John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, in just a couple of weeks we are going to start debate on one of the cornerstones of the Republican Contract on America. That cornerstone, the tax cut of $200 billion over 5 years. Never mind that the deficit is already $200 billion per year, put aside that the tax cuts add to the deficit, never mind that these tax cuts make balancing the budget harder, and never mind that not a responsible economist agrees that cutting taxes is the right way to start on reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. But putting those things aside, let us examine the proposal. First of all, on this chart we can see who gets the tax benefits from the tax reductions being proposed. If you would look at the first 2 columns down on the left-hand side, less than 20 percent of the tax reduction is given to some 71 million American families that are almost two- thirds of all the American families. In the upper side there you find 50 percent of the tax reductions to less than 10 percent of the families, whose income is now over $100,000 per year. Well, if that graph is a little difficult to grasp quickly, look at the second one. Under this graph, in the same categories of income what this shows is that the Republican tax cut will provide $5,000 to the average family, who presently make more than $200,000 per year. That would be $12 billion of tax cuts each year. Down at the other end of the scale there are 49 million families that, together, get $57 on average per family per year. That is about $1 per week per family. Now, the Republicans claim that they are not going to make the deficit larger. So, we will be debating the $17 billion rescission bill next week. Under Newt Gingrich's Contract on America, spending cuts which hurt children and elders and make it harder for youth and teenagers to get the education and skills and training so that they can get jobs, those spending cuts will be used to give tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans. In Newt Gingrich's America, Republicans are going to cut infant mortality prevention, prenatal, children's foster care, safe and drug- free schools for children and education for disadvantaged children and domestic violence prevention and shelters for homeless families. But they will do it without my vote. In Newt Gingrich's America, these Republicans will cut vocational and technological education and Americorps, the National community service corps, school drop-out prevention, and college scholarships, summer jobs for teenagers who are at risk of dropping out of school, and school-to-work job training. But, again, they will do that without my vote. In Newt Gingrich's America, the Republican extremists will cut rental assistance to low-income families and public housing maintenance and safety and home heating assistance for 6 million families, every one of whom, every one of whom falls in that category of people with incomes under $30,000 a year. But, again, they will do it without my vote. In Newt Gingrich's America, at least $12 billion in tax cuts are going to be transferred, $12 billion of wealth, will be transferred from people down in this area who now have under $30,000 of income per year, and it will be transferred into tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, giving them $5,000 a year, on average, in tax cuts. At least $12 billion in services, in the services that I have mentioned, will be cut from these 48 million families down there at the lower end of the scale, who have under $30,000 of income per year. That is over $250, on average, per family that is going to be cut. Madam Speaker, if people who are watching have not already guessed it, and probably many of them have, every Member of Congress, every Senator, every Member of the House falls in the upper categories on this graph, and not one Member of Congress will lose a penny of the $12 billion taken away from those 48 million families whose income is below $30,000 per year.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, in just a couple of weeks we are going to be beginning debate on the cornerstone of the Republican Contract on America, and that is a tax cut of $200 billion over 5 years. Never mind that those tax cuts are going to add to the deficit, never mind that these tax cuts make balancing the budget harder. But let us examine what these tax cuts actually do. In this first chart that I have here, this chart shows who benefits from the tax cuts. If you look at this, 50 percent of the tax cuts go to 10 percent of the families, with over $100,000 of income per year-- 50 percent of the cuts to 10 percent of families. At the lower end, the first two categories, which represent 71 million families or two-thirds of all families in the United States, they get less than 20 percent of the tax cuts. then let us look at this chart instead. On this chart, this shows how much each family gets. Families with more than $200,000 per year of income would get, on average, $5,000 of tax reduction. And 49 million families, about 45 percent of all Americans, that have under $30,000 of income per year, they would get on average $57 a year, or about $1 per week would be their share of this tax cut. Now, they claim they are not going to make the deficit larger, so we are going to be debating this next week the so-called rescissions bill, a $17 billion rescissions bill. Well, Madam Speaker, in Newt Gingrich's America, Republican will cut infant mortality prevention and prenatal nutrition and children's foster care and safe and drug-free schools for children, education for disadvantaged children, and domestic violence prevention and shelters for homeless families. But they will not do it with my vote. Next week, in Newt Gingrich's America's these radical-right Republicans will cut vocational and technical education and Americorps, the National Community Corps, school drop-out prevention, college scholarships and summer jobs. But not with my vote. And next week, in Newt Gingrich's America, these Republican extremists will cut rental assistance for low-income families and public housing maintenance and safety and home heating assistance for 6 million American families, every one of who happens to lie in this lower category. But not with my vote. In Newt Gingrich's America, to go back to this we are going to take $16 billion of cuts, over $300 for every single family in this category, and transfer it to families in this category.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, for 58 days now the Republican majority has had kids and seniors in their sights. Yesterday they hit both with one shot. LIHEAP, the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program, is gone. LIHEAP helps almost 6 million families pay their heating bills in the winter. The Republican majority is willing to trade the health of children and seniors for tax giveaways for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The Republican majority will take away heat assistance from seniors on fixed incomes and families and living on minimum wage or less to give another tax break to people making over $200,000 a year. Without LIHEAP, 144,000 families in my State of Massachusetts will have to slip meals to keep heat in their homes. Mr. Speaker, we do not have a balanced budget amendment because Republicans would not protect seniors on Social Security. That is a shame. What is worse is the Republican majority continues to streamroll seniors and struggling families. Cutting LIHEAP proves it.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for organizing this time. We are all indebted to the people of North Carolina for your leadership on issues of equity, such as this. Mr. Speaker, we cannot protest enough what is really going on right now in this people's House of Representatives. I hope there are some parents out there who have put their children to bed and are listening to tonight's discussion. If your child eats breakfast at school, eats a hot school lunch, eats at day care while you work, or has cereal or milk or orange juice purchased with WIC coupons, or eats any food from a food bank, perhaps at the end of the month when money is tight, or has a meal that is purchased with food stamps, and I know that food stamps do not just help people who receive welfare payments, but also help millions of full-time workers to make ends meet, if your child uses any of these, your child is at risk. The new Republican majority in this House is waging a full-scale war on America's children. The first goal of this war is to cripple the effort to end hunger among America's children, and that is a cruel move. Thus far, Republicans have staged this battle on two fronts: first, in their welfare reform bill, the Personal Responsibility Act. That bill turns all Federal child nutrition services into State block grants. I have already said that many of the children who benefit today are not even on welfare, but that does not seem to matter. Now, the idea of block grants is not all bad. We have other block grants for community services and community development that go to the States and work well. But look again. This is not just a shift in who runs the current nutrition services, it is really a dangerous shell game. The Republicans washed their hands of any responsibility for the welfare of America's children, shifted that responsibility to the States, and at the same time cut billions of dollars needed by those States to adequately feed those children. The second front of this war is the rescissions bill which was approved by the Committee on Appropriations just today. The Republicans today cut $25 million from the WIC program. WIC provides nutrition to pregnant women that reduces the risk of having low-birthweight babies, thereby saving heartbreak and billions of dollars. WIC helps mothers buy infant formula for their babies, milk and juice for their preschool children. These are a child's formative years, when good nutrition is crucial. Today's cut is just the beginning. Republicans childhood nutrition. It is a total myth that these cuts are being made to reduce the deficit. The Republicans are willing to hurt children so they can buy fantasy projects like the Star Wars antiballistic missile system and so they can shovel out massive tax breaks to the very wealthiest of Americans. They want to give $55 billion in tax cuts to families with more than $200,000 of income per year. Mr. Speaker, children cannot vote or make political contributions, so they are being trashed. It is shameful. The health of children should be one of the first priorities of every Member of Congress. We are supposed to be building a better Nation, but in the world of Newt Gingrich, we will shamefully throw that responsibility to the States, then cut the dollars that the States need to meet it. In the world of Newt Gingrich, we will turn our backs on children. That is a terrible way to invest in our future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Boehlert-Roemer amendment, and to assert in the strongest possible terms that this is not an attempt to gut the bill. It is not the intent to gut the bill. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is really very simple: Do we want more lawyers and more litigation at every state of the creation of Federal regulations, or do we want better science involved in our risk assessment program. I am one of that half a handful of physical scientists among this membership, and I can tell the Members that scientists are really not meant to be exhibit A in a court battle as to what the precise level is at which a given chemical may cause cancer, chemical or any substance may cause cancer. Science is not capable of telling what that level is. One of the purposes of this bill, I think, is to point out that there are uncertainties over what the exact risks of a given substance or activity may be. In fact, Dr. Graham, from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, while he was testifying in favor of this bill, nevertheless said, and I quote, ``We are not able to validate or know for sure whether or not the prediction of the model in fact proved to be correct.'' Even after the fact, we cannot know the right answer for a given cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Chairman, with the bill without the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] what we would have, on court battles on cost-benefit analysis and risk assessments, and we would have thousands of those court battles, both sides are going to be able to find legitimate scientists, perhaps armies of them, who are willing to contest the validity of a single cost-benefit analysis. By encouraging the judicial review of every one of these cost-benefit analyses, this bill makes the court the final arbiter of disagreements within the scientific community, while the Roemer-Boehlert amendment brings a measure of sanity by saying, Yes, the courts will review the entire, the final, the whole record, but should not get into the minutiae of the scientific debates involved in the risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this amendment weakens the bill. In fact, I would assert it does not weaken the bill. Lawsuits under the bill can just as well increase regulation as to decrease it, and certainly colleagues from California would know that it was not the EPA that decided to impose the Clean Air Act, the Federal implementation plan in that State. EPA was forced to do so as a result of a review in Federal court by environmental organizations, and there are going to be a great many public interest groups willing to sue individuals, public interest groups willing to sue the Federal Government, to require implementation of even stronger regulations. What we are going to end up with, Mr. Chairman, is a great deal of expenditure of time and money and energy, and to what purpose? Who will be better off for spending all of that money on the individual points in the final regulation, in the final rule that is being made? Certainly not Americans who want to see reasonable cleanups without endless wrangling. Mr. Chairman, I do not think industry will benefit, since they will lack any ability to rely on agency decisions and plans for the impact of regulations that are subject to incessant court challenges and court reviews. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the only beneficiaries are really going to be the lawyers, the lawyers on both sides of these issues, who are surely going to be the beneficiaries if we do not adopt the Boehlert- Roemer amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us limit the fun that the lawyers have in this process and support the Roemer-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayes-Boehlert amendment. In fact, I offered a similar amendment in the Committee on Science a week or so ago. This, I think, is a fairly straightforward issue. I agree with the purpose of the amendment which is namely that, when the results of a cost-benefit analysis under this new law, H.R. 1022, appear to conflict with an existing statutory requirement, the existing law should not be overwritten except by a specific new act of Congress. Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1022 has the potential to reach back to eviscerate every law on the books designed to protect peoples' health and/or environment. Congress already has a process, as has been pointed out, for fixing laws which are not working as we wanted them to do, and that is the reauthorization process. Hopefully we will reauthorize the Clean Water Act, the Superfund law and a number of others this year, and many of them have been criticized for requiring extensive and expensive remedies not consistent with cost-benefit criteria. But the right time to deal with that is during the reauthorization process. Mr. Chairman, this becomes fish-or-cut-bait time. Did Congress mean it when Congress decided by huge votes to reduce sewage pollution in our rivers, or are we going to reopen and reverse those gains? Did Congress mean it when Congress decided to reduce industrial air pollution, or are we going to reopen that issue at this time and reverse those gains? Mr. Chairman, ultimately this Congress in those cases has the responsibility to determine the necessary levels of protection for public health and environmental protection, and in the reauthorization process that is the time to make that decision, not reaching back through the provisions of H.R. 1022 to do that aside from the reauthorization process. In a few weeks, we have the so-called Personal Responsibility Act on the floor of this House. I challenge every member of this House to show some personal responsibility. Reject this blind, blanket overhaul of our laws and do the hard work of making changes statute-by-statute. Support the Hayes-Boehlert amendment.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, legend has it that Republicans know more about making profitable investments than Democrats, but with the Contract on America, that legend becomes a vicious myth. The Republicans want to slash funding for children's foster care, and children's adoption assistance, and child abuse prevention, and children's care while parents have to work, and preschool children's Head Start, and Drug Free Schools for Children, and children's health care, and children's school lunches, and prenatal nutrition, which has saved billions of dollars by reducing the number of low birthweight babies born in this country, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] spoke so eloquently about just a few minutes ago. These extremists are not even happy with hungry children. They want to cut every penny of home energy assistance, so thousands of children are going to go to bed cold as well as hungry. Mr. Speaker, Americans should understand exactly what is going on with this extremist agenda. This is not about thoughtful, even-handed deficit reduction. It goes much further than the elimination of bureaucracy or waste. This is a scorched earth policy in the Republican war on children. The radical right extremist agenda is to wash their hands of any responsibility for the welfare of the American family, shift that responsibility to the States, and at the same time, cut billions of dollars needed by the States to adequately protect children; protect their health, their safety, their schooling, and their stomachs. It is even a myth that these cuts reduce the deficit. Our radical right is willing to hurt children so they can buy fantasy projects like the star wars antiballistic missile system, and so they can shovel out massive tax breaks to the very wealthiest few Americans. Children cannot vote, so they are being trashed, and it is shameful. The health, the schooling, and the safety of children should be the first priority for every Member of Congress whose job it is to build a better nation. It is shameful to throw the responsibility to the States and then cut the dollars the States need to meet it. When they cannot meet it, we will all find out that turning our backs on children is a terrible way to invest in America's future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, Republican priorities are out of whack. The Republican Contract on America slashes funds for school lunches, WIC, and children's nutrition, and leaves us with millions of hungry or malnourished kids. What a strange way to invest in this country's future.Our Republican colleagues say these cuts are only intended to eliminate bureaucracy or waste. If that were the case, we would all vote for them. The truth is that Republicans are playing a dangerous shell game. They want to shift the responsibility for children's health to the States, but cut billions of dollars of funding that the States would need to provide that help. These extremists say we cannot afford to support food for hungry children in America, but actually they are making these cuts to finance fantasy projects like star wars and massive tax cuts for the less than 1 percent of Americans who make over $200,000 per year. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from hundreds of parents, day care providers, and teachers who know the importance of good childhood nutrition. Perhaps if children could vote, they would not be trashed by the Contract on America.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of my colleagues to the efforts of the people of western Massachusetts to alleviate the suffering of the Bosnian people, who are the victims of a vicious war waged by the last Communist regime in Europe, while the United Nations, European Community, an even the United States Government has stood idly by and engaged in a disgraceful policy of appeasement. I am very proud to be a part of this community which is reaching out to the people of Bosnia in every way which it can. Friends of Bosnia is a local group which has been active call for greater international action to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and to provide concrete help to the people in Bosnia who have been forced from their homes, or as in Sarajevo, have lived in constant fear of death at the hands of Serbian artillery and sniper fire. Friends of Bonsia has collected 9 tons of food, clothes, and medical supplies which, working with the Scottish humanitarian group Edinburgh Direct aid, they are attempting to deliver to Sarajevo and Bihac. These cities, as my colleagues may recall, are two of the so-called safe havens which the UN and the international community have promised--and failed miserably--to protect. This trip is anything but a vacation or a junket. Edinburgh Direct Aid supplies its volunteers with flack jackets and helmets and has suffered sniper fire during a past trip out of Sarajevo. During the time this group has been crossing the countryside of this bitterly divided area, there has remained the possibility that Serbian troops would not allow them entry into the ``safe havens.'' In spite of the danger and the uncertainties, Sharon Webb and Glenn Ruga, cofounders of Friends of Bonsia, are traveling with the caravan in an effort to get the supplies to the people who need it the most. Mr. Speaker, Edinburgh Direct Aid is today preparing to enter Sarajevo to distribute food and supplies. The 9 tons of food, clothes, and medical supplies from western Massachusetts will be used to meet a small part of the deep need for relief supplies in the safe havens. I am proud of the support from Friends of Bosnia. These efforts remind us of the best America has to offer, as well as the continuing suffering of the people of Bonsia. In contrast to the disgraceful dithering and appeasement of the international community, the efforts of the people of western Massachusetts give me a small measure of hope that we can learn from the past, and better our future.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, last year I voted for the Crime Control Act of 1994 which promised Americans who live in fear of crime 100,000 more cops on the beat in community policing. Already, 17,000 cops have been provided to more than 8,000 large cities and small towns. In my district alone 67 cops will make my constituents safer. Today we are debating H.R. 728 the pork block grant bill which eliminates the Community Policing Program. Community policing is not some new untried approach. It has been used in many places across the country. Putting cops on the street makes people safer. Community policing puts police on our streets who know the neighborhoods and work with residents to reduce crime. Officers who take the time to build relationships with citizens. Officers who get leads from contacts who see crime committed. Officers who understand the community's crime problems, and know the needs of the neighborhood. Community policing takes cops out from behind their desks and puts them back on the beat to prevent crime, if possible, and to punish criminals. Community policing does not simply add more police, it creates community leaders. These officers serve as role models, advisors, and assistants to the citizens they serve. In my district, the Cleghorn neighborhood in the city of Fitchburg was deteriorating because of increasing crime. A community policing program started 4 years ago in Cleghorn caused a dramatic drop in crime. Here is what happened after 4 years of community policing: 25 percent decrease in assaults; 55 percent decrease in burglary; 55 percent decrease in weapons possession; 23 percent decrease in domestic violence; and 67 percent decrease in disorderly conduct. The mayor of Fitchburg says there is no substitute for a consistent police presence in a troubled neighborhood. Community policing has helped make that neighborhood safe for families again. And Fitchburg has received seven added cops under the 1994 Crime Control Act of 1994 to expand the Cleghorn experience to other troubled neighborhoods in that city. But this pork block grant bill, H.R. 728, means fewer police officers catching criminals, fewer officers patrolling neighborhoods, fewer officers building partnerships based on trust, and fewer people safe in their neighborhoods. In my district, violence and street crime are not just city problems. Community policing funds cops in small cities and towns. The ``COPS FAST'' Program was designed specifically to help rural communities and smaller towns. In many of my communities, just one or two additional officers can make a world of difference. Communities in my district and throughout the country have made decisions based on the commitment we made last year. We cannot walk away from this commitment. Community policing works. Now is not the time to break the promise we made to our citizens who live in fear. Mr. Speaker, we, Republicans and Democrats, agreed that we need more cops on the beat to keep people safe. So why does the Republican contract cut funds for new police? Under this pork block grant, the cops on the beat program would no longer exist. There the block grant does not guarantee a single new police officer would be added. The block grant would not ensure that the hardest hit communities get help. The block grant in H.R. 728 permits pork-barrel spending in broad categories without guaranteeing any more police on our streets. Police will have to compete with street lighting, tree removal, and other pet projects. H.R. 728 ignores the demonstrated effectiveness of community policing and does nothing to stop crime before it starts. This bill promises everything to everybody and delivers nothing to nobody. It makes the communities in my district less safe than they were under last year's crime bill. Wake up, America, the pork block grant in H.R. 728 is a sham. It is not smart. It is not savings. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 728.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was able to call mayors and police chiefs of over 40 small communities in my district. I told them they would be getting a grant to hire a cop because of last year's crime bill, the Anti-Crime Act of 1994. Some will get two, and one will get even three. Chief MacDonald, in Townsend, said it would help him and his small town. And in Williamstown, at the other end of my district, Chief Kennedy said he would assign a cop where kids gather and make trouble. Mr. Speaker, we agreed, Democrats and Republicans, on one thing during last year's crime bill debate: We need more cops on the beat. So why does the Republican contract cut funds for new police? That is right, the block grant shell game in the Republican contract would cut funds for community policing. That means less money to help us feel more safe in our neighborhoods, and it kills the chances for small town police chiefs to get the cops that they need. This is not smart, this is not savings. Wake up, America, ``Don't fall for the shell game.''

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, 40 communities in my district got good news. They can hire more cops to fight crime, they can hire these cops because of the community policing program that President Clinton championed and we passed last year. Community policing is not some new, untried approach. It has been used in many places across the country for some years. Putting cops on the street makes people safer. Despite this success, or is it because of it, next this House will debate the part of the Republican Contract on America which eliminates the community policing program. Community policing puts police on our streets who know the neighborhoods and are trained to work with residents to prevent crime. Community police work as partners with citizens to make their neighborhoods safer. Community policing takes cops out from behind their desks where they are doing record-keeping and paperwork and puts them back on the beat downtown in the neighborhood where kids gather at night, wherever there could be trouble. In my district in the small city of Fitchburg which has just over 40,000 people, a community policing program was started 4 years ago, and it reports dramatic drop in crime. Here is what happened after 4 years of community policing in Fitchburg: 25-percent decrease in assaults, 55-percent decrease in burglary, 55-percent decrease in weapons possession, 23-percent decrease in domestic violence, 67- percent decrease in disorderly conduct. The mayor of Fitchburg told me, and he will tell anyone, there is no substitute for a consistent police presence helped make that neighborhood safe for families again. Now, the Republican bill eliminates the community policing program, and that means fewer police officers catching criminals, fewer patrolling the neighborhoods, fewer building partnerships based on trust, and fewer people safe in their neighborhoods. The community policing program we passed last year ensures funding for small cities and towns. My constituents know that violent crime is not just a city problem, and the Cops Fast Program was designed specifically to help rural communities and smaller towns. In many of my communities just one or two additional officers can make a world of difference. In Dalton, a small town in my district, under 10,000 people, the chief of police, Dan Fillio, said that the Cops Fast grant gives him another set of eyes and ears out on the streets. Community policing works. Now is not the time to break the promise we made to our citizens who live in fear. Under the Republican bills, small towns in my district will have little chance of getting help. Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats agrees on one thing during last year's crime bill debate. We need more cops on the beat to help keep people safe. So why does the Republican contract cut funds for new police? The contract combines the tried and true community policing program with a host of crime prevention programs and replaces it with a block grant, and then cuts the funding besides. Mr. Speaker, the block grant, the Republican block grant, is a shell game. Under the Republican bill, police will have to compete with other community groups, even those involved in street lighting, tree removal, and disaster preparedness. The Republican bill makes no guarantees that money will go for additional cops. Will American be safer if dollars are used to hire consultants? Will we be safer if the money is used to buy equipment? Will we be safer if it pays for desks? Well, the answer, obviously, Mr. Speaker, is no. People feel safe when they see a cop in their neighborhoods. We helped put them there last year, and this year the other side is taking them away. My mayors and police and police chiefs lose in the block grant shell game. All the money for new cops will go to big cities with population numbers and crime statistics the Republican contract requires. This is not smart. This is not savings. Wake up, America. Do not fall for the shell game.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, it is time to raise the minimum wage. Today the minimum wage is $4.25 an hour. It has not been changed in 4 years. That means a person working full-time, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, will earn less than $9,000, and has not seen a raise in 4 years of work. Families cannot live on that. No one can raise a child on that. There is a lot of talk about work, not welfare. But if a full-time, minimum-wage worker cannot even earn enough to reach the poverty line, work will not be a real alternative to welfare. Millions of Americans are working hard, trying desperately to make ends meet, but still falling farther behind. That is not fair. We must reward work, help families help themselves. The minimum wage must be raised to a livable wage.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, soon we will debate the Personal Responsibility Act in the Republican contract. But let us be honest. It sounds more like the female punishment act. It spells out exact responsibilities and punishments for women on AFDC. But it lets fathers off the hook without even a mention. Many women and their children are on welfare only because the fathers do not support their children. In my State in the last 6 months, 4,000 mothers escaped welfare because Massachusetts makes fathers support their children. We need to make child support enforcement part of welfare reform. Both mothers and fathers must be responsible for the support of children.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise tonight to speak about that critical aspect of the welfare reform that is overlooked by the Contract With America. I'm talking about child support. The contract spells out the exact punishments for women on AFDC. Women under 18 will be ineligible for assistance if they have a child out of wedlock. Women will not receive additional benefits if they have another child while on welfare. Women will be forced off welfare after 2 years, whether or not they have found employment or completed a training program. Is this a personal responsibility act, or a female punishment act? Not once is the responsibility of the father mentioned in the contract. In fact, the only mention of fathers denies public assistance to the child if paternity is not established. That is an astonishing oversight. Today, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], has already pointed out, 63 percent of absent parents contribute no child support. Out of the $48 billion which should be paid annually only $14 billion is actually collected. Millions of families could escape welfare if only they received the owed child support. The child support enforcement system in my State of Massachusetts is a model for successful collection. In the 1980's, then Governor Dukakis made child support payments a top priority. Governor Weld built on that foundation the toughest, most streamlined child support collection system in the country. Massachusetts has been able to effectively garnish the wages, bank accounts, unemployment claims, and the lottery winnings of child support avoiders. In the last 6 months, these new laws have helped 4,000 families escape AFDC and saved Massachusetts $38.5 million. The Massachusetts system is effective because it is centralized and unempliclated. Only one office deals with child support payments, and there are no forms to fill out. But this system works best if the noncustodial parent lives and works within the Massachusetts border. If the parent has crossed State lines, the support order is unlikely to be paid. We need a national system of child support. We need more cooperation and coordination between States. We need to create a national registry of child support orders. Tougher child support enforcement is a concrete way to achieve personal responsibility of fathers for the children they conceive. Under the contract, fathers remain totally unaccountable, while mothers must sacrifice and are subjected to sometimes harsh reforms. This is a clear double standard that I urge my colleagues in this Congress to rectify. Our support of the Child Responsibility Act would show that we believe both mothers and fathers should be held responsible for the economic well-being of their children.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment, but amending the Constitution really cannot be taken lightly. Our Constitution has only been amended 17 times in over 200 years since the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution is based on majority rule, and we should not vote to put budget control in the hands of a minority of Members. In all the instances that are written into the Constitution of a supermajority, all of those are instances are where the legislative branch must approve or must override the action of another coequal branch: The affirmative vote to override a veto by the President, the Executive, the impeach a judge, or a President, a person in one of the other branches; the affirmative vote to ratify a treaty; the affirmative vote to ratify an action by the President. The Constitution includes also the allowance for the Chambers to eject a Member that has been voted by the people, the ultimate kind of rejection. The Constitution should not be amended to allow a minority to control the budget process.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I also favor the Wise capital budgeting balanced budget amendment version because I do not support adding public-policy-related supermajority requirements to the Constitution. Supermajority votes are appropriate in the checks-and-balances interplay between the co-equal branches of government, like ratification of treaties, override of vetoes, and the impeachment or approval of executive or judicial branch officers. They are also appropriate for explusion of Members of Congress, an extreme action which constitutes, in a sense, an override of the will of the people. But final say on issues like annual budget policy should not be constitutionally delegated to a minority, as Madison warned in the Federalist Papers. If we constrain revenue and expenditure numbers to a supermajority requirement, we put ourselves on a slippery slope to other ideologically based encroachments on the principle of majority rule, a fundamental tenet of our Constitution as it now reads. Irresponsible borrowing certainly must end, but responsible governing should not.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we are fast approaching 5,000 billion dollars in debt, and the interest on that debt is $200 billion every year. That interest on the debt is greater than the deficit for this year for the first time, and it will be for many years in the future. Much of that interest goes to foreign sources, and it denies our people's needs that we should be paying that interest. But how did we get here? The majority of us in this Chamber were not here when the vast decisions were made on this issue. For a 12-year period not one budget was presented that was in balance by either President Bush or former President Reagan. And the Congress, after passing those budgets, those budgets which were than presented and signed by those Presidents, all of those budgets which were out of balance, not a single one of them was vetoed. So, I deplore the history that got us to that point, and it was in that period of time that we went from 1,000 billion dollars to 4,500 billion dollars of debt. So, I intend to vote for some of the proposals for balanced budgets. I will vote for those that involve capital budgeting because every family and every State in this country provides for some degree of amortization for its investments in the future, for construction of long-term nature at the State level, for homes at the family level. I will vote for the protection of Social Security. I will vote to allow the fast action when we have a recession and need to do something countercyclical to deal with the recession. But I will not vote for amendments that allow for a minority to control budgetary decisions. So, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against the Barton amendment and hope that it is defeated.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Charles W. ``Bill'' Dinn of Holyoke, MA on being named the 1995 Grand Marshall of the Holyoke St. Patrick's Day Parade. Mr. Dinn and his wife Patricia have been married for over 30 years. They have five children, Carol, Kathleen, Paul, William, and Michael. He is a graduate of the Holyoke public schools and is a recent inductee to the Holyoke High School Hall of Fame. Mr. Dinn is a well respected member of the community and successful businessman. Bill and his brother Paul started Dinn Brother Trophies in 1956 and have led it to become a major retailer of awards both locally and internationally. Bill is a veteran of the U.S. Army and is a reserve police officer. He is a member of the Elks, trustee of Peoples Bank, and has been honored by Jericho with a Humanitarian Award. Mr. Speaker, on Friday the 20th of January a reception will be held in honor of Mr. Dinn and I would ask that my colleagues join me in saluting, Mr. Charles W. ``Bill'' Dinn as the 1995 Grand Marshall of the Holyoke St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that on this first day of a Republican Speaker in 40 years, a Speaker who is a learned historical and a college professor of history, who spoke eloquently of Ben Franklin and the checks and balances and the Great Compromise that was necessary to allow us to build a Constitution that has lasted for 208 years, it is ironic our Speaker is willing to lead Members, including 73 new Members, over a constitutional cliff. He knows this greatest of constitutions clearly specifies five instances where a supermajority is necessary for a decision. Except for the ultimate penalty of removing a Member of the branch who has been duly elected by the people in his or her district, all of those other four represent veto override, treaty ratification, impeachment, ratification or rejection of a personnel or action by a coequal branch. It is ironic for all of the years that the Senate, the other body, has required a supermajority to close debate. They never dared to suggest that once debate was closed it took more than a simply majority, one-half plus one, to make the decision. And the ultimate irony, Mr. Speaker, is that the Republican majority does not need to do this. They have the majority. They can simply vote ``no'' and accomplish what is there. So one can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that section 106 is a deliberate effort to attack the Constitution which is so strongly lauded here and which we all took an oath to uphold.