Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise as someone who is very sad to be joining my colleagues today. At the same time, I am very proud to have entered the Congress with Walter Capps and to have served on the Committee on Science with him. The Committee on Science is meeting as we are here today. It is meeting about a subject that Walter cared deeply about, and that is science education. Science education is something that we shared a great and common interest in and Walter sat right next to me on the Committee on Science, and I will go back to committee this morning and he will not be there. But I will always remember his wonderful commitment and intellect, the caring that has been talked about this morning. There are so many common themes and words that we are hearing from colleagues this morning about our friend, Walter Capps. His sense of humor. His strength. His quietness. His caring. His dedication. He is a gentleman who worked very, very hard on behalf of his constituents and cared and was so proud of his wonderful family. My heart goes out to them as we grieve together and celebrate having had the opportunity to serve with him.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Capital Area Transportation Authority, which has provided more than 70 million rides to the citizens of Ingham County in its 25-year history. CATA has grown from 55 employees in 1972, serving 700,000 annual customers, to 175 employees today, providing more than four million customers each year with the most reliable form of transportation in the area. The communities of Lansing, East Lansing, Meridian Township, Delhi Township, Lansing Township, and rural Ingham Country have come to rely on the service, efficiency, and accessibility of our local transit system. This high quality can be credited to the dedication and strong work ethic the men and women of CATA bring to their jobs each day. On October 24, CATA will celebrate their silver anniversary by dedicating a new state-of-the-art transit center in downtown Lansing. The new transit center demonstrates that our State and Federal Governments can work together to provide the strongest possible transportation system available. With the new facility, CATA will continue to provide safe, reliable, and high quality transit service well into the 21st century. I am very proud of our public transportation system in Ingham County and am pleased that we can celebrate 25 years of service with a new facility.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a subject that, while it affects the District of Columbia, it affects the entire country. Mr. Chairman, those of us in Michigan care very deeply about the children of the District of Columbia and this city. I want to first congratulate the very effective voice of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton], the Delegate, for her advocacy on behalf of her constituency. This in particular to me is a philosophical debate, an ideological debate around the issue of education. This is the provision I wish to speak to today in strong opposition in this bill. We saw this year children starting school 3 weeks late, some later, because the roof was falling in in some D.C. schools. The Republican ideology says the response is to send 3 percent of the children to private schools with vouchers. The Democratic response is, fix the roof. Fix the roof. Support public education. Care about all of the children, not just 3 percent that would be given the opportunity to go to private schools through the vouchers in this bill. We have today in USA Today a headline, ``Schools struggle to utilize technology.'' Only a fraction of America's schools are integrating technology to benefit their students, says an alliance of prominent business and education leaders, the CEO Forum. I mention this because the $7 million in this bill that goes to 3 percent of the children for vouchers would rewire 65 public schools in the District of Columbia for children. This is about a commitment for all children in the District of Columbia to be successful and compete in that world economy that they will face.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, today I am voting against the conference agreement on Transportation Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998. Although the House approved a level of $15 billion for my State of Michigan for the coming fiscal year, a questionable deal was cut in the conference committee. Inexplicably the levels in those two bills were cut to just $7.5 million. This is a perfect example of the need for funding equity in our transportation programs, and a reworking of the formulas for transit which have continuously resulted in Michigan's citizens getting the short end of the transit funding stick. Transportation funding is one of the most critical commitments that our government makes each year. Therefore, I support the base bill. However, I cannot continue to stand by, Mr. Speaker, while the transit customers of Michigan are given no guarantee of a return of Michigan's gas tax dollars. Therefore, today I voted with the majority of the Michigan delegation against this conference agreement, despite the fact that it included a provision that I strongly support--a provision that bars Members of Congress from exercising the option of switching from the Civil Service Retirement System to the Federal Employees Retirement System. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, we must find some way to assure that each State receives a minimum allocation from the Transit account of our highway trust fund. Today, Mr. Speaker, I vote against this bill to protest its perpetuation. Mr. KILPATRICK, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report accompanying H.R. 2169, the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. In this bill, the State of Michigan was allotted $15 million in the House bill, and $14 million in the Senate bill. What does the conference report contain? Not $15 million for the State of Michigan, nor does it contain $14 million for the State of Michigan. It contains only $7.5 million for the federally funded roads, bridges, and highways for the next fiscal year for the State of Michigan. While I support the basic tenets of this bill, this level of funding is simply ludicrous and does a disservice to the hard- working taxpayers of my State and of the 15th Congressional District of Michigan, and I will vote against final passage of this conference report. Once again, Michigan taxpayers are donating our dollars to the rest of the Nation. I refuse to stand idly by while our constituents get fiscally abused. Paraphrasing a country song, while the donee States get the gold mine, the donor States get the shaft. The funding formula for the donor States must be corrected, and I will continue to fight for full and fair equity in transportation funding for the State of Michigan and the 15th Congressional District. Our taxpayers and our constituents deserve no less than our full and devoted effort to this end.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. On that point, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I congratulate all of my colleagues for standing up for children and for public education. These are such important issues. We will have in front of us tomorrow issues dealing with public education. But to share with my colleague from Maine, we in Michigan have been focused on those very same issues. I was very proud back in 1982 to sponsor something called the Children's Trust Fund in Michigan, focusing on parent education and child abuse prevention. We have done a 10-year study of the dollars spent on working with young parents when children come home from the hospital. It is a Big Brothers, Big Sisters kind of concept. The fancy name is perinatal coaching, but it is based on the idea of giving support to young parents from the moment they step into their own home with that newborn, to help them as they learn new parenting skills and be able to work with them through the first year of the child's life to raise that child, to give it the kinds of skills you talked about. Michigan State University followed this kind of effort and the efforts of working with parents of young children up through Head Start for 10 years. And they compared the amount of money spent on prevention with the amount of money spent in school later on, on substance abuse problems, mental health, dropouts, and ultimately crime. And they were able to measure that for every $1 we put into the kinds of things you are talking about this evening, we saved in Michigan $19. We literally have an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure. We now can demonstrate. One of the frustrating things about prevention is that folks always say you cannot measure it. When you lock somebody up, you know you are creating a safe community. When you are doing preventing on the front end and stopping abuse in the first place, so children do not grow up and potentially end up in those prisons, we do not have a way to measure it. In Michigan, in working with important efforts in Lansing, important efforts around the State, we have measured that and can demonstrate that from a taxpayer's standpoint, as well as just plain common sense for children and families, focusing on what we are talking about tonight makes sense.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I first would like to thank my colleague from Texas who has brought the attention of the House to this issue that is so critical to our veterans. It has been said earlier today, and I feel compelled to respond, that this body, that our Government, has always been there for the veterans. I can assure my colleagues that the veterans in my district believe they have to be vigilant, fighting to make sure they have VA benefits, fighting to make sure they have the health care that they need, and especially those who fought in the gulf war. The families in my district, the men and women who came back exposed chemically to illnesses that have ruined their lives, I have individuals in my district whose health will never be the same, who have been impacted so severely, they do not feel that their Government has been with them. They are fighting every day. We are making small steps forward in finally recognizing what happened to them and creating some health care. But this amendment by Senator Helms, the Helms language, takes us a tremendous step backward. It says to all of those who fought, who came home sick, whose lives have been forever changed because they served our country, that they are at the back of the line, that tobacco companies and others are more important. Shame on us as a Congress if we allow the Helms language to stand. I urge my colleagues to support this very important motion.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the chair of the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Technology, who has worked so long and hard to put together an effective Advance Technology Program that we now have in this budget for continuation of funding for the next year. I also would like to thank my colleagues who voted overwhelmingly earlier today against an amendment to cut $74 million from the Advanced Technology Program. This is in fact an amendment that would be a larger cut than the one that was overwhelmingly voted against earlier today. Important misperceptions about this program continue to be repeated over and over again. This is not a program that is about corporate welfare. This is about creating American jobs and creating technologies that will be on the cutting edge, that will allow us to compete with other countries. The majority of dollars in this program go to consortia and partnerships where universities frequently are the ones receiving the dollars to do research in partnership with our businesses, large and small. Almost 50 percent of the businesses involved in these consortia are small businesses that on their own would not be able to be involved in higher-risk, long-term kinds of research. We are talking about those kinds of research opportunities that research systems in Michigan, we have a wonderful program that has been highly successful to look at how we create a more competitive auto industry, a system. The Big 3 do not normally sit down together and plan and problem-solve about quality issues. But with the leadership of the ATP program and the Federal Government, we have been able to bring them together. I would urge my colleagues to reaffirm our earlier vote today and again vote no and allow us to continue this important program about jobs.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, if I might just summarize, we are competing as a country with other countries today. In those other countries, they are operating as a team: business, labor, universities, researchers, government, all together, focusing on long-term developments, and technologies so they can compete against America. If we are not as wise as developing opportunities for teams to come together, we will lose the competitive race for new jobs. ATP is a very small program authorized by the Committee on Science at continuation levels that allows us to continue the ability to compete in a global marketplace. It is not about corporate subsidies. It is about the ability for government and universities, researchers, and businesses, to work together to do those kinds of things that will allow us to continue to be innovative as a country. It is a very important investment in jobs. International Business Machines Corporation, Washington, DC, September 23, 1997. Hon. Tom A. Coburn, Cannon House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Coburn: Your Dear Colleague letter of September 18, 1997 about the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is inaccurate. It misrepresents IBM's participation in the ATP and seriously mischaracterizes the program. Your assertion that IBM has received $111,279,738 in R&D grants is wrong. Since 1992, IBM has participated in seven ATP projects, of which two were IBM projects and five were joint ventures. Government funding totaled less than $4 million over three years in the single company projects. As the ATP requires, this was matched by IBM's own investment. In the joint venture projects, IBM was only one of over 40 organizations, including large and small companies and universities, which participated. Government investment in those projects was approximately $40 million over five years. Again, the federal funding was matched by the project participants. The ATP enables organizations to share costs, risks, and technology expertise in precompetitive R&D. By pooling resources, it allows projects to be pursued that otherwise would lie dormant. Partnership programs like ATP help bridge the gap between the lab bench and the marketplace and help spawn new innovations and industries. ATP works through rigorous, open competition. It is accessible to all businesses. All costs are at least matched by the participants. Further, ATP provides a ready mechanism for large and small companies to work together. Many small businesses are suppliers to large companies. Cooperative research programs like ATP strengthen them measurably. Smaller companies frequently state that they want to work with larger ones. Through these relationships, they gain access to skills, technology, funding, and potential customers available in no other way. In today's world, having the best technology or the best research is not sufficient for a country or company. Success depends upon speed--the time it takes to start new technological solutions. ATP partnerships create connections and enable faster technology introduction. The United States cannot ignore the international context of technology research and development. The nation cannot stand still while foreign infrastructures develop and improve. I respectfully request that you reconsider your position and your justification for eliminating the Advanced Technology Program and that you share these facts with your colleagues. Sincerely, Christopher G. Caine.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first I would commend the subcommittee chair and the ranking member for the good work in putting together this budget bill, and for the fact that in this budget we have an increase in juvenile crime and prevention dollars of nearly three times what has been in the fiscal year 1997 bill, and $157 million more than the President's request. I would commend my colleagues for understanding what the maker of the amendment has eloquently talked about in terms of our juvenile justice needs. I would join with the gentleman in expressing a desire to have these dollars go for the intended purpose that he has spoken about. But I would rise to oppose his amendment, because this really is a false choice that he has presented to us. We do have additional important dollars for juvenile justice in this bill, which I support and would continue to support. But we also have the opportunity as a country to move ahead and be competitive with other countries in creating jobs for the future through technology. Unfortunately, there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation about the Advanced Technology Program. Just in the short term since I have been here as a Member in January, I know that this was also debated last session and voted down, and that there was a tremendous amount of misinformation at that time. This program, which has been extremely successful in Michigan, is about partnering, and the Federal Government coming together with industries, like the automobile industry in Michigan, to form a partnership between large automobile companies, in our case, small business, our universities, and the Federal Government to look at systems change. The dollars that have come in to us have gone to the universities. It is not characterized accurately to say that we are talking about a million dollars going to corporations that would otherwise be provided in research by the corporation. These are long-term, higher-risk kinds of projects that involve the importance of industries working together. In a project report that was just put together regarding the Two Millimeter program in Michigan, and we have hot off the press a very important report about this, they indicate that there are numerous problems with a particular business trying to do this on their own; in this case, our automobile industry coming together to provide more quality in order to be able to compete internationally. They indicate that the problem addressed by the Two Millimeter project is a systems problem requiring a high level of coordination among a number of quite different organizations. The problem at issue could not be solved by these individual organizations acting alone. Forming large, complex research joint ventures to address a systems problem is a daunting effort. The ATP provided the impetus for companies to overcome coordination barriers. People that normally compete, GM versus Chrysler, all of our companies that normally are competing against each other, come together with the Federal Government serving as a neutral ground to allow them to organize, to look at long- term higher risk research that will allow us to create jobs. This is about creating jobs. I would like to share with the Members some portions of a letter that IBM has submitted in opposition to information that was and continues to be shared regarding IBM. I will read just a portion of it. This was written to the maker of the amendment. ``Your Dear Colleague letter of September 18, 1997, about the ATP is inaccurate. It misrepresents IBM's participation in the ATP and seriously mischaracterizes the program. ``Your assertion that IBM has received $111,279,738 in R&D grants is wrong,'' is wrong. ``Since 1992 IBM has participated in seven ATP projects, of which two were IBM projects and five were joint ventures.'' They go on to explain that in the joint ventures, they have been one of over 40 organizations working together with dollars going to universities to create partnerships. They indicate that ATP enables organizations to share costs, risks, and technology expertise in precompetitive R&D, not what the corporations would be doing in the short term, but the precompetitive high-risk research & development that looks long-term at creating jobs. By pooling resources, it allows projects to be pursued that otherwise would not happen. Partnership programs like ATP help bridge the gap between the lab bench and the marketplace, and help spawn new innovations in industries.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, throughout his personal and professional life, Dr. Jack M. Stack has made significant contributions to promote the health and well-being of the people of Michigan. Dr. Stack is board certified by both the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the American Board of Family Practice. A great deal of his practice in both specialities has been dedicated to caring for women, children, and families. But in addition to providing valuable primary health care for more than 30 years in Michigan's rural communities, Dr. Stack has taken a leadership role on national and international committees dedicated to improving the lives of women and children. As a member of the Michigan State Medical Society, Dr. Stack has served on the Committee on Child Abuse Prevention, Committee on Health Insurance for the Uninsured, and Committee on Governmental Legislative Affairs. He has served as chairperson of Governor Milliken's first statewide Health Consumer's Conference and was keynote speaker at the Governor's Child Abuse Prevention Conference. Among his many other notable achievements, Dr. Stack has also served on the board of directors for the Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health, is the past treasurer for the International Michigan Mental Health Advisory Council, and is the past vice president for the Mental Health Association in Michigan. In addition to his many leadership roles, Dr. Stack has made significant contributions to the study of pregnancy loss and its impact on women and families. He has published more than two dozen articles relating to women's health and has shown great activism in supporting the many causes of the family. Dr. Stack exemplifies the values and ethics we need within our medical profession. He is a committed doctor and has demonstrated outstanding leadership within the Michigan community. Throughout his career Dr. Stack has shown great courage and his work and dedication has had a profound impact on many people. I am proud to recognize his contributions and work.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of St. Stephen's Community Church. Founded in the fall of 1987, St. Stephen's began as an interdenominational church whose doctrine focuses on spiritually rooted in African-American religious tradition, with an emphasis on community outreach and volunteerism. In 1990, they became affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a progressive denomination that embraces and celebrates multiracial, cultural, and ethnic background. Guided by Rev. Dr. Michael C. Murphy, the congregation lives by the proverb, ``Where There Is No Vision, the People Perish.'' This is evident in their passion to make a real difference in the community. From their spiritual and community leadership to their involvement in many local charitable projects, the St. Stephen's Community Church is an important local institution dedicated to the Lansing community. We are proud to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the St. Stephen's Community Church and congratulate their 300 member congregation. We thank them for their activism and we thank them for their vision.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle who have put this bill together. I know there are difficult decisions to be made. But I also know that today we have been talking a lot about family, about encouraging parents and children to come together and communicate and to work together and that we all know, as the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What we have in this amendment is an ounce of prevention. It is well worth the dollars that were just committed, as the gentleman preceding me, the leader spoke about the other dollars in the budget which are important. These community school grants are equally important because of what they allow communities to do. In the case of my community in Lansing, it is the schools and the city working together to form something called the focus center, a place where young people can come, where there is tutoring, learning of life skills and communications. They are able to spend time together. These are young people who have not been encouraged to go to school, who are now going to school and grades are coming up. We talk about the need for education. This particular program has encouraged young people both to go to school; attendance is up. Grades are up. Parents are now involved themselves in parenting classes, getting their GED. This is the kind of program done through the community schools grant which makes a difference for a very small investment. We have in our community young people participating in urban 4-H, learning leadership skills, going to the county fair, exhibiting and having an opportunity to work together on projects and learn specific skills. I had the opportunity to see their projects at the fair and to watch their excitement, and it was terrific to see. The people who have put together this program in Lansing have done a marvelous job. The Lansing chief of police says that this program should be continued because of the positive effect on our neighborhoods as evidenced by a reduction in crime. Through the Community Schools Program parents are involved in the neighborhoods, children are involved, they are making choices not to get involved in sex and drugs and gangs but to go to school and to be a part of something that is positive. This is a very small investment to make for very, very large returns. There is a young man who wrote to me, among many young people who wrote to me about this project, Bradley Wicks, who is a 17-year-old participant in our project. He said, ``If it were not for this focus center, we as kids would have nothing to do and would turn to gangs and drugs. I was one of the lucky ones who found help here at the center and got the help I needed to change my life. I am not sure where I would be otherwise.'' If, for a small investment, with all that we do, with all that the States are required to do in terms of the correctional system, all of the prisons that are built, and frankly, in my own State we have tripled the number of prison beds in the last 10 years and I do not feel three times safer, with all of that going on, this small ounce of prevention is well worth it. It is an investment in families and children and neighborhoods. I would urge my colleagues, in this amendment, in the conference committee, in working together on the final budget, to make this small investment in Community School programs that work, that support families and children and neighborhoods and get the kind of results for our communities that we say we all want.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the dollars are still there for enforcement. My concern is that this amendment would cut OSHA's enforcement staff by 25 percent. I think, given the climate in which we are in, the concerns about food safety, the concerns about worker safety, the injuries and deaths that are still occurring across the country, I would suggest 25 percent is too much and it goes in the wrong direction and we need to maintain the balance.

Ms. STABENOW. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, continuing the discussion that we have been having here this morning, I would rise to suggest that while the majority of businesses in fact want to do the right thing regarding their employees, it makes economic sense, it makes good sense as employers who care about their employees. The reality is that this is about balance. And when, in fact, there is a problem, when, in fact, someone is knowingly proceeding to create a situation that is dangerous for workers, OSHA has to have the ability to respond and to protect workers and, as well, protect the majority of businesses by standing up to those that proceed in a way that hurts workers. We have heard this morning various comments and discussions about what Joseph Dear has been doing and OSHA, what has been done, no question about it, moving on the right track, reinventing OSHA, moving more toward the notion of education and voluntary compliance, and those are the kinds of things that we want to see done. I am in full support of that. I want very much to see that continue as an emphasis. But I think that it is important to understand what Mr. Dear himself believes about this amendment. I would like to read a statement that he has just issued this morning: When I began the task of reinventing OSHA in 1993, one of the first realizations we at the agency had was that in order to be fully effective, OSHA must utilize a full range of tools and options. We carefully crafted a program that was a balance of compliance assistance and enforcement, knowing that a credible enforcement effort is necessary to ensure that employers would not look upon the agency as merely a paper tiger. The effort in the House to shift 16 percent of OSHA's budget, $23 million, from enforcement to compliance assistance does not serve either the program or America's workers well. Under the new OSHA, serious violators know they will face serious consequences. The Agency has demonstrated it does not penalize those employers who take workplace safety and health seriously and act in good faith. It is unthinkable that the new OSHA's proven track record, short though it may be, should be cutoff at this critical juncture with the shortsighted shift in priorities. I would agree. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Frankly, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I understand as well, working on food safety issues, that there is a direct relationship between what my constituents are concerned about in food safety as consumers and what happens in terms of OSHA. When we look at the fact that we have now through Hudson Foods seen the largest recall in the history of the country in meat, and we know that they were, in fact, under investigation by OSHA for violations on safety, there is a relationship. There is a relationship when they are cited for their place of employment not being kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition and that pieces of chicken and chicken fat were allowed to accumulate on the floors and under elevated platforms in the fillet and cut-up department, thus causing slip and fall injuries. I would suggest it not only causes slip and fall injuries but that it also caused sanitary problems that related to what was happening there at the plant that resulted in the recall of meat and the safety of the public being jeopardized as it related to food safety. There is a relationship. When Hudson was cited for drainage not being maintained when they used their wet processes, it is not only a safety issue, it is a food safety issue and a worker safety issue. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I appreciate the fact that the focus that is desired by my colleagues is on education and on voluntary compliance. I support that. But it is very important that we have a balance that allows in those situations, which I believe are few but serious, it is critical for the health and safety of the public and American workers that OSHA have the ability to step in and protect health and safety.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in support of the balanced budget agreement that we will be voting on later this week. Before I entered the House in January, we had a Congress that was shutting the Government down, not once but twice. We now have new faces. We now have the President's leadership in bringing together people on both sides to create a bipartisan agreement. This is an agreement that when it first came before the House I could not support because it very much gave relief to those at the top, hoping that those at the middle somehow would receive it through trickle-down economics. But what we have now is very different. The efforts, the hard work of the last few weeks have made a tremendous difference. We now see middle-class families, small businesses, family-owned farms receiving the kind of relief that we have been fighting for. Education is now a top priority; children's health care for families that work but do not have insurance. This is a dramatically different proposal than the one that passed a few weeks ago. The hard work paid off. The folks that have been communicating their concerns for middle-class America have made a difference.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hardworking people in middle Michigan who want very much to receive the benefits of the tax cuts that are being proposed here and discussed in the House of Representatives. We have two choices: We have individuals who now lead the House, who were the ones that proposed in the 1980's tax breaks for the wealthy, hoping that they would trickle down to our middle-class families and each of us who have been working hard every day; or tax breaks that go directly into the pockets of hardworking middle-class people. The tax cut that I am supporting, that was put forward by the Democrats and the President, is advocating making sure that if a person has a home and they want to sell it, and that is where most of us put our savings, they get a tax break. If they have children, they get a tax break. If they are trying to send their children to college, they get a tax break. If they have a small business and they have worked hard and put all their sweat equity into their business over the years, they get a tax break. If they have a family-owned farm, they get a tax break. What we do not do is focus the tax breaks on the top 2 percent. I urge we adopt this program.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 286, and 287, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote 286, the Mink amendment and ``no'' on recorded vote 287, the Kennedy amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Wheat and Barley Protection Act of 1997 which will facilitate a national partnership and provide urgently needed funds to accelerate the race for a cure for a disease that is ravaging our Nation's wheat and barley crops. Wheat and barley scab has cost our national economy more than $3 billion over the last 4 years. Michigan alone lost more than $56 million to wheat and barley scab in 1996. More than 80 percent of Michigan's farmers plant either wheat or barley. All varieties are vulnerable to the scab, which can severely reduce the production and quality of these crops. The disease can produce vomitoxin, a toxin contaminant which has reduced prices to farmers and caused problems for the U.S. milling and malting industries. My legislation unifies the efforts of 12 States' land grant universities into a cohesive research partnership. The Wheat and Barley Protection Act of 1997 will authorize $5 million a year for 5 years to fund this national consortium that includes university breeders, plant pathologists, agricultural engineers, and food scientists. It will serve as a model for other such effective, integrated research projects in the future, bringing the public and private sectors together in an important effort to solve a national problem. The Wheat and Barley Protection Act is a small investment compared to the billions of dollars that this disease, unchecked, will cost our economy. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have cosponsored this legislation and will be working with me to swiftly pass this bill.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for continued funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA broadens public access to the arts for all Americans. The latest Lou Harris poll indicates that 79 percent of the American public favors a governmental role in funding the arts. Furthermore, 86 percent of adult Americans participated in the arts last year. Federal funding for the arts is a good investment because the arts contribute to our society both financially and educationally. Financially, the NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of communities. The nonprofit arts community generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, supports 1.3 million jobs and returns $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes. Federal funding for the arts is critical to leveraging private funding. NEA requires grant recipients to match all Federal grants up to 4 to 1. It is also important to note that the NEA's budget represents less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget. In fiscal year 1997, we spent $99.4 million on the NEA, and almost twice that, $176.2 million, on military bands. Society benefits from this small investment particularly when art is part of a comprehensive educational program. Recognizing this, NEA Chairwoman Jane Alexander has made arts education her top priority. Each year, the Arts Endowment opens creative doors to millions of school children, including at-risk youth. Participation in the arts improves overall student learning, instills self-esteem and discipline, and provides creative outlets for self-expression. The arts also help prepare America's future high-technology workforce by helping students develop problem-solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability, and expand creativity--all important career skills for the 21st century. Students who study the arts outperform nonarts students on the SAT, according to reports by the College Entrance Examination Board. In 1995, SAT takers with course work in music performance scored 51 points higher on the math portion than students with no course work or experience in the arts. Scores for those with course work in music appreciation were 61 points higher on verbal and 46 points higher on the math portion. And longer arts study means even higher SAT scores: in 1995, those who had studied the arts 4 or more years scored 59 points higher and 44 points higher on the verbal and math portions respectively than students with no course work. Exposing children to the arts is more important now that we know how crucial the first 3 years of a child's life are to full mental and emotional development. Even at the very beginning of life, children respond to music and visual stimuli. The NEA increases opportunities for parents and teachers to share art with children who may not otherwise have such opportunities. In Michigan, the NEA supports apprenticeships, mentoring programs, and in-school performances. These programs enrich the cultural fabric of our community. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the continuation of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, we have talked a lot today about a police officer in Georgia. I would like to just like to share with my colleague my police officers' starting salary in Lansing, MI, as well as my firefighters.' They start at $26,800, working hard. These are folks with families, protecting my community whether it is for fires or from crime. Under the proposal the Republicans have, they will not receive the full $500 child tax credit because they get another tax credit. Under the Democratic plan my firefighters and police officers will receive the total amount of tax credits and deductions that they ought to receive to be able to help take care of their families. Folks with higher incomes get lots of different tax credits. I want my firefighters and my police officers to be able to get what they have now in tax credits and be able to get the full value of the $500-per- child tax credit.

Ms. STABENOW. Would the gentleman from California say that again, please, for us?

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress in January representing middle-Michigan, middle-class working men and women in Michigan who want to receive tax relief directly in their pockets. What I see is a basic philosophical difference about how to create jobs and grow the economy in this country. Republicans say give it to those at the top, it trickles down. We say put it directly in the pockets, money directly in the pockets of middle-income working people, whether it is their house, sending their children to college, their children, their small business, their farm, put it in their pocket; they will turn around, buy cars, buy houses, take care of their children. That is how we create jobs and that is why I support this proposal.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?