgets are so tight that we have to cut school lunch programs for children and energy assistance programs for the elderly, then why do we continue to allow funding for these types of trips, which strike me as completely unnecessary? If we are going to cut the deficit, why don't we look to end these types of trips that are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am heartened by the committee funding resolution before the House today. First and foremost, it demonstrates once again that, when Democrats and Republicans work together, the American public benefits. This bill is important because it demonstrates bipartisan fiscal responsibility. Adoption of this resolution will mark the first installment of a promise many of us made to reduce the size of the Federal Government and make it more efficient. By eliminating 3 standing committees and cutting funding for all committees by 30 percent, we are assuring the people back home that reforming Government begins right here in this body. As we begin the budget and appropriations process, I would like to reaffirm that the healthy debate we are having today on this funding resolution should act as a model of how we should proceed on future budget and appropriations bills. While we may not share similar view points on our Nation's spending priorities, I hope we share the desire to have all those view points heard on this floor. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Democrat, I commend the committee on its work and the model of bipartisan cooperation it has provided.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans claim they received a clear electoral message that the Nation was ready for change. Well, we have begun to see what their definition of change means and here it is Mr. Speaker: If you are a poor, hungry child in America, then you have to wait in line behind the space station and tax breaks for the wealthy before you can receive a nutritious meal. We have heard Republicans come to this floor and claim they are not cutting child nutrition programs with the proposed block grants for the States. This is simply not true. In fact, in the first 5 years, the school-based nutrition programs will be cut by $2.5 billion and the family-based programs by $4.6 billion. In my State, Missouri, that translates into a $103 million loss for students in the school lunch program. Apparently, Republicans have not only misplaced their compassion, but it seems they have lost their calculators, as well. Like many of the provisions in the Republican contract that have been rushed through this body, the attack on the nutrition programs promises to dismantle in 100 days, programs that have efficiently fed children for over 30 years. We all agree on the need to reform the welfare system and to bring Federal spending under control, but I want to remind Republican leaders that it should not be done at the expense of working families.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 24 and for part of Thursday, February 23, I missed several rollcall votes during consideration of H.R. 450, the regulatory moratorium bill. I was unavoidably absent due to an event in my district at the Cradles and Crayons Child Care Center. With pending consideration of legislation that would drastically alter school nutrition and child- care programs, I brought together children's advocates, parents, school administrators, child nutritionists, and nearly 100 people from my district directly involved with children to discuss the impact the legislation would have on the children on the fifth district. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on Roll No. 174.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, with the House of Representatives on the verge of considering rescissions legislation that would cut Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 15 percent in 1996 and 30 percent in 1997, I commend to my colleagues a statement recently prepared by William R. Reed, the president of KCPT--channel 19, which is Kansas City's public television station. Bill's statement, which is a response to common reasons given for the elimination of Federal funding for public broadcasting, follows: Reasons Given for the Elimination of Federal Funding for Public Broadcasting (By Bill Reed) 1. Public broadcasting funds liberal and controversial programs with federal dollars. Taxpayers' money should not be used for these purposes. While KCPT does not receive large numbers of complaints about our political coverage, those received come equally from both left and right. For example, KCPT received many calls from liberals who were upset that McNeil/Lehrer devoted a large amount of time interviewing Senator Dole and Congressman Gingrich. And on the other side, we hear complaints about Bill Moyers' alleged liberal bias. But on balance, I believe KCPT is perceived by most viewers to be apolitical or non-political, as we should be. I think that McNeil/Lehrer is the most balanced program covering political issues on television anywhere. PBS is aware of this criticism, and I have heard that staff are taking steps to ensure more internal balance in individual programs, rather than relying on balance over a series of programs. PBS President Ervin Duggan's proposed Democracy Project, which is coverage of the 1996 national elections, will have an emphasis on fairness and balance. The statement that public television occasionally airs controversial programming is true, and the program of controversy last year was Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City, a six-hour series about San Francisco in the mid 1970s. Before KCPT aired Tales, Dave Welsh, Vice President for Broadcasting, Katherine Soden, Director of Programming, and I viewed the series at least twice. The decision to air the series was not an easy one because we knew that it would be controversial--it contained strong language, drug use, homosexual relationship and some brief nudity (and no sex or violence). But it was also brilliant television with a legitimate look at a specific time and place in our history. The series was a moral tale with the central character, Mary Ann, a young women from the Midwest who did not give in to the lifestyles of that time--the drug use and the promiscuity--because of her values. Tales of the City was more a story about the emptiness of lives lived without commitment, without a moral core, than anything else. KCPT received about 200 telephone calls and letters about the series--about 100 for and 100 against. Congress, however, reportedly received over 100,000 postcards as a result of a national campaign by the American Family Association and its president, the Reverend Donald E. Wildmon, against the series. Even if one did not like the series, should funding be eliminated because of six hours of programming? What about the other 5,994 hours KCPT airs each year? Obviously, Tales and other potentially controversial programs raise some profound questions. Should KCPT censor programs if we think they might be controversial, even if they are good television dealing with legitimate issues? What about individual choice? And what about the ``off'' button? But these questions, as they relate to this series, anyway, may be moot. PBS has decided not to fund a sequel to Tales of the City. 2. We should privatize public television. One of public television's strengths is that it serves many specialized audiences: Sewing programs, the old Lawrence Welk shows, cooking programs, GED programming, gardening programs, carpentry programs, how-to-fix-up-your-house programs, and painting programs. All these target audience programs would disappear because there simply are not large enough audiences to support them with commercial advertising. Programming currently airing on Discovery, Arts and Entertainment and Nickelodeon cable channels attract smaller audiences than on public television, but they continue to exist financially because those channels are owned by large corporations with a financial interest in the success of cable television as a larger business. For example, Nickelodeon is owned by Viacom, Inc., which also owns the MTV and VH-1 cable channels. While there are commercials on those channels, they are also supported by the cable companies' carriage fees and their owners' subsidies. None of those three cable channels is making a profit--they are loss leaders for the cable companies. But, to the public and to members of Congress, the impression is that those channels are making it in the marketplace because they see commercials on them, and everyone knows that commercial television is a successful business. That is not true for all cable channels, but that news is seldom reported because the cable channels not making profits continue to operate. To privatize public television means that we would have to at least break even to continue to exist, which would be impossible if we continue to broadcast the special audience programs that we are currently carrying. Privatization would mean, as we know, common-denominator programming to serve large enough audiences to attract enough commercials to bring in the revenues to break even or to make a profit. Privatization would be the end of what we call public television today. And, privatization would mean another commercial television station (and probably another commercial radio station) in Kansas City. Do we need another one? Would it even be financially feasible? television channels was to create educational television services across the country that would be delivered by television stations that did not have to make a profit to exist. Privatizing public television would take away from the public the one television channel that has been established to provide programming and services that otherwise would not be available on commercial television. 3. Federal funding for public broadcasting is an involuntary tax. Since we do not vote directly on what programs and projects are funded with tax money, it follows that all federal programs are funded with involuntary tax funds. The federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), licenses commercial television and radio stations, allowing them to use the public airways to distribute programs, to sell advertising to pay for those programs and to return dividends to the owners of those stations. Each of us pays for the advertising costs on commercial radio and television every time we buy one of the products advertised--and we pay far more than the one dollar per year per citizen (the amount paid each year in tax support of public broadcasting) in increased costs for those products. How about that involuntary tax? 4. When there were only three commercial television networks, there were reasons to provide support for an alternate public television service, but cable television has eliminated that need with services such as the Discovery Channel and Arts and Entertainment available for adults and Nickelodeon for children. Nationally, over 36 percent of all television households do not subscribe to cable television because either they cannot afford to or they have chosen not to (cable television is available to over 95 percent of all television households). Public television, of course, is free to anyone with a television set, while cable users pay a monthly fee. While Discovery and Arts and Entertainment are excellent cable networks, they do not provide the breadth of service that viewers receive from KCPT--public affairs programs, children's fare or educational services, all part of KCPT's daily schedule of services. Discovery, Arts and Entertainment and Nickelodeon provide no local programs or services. Compare these services to KCPT's City Watch; Marquee, Viva, Kansas City!; Kansas City Week in Review; specials such as our coverage of the Mid-West Health Summit; Women's Health issues; political coverage and debates; A great Current Running, a 90-minute documentary on Charles Gusewelle's epic trip down the Lena River in Siberia; KC Crossroads, a 60-minute pilot now being considered for funding by CPB as a national series featuring jazz and blues from the Kansas City area; and Ain't Seen Nothin' Like It Since, a 90-minute documentary on the world champion Kansas City Monarchs of the former Negro Baseball League; and our outreach efforts such as Sesame Street Pre-School Education Project (PEP); GED on TV; The Ready to Learn Project; Outstanding Community Kids; Break the Mold Teacher Awards; and Act Against Violence, an anti-violence outreach project now in the planning stages. In a speech last March, Nickelodeon's president, Geraldine Laybourne, announced a $30 million three-year initiative, demonstrating, according to her, the breadth of Nick's commitment to children's programming. The fact is that public television invests over $16 million each year on children's programming, or an average of $48 million over three years (not including local expenditures on children's programming). She went on to say that Nickelodeon could concentrate on creating entertaining children's programming, while PBS had to incorporate education into its children's shows--thereby making them dull programs. Preschoolers are drawn to PBS programs far more than commercial children's shows precisely because they so effectively combine fun with learning. Our mission is not to offer fun for fun's sake--cable and broadcast commercial television offer that--but fun programs that also help children love to learn. Experts agree on the importance of developing basic learning skills at an early age, the skills that ultimately enable children to succeed in school and interact socially. Discovery, Arts and Entertainment and Nickelodeon have no responsibilities to the local communities receiving their programming nor is any revenue generated for their services returned to those communities. KCPT $5.3 million budget is spent primarily in the greater Kansas City area. KCPT pays local companies for janitorial services, electricity, maintenance and other services. KCPT employs 65 people who receive $2 million in salaries. In fact, KCPT is the only locally owned telecommunications organization serving the greater Kansas City area. KCPT's Board of Directors come from the communities served by the station and are responsible to those local communities for KCPT's operations. 5. Public television's educational services are no longer needed because cable and satellites are available to deliver those services. Once again localism and commercial-free programming are keys in addressing this statement KCPT serves 350,000 K-12 students in Kansas and Missouri each year. The instructional television programs for that service are selected by the teachers who will use them. KCPT also has a staff of resource specialists for hands-on training for the teachers, and more than 300 hours of training each year is provided by these staff. In designing our on-line computer support system for our teachers and students, Link 19, local components of the service were created in response to the needs of the schools in the area KCPT serves. KCPT is now constructing an electronic training facility that will enable us to help teachers master the use of telecommunications in the classroom and improve the quality of education in our community. KCPT initiates numerous local outreach activities including Sesame Street PEP; GED on TV; Outstanding Community Kids; Breaking the Mold awards for outstanding teachers; women's health-care outreach programming; and reducing violence in our youth campaign. Local components of the Ready to Learn project, to begin January 16, 1995, are being developed with the advice of over twenty community organizations that are part of KCPT's Ready to Learn Advisory Council. The National Teacher Training Institute provides a two-day training workshop with college credit for in-service development for more than 100 K-12 faculty on an annual basis in math and science education. summary Federal funds for KCPT are matched by nine community dollars for every one federal dollar--a good return on investment by any measurement. All federal support for public broadcasting amounts to about one dollar per year per person. Are there any other federal programs you know about that return on that small investment all that public broadcasting does? Support for public broadcasting is an example of a federal program that works, a private/public partnership that returns quality national and local educational and informational programs and services not available anywhere else.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I am for the balanced budget and I am for welfare reform. Last weekend in my district, I met with concerned child care advocates at a place called Cradles and Crayons which takes care of the medically fragile children in my community. The room was packed with school nutritionists, child care providers, administrators, parents, and concerned citizens. I listened and I learned. They are unanimous in their concern regarding how we balance the budget and reform our welfare system, and their particular concern was with this proposal for block grants for children's programs, particularly the Children's Nutrition Program. Their historical experience has been that when the Federal Government block grants, that usually means less money. Their outrage was around a program such as school lunches and that a program that had worked for over 40 years would be in jeopardy as a result of this block-grant concept. In the Independence district alone, Harry Truman's home district, they were going to lose $500,000 under the block-grant proposal put forward by the Republicans. The story was the same in Grandview, in Raytown, all over my district. The State of Missouri would lose lunches for 150,000 children. Mr. Speaker, the message was clear: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Congress needs to balance its budget but not on the bellies of our children.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will alleviate concerns that have been raised in both the Science and Commerce Committees by myself and the Congresswoman from Arkansas regarding the placement of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis requirements on State and local governments. This amendment hopes to clarify that enactment of this bill will not place unfunded mandates on State and local government jurisdictions. This savings clause is needed because as currently written, the bill is unclear on the question of whether State and localities will have to engage in costly risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. It should be remembered that States often act as agents for the Federal Government in administering laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. In fact, the Commerce Committee report states on page 50 that if we enact H.R. 1022, the ``affect on budgets of State and local governments is unclear.'' This bipartisan amendment, supported by the National Conference on State Legislatures, would make clear that the bill will not impose an unfunded mandate on States and local governments. Therefore, I urge my colleagues, who overwhelmingly supported the passage of the unfunded mandate bill last month, to support this amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor 25 up and coming business and civic leaders of the Kansas City area. They have given of themselves not to receive praise for their accomplishments, but to advance causes they strongly believe in. These distinguished leaders of Kansas City will be recognized at the Up and Coming Awards ceremony on February 23. This prestigious event is sponsored by Junior Achievement of Middle America, The Kansas City Business Journal, and local business leaders. A panel of six judges, community leaders in their own right, selected this year's leaders. The selection criteria are demanding. These up and coming leaders must adhere to the highest moral and ethical principles, must be recognized by their peers and professional associates as making significant contributions to the success of their business or organizations, and have exhibited vision for their community. Each of them must have demonstrated courage, creativity, and energy in the promotion of Kansas City as a place to live and work, and serve as a role model for others in their field and community. Mr. Speaker, I ask Congress to join me in recognizing these up and coming business and civic leaders of the Kansas City area. They are: Richard M. Abell, president and CEO of Saint Joseph Health Center and Carondelet Health Corp. Mary Birch, president, Overland Park Chamber of Commerce. Linda G. Cooper, president, LGC & Associates. Thomas J. Davies, president of the Olathe Bank. Rafael I. Garcia, president of Rafael Architects Inc. Martha Gershum, national marketing manager, Keller Graduate School. Linda Hanson, president, Mark Twain Kansas City Bank. Dalton Hermes, president, Hermes-Landscaping Inc. Sarah Beeks Higdon, senior trust officer, Commerce Bank. John M. Holland, executive vice president, B.C. Christopher. Dennis G. Kasselman, senior vice president, Marketing and Development. Gail Lozoff, president, CEO, Bagel and Bagel. Aaron G. March, partner, Polsinelli, White, Vardeman, & Shalton. Ross P. Marine, administrator, Truman Medical Center East. Cris Medina, executive director, Guadelupe Center Inc. Roshann Parris, president, Parris Communications Inc. B. John Ready III, Trust Administration Department head, Smith, Gill, Fisher, & Butts. Dr. Carol V. Spring, executive director, The National Conference of Christians and Jews. Bailus M. Tate, vice president, Human Resources, Kansas City Power and Light Co. William D. Wagner, president and owner, Columbian Steel Tank Co. Kevin F. Warren, owner-chief executive officer, Kevin F. Warren & Associates Inc. Maurice A. Watso, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi, LC. Dr. Michael L. Weaver, director of emergency services, St. Luke's Hospital. David P. White, executive director, Youth Opportunities Unlimited Inc. David Wroe, music director-conductor, Kansas City Camerata.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman I rise today to support the Schumer amendment to H.R. 728. The question of Federal involvement in the fight against crime at the local level is one of resources. We all want to do our utmost to help our constituents retake their streets and Constitution lists ``ensuring domestic tranquility'' as one of the defining goals of our Republic. With the Federal budget mired in red ink, however, we need to prioritize who we can help, and how best to help them. Congress has already spoken against unfunded mandates, now we must stand against block grants that disperse our limited resources without a single word of advice or oversight on where the money goes. We need more genuine Federal-local partnerships like the Community Policy Program of the 1994 crime bill. If a municipality provides a community policing plan that is innovative and reflects the crime-fighting needs of the community, the Federal Government will provide the bulk of the funds necessary to hire, train, and pay the law officers needed to carry out that plan. The application is 1 page long, and 16,000 officers have already been approved by the Justice Department. This program is working, and it has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the Major Cities Police Chiefs. It has been argued that community policing is a result of Federal coercion. In fact, community policing is a priority because it helps communities that need Federal help fighting crime. We could approve block grants, and dispense funds to affluent towns that want helicopters, Tasers, new patrol cars, and fancy radios. But for every block grant we make to a town that can afford its own officer we take an officer away from a city or small town that is broke and desperately need our help. Simply put, community policing is tough on crime. And we need to be tough on crime. We must also crack down on the causes of crime. We have already eliminated specific funding for Drug Court programs like the highly successful one operated by the prosecutor in my home of Jackson County. Other popular programs, like the Mayor's Night Hoops in Kansas City, will also be in danger. The 1994 crime bill was the result of years of sometimes acrimonious debate. When finally passed, it was a program of police, prevention, and punishment. This bill has had neither the depth of consideration or the breadth of scope. Even if a community wants a portion of the block grants authorized in this bill, they must first convene an amorphous committee of law enforcement, social service agencies, elected officials, and other interested parties. This bureaucracy could turn the fast track to cops into the slow train to nowhere. Most cities in my district have received community policing support. They need it because crime in our region is a serious problem. My constituents can attest to the crime that plagues too many of our neighborhoods. But these citizens want to work with their government and their police to create a safer environment to live, work, and raise their children. The 1994 crime bill gave them that opportunity. While last year's crime bill was a solemn contract with citizens to lay the cornerstone for a safer society, this bill invites waste, fraud, and increased crime. Rarely has this House had a clearer choice in the fight against crime. Never has our duty to our constituents been so clear. Join me in opposing the wasteful, bureaucratic aspects of H.R. 728 by supporting the Schumer amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the League of Women Voters on its 75th anniversary. The League of Women Voters is perhaps more important today than when it was founded. The league represents a pledge made by the newly enfranchised women of 1920, who promised the Nation that they would be conscientious, informed, and progressive voters. That pledge, and the role of the league in our Nation's governance as it strives to honor that pledge, are a model for citizens of either gender who do not feel bound to understand or participate in our government. When the women of this country won the right to vote, they banded together to win rights and privileges for other sectors of our society that had also been denied opportunity. The league did not seek to consolidate the power of its members by withholding the franchise or the right for political involvement from others. The league has been fighting for reform in elections, the workplace, and other momentous issues heard in this Capitol. Its voice has always been one for people without power, and its influence has been felt throughout the land. I congratulate the League of Women Voters on its 75th anniversary, and look forward to witnessing further acts of courage, innovation, and leadership by this unique and important organization.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stenholm-Spratt amendment to H.R. 2. This amendment would expedite the rescission process, as well as retain the line-item veto language in the bill. I would like to point out to those Members who are serious about ending the practice of deficit spending that this amendment makes sense. By including both rescission and line-item veto language in the bill, the Stenholm-Spratt amendment guards against the Congress and the President being without the tools needed to balance the budget. One strength of the Stenholm-Spratt amendment is that it requires Congress to vote on rescissions submitted at any point in the year. Currently, H.R. 2, rescissions submitted by the President 10 days after signing an appropriations bill would not require congressional action. Under expedited rescission language, congressional action would be mandatory, regardless of when the rescission package is sent to Congress. The Stenholm-Spratt amendment will provide us with two instruments, expedited rescission and the line-item veto, to help restore fiscal integrity to the Federal budget process. If we want Congress to be accountable and responsible for the money it spends, then the expedited rescission language in the amendment will make us answerable by forcing a vote on a Presidential rescission package, something that is not currently required. President Clinton supports expedited rescission and the line-item veto, and I believe we should grant him the choice of either vetoeing or rescinding frivolous spending and tax breaks. Therefore, I urge bipartisan support of the Stenholm-Spratt amendment.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Welfare Reform Task Force to discuss the serious problem of child support enforcement in this country and to note the absence of meaningful child support enforcement provisions in the Personal Responsibility Act. Mr. Speaker, every child has two parents. Raising a child is the obligation of both these parents. Unfortunately, in my own State of Missouri many parents are not meeting their financial obligations. According to Missouri's Division of Child Support Enforcement, 500,000 children. Because of these shocking figures, last year our State enacted reform legislation that stiffened compliance procedures for child support payments. I was proud to be a part the effort in Missouri to see these much-needed reforms enacted. It is my hope that many of these programs, such as the Parents Fair Share Program and the Savings Connection Program can be duplicated at the Federal level. What is important to remember is that the failure of parents to make child support payments places children at risk. When child support payments are irregular or missed, the incidence of child poverty increases significantly. According to the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, 50 percent of all white children growing up in a single parent household who do not receive support live at or below the poverty line, and 70 percent of all African American children growing up in a single parent family live at or below poverty level. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we at the Federal level have to take stronger action to ensure that parents meet their financial obligations to their children. While I am encouraged that the Family Reinforcement Act adds some provisions to strengthen child support orders, I do believe that stronger provisions need to be added during consideration of the bill. In fact, I believe attention should be given to the provisions in the bill introduced by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], which I am cosponsoring, which would deny Federal benefits to individuals owing child support and withhold business and drivers licenses from individuals owing child support. In addition, I will offer consideration of the State reform provisions enacted in Missouri and other States. Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. I believe there is broad agreement that more needs to be done to ensure that child support payments are made. While we cannot force parents to spend time with their children, we certainly can place strict enforcement requirements on those mothers and fathers who abandon their children and fail to meet their financial obligations. Mr. Speaker, I intend to work hard with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey] and others to achieve bipartisan support to enact strong child support enforcement legislation this session.

Ms. McCARTHY

Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Della Lamb Community Services, which will have its annual awards banquet on Sunday, February 5, 1995. Della Lamb has stood as a beacon of hope in Kansas City for almost 100 years, providing a wide range of services to our central city. These services include day care, youth programs and summer camp, adult education, including GED and basic skills instruction, and special programs for senior adults, including much-needed transportation services. The services provided by Della Lamb touch hundreds of Kansas Citians every month. I commend the staff, volunteers, and supporters of Della Lamb for the wonderful contributions they make to our community. In addition, I would like to pay special tribute to the executive director of Della Lamb, William C. ``Duke'' Akers, who has served Della Lamb for 20 years. During the tenure of Mr. Akers, Della Lamb has grown from a one- location neighborhood house to an eight-location charitable endeavor with an annual budget of $3.5 million. The growth of services coordinated by Mr. Akers and the Della Lamb family have an impact on people every day. I commend Mr. Akers for 20 years of service to Della Lamb and I thank him for the valuable contributions he makes to our community.