Juanita Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the gentleman's continuous dialog with me.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of the concerns that I have, given the bill that is on the floor before us, and certainly one that I intend to vote on. I have several questions especially pertaining to the report that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has just articulated, and I am sorry I came in on the tail end. As my colleagues very well know, my district was the hardest hit with reference to the drug proliferation and the drug trafficking and the allegations that the CIA was involved in that. As my colleagues know, my district represents that of Watts in south central California as well as Compton. Since that time, I have called for investigations, that of the Department of Justice as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, and I have been in conversations with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] on what the Select Committee on Intelligence is all about and what they are doing. The questions that I have for either the chairman, the ranking member, or the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] is what is going on in terms of the hearings, or are there hearings in terms of a select committee on intelligence? Is the intelligence community cooperating with this committee by any means? And what is the timetable for getting a report to us so that I can articulate that to my community with reference to the ongoing investigation, if in fact they have begun to do that?

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address one of the most important votes we will cast in the 105th Congress, and that is the tax cut bill. I strongly oppose the Taxpayer Relief Act which we will vote on tomorrow. I do so not because I am opposed to tax cuts. As a former chairwoman of revenue and taxation in the California State legislature, I am for tax cuts. But I am opposed to this relief bill which is not fair. As the charts behind me demonstrate, the bulk of the tax relief is offered for the wealthiest taxpayers while the low and middle income taxpayers, the ones who live in California's 37th Congressional District, the district I represent, receive only nominal relief. Mr. Speaker, 56 percent of the Republican tax cut plan will go to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, Americans who earn well over $200,000. Under the Republican plan, taxpayers who earn $26,900 to $44,500 will receive only 17.3 percent of the tax cuts. Moreover, for the lowest income earners, those who earn $6,600 to $15,900, the Republican tax cut plan amounts to what is in effect a tax hike. This is not tax relief, but rather a tax ripoff for millions of hard- working middle class and lower income earning citizens. To provide such a tremendous tax cut to the wealthiest citizens of this country and at the same time increase taxes on American citizens who are earning the lowest income and are in the most need of a tax relief does not make any sense. The Republican tax bill further denies the $500 child tax credit to 20 million working families who receive the earned income tax credit. This plan does not value their hard work even though their earnings place them at or barely above the rate of poverty, and this is earned income. They deserve the child tax credit as much as any other working family. The Democratic alternative tax cut plan is the only real tax cut plan. It ensures that all Americans who receive tax relief receive tax relief and not just the wealthiest. Those middle class hard-working American citizens who need a tax cut, those who earn $26,900 to $44,500 will receive 58.4 percent of the tax relief under the Democratic plan. In effect the Democratic alternative shifts the bulk of the tax relief from the top 5 percent to the middle 40 percent of all American taxpayers. The Democratic alternative tax cut plan also provides an estimated $37 billion in education tax credits, which is almost twice what is offered in the Republican plan. It includes $5.7 billion in homeowner tax credits and important tax relief for small businesses, farmers, and for families with children. I do urge my colleagues to think about the American people we were elected to serve, to think about the millions of hard-working parents, trying to provide more than the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing for their children, but also a quality education, a healthy and safe environment to grow up in, and most important of all, Mr. Speaker, a quality future. We must represent the American people and vote for a real tax cut plan that will help all American families.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank my esteemed colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida Ms. Corinne Brown, for allowing us the opportunity to come tonight to, Mr. Speaker, applaud an outstanding American, an outstanding African-American, with commendations. That person is Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown, whom we all applaud for his tireless advocacy on behalf of America's veterans. His departure from the Clinton administration creates a loss for veterans and for all of us. It will be hard to find another champion for veterans with such outstanding capabilities, commitment, and a track record of groundbreaking accomplishments. Brown made a difference in the quality of veterans' lives. Brown was a veteran, and that experience enabled him to provide special leadership at a critical time of Government downsizing but increasing service needs. Jesse Brown came to the office of Secretary with very unique qualifications. Brown grew up in Chicago's South Side and was recognized even as a youngster as a natural leader. He graduated from Chicago's City College, and later joined the U.S. Marines, where he served his country during the Vietnam war. In 1965 Brown crossed a rice paddy near Da Nang when an enemy bullet shattered his right arm. He was awarded a Purple Heart. After a year of rehabilitation at a Naval Hospital, Brown joined the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV, as a service officer in Chicago. Brown said, that job offered fire to my life; it gave me a reason for living and a noble cause. He eventually became DAV's executive director. President Clinton appointed Brown to Secretary of Veterans Affairs in 1993. To say that Jesse Brown has fought in the trenches would not adequately describe Brown's efforts on behalf of veterans. Some have said his commitment verges on obsession, but I think he would find a compliment in that assessment. Brown has championed American veterans' causes, especially during the budget-cutting debates, by pointing out that veterans' benefits are not entitlements. They are the equivalent of inalienable rights. Brown has asserted that veterans should not be discussed in the same breath as welfare recipients. ``We can't spend billions preparing people to go to war and then, when they come home, nickel and dime them to death.'' That was Secretary Brown. Secretary Brown has consistently reminded those of us here in Congress of the critical role played by American veterans and the respect they deserve for their efforts on our behalf. Some of Secretary Brown's accomplishments include changes in how the VA is run, changes that will allow VA doctors to treat veterans for whatever ails them, not just conditions linked to their active duty service. Brown's reforms also include care for children of veterans who may have spina bifida linked to a parent's duty in Vietnam, and Persian Gulf war veterans whose ailments cannot be linked to any specific illness. Brown's reforms also enabled female veterans to finally have medical clinics at most VA facilities. As a female Member of Congress, I applaud Jesse Brown's sensitivity to the needs of women veterans and the changing composition of our U.S. military. I know that whatever Jesse Brown tackles in this next phase of his public service, the veterans of America will be better off because of his efforts. Again, I commend Jesse Brown's many accomplishments and wish him all the best. And as one veteran would say to another one, and I am sure all American veterans are saying this, God bless America, God bless Jesse Brown, for having graced our stage. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for allowing us this opportunity.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I came in to speak on the special orders about one thing, but when I got here and I looked at these charts, I am forced to speak with my colleagues and the Democratic leader in support of the Democratic tax cuts. I am so proud that the Democrats put forth a tax cut that spoke to tax cuts for the working-class families, those families I represent in California. My families do not make much more than $26,000 a year. The Democratic tax cut speaks to that. But these charts really do show the disparity between the Democratic tax cuts and the Republican tax bill that absolutely does not speak to the working- class families who I represent. I was really taken aback as I looked at the Republican tax bill and saw that they had really snuffed out the $16 billion that we had put in for the children's health plan to really support at least half of the 10 million children who are uninsured. And we had initially said the $16 billion would at least help 5 million of those children. Now the Republican tax bill has taken that away, and the amount of money that will go for the few uninsured children, which is only about 100,000, will be sent to the States to let the Governors take hold of this. That is criminal at best because the Governors will not give that money to the children who need the health care. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to look at the disparity of these two tax plans. The Democratic tax cut speaks to the working- class families, the ones whom I represent. The Republican tax bill is a disaster, not only for those working-class families in my district but for the country as well. I stand with the Democrats on our tax cut bill, and I will be here to vote against the Republican tax bill.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why the resolution to disapprove China's Most-Favored-Nation status failed today on this House floor. This Congress did its homework and learned from the past how such protectionist action can backfire on a strong nation such as the United States. The United States has been in a trade posture with China since China's trade liberalization policies in the early 1980's, with the exception of the period after the Tiananmen Square incident when China briefly retreated into a period of isolation. Historically, China has taken protectionist action against the rest of the world. During the period from 246 to 209 B.C., China built the ``Great Wall'' to defend its northern frontier against outsiders. Now, the wall serves no purpose except as a tourist attraction. In the 1950's China's inward-oriented development policies culminated in the Great Leap Forward, a disastrous attempt to create a self-sufficient economy. That failed as well. Today, China is experiencing the Great Awakening, where a plan for enterprise reform, trade reform, and tax reform as well as a fundamental restructuring of the country's macroeconomic management is being pursued. This kind of action is working. China's economy is booming, and the United States is taking advantage of our trade relations to boost our own economy. America was built not only on the ideal of freedom and democracy, but on the economic base of free enterprise from which such ideals flow. Remember the Boston Tea Party? The Stamp Tax? Only by opening our minds and our markets can we help China reform its human rights policies, its intellectual property rights infringements, and its arms sales. Should we turn our heads to these practices? Certainly not. Should we have turned our back on them? Certainly not. Only through continuous engagement in dialogue will we have an opportunity to affect change. From 1990 to 1996, U.S. exports to China rose by 90 percent, the fastest growth rate of any major export market. This has been a direct benefit to Southern California given its recovery from a recession. China's economy is expected to be the world's largest by the year 2012. We cannot afford to turn our backs on the opportunities offered through trade with China, particularly in light of the higher paying jobs directly supported by trade opportunities. That is the kind of protectionist action that would isolate the United States from the incredible market that is China. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. China is in need of 750 billion dollars' worth of infrastructure, most of which they will buy from the United States. Those who argued today for the revocation of MFN status by reason of a trade deficit--I ask you, how are we going to reverse the current trade deficit by blocking chances for U.S. export growth? The simple fact is, we cannot. A full one-quarter of all cargo entering the United States comes from China. My 37th Congressional District benefits from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, two of the biggest ports in the United States. In 1996, the Port of Long Beach alone handled $15.2 billion in United States-China trade. Companies such as Jackson Aerospace in Gardena, Alson Manufacturing in Compton, and Fisher Forging in Carson are all dependent on continued trade with China to maintain growth in the tremendous aerospace industry within Southern California. Exports of U.S. goods and services now total about $14.4 billion and support over 200,000 American jobs. My fellow Americans, these are a lot of jobs which would have been in jeopardy should we have not renewed China's MFN status. This House did the right thing by renewing China's MFN status today, and I applaud all of my colleagues who voted with me to sustain it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, this MFN status, as it is called, is nothing more than according normal trading status to China to facilitate commerce between the two nations. It is in no way preferential to China. MFN keeps tariffs from skyrocketing, and it retains a working relationship between our two countries. However, some Members of Congress want to take MFN status away from China, citing human rights violations as an excuse to deny them the equal trading status that we provide most countries in the world. I understand these Members' concerns and want to see improvements in China's human rights record myself. However, only through continuous engagement in dialogue will we have an opportunity to effect change. It is important to note, however, that from 1990 to 1996, United States exports to China rose by 90 percent, the fastest growing rate of any major export market. This has been a direct benefit to southern California, given its recovery from a recession. One quarter of all cargo entering the United States comes from China. I urge my colleagues to support MFN and to reject this resolution.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee yesterday and like many of my colleagues did not have my amendment made in order. The chairman of the committee was present when I testified and said that he both read and understood the nature of my amendment. If he understood the nature of my amendment then it only stands to reason that it would have been made in order. My amendment was simple. It would have simply clarified the vague and blanket terms currently found in section 6822 of the existing bill. It would have stricken the term ``prohibited state-owned shipping companies and inserted ``prohibited state-owned companies.'' The amendment further defined and clarified the term ``prohibited state- owned companies'' as a corporation, partnership, or other entity that is owned or controlled by a foreign government or foreign state as defined in section 1603 of title 28, United States Code--The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The amendment would have further removed the blanket prohibition against conveyance of Department of Defense owned properties to all foreign or state owned companies by requiring the President to certify that the prohibited foreign or state-owned company or its government is a threat to the national security of the United States. The amendment maintained the integrity of the base realignment and closure process by allowing the decisions for reuse to remain in the control of the local government. It was not made in order and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule--and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to oppose the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act conference report. Although this bill will provide needed relief for disaster victims-- which I support--for the victims of this bill, it will be a disaster. This is not a clean bill--this is not a good bill. This bill is loaded down with extraneous items that have no place in this measure. One item is an antienvironmental rider which diminishes the quality of our public natural resources. However, the most disturbing item is the prohibition of statistical sampling in the census. This language, inserted by the conferees, was not agreed to by the full House. This is a blatant attempt to legislate through an appropriations bill. As a representative of California's 37th Congressional District, I am particularly opposed to any language that would impair the Census Bureau's ability to make an accurate count of the U.S. population. Too many Americans were left out of the count during the last census. Ten million Americans were not counted and 6 million were counted twice-- which distorted our attempts to ensure equal representation for all Americans. In 1990, 800,000 people were undercounted in California. California represented 20 percent of the 1990 undercount. This undercount was not uniform across the population. The undercount between the African-American population and the non-African-American population rose dramatically to reach the highest level since 1940. In 1990, the census was six times more likely to leave out an African- American than a non-Hispanic white American. The 1990 census left out Hispanic-Americans at a rate of seven times the undercount for non- Hispanic white Americans. The Census Bureau is developing a design for the 2000 census that corrects past mistakes and makes the upcoming census the most accurate in our history--and sampling is one tool that will help. An accurate count of the population is required to apportion congressional seats. An accurate count brings fairness to the distribution of billions of dollars in funding and planning decisions such as school and highway construction. We can't afford to leave Americans out of the census. This bill is, in fact, muddier than the flood waters it purports to clean up. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank so much my dear colleague from New York and also my colleague from Vermont and from Illinois. I could not help but to come to this floor when I heard the gentlemen speaking about the issue of minimum wage. Certainly I was one of those who cast a vote in favor of that last year, but as I look at an article in The Washington Post, and it speaks to one of our colleagues, Republican colleagues, who is suggesting that a solution with reference to persons being paid below the minimum wage would be to pass legislation that would say the minimum wage would not apply, and another would be to say that all of the benefits that people are receiving would count toward calculating the minimum wage. I think this is absolutely deplorable. As I looked at my colleagues last year, those who voted on this minimum wage, I was encouraged that perhaps we were moving forward, as the gentleman from Illinois said. But then as I went back home to my district of Watts and Willowbrook, Compton and Lynwood, Wilmington, and had to meet the welfare recipients of my district to tell them of a welfare bill that was passed that said that they had to move from welfare to work, though they were discouraged, they thought, well, maybe, just maybe, jobs can come where we can get off of welfare. They do not want to be there. Maybe, just maybe, job training will come that will allow us to go from job training to jobs and then have a job where the wages will be as such where we can sustain ourselves and our families. So last year this body passed and the President signed this welfare reform bill that commanded welfare recipients to go to work. This bill did not tell them how to find a job, how to work, where to work, who would train and hire them, or how to get to work. The bill, nonetheless, ordered them to get out and seek employment. In essence, the bill commanded them to swim or sink. If there was an upside to that legislation, it was the fact that early in the session, as I said, we voted to raise the minimum wage in this country from $4.25 an hour to $5.15, giving the low-wage earners in this country, many of whom are welfare recipients and former welfare recipients and current welfare recipients, a much needed lift. When I cast my vote in favor of raising the minimum wage, which was supported by over 80 percent of the American public, I was under the impression that I was doing so for all Americans, including welfare recipients. We are not creating new laws, but rather applying current laws to those employees who are making the transition from welfare to work. So how can some Republican Members of this body demand that a citizen of this country leave the welfare rolls and go to work, then in the same breath deny them the minimum wage for an hour of work? Workfare employees not only should but need to be treated the same as any other employee. To do otherwise is unfair to them and the employees they work with. Welfare recipients in workfare programs should be entitled to the same protections under Federal labor and antidiscrimination laws as other employees. The work participation rules of the new welfare law require a single parent to be engaged in a job activity for 20 hours per week in fiscal year 1997. For an adult in a two-parent family, 35 hours a week are required, and a single parent is required to work 25 hours in fiscal year 1999 and 30 hours in fiscal year 2000. How can a mother afford child care for her children in addition to the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing with an income well below the minimum wage? Mr. Speaker, I think it is deplorable. I ask my colleagues, why are we doing this to persons who recognize that they must leave welfare to go to work and yet they are being told that now, if they should find a job, there is a possibility that they will not get minimum wage? I do not know where we are going in this country, because the very fundamental rights are being stripped from the people, not only those whom I serve, but all of us; and yet, we have some of our Republican colleagues who do not share our beliefs of opportunity and fairness. Under the proposal that I have just read, they plan to introduce workfare participants with a plan that may deny the same minimum wage that is provided to other workers, may be required to perform the same work as other employees, including hazardous work, at a lower rate of pay and without any OSHA protection, have no title 7 protection against sexual harassment or racial discrimination, and would not be entitled to the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act. It is preposterous. I am concerned about how this proposal will affect the State of California and my district, the 37th Congressional District. One in twelve Californians receive welfare benefits, and 10 percent of Los Angeles residents receive welfare benefits. The only way to make the transition from welfare to work is through obtaining quality job skills and minimum wage. The State grants under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Programs are set at the 1994 levels. Caseloads have fallen to 4.1 million, yet the States receive funding for 5 million families. This difference creates the opportunity to pay workfare workers at the minimum wage they deserve and need. I say to my colleagues, I am ready for the fight. I cannot believe that anyone in this body would now try to slip not only the rug from under people but the very basic principles of fairness and opportunity. Providing minimum wage to workfare employees is not only the fair and right thing to do but the necessary step to end welfare dependency. Mr. Speaker, I am with my colleague on whatever he proposes. I am here for the fight and the long haul to ensure that fairness to my constituents and to all constituents throughout this country who are trying their best to move from welfare to work get the respect, the fairness, and the opportunity they deserve.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is absolutely right. I am encouraged, though, as we have read this information and this proposal is now being put into print, that the religious communities are coming forth now with us, educators, parents, college students. They have now seen the disingenuous nature by which this proposal is being brought forth. I say to my colleagues that we will not stop the Congressional Black Caucus, and I am sure the Democratic Caucus and all other fair-minded people will not stop until we defeat this proposal. If we are going to insist that people move from welfare to work, we must do so in the fairest, the most sensitive way that we can. I again thank my colleague so much for bringing this to the floor so early so that I can get my quest in and my position on this issue right up front. I will be meeting with people tomorrow, women's groups, religious groups, and I will not stop until we defeat such a very contentious proposal as this.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Indeed as my colleague from Illinois just said, we hear all the time this 4.9 to 5 percent unemployment. They are not talking about our constituents. The unemployment rate in my district is close to 50 percent. Yet there are not any jobs. No jobs are rushing into my district. When this budget came to the floor and they had taken out the $5 billion for school construction that would have provided jobs and create the type of climate where children can learn, that was taken out. It just appears to me that every day we see a group of Members here who do not wish to foster an agenda that will help to move people from this welfare to work as so stated in their budget. Also, the transportation provision of the budget was underfunded. That then parlays into the lack of our getting roads and highways built whereby we can advance international trade that creates the jobs in our district, that really boosts the economy. Again, I say to the American people, watch this House. Because this is not a House that seems to suggest that we are fundamentally trying to move people from welfare to work in a fair and equitable way. I will suggest to those who are listening, call us, either the Members you see on this floor or your own Member, and share your thoughts on the proposal that is being presented, that persons whom we are asking to move from welfare to work should get below minimum wage. You call us and answer to whether that is a fair way and an American way and will be conducive to opportunities for those who are less fortunate. I think not. I will fight until we find the justice in this House that is supposed to be the people's House.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I might add that the Lutheran Church seems to be a very new group that is coming aboard now. It is very healthy that they do this. But I am sure that they see this, as we do, as a really moral issue, an issue that smacks in the face of unfairness. We cannot afford to allow this type of proposal to come to American people who are trying their best to raise their families, to provide shelter for their children, and to provide an education for them. To move from a below-subsistence level to self-sufficiency, we must couch this as the moral issue it really is. For those who are spiritual-minded Members, for those who want to do the right thing, well, then fight with us to defeat this very egregious proposal that does not speak to the fundamental rights of this country.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. May I please add to those thanks, too. Because I thank the gentleman for taking the leadership on such a very important issue as this, early on, before we see this so-called proposal. But it is suspect to me that this is a proposal that is coming when I was told at the first of the year that we should not do anything about this welfare reform bill, to allow it to percolate for 1 year to see whether it really works. And now, before a half year is gone, here is a so-called proposal to revisit the minimum wage with the express consent to try to do something to harm those who are trying to move from welfare to work and to not give them a leg up. I thank the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman from Illinois that New Yorkers are all the better because they have the gentleman to tout for them, to address their needs and to certainly bring very critical issues like this early on to the forefront. Again, I am ready for the fight.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this piece of legislation. I am proud to support the Drug Free Community Act. This bipartisan legislation will authorize essential funding for community coalitions that are making a difference in addressing the Nation's drug problem. We have all heard the statistics on the rising rate of marijuana use among our Nation's youth. Among eighth graders alone, the rate of marijuana use tripled in 1996, and the marijuana of today is 15 times more potent than the marijuana used in the 1970's. But even more lethal, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines are the drugs that are tearing apart families and ruining communities throughout the country and in my district. California has the worst methamphetamine problem in the country. Over the past few years, there has been a significant increase in methamphetamine use, especially in Los Angeles. From 1990 to 1994, the admissions of Los Angeles residents to addiction treatment centers jumped from 700 to over 2,000, and this number only includes those who have received treatment. At any given time during the month, some 13,000 Californians who have sought treatment cannot get it because they are placed on a waiting list, which can last from 3 to 60 days. The Drug Free Community Act can change these numbers and begin a new era when parents, teachers, churches, and entire communities can come together to prevent, treat, and ultimately end drug abuse. We have already lost too many children to drugs and crime. We cannot afford to lose any more. Creating opportunities for community coalitions to overcome the problems of drug abuse is essential in our effort to maintain and improve the social fabric of our communities, not just in the 37th Congressional District, but in the entire country. I urge all of my colleagues to vote on this very important bill, and I would like to thank the sponsors for this legislation, as it will help me in assisting my constituents in my district.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentleman. Therefore, I do not need to present this amendment. Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer today an amendment that will amend section 321 regarding qualifications for membership on the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board. Mr. Chairman, the amendment permits Federal employees to serve on the literacy board. It also requires that businesses not simply have an interest, but rather a demonstration of success in literacy programs. Most importantly, this amendment creates the opportunity for those who have graduated from a literacy program and live in the areas of the country with a poverty level of at least 15 percent to serve on the board. Mr. Chairman, I do ask that I engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to restore funding for the women, infants and children's program, WIC. I had originally introduced my own amendment, but I am going to withdraw it to support the Kaptur, et. al. amendment. In my State of California alone, 1.2 million low-income and nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infant and children benefit from WIC. To suddenly strip 180,000 of these women, infants, and children from this essential program is cruel and without reason. I am proud that California operates the largest WIC Program in the country, as it is one of the most successful programs ever established by Congress, and I am proud to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment to restore funding for the women, infants and children program [WIC]. I had originally introduced my own amendment to restore full funding for WIC, however, I will withdraw my amendment to support the Kaptur-Riggs- Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment. In my State of California alone, 1,225,800 low-income and nutritional-at-risk pregnant women, infants, and children benefit from WIC. To suddenly strip 180,000 of these women, infants, and children from this essential program is cruel and without reason. Programs that are not only cost-effective, but produce such impressive results are precisely the programs we need to keep, not cut. The Government saves $3.50 for each $1 spent on WIC for pregnant women in expenditures for Medicaid, SSI for disabled children, and other programs. More importantly, research has demonstrated how effectively WIC reduces low-birthweight babies, infant mortality, and child anemia. I am proud that California operates the largest WIC Program in the country as it is one of the most successful programs ever established by Congress. And I am proud to support the full restoration of funding for WIC.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, today this body was presented with legislation that was called the Juvenile Crime Act of 1997, long on language but short on a balanced approach to this problem. I recognize that violent crime must be met with punitive actions. But nonviolent crime must give juvenile delinquents an opportunity to change. That is why I tried to influence and offer this amendment that I had today calling on more funding for preventive measures, but I was unable to submit it. So I objected to H.R. 3, because no juvenile crime bill will be worth the paper it is written on without full and adequate resources for juvenile crime prevention. There is no way we can lock up or imprison a generation of troubled young people. We must provide meaningful alternatives to deter our young people from a life of crime. In California, the total juvenile arrests in 1994 were 257,389 young folks. Of those arrested, only 22,053 or 8 percent were violent offenders. That leaves 235,336 nonviolent juvenile arrests. Those are the young people we can save and that we must reach out and work with. Mr. Speaker, we must be tough with violent criminals, even young violent criminals. But in California only 8 percent of all juvenile offenders are violent, and we must deal with them appropriately. They must be locked up. But the 235,336 whom we can save, we must provide the programs for those in a way that we can turn their lives around. That is why my amendment would increase funding for crime prevention programs by $2.3 billion. We have got to reach at-risk juveniles before they begin committing violent offenses. Our communities must reach out to them through education and crime deterrent programs when they cry out for attention through infractions of the law. My amendment would also make sure that funds would be there for crime prevention. It places our Federal priorities first on crime prevention, not building more prisons. We have more prisons in California than any other State, but our crime rates are not the lowest. Prisons alone will not solve the problem. Crime prevention is what we need. Mr. Speaker, we must provide more resources for drug prevention, for nonviolent crime; we must have more education initiatives. We must increase the penalty for the transfer of a handgun to a juvenile or for a juvenile who possesses a handgun. This is why I introduced my bill, the Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997, which prohibits the transfer of a firearm without a child safety lock as an integral component. I am committed to helping the juvenile delinquents who are nonviolent in Watts, Willowbrook, Compton, Lynwood, Long Beach, Wilmington and all over my district who have had minor infractions with the law; to seek and help them, through preventive measures, to turn their devious behaviors into more positive outcomes. We can do that, Mr. Speaker. We must do that. They are asking for our help. We must be there to provide that safety net before they become violent offenders. We can do no less.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] that he should really stop his propaganda on COSCO. He is ill-advised, and therefore he should stop that with reference to COSCO and Long Beach. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule on H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Act of 1997. This closed rule would severely limit our ability to offer important amendments to this legislation. I am particularly concerned that the rule precludes amendments to protect children from the accidental discharge of firearms. As elected Representatives we have an important responsibility to advocate for our Nation's children by prohibiting the transfer of a firearm without a child safety lock as an integral component. Every year hundreds of children between the ages of 1 and 19 are killed by the unintentional discharge of handguns. Since 1987, more than 4,000 innocent boys and girls have lost their lives through unintentional firearm deaths. The loss of these young children can be prevented, which is why I have authored the Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997. This legislation would prohibit any person from transferring or selling a firearm in the United States unless there is a child safety lock. Further, this legislation would prohibit the transfer or sale of firearms by federally licensed dealers and manufacturers unless a child safety lock is part of its assembly. However, legislation is not enough. Responsible handgun owners should child-proof their firearms whether they have children or not. I have outlined a number of child-proofing options and would like to submit them for the Record. The Firearm Child Safety Lock Act of 1997, once enacted, will prevent the future loss of lives of our innocent children. These are our children, our sons and our daughters, and the future of this country. As parents and leaders it is our obligation to protect our children from senseless deaths caused by the unintentional discharge of firearms. This is not gun control, this is a safety measure. If gun owners want to be nice people, as stated by the NRA's president, Wayne LaPierre, then they would support this amendment and curb the senseless deaths of our country's children due to unintentional discharge of firearms. For this amendment and other amendments I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, the high number of minority women infected with the HIV virus reflects their reduced access to health care which is associated with disadvantaged socio-economic status, cultural or language barriers that may limit access to prevention information as well as differences in HIV risk behaviors. Among minority women, the most prevalent modes of contacting HIV are injecting drug use, 37 percent, and heterosexual contact, almost 38 percent. Rates of heterosexual anal and oral intercourse in minority youths are comparable with estimated rates in adults. In the inner-city community, there are often greater perceived notions that sex is not as good if a condom is used. Frequently women do not encourage their sexual partners to use condoms for fear of retribution. Their low-income status makes them feel more dependent upon their partners and they do not want to risk losing them insisting on safe sex. Minority youths have a higher tendency to engage in sex with multiple partners, therefore creating higher risks for HIV infection. Minority communities are in need of better efforts to promote condom use and discourage multiple partners. AIDS rates are highest among Blacks and Hispanics. AIDS rates among Blacks are six times greater than among whites, and two times greater than among Hispanics. In 1995, racial and/or ethnic minorities accounted for over 77 percent of AIDS cases among adolescent and adult females, and over 84 percent of AIDS cases among children. By the year 2000, between 72,000 and 100,000 children and teens will have lost their mothers to HIV/AIDS. The cities that will be the hardest hit are Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Newark, New York City, Miami, and San Juan.