Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to regulations proposed by the Department of Labor regarding black lung compensation. I strongly believe injured parties should be compensated, and the current black lung progarm has provided much needed relief to many coal miners. However, the regulations proposed by the Department of Labor go far beyond necessary retribution and would effectively eliminate the coal mining industry in my State of Kentucky and other States that are home to small coal operators. As a member of the Kentucky State Assembly, I participated in a special session in December where we revamped the workers compensation system to ensure the solvency of a program that was bankrupt. Now the Labor Department is proposing changes to the Federal Black Lung Program that are moving directly in the opposite direction. On January 22, 1997, the Department of Labor--Employment Standards Administration--issued proposed changes to the Black Lung Benefits Program. These regulations would change the legal definition of pneumoconiosis--black lung--to include other lung abnormalities. The regulations would also declare the disorder progressive, so if someone who worked in coal mines for even a short time and was a smoker and developed lung cancer, the cause of the cancer would be job related, even if the prevailing medical information concluded it was smoking related. Furthermore, there would be the presumption that any sign of lung problem, even an x ray that showed a shadow on the lung of a smoker, would be progressive and eventually result in disability and death. This is true even in cases where there is no current physical limitation. Such a presumption is simply inaccurate. In addition, the Department would allow all cases to be reopened and reconsidered under the new guidelines. In some cases, even the widow or survivors of the claimant would be entitled to reopen cases. This is about 80,000 cases. About 230,000 miners, survivors, or dependents receive either compensation and/or medical benefits under the Federal Black Lung Program. To date, more than $32 billion have been spent providing black lung benefits to miners and their survivors. The current program is supported by Congress. I am not arguing that this program should be cut or eliminated. Rather, I believe the program should be left alone. The authorizing committee agrees that the Department of Labor should not implement the proposed changes to this program. In fact, the committee wrote Secretary Herman with their concerns earlier this year. Summarizing, the committee believes that the regulation changes go directly against the will of the Congress, which considered similar changes in the 103d Congress--but did not pass. What's more, thorough economic impact studies have not been performed. As such, information on the costs of the proposed changes to the Federal Government and the coal companies is insufficient to allow these regulations to be implemented. While the Department of Labor concludes that the proposed regulations will result in an increased cost of only $28 to $40 million to the Federal Government, this conclusion is based on an inaccurate assumption that the claims approval rate will increase only from 7.5 to 9 percent. The conclusion does not account for any change in the initial filing rate or refiling rate and ignores the fact that many lawyers are waiting for a chance to refile their clients' claims. Analyses of the legislation considered in the 103d Congress--which was similar to the proposed regulations-- indicated that as many as 80,000 previously denied claims could be refiled and could cost as much as an additional $30 billion. In addition, the proposed regulations will not only directly cost taxpayers through costs to the Black Lung Program. They also will severely impact small coal operators. These costs could effectively eliminate small coal operators in such States as Kentucky and have an enormous impact on rural communities that depend on the coal industry. The Department of Labor failed to provide appropriate information to substantiate the basis for the claim that the proposed rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In fact, the Small Business Administration [SBA] Office of Advocacy has filed formal complaint regarding the failure of the Department of Labor to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act [RFA] as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA]. The goal of these laws is to require agencies during consideration of regulations to analyze the impact on small businesses. The Department of Labor has failed to follow the guidelines set in law and consider the impact of these proposed regulations on small businesses. The proposed regulations have also been opposed by the American Bar Association [ABA], which adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to any principle in the new regulations. I am submitting documents by both SBA and ABA for the Record. In short, the new regulations would have a terrible impact on Kentucky and other States which are home to small coal operators. While I strongly believe injured parties should be compensated, these proposed regulations go far beyond necessary retribution and would effectively eliminate the coal mining industry in my State of Kentucky at huge economic cost to taxpayers nationally. U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Washington, DC, August 21, 1997. Hon. Bernard E. Anderson, Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards Administration, Department of Labor, Washington, DC. Re: RIN 1215-AA99: Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as Amended. Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter is the official comments of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy on the Employment Standards Administration's (ESA) rule for implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act.\1\ These comments are to be placed on the public docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- See footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Office of Advocacy was established by Congress under Public Law No. 94-305 to represent the views of small businesses before Federal agencies and Congress. Advocacy is required by Sec. 612 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) \2\ to monitor agencies' compliance with the RFA. Advocacy has two primary concerns with the proposal. (1) Advocacy will address the ESA's failure to use established SBA size standards. The ESA is required by the RFA to use the SBA definitions when determining the economic impact of the rule or to follow the appropriate statutory process for selecting an alternative size standard. (2) Advocacy will also address the agency's economic impact analysis. Advocacy believes that the ESA's RFA certification \3\ is inadequate because the agency has failed to provide appropriate data to substantiate a factual basis for this certification. \4\ Based on a preliminary assessment and information received from mining industry employers, Advocacy is convinced that the proposed changes to the black lung regulations may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The agency should complete an initial regulatory flexibility analysis detailing the potential impact of this rule on small businesses. Small Business Definition When determining if a proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,\5\ the RFA requires that agencies comply with the size standards established by the SBA.\6\ If an agency decides to deviate from the pre-established size standard for the purposes of a particular rule, the agency must consult with the SBA prior to publishing the proposed rule. The agency also must publish the alternative size standard for public comment. For the purposes of the proposed rule, ESA defines a small mine as a mine with a net worth of less than $10 million or has been in operation for less than three years. The SBA defines a small mine as a mine which employs less than 500 employees. Although the preamble discusses the use of SBA and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) definitions, there is no indication that ESA contacted SBA to discuss alternatives. For the purposes of determining the economic impact of the proposed rule on small businesses, ESA must use the SBA definition or follow the statutory procedure for developing an alternative. ESA's decision to deviate from SBA's standards for the economic analysis was made independent of any consultation with the Office of Advocacy. Such a decision, without consultation with Advocacy, is a violation of the law. Quantitative Data on the Mining Industry Advocacy contends that the agency has not provided the quantitative data necessary to substantiate the agency's certification that this rule will not have a substantial impact on small businesses. In fact, the agency has not provided the public with estimates on the number of small mines which will be affected by this rule, either as a whole or by mining sector (e.g., surface and underground bituminous and anthracite). Data available to Advocacy indicate that the coal mining industry includes 1,811 small firms, 95 percent of the mines in the industry.\7\ Therefore, Advocacy maintains that there are a substantial number of small firms affected by this rule and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis must be completed. Economic Impact Analysis Determining a rule's impact on small businesses and other small entities is an important part of the rulemaking process.\8\ It is the burden of the agency to conduct a complete analysis of the affected industry and publish its findings for public comment. The analysis should provide a detailed breakdown of the economic impact proposed changes by various sizes, types of operations, and practices within the small mining industry. The economic impact data provided by the ESA on small coal mining firms is not sufficient to substantiate the agency's assertion that ``small firms are not expected to be disproportionately affected by these changes.'' \9\ First, the criteria for RFA is a significant impact (not a ``disproportionate'' burden). After evaluating the preliminary information provided by ESA in the preamble, the Office of Advocacy concludes that the impact on small firms likely would be both significant and disproportionate. For instance: The agency predicts that in a maximum impact scenario, the total costs for the coal industry would be an additional $3.65 per $100 of payroll. This would be an 84 percent increase over current costs ($4.33 per $100 of payroll).\10\ The agency projects that approval rates for claims will increase and result in an increase in the premium rate of less than 75 cents per $100 of payroll for underground bituminous miners. Using ESA estimates of the average annual per employee wage cost of $38,355, the increase in premium rates for this industry sector would be $287 per employee each year. This would be a 17 percent increase in insurance costs. Advocacy examined just one sector of this industry to demonstrate just how significant the cost of this rule will be for small firms. For an anthracite mine with 20 employees, the costs of labor represents 37 percent of revenue value. ESA indicates that average labor costs in the industry equal less than one fourth of the value of its product output. Assuming that receipts are equal to output, this size and type of mine does not enjoy the economies of scale and higher productivity per employee of larger mines. Therefore, the insurance costs based on payroll will be significantly greater. We estimate that similar costs will be discovered for many or all of the small mines affected by this rule.\11\ Given the rule's potential economic impact on small mines, Advocacy is making several suggestions for improving the agency's economic data. Generally, the process of preparing an economic analysis requires an ample amount of due diligence on the part of the agency. In order to provide the public with the necessary economic information to solicit constructive public comment, the ESA's process of analyzing the impact of the black lung regulations should be transparent, clearly illustrating the cost of implementing the rule on the various segments which comprise the small mining industry. Economic assumptions and methodologies should be made known so that the analysis can be reviewed actuarially. If costs are determined to be significant in a particular industry sector and/or in a particular small business size range, this would justify a full analysis with regulatory alternatives for small entities. The following are specific recommendations to improve the data to determine economic impact more realistically. The agency is using the criteria of one percent of payroll as the threshold for determining ``significant.'' However, Advocacy believes that this threshold is inappropriate and essentially meaningless. First, small firms' costs may be concentrated in payroll and not other operating costs. Therefore, the percentage of costs will be much greater for small mines relative to larger, mechanized mines. Second, with payroll cost increases, there is no indication of correlating revenue or profit increases. Our preliminary investigation of the industry shows that the product prices are fixed, established by long-term contract. Larger firms may be able to absorb the costs in the short term with some measure of profitability. Smaller firms, however, may not be able to assume the added costs and remain competitive. Sector specific profit margins and standard industry practices, like long-term contracting, must be discussed in the analysis. The analysis should use SBA size standards to determine the impact of the proposed changes by various size ranges. Cost projections by size range is fundamental to determining economic impact. An example of how economic impact can vary by size is illustrated by the anthracite industry. Based on 1994 U.S. Census data, anthracite mines with fewer than 20 employees had estimated annual receipts of $821,000, mines with 20-24 employees had estimated receipts of $2.07 million and mines with 25-29 employees had estimated receipts of $2.99 million. Clearly, increased insurance premiums would have a significantly different economic impact depending on the size of the anthracite firm. The rule is anticipated to have a $40 million \12\ impact on the entire coal mining industry. The agency's use of aggregate numbers to determine anticipated economic impact is not particularly useful. The analysis should explore how the regulation will impact specific sectors (e.g., anthracite and bituminous) within the industry by various sized firms. The analysis should also examine the rule's impact on different mining practices, e.g. surface and underground mining. The agency's economic data has concentrated on the rule's impact to commercially-insured coal mines. The agency should also estimate the impact of the rule on self-insured mines. In addition, the analysis should compare the potential impact of the rule between self-insured and commercial-insured firms. To assist the agency, Advocacy has provided 1994 U.S. Census Bureau data detailing industry specific firm size by number of employees and company receipts. (The ESA indicated that the lack of such data was a reason not to use established SBA size standards in its economic impact study. \13\) For future reference, this information can be easily retrieved from Advocacy's homepage at http://www.sba.gov/

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and express my admiration for the life and work of Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa's acts of compassion transcended religious, cultural, and national boundaries. Her lifelong devotion to the poor, sick, and downtrodden served as an inspiration not only to those of us in the Catholic community, but to members of all faiths. Pope John Paul II remarked upon her death that Mother Teresa marked the history of our century. She courageously defended life; she served all human beings by promoting their dignity and respect; and made those who had been defeated by life feel the tenderness of God. Mother Teresa taught by example the true meaning of service to mankind. Although she achieved widespread praise and recognition for her efforts, she was not comfortable in the spotlight. In fact, it seems that as her celebrity status increased, so did her commitment to serve her fellow man. She served as a role model by pulling us toward the higher purposes in life--doing what is right and good. Mother Teresa had only a very small step to take from her life on earth to the afterlife. She has accurately been called a living saint, and an angel on earth. Mr. Speaker, we have lost one of history's truly outstanding people. As French President Jacque Chirac remarked upon her death, ``this evening, there is less love, less compassion, less light in the world.''

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for helping to pull us all together today to resolve our differences. I want to thank particularly the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I think that their help in putting a resolution to those things that divided us was very important. I appreciate their leadership and I appreciate that they proved one more time that it is important to put all the good ideas on the table; and that when we are talking about education, it is not about winning or losing, but trying to pull together some concept of what works and making sure that that is what we do. I want to thank all members of the committee for their dedication to public schools. Regardless of whether we feel strongly about what other schools exist in this country, I believe that public schools will always be a critical part and a very important part of what the education picture is for all of the children in this country. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I share the same objectives. All the things the gentleman said about education and about resolving the school crises that we have, I share the gentleman's vision of what makes those schools better. I could not agree more with the gentleman about his description of how schools succeed, and for that reason, I look forward to working together with this committee in the future to build strong and better public schools.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words on the Evans amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the debate here tonight. I am from Kentucky, which I believe is the only State that enacted whole school reform statewide, and I have talked for many, many times about the benefits of whole school reform. But I do not believe that it is something that we can enact at the Federal level and have it be effective. The truth is it is very difficult to enact at a State level so that it is effectively implemented by the schools in that State. The fact is schools succeed school by school. They succeed as they develop their own plans, address what their teachers and what the needs are of their students, what the talents are of their teachers and how they best can meet the needs of their students. When we have whole school reform, it requires a whole system of support. It requires a school to be able to overcome the provisions of the teacher contract. We cannot do that, Mr. Chairman, here tonight. We cannot do this at the Federal level because we see in this country that the responsibility for the organization and the efficient management of our schools is done in 50 States. And so in every State we build up an expertise, an understanding of what the needs are and the way to address those needs. I personally do not believe that in every community in Wyoming the needs of schools are the same as in Louisville, Kentucky, and that is why we need each legislature to be able to freely address those needs. The support for block grants and what we hear from superintendents around this country, and certainly in local districts, is, please, do not keep trying to push the direction and the way we organize our schools by the money that is trickled down to us; what we need is to be able to fill in the blanks and meet the needs of each neighborhood school based on the talents in that school and the needs that they have. This bill and this whole school reform pushes schools to go in a very specific direction. The bill in the language mentions the examples of whole school reform that would be accepted. Many of the things that exist in current State laws would not allow real whole school reform. And, finally, let me say that in Kentucky whole school reform where it is successful is successful because our universities are training teachers in a different way. We have rewards and sanctions for schools that are not successful, and just because they adopted whole school reform, their scores have not all gone up; in fact, some have gone down. And so what we need is a State Department that can intervene in those schools, we need to adopt it as a whole support system, and for us in the Federal level to apply that on every State and every school, if they want the money, would be a terrible mistake.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Reclaiming my time to respond, please, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that whole school reform only works if there are the liberties to truly reform it. As my colleagues know, if a school says we would like to apply for this $50,000 grant and they get it, but the State does not allow the provisions of this, say, to override teacher contracts, to change the size of classes, to do other things that are necessary for whole school reform, the effectiveness of it does not exist.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, if it is so clear that whole school reform is good, everyone of the 50 States could enact it today. They spend billions. In fact, they spend 95 percent of every dollar in the classroom they appropriate and spend at the State and local government. There is nothing that prohibits them from passing whole school reform in their school. So if the evidence is so overwhelming, why has only one State in this country passed it, and why would we seek at the Federal level to override the wisdom of those States?

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today. Before I comment on this balanced budget, I want to thank all of the people who have come before me that have kept the hope alive and the belief alive that it was possible to balance the budget, to cut taxes, to save Medicare, and to meet the emerging needs of our communities. They were often ridiculed. They sat through years of where we raised taxes, where we spent more money, and they kept the hope alive for Americans that it was possible to change that course. They inspired me, and they inspired my community that this was a possibility. So for them, I thank them for the leadership and the lonely days they spent in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this bill says I love you to our children. For me, it is my six children: David, Katie, Joshua, Kevin, Erin, and Mark. For all the other parents who have children that believe that we should restrain our spending and pass on better opportunities to our children, that is what we are doing today when we vote for this bill. It is a pleasure to be here. It is an honor to be a part of this. I think more than the numbers, more than what it does to interest rates, more than what it does to stop the bleed of red ink, it also helps to reestablish the faith and the trust that the American people have that this system of Government can address its needs, can come to an agreement, and can reflect what they have believed in so long. That is that we should balance our budget.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all I am proud to say I have never taken a dime from the tobacco companies and do not intend to now. I refuse all of their PAC checks. I have also been the proud sponsor of a lot of tough youth access legislation and hope to have that opportunity again. But this will hurt exactly the wrong people. There are some people that love this legislation. They are the farmers from Malawi and Brazil and Argentina that can grow cheap tobacco and replace our tobacco grown in this country. What does that do? That ruins small poor communities all across Kentucky. They are the communities with the highest unemployment rate. They are the communities with the fewest resources. This is the crop that enables them to pay their taxes so that they can support our schools, our small communities, and help capitalize the changes they are trying to make in agriculture so that they can convert to other crops. They understand how threatened they are. They understand the cheap tobacco that is flooding the world market. They understand how short a lifeline they are on. They are trying to capitalize the changes to get into other crops. Please, do not ruin our smallest, poorest communities.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the gentleman from Virginia in a colloquy related to something important for Louisville, KY. In 1994 the Federal Aviation Administration advised Congress that they would reimburse the Standiford Field in Louisville, KY, for the airport's costs of installing a category III instrument landing system on runway 35 right. It is my understanding that the FAA has provided about $700,000 out of a total estimated funding of $2.4 million for this system. That leaves approximately $1.7 million remaining to be paid. It is my understanding that those remaining funds are included in the FAA's budget request for fiscal year 1998 and that they are included in the committee's reported bill. Is that the chairman's understanding, as well?

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, they do. I thank the gentleman for this, and I thank him on behalf of all the young men as they come through that airport and they come through a new door, an open door to a change in their lives. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against the Budget Enforcement Act. I really have great appreciation for what the authors are trying to achieve. I believe it is important that we focus on achieving those goals. However, I do not think this is the way to go about it. I want to emphasize the importance of creative solutions. I believe in 1994 that there was a revolution. It was not just a revolution of who served. It was not just a revolution about where we were trying to go. It was a revolution of we are going to start to think out of the box. We are going to stop doing things that we have always done and get what we have always gotten. So Congress and the people that were involved in public policy began to think of new ways to fashion new solutions. It is very important that we deal with each one of our spending challenges and each one of our challenges that we face and look for creative solutions. Think about 20 years ago when so many of us were concerned in this country that we would never be internationally competitive. We wondered if our ability to trade competitively, as we saw other countries buying up American industries, would ever return. It was the creative solutions of business, it was the ability to find new ways of doing things, a new way to handle inventory, a new way to downsize businesses that gave us back our competitive edge and made us so internationally competitive. That is true with government. As we look at Medicaid, as we look at Medicare, as we look at Social Security, I am absolutely convinced that we can make those programs strong. We can make them solvent. We can keep them from absorbing all of our children's income in creative ways instead of putting this government on automatic pilot and letting it happen for us in ways that we do not believe are the best.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the resolution and in behalf of continuing normal trading relationships with China. We are all here today for one reason, because we are very concerned about China. We are very concerned about human rights and civil rights, and we are wondering in what way we can best reach out and change China's current policy. The fact is that we recognize that China is a growing power, and there are some things, Mr. Speaker, that no matter what we do today in our vote, we are not going to change. We are not going to change the fact that China is growing militarily. We are not going to change the fact that technologically China is advancing at a very rapid pace. We are not going to change the fact that China is going to have a profound impact on our world in the coming years. And so, Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not how do we stop those things which we cannot stop, but how do we most influence them? Over the last 20 years, China has changed, China has grown, it has become more aware of civil and human rights, and their citizens have demanded more than they ever have before. Is it fast enough for us? No, it is not. But the fact is, it is that relationship, it is that continued relationship that gives us the most chance to affect China as it inevitably grows and advances. Mr. Speaker, we can do a lot from the outside, demanding and asking for civil and human rights in China. But the way it will most change is when the Chinese people begin to be able to think, because of prosperity, about something more than where their next meal is coming from and how to meet their basic needs. When they begin realizing what is available in other countries in terms of their own civil rights and human rights, they will also demand more from within as we are demanding from without. Please, let us continue this relationship so that they will be able to enjoy the civil and human rights that we do.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House tonight about the tax cut and about a rather humorous, if you have a broad sense of humor, news conference that was held today earlier by the Democratic Members of the Women's Caucus here in the House. You know it must be very terrible if you have to find reasons every day to be against a tax cut considering their popularity, and today this group of Members said that this tax cut would hurt the women of our country. That is especially hilarious when you think that most women are growing up and sharing homes and lives with men. They either have a father, they have a son, they have a brother or they have a spouse, and these women share their economic opportunities, their lives, their incomes, their taxes with men. You do not have tax cuts for very many people that help the men or help the women. You have tax cuts that help homes, they help families. And so most women get up every morning, and their lives are intertwined with the men, with their sons who they are raising, with their fathers who raise them, with their spouse with whom they are making a life, and they all are in the financial challenges together. And so as families work out their economic challenges, as middle class families get up every morning, they take kids to day care, they go to work, they pay for a car payment, they pay for their rent, and they wonder if there is going to be any chance that there is going to be money left over this summer so that they can go on that camping trip and go to the State park that they have read about and know would be such a good opportunity for them to share with their family. It is not the men, it is not the women, it is the families, and I think it is so bad in this country if we try to divide all of us who are in this country together on to teams, whether we have the teams that are the women, the other team that are the men, the team, the racial teams of the minority and the majority. If we, however we divide on teams, what we do is we deny the common goals, the common threads, the fact that we are all working together for common purposes. But we especially do that in tax cuts when we say that certain tax cuts, tax packages would be bad for women because we then begin to try to divide people against their own homes, against their own families, against their own relatives. So I want to take this opportunity to say with pride how proud I am to be part of a group of people who have listened so carefully to the American people who all of ourselves care so much about our families and our struggles. I have 6 children. Two of them are now completely on their own, and two in the next 2 years will be on their own. They struggle every day with their finances. Every time they need a new tire, they feel so frustrated and they feel set back, and to have the privilege to have been able to fashion a tax cut that will give their generation and their friends' generation and our friends the opportunity to have a better opportunity to spend their own money, to have government spend less, has been something that I am very proud of. And it is not a women's issue, it is not a man's issue; it is a family issue, it is an American issue, and the American people are very clear about where they are on this issue.

Mrs. NORTHUP. That is right.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand too, as my children have started on their own, each one of them, they feel so poor, they feel so vulnerable. They go to work every day, and there is never enough money. My husband and I have depended on them to be completely financially independent. We think that is how they grow up. But we certainly hear from them about the cost of insuring their car, about a car repair, about the challenges they face, and we remember those days ourselves. It is like 2 steps forward and 1\1/2\ steps backwards, and you wonder, everybody that goes to work wonders every week if they are making any progress financially. In fact very seldom could my husband and I ever see progress as we looked ahead. It is only after years of work that you can begin to see the progress.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the House's attention the visit last month of the Education at a Crossroads Project. I have had, as the mother of six children, a great interest in education and in the education of each of my children. For that reason, in the 9 years that I was in the Kentucky General Assembly I was very involved in the education program, in working to implement the new Education Reform Act that was implemented by Kentucky in 1990. That act is often pointed to by departments of education around the country as an example of education and education progress. The implementation of that bill has been very challenging in our State. It is not universally acclaimed and it has not had universal success, but it has made a dramatic difference in the education opportunities for many children. I would like to talk today about some of the basis of that program that I think is accepted and is believed has made the most difference. The program is based on the fact that each child, each community, each faculty in a school face unique challenges to succeed and have unique talents to address those challenges. It was not believed that at the State level, and certainly, Mr. Speaker, not at the Federal level could we fashion an educational system that would meet all the differing needs of each neighborhood, each community across our State. So we put in place a program where each State, based on the parental involvement, the teacher involvement, have site-based decisionmaking. They have the ultimate responsibility for each child achieving at a higher level. Yes, we expect each child can learn at a higher level, can achieve high academic success if our expectations are high. In each of our schools, Mr. Speaker, we have site-based decisionmaking that assesses what the challenges are: what are the programs that are needed, what are the extended day programs, what are the after-school programs, the Saturday learning opportunities, the year-round schools; the challenges that are most needed so each child has the best opportunities for success? Each school is given the resources so they can determine themselves how to use those resources to meet those needs. As the Federal Government ponders how we make an impact in school, I think looking at Kentucky, as this administration so often does, is a good point of reference. Rather than fashioning programs that are going to be the same across the country, we need to designate our schools as the front line of education opportunity and make sure that they are not bound by more regulations, by more constraining programs, by programs that tie their hands, tie the teachers' hands, and tie their abilities to uniquely address the challenges that exist in that school. I have been proud to work with education in Kentucky, and I was thrilled that the Education at a Crossroads came to Kentucky, because it gave them an opportunity to see the Cane Run Elementary School that is in one of the most high-risk neighborhoods of Jefferson County, and the success they have achieved; the children whose grades and their achievement scores have gone up so dramatically, the parents who come to school every morning to that school so they, too, can get their GED and go on to better welfare-to-work opportunities. The Cane Run Elementary School has dramatically changed the opportunities not only of children who are in that school, but also of the mothers and fathers who are in that district, so their opportunities are better and improved too. There is such a sense of accomplishment, such a sense of achievement, such a sense of joy in that school for the achievement that has been realized. I think it points to the example of where, on the front lines, the school that is empowered to make the decision to use the money in block grant form to address its needs, the success it can achieve. They also visited Southern High School, that has a model program, school-to-work. It is helped by the private sector. They have invested a million dollars of equipment and energy to make sure that those students have the high-tech opportunities to learn, so they can move into the work force in high-paying jobs. Every student in that senior high whose goal it was to have a good job came out well-trained with more job opportunities than there were students to fill that. These are not kids that are starting at minimum wage, but far above that. Their opportunities and their benefits are proof of the success that program has. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to talk to the House today about what works and what does not.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues and friends, and in particular the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts], in commemorating this historic event. The Juneteenth celebration symbolizes the end of a practice which divided this country for hundreds of years. To this day, that practice continues to cause fear, distress, and anger, a practice that denied an entire race of people its rights, guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution, a practice that stripped them of opportunity and oftentimes hope. But on this day, when we remember the close of a terrible chapter in our Nation's history, I believe we must look ahead rather than behind. We must look ahead to a Nation devoid of racial tension and then work toward that goal. Americans of all races must take it upon themselves to reach across that gulf of racial divisions to build friendships, relationships, and understanding so our children will know a world without prejudice. In a time and a country where blacks and whites do not even eat together, pray together, or play together, the Juneteenth celebration should serve as a reminder that there is still work to be done, and should encourage us to pursue the promise of an America which is indeed free for all.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 176, my pager malfunctioned and therefore did not alert me of the pending vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on April 26-28, 1997 the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution national finals were held here in Washington. More than 50 classes were represented by high schools around the Nation, and I would like to take this time to congratulate Louisville's Male High School on their outstanding job. These students showed a remarkable understanding of fundamental ideas and values of American constitutional government. The recognition of Male High School's accomplishments is a vital one, because it is important we encourage constitutional understanding in our Nation's schools. Louisville Male High School teacher Sandy Hoover, brought to Washington the amazing talent of students: Alexander Cherise, Jessika Berry, Ryan Bigg, Matt Blanford, Christine Bowman, Carrie Cahill, Yvette Clay, Samantha Cline, Amy Elzy, Candice Faulkner, Crystal Haynes, Lisa Knight, Tia Mitchell, Trivis Newman, Katherine O'Niel, Emily Pittard, Tyra Redus, Dara Shirley, John Sponcil, Zach Storer, Kieth Thomson, Joyce Walker, Scott Walker, and Angie Wielage. They are to be congratulated on a job well done.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow freshmen and those of us here that are here to talk about the budget. I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss this issue. It is one of the most important issues. It was discussed in my district at every public meeting and every discussion regarding the direction that the Federal Government is going. In my remarks tonight I would like to focus on the bipartisanship, the fact that we understand how the American people feel; that they want us to recognize that good ideas come from both sides of the aisle and they come from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. And so even though this budget agreement does not look like any one of us would have written had we had total control over it, we have had to learn the lessons that we have learned in every aspect of our lives and that is to listen, to build a consensus, to grow and to learn from others. This has very much been a part of my life, Mr. Speaker. I have said a lot of times that I learned a lot of life's lessons growing up in a family of 11 kids. None of us got our way all the time. None of us got to watch the channel on television that we wanted. None of us got control of the family, but we learned to listen, we learned to understand the varied perspectives, we learned to deal with those ideas and we put them all together, and together we found a better way. So many cynics are out there and they always feel that the glass is half empty, and I believe that we need to look at the glass half full; at what we gained. In my years of being in the Kentucky General Assembly it became so recognizable that it is so easy to oppose something that is big and complicated because there is always one thing one can be against. There are always a couple of things that one could find different, but if we are to make big progress we have to unite and do it together. In closing, I wanted to say tonight that we talk about budgets, and they are inevitably about numbers, but in truth this is not a debate and it is not a discussion and it is not a consensus about numbers, it is about our children. It is about my six children, two who are joining the work force, two who are in the work force, and two who are about to complete school and join the work force, and it is about their opportunities, it is about their freedom from taxes, from the cost of paying for the debt that we have run up. When I came to Congress I thought about my children, I thought about their generation, I thought about the opportunities I hoped that they will have. They are going to have to work hard. They will have to go to work every day and they will have to contribute to this country, because one thing that will not change is that they will be responsible for America tomorrow. But thank goodness we are giving them an America that will not be so burdened by debt. It has been a wonderful last 24 hours. We have made such progress and I am proud to be here with the other Members of my class talking about what that accomplishment really means.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1469, the Disaster Recovery Act of 1997, which will get money needed as a result of the floods to Kentucky residents. I am sorry for so many of the people that suffered in my community because of this extraordinary flood that occurred this spring. We had 12 inches of rain in 1 day. We had flash flooding, and then a major flood when the river overflowed as it drained off and the river flooded. This flood was the worst since 1964. There is no amount of personal insurance, of personal precautions, that would prepare a person or a community for this size flood. It is in this bill where we reach out to those people who were struck so badly. My constituents have said this is when Government should become involved in citizens' lives, when Government is truly the last resort for assistance. It is a bill which will help many States and citizens, and it was developed in a teamwork approach. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I hope the President will listen to the needs of my constituents from Kentucky, Arkansas, and throughout the Nation, and please, sign this bill.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I know personally how important the WIC Program is to our community and our State. I was part of the Southern Initiative for Healthy Women and Children throughout a number of years, and we used the WIC Program as a basis of helping to raise the level of nutrition and health services for those most at risk, women and children. But this argument today is not about healthy mothers and children. It is about demagoguery and elections. We have today $100 million that we expect to be carried over in the WIC Program. Those are tax dollars that will be unspent and carried over. When the President asked for the $78 million increase in WIC funding, it is not because anybody expects the WIC funds to run out. We agreed to a compromise of half of that money in this supplemental appropriations bill. Furthermore, we agreed to put language in the bill that would allow $47 million that is currently in the fund for rural America to be transferred over in the unlikely event that the funds in the WIC Program should begin to run short. All estimations are there are more than enough funds, more than enough funds; in fact, $100 million, more than enough funds to fund the WIC Program. Every week when I go home, Mr. Chairman, I am confronted by the tremendous needs of the people in my community, the women who are trying to move from welfare to work, who need more day care, who need more transportation moneys, and I am confronted by the limitations on the amount of money we have. Please do not let us fund a program that already has excessive funds, that has a backup, and turn our backs on the real needs and the questions that are put to us every week. Not one person has asked me for more WIC funds, but thousands of people have asked me to find the money for the programs that are truly needed every day. This is not free money. This money comes from taxpayers across this country who wrote a check and on April 15 got in their cars and drove to the post office and paid money out of their hard-earned income to fund our necessary programs. Please do not put this money in a program where it is unneeded, where there are excessive funds now, where there is a reserve to draw on, and fail to address and leave ourselves the opportunity to fund the programs that are really most needed today.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 114, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman