[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4606) making appropriations for the 
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that general debate be limited to not to exceed 1 
hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so 
simply to say that at this point in time, we have requests for general 
debate speakers that exceed our 30 minutes. I would simply ask the 
gentleman, when we reach the end of our 1 hour, if we still have 
speakers left, whether he might accede to a few other speakers.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we might 
go under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. PORTER. We can do that, yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  The motion was agree to.

                              {time}  1509


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4606, with Mr. Sharp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been read the 
first time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. SMITH of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the members 
of the subcommittee and the full committee, the Members of the House, 
the members of the authorizing committees, and all the others who 
helped on this bill. It takes everybody to put together this bill, 
because it is a big bill. It involves over 500 programs.
  The programs in this bill total $258 billion in budget authority for 
1995. Of that $258 billion in budget authority, $252 billion it is 
estimated will be obligated within the fiscal year 1995. That happens 
to be $7.2 billion less than was obligated in the prior fiscal year, 
that is, this fiscal year. However, that is, mostly accounted for by a 
reduction in unemployment compensation and Medicare subsidies over 
which, of course, we have little control.
  Now, the President's request included a good many increases for 
programs, all of them good increases, good things that people would 
like to vote for. But to pay for those, he also provided 
recommendations for a lot of reductions that were far in excess of what 
this House would stand for.
  And so we had to take a look overall at those reductions. At the same 
time we looked at the administration's request for increases. Among the 
reductions that they requested were $745 million in the energy 
assistance program for low-income people; $745 million is over 50 
percent of the amount they got this year. Of course, that would not be 
sustained in the House. We restored $495 million of that amount.
  They also requested a reduction of $140 million in impact aid. We 
restored $70 million of that. On the other hand, there is going to be a 
revision in the formula, and H.R. 6 is in the Senate. It has already 
passed the House, and we provided for the distribution of that amount 
of money under the House-passed bill.
  In addition to that, the administration recommended the elimination 
of 33 programs. Actually the subcommittee went along, and the committee 
went along, with eliminating 21 of those programs. All of them had some 
importance. All of them were good in some ways. But in setting the 
priorities, we went along with the eliminations.
  After we had done all of this, we found out that the amount of money 
allocated was actually only about 96\1/2\ percent of what current 
services were in this fiscal year that we are in right now. So we had 
to go with a sort of a temporary formula, because I do not like across-
the-board, and I do not think many people do.We did not want to cut 
everything 3\1/2\ percent. So what we did, anyplace we increased 
something, including the requests of the administration, we found an 
offset for it. When you increase something, you find an offset for it 
in the reductions.

  By the time we had done that, we were down in some accounts to where 
we were into RIF's. A RIF in the first year does not save money. There 
are payouts of various kinds and transfers, and so we tried to avoid 
RIF's.
  I do not believe at this point, although we are right on the edge, I 
do not believe at this point that we will require RIF's within this 
year. That does not mean that they will not have another reduction next 
year in some of these programs.
  I consulted the members of the subcommittee of the House, of the 
authorizing committees, and I got plenty of advice from Members of the 
House, a whole stack of advice in the way of letters, people wanting 
everything increased. I do not remember anything that they wanted to 
reduce.
  The bill, as it comes out here, does not include any provision, I do 
not believe, that is objected to by an authorizing committee.
  It does include some limitations that were either requested or agreed 
to by authorizing committees, and virtually all of the general 
provisions were carried before. There were a couple of exceptions to 
that which I think will come up during the process of the amendments. 
But virtually all of the general provisions are provisions that have 
been carried, many, for many years, and apparently desired and wanted. 
The authorizing committee did not object, and so they were carried 
again.
  The bill does not make anyone completely happy. I would be the first 
to agree to that. But I really believe that this is the best that we 
could do under the circumstances today, and I heartily recommend the 
passage of the bill as it is today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by paying tribute to our 
long-time colleague Bill Natcher who passed away earlier this year. He 
was truly one of the legends of the House, and it was one of the great 
privileges of my career to have served with him on this subcommittee. I 
have served on this subcommittee over 12 years and until this year, he 
was the only chairman I had served under. I think we have all greatly 
missed Bill's warmth and dignity, and his passing has been a great loss 
to me personally, to the Congress, and to the country.
  Mr. Smith is our new chairman, and he has done a tremendous job of 
leading this subcommittee under extremely difficult circumstances in 
which he was required to assume command of the bill midway through our 
annual hearings. I have very much appreciated his consensus building, 
cooperative spirit, and fairness in bringing this bill out of the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, as Bill Natcher would always say, ``This is a good 
bill.''
  We have put it together with an allocation that was well below what 
the President requested in programs under our jurisdiction.
  I will have two amendments later that reflect perhaps some 
differences in our priorities.
  As it stands, this bill very heavily reflects the President's 
investment initiatives. Funding is reduced across the bill to 96.5 
percent of current services to accommodate increases in each of the 
President's investment priorities including: Chapter 1, Head Start, 
Goals 2000, NIH, Worker Retraining, and School-to-Work, among others.
  Many of the cuts and program terminations requested by the President 
have been adopted. Most, however, have not. This is to me the greatest 
concern with the bill.
  As we look at the next 5 years, this subcommittee's budget will be 
extremely constrained. We will not have the resources to meet all the 
needs in the programs we oversee. We will therefore necessarily be 
forced to make difficult choices and we will have to choose among 
competing priorities. This is as it should be and what I have been 
urging since I came to Congress.
  I reject the idea that these cuts should be distributed equally. So 
does the chairman. We must choose our highest priorities, fund them at 
the level they should be funded at, and then make the difficult 
offsetting cuts to pay for them.
  The President began the process by proposing--courageously and 
responsibly in my judgment--to reduce the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP] and to eliminate 33 low priority programs 
in the Department of Education.
  While I congratulate Chairman Smith for including about one-third of 
the proposed reductions in his mark, I believe we should have approved 
the entire proposal to free up more funding for priority programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss some of the provisions in the bill.
  First, I am greatly concerned about the impact aid funding included 
in the bill. It represents a $70 million reduction from the 1994 level 
and will impose a further hardship on many schools which must subsidize 
federally connected students.
  I want to thank the chairman for his willingness to include $40 
million in the newly authorized section of which serves the most 
heavily impacted districts. This funding will help provide much needed 
funding for schools like the North Chicago School District in Illinois 
which nearly closed its doors last year due in part to the lag in 
impact aid appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also very concerned about the level of funding for 
the National Institutes of Health which I believe are a national 
treasure.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for working together to provide a 
$384 million increase for the NIH in this bill. But, I want to raise a 
real warning about the future of biomedical research in this country. 
The increase we are providing in this bill is less than inflation so we 
are actually going backward in research funding--the area that holds 
the greatest promise for controlling health care costs.
  Many in Congress still believes that research is driving up the cost 
of health care. In reality, research is saving us billions of dollars 
through vaccines, prevention, and early treatment and diagnosis of 
disease. Just one medical advance, the development of the polio 
vaccine, has saved Americans more money in prevented health care costs 
than Congress has invested in NIH in its entire history. NIH has a 
booklet detailing 26 discoveries--a tiny fraction of the thousands 
made--that have saved hundreds of billions of dollars in health care 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are not willing to make the long term sacrifices 
to maintain this vital enterprise, we will lose our world leadership in 
health care, our economic vigor in this large sector of the economy, 
and a generation of scientific minds. Later, I will offer an amendment 
for discussion on this matter to highlight what I consider an impending 
crisis for our country.
  The bill includes important increases for education programs which 
help disadvantaged children.
  In particular, the bill funds the Even Start program which Mr. 
Goodling has championed and early transitional learning programs that 
may continue programs currently funded under the follow through 
program.
  On the medical research side, the bill provides modest increases for 
breast and prostate cancer research, AIDS, diabetes, rehabilitation 
research, chronic fatigue syndrome, and dystonia among others.
  The report which accompanies the bill contains some language I 
authored regarding the establishment of a Federal warehouse to 
distribute vaccines to children under the new vaccine entitlement. 
Throughout this appropriations cycle, I have expressed my concern about 
the wisdom of creating a Federal distribution system as opposed to 
contracting out the service. My report language directs the CDC and GSA 
to comply with all applicable FDA safety guidelines and reserves a 
final judgment on whether to establish the Federal warehouse pending 
the outcome of a GAO study on the matter due in July.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a chance today to begin the process of 
enacting meaningful health care reform.
  I intend to offer an amendment at the appropriate time to increase 
funding for the community health centers to expand access to health 
care for nearly 1 million Americans. The amendment will offset funding 
in other accounts so that neither the outlay or authority caps will be 
breached.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Smith's very fine staff: Mike 
Stephens, Bob Knisely, Sue Quantius, Mark Miodusky, Joanne Orndorff, 
Meg Holland, and my excellent and able staffer, Mike Myers. Also Mr. 
McDade's staff John Blazey.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend this bill to the House and reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the bill establishing 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education. Mr. Speaker, for many years I have 
been one of the members of this subcommittee who have put this 
particular bill together. This is the bill that our beloved but now 
deceased former chairman, Bill Natcher or Kentucky used to call the 
``People's Bill.''
  This is the first time that we have come to the floor with this bill 
under the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Neal Smith. I want 
to congratulate him for bringing out a bill which I think would have 
pleased Bill Natcher. I also commend the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
John Porter, for his work in producing this bill.
  Although we faced tight budget constraints, H.R. 4606 will greatly 
benefit American families. The bill provides the resources necessary 
for an improved quality of life in areas ranging from employment, to 
health, to education.
  For the Department of Labor, the bill includes a total appropriation 
of $13.3 billion. This amount includes $1.3 billion for dislocated 
workers assistance. These resources will enable the program to respond 
not only more quickly to the need for assistance, but to also provide 
more effective early intervention activities. For summer youth 
employment, the bill includes $1.1 billion. This program will provide 
work experience and support services to an estimated 623,000 
participants.
  For Job Corps, the bill includes $1.1 billion. These resources will 
support 42,220 slots at 111 existing centers, and initial funding for 
an additional 6 new Job Corps Centers. To help ensure a more successful 
and effective transition from school to work, the bill includes $140 
million for the school-to-work initiative.
  The Department of Health and Human Services is provided an 
appropriation totalling $216.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, I am especially 
proud of the quality of life investments we also achieved in this 
portion of the bill. To provide comprehensive primary health care 
services to the medically underserved and indigent population the bill 
includes a $616.6 million appropriation for the Nation's community 
health centers. As a strong supporter of providing quality health care 
services to all Americans, I am pleased that we were able to provide 
$9.7 million to enhance primary care services, health screening, and 
health counseling services to residents of public housing.
  To help ensure a continuous pipeline of minority health care 
providers, the bill includes $27.2 million for the Health Careers 
Opportunity Program, $11.3 million for the Exceptional Financial Need 
Scholarships Program, $8.7 million for the health professions student 
loans, and $18.6 million in funding for the Scholarships for 
Disadvantaged Students Program.
  To enable the NIH to continue to exploit opportunities in biomedical 
research that will continue to improve the quality of life, the 
committee provided an appropriation of $11.3 billion. This amount 
includes the resources needed to strengthen research efforts in cancer, 
heart disease, stroke, AIDS, diabetes, and sickle cell disease. These 
resources will allow NIH to expand research in many areas including 
vaccine development, gene therapy, immunology, molecular biology, 
biotechnology, and high performance computing.

  To strengthen the participation of minorities in biomedical research, 
the funding for the NIH includes $17 million for the Minority Access to 
Research Careers Program, $26.2 million for the Research Centers in 
Minority Institutions Program, and $5 million for biomedical facilities 
construction at emerging institutions. In addition, the Minority 
Biomedical Research Support Program is provided $37.3 million. 
Combined, these investments will help to improve and enhance minority 
institutions' participation in biomedical research, as well as to 
increase opportunities for minority students to pursue research 
careers.
  Mr. Chairman, we were also very supportive of the need to fund 
important initiatives undertaken by the Centers for Disease Control. 
The Center is in the forefront in addressing the health crisis gripping 
the Nation. In fiscal year 1995, the Centers for Disease Control will 
benefit from an appropriation Totaling $2.1 billion. These funds will 
allow the Center to continue its important research in areas including 
AIDS, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer screening, tuberculosis, 
lead poisoning prevention, and violence prevention.
  To help prevent the crisis that recipients needing energy assistance 
would have been forced to endure, we provided $1.2 billion for the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. President Clinton's 
budget request had slated the program for a 50 percent funding cut. 
This important program provides assistance to low income households in 
meeting the high costs associated with home energy, heating, and 
cooling.
  To strengthen and expand the Head Start Program, a $3.5 billion 
appropriation is provided.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the need to strengthen our Nation's 
education system. The committee provided investments at all levels of 
the education continuum. To begin to improve the Nation's education 
system, the bill includes $388.4 million for Education Goals: 2000, and 
$140 million for the Education Department's the school-to-work 
initiative. To expand the benefits of magnet schools, the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation for the program is slated at $113 million.
  For the TRIO Program which serves disadvantaged students, the 
committee provided an appropriation totaling $463 million for fiscal 
year 1995. The additional funds provided will allow an increased number 
of needy students to reap the benefits of this successful program.
  Historically black colleges and universities will also benefit from 
investments. A combined appropriation of $131.5 million is provided for 
these institutions to strengthen academic and physical infrastructure. 
Funds provided include enhancements for academic instruction, 
libraries, scientific instrumentation, and student support services.
  Mr. Chairman, as you and my colleagues can see, H.R. 4606 is truly a 
human investment bill. This is reflected by investments in programs 
that meet the needs of our Nation's youth and families through greater 
investments in the Head Start, childhood immunization, Job Corps, 
school-to-work, summer youth employment and training, student aid, and 
dislocated workers programs. As the allocations reflect, the committee 
took a firm stance in providing for the health, education, and human 
resource needs of American families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 4606 
which will improve the quality of life for all Americans.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the distinguished gentleman from Iowa 
to, as Chairman Natcher used to say, walk down the center of the aisle 
today in support of the people's bill.
  This bill helps Americans become more educated, develop the training 
tools to advance in the job sector, and prevent illness or treat an 
illness if you become sick.
  This bill affects and protects almost every American in a fiscally 
responsible manner. I want to commend my chairman, Mr. Smith, and my 
ranking member, Mr. Porter, and their hard-working staffers for their 
dedication in crafting this bill.
  Mr. Smith had to lead the subcommittee after the death of our beloved 
chairman, Mr. Natcher.
  Mr. Smith assumed the reins and has worked in a fair, equitable, and 
bipartisan manner to produce a good bill.
  I want to highlight a few very important programs to my rural 
colleagues, who often share my view that Congress turns its back on the 
heartland.
  This is the second year that I have had the opportunity to advocate 
and secure funding to improve access to rural Americans.
  This bill takes another step to provide equity and quality of health 
care in our rural communities.
  Funding for community and migrant health care centers reflects the 
increased need to provide comprehensive primary health care in our 
rural communities. Last year, these clinics served over 6.5 million 
people.
  The area health education centers and border health centers funding 
has been given increases.
  The AHEC Program links university health service centers with 
community health service delivery systems to provide training sites for 
students, faculty, and practitioners.
  The border health education centers help schools support education 
and training centers to improve the supply, distribution, and quality 
of health personnel along the border between the United States and 
Mexico.
  Other rural programs include transition grants, the allied health 
grants that address the growing shortage of allied health personnel in 
both rural and urban areas, the Physicians Assistants Program which 
delivers health care and emergency services in rural areas.
  This program is especially important to the health of rural 
Americans.
  The Family Medicine Residencies Program has been funded to provide 
grants to medical schools to teach family medicine programs which are 
greatly needed to fill the demand for doctors in rural America.
  The rural health research and rural outreach grants are funded to 
coordinate public and private sector efforts nationwide to strengthen 
and improve the delivery of health services to populations in rural 
areas.
  They provide health services to rural populations not currently 
receiving them and enhance access to and utilization of existing 
services.
  Finally, we have tried to fund the nursing programs at last year's 
levels. In my rural district of Texas, 23 of my 29 counties are 
classified as professional health care shortage areas. All of these 
programs collectively try to improve access to health care. These are 
all very small programs compared to other line items in this bill but 
they help a large portion of population living in our rural 
communities.
  I am pleased that the committee included funding to initiate the 
Hispanic serving institutions. This is the first year that HSI's have 
been given their own line in the budget and also received an increase 
of $2.6 million for a total of $12 million for HSI's.
  I am extremely pleased that we have funded this program to help 
either low-income or first generation college students.
  Growing up on the southside of San Antonio I saw many of my friends 
unable to afford to go to school.
  Funding for the HSI's program will be a small step to help Hispanics 
increase their numbers in our Nation's higher education systems. I look 
forward to hearing of the successes by Hispanic students who will be 
able to take advantage of this program.
  Finally, this bill also recognizes the need to prevent, treat, and 
educate Americans about diabetes. Persons with diabetes face not only a 
shortened life span, but also the strong likelihood of severe 
disabilities.
  Diabetes is particularly prevalent among Hispanics. The committee has 
wisely provided additional funding to continue a national diabetes 
program.
  Regarding diabetes research, the bill recognizes the need to continue 
research efforts to combat diabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of 
new adult blindness, kidney failure, and nontraumatic amputation, and 
it is a major risk factor for stroke, heart attack, and premature death 
to the estimated 13 to 14 million people who currently have diabetes. 
Further research will be carried out to isolate the diabetes gene and 
will increase efforts to educate the public about preventing blindness.
  I wish we could have done more for some worthy programs but 
unfortunately the President sent us a request for 14 new Presidential 
initiatives. The chairman was generous enough to fund those requests at 
46 cents on the dollar.
  The President should have made the tough decisions, but I will tell 
you that in conference I will support the lower figure for each of his 
initiatives.
  Again, Mr. Chairman this appropriations bill is a good one. There are 
no easy choices in this subcommittee yet we must step up to the plate 
and do the best we can.
  For every dollar shift from one program, another program that serves 
an equally important constituency must be cut. I believe this bill can 
be improved and Mr. Porter will be offering two amendments to do that.
  Overall, this bill is fiscally responsible and provides for this 
country's needs.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
before us today, the fiscal year 1995 labor, health and human services, 
and education appropriations bill.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I know how difficult it was to put 
this bill together. As we all know, the budget pressure was immense. We 
were able to give important programs like Ryan White, title I, Goals 
2000 and Head Start only a fraction of the increases the President 
requested--and that they should have received.
  But this was also a difficult year for other reasons: the loss of 
Chairman Natcher this spring was a great loss to this institution. 
Programs that Mr. Natcher funded, based on his steadfast belief in 
investing in human capital, will serve this country for decades to 
come.
  So with this bill, our subcommittee enters a new era: I want to 
salute our new chairman, my colleague and friend, Mr. Smith of Iowa, 
for an excellent job done under far less than optimal circumstances.
  I would particularly like to thank Chairman Smith for his invaluable 
help with one of the most important issues addressed in this bill: The 
coordination and integration of services for children and families.
  Mr. Chairman, back in February, Secretary Riley gave an inspired 
speech at Georgetown University in which he discussed service 
integration, one of the most urgent needs faced by young children and 
their families today.
  In the complicated world we live in today, families and children need 
easy access to centralized services: education, social service, and 
health care programs should be brought together in one easily 
accessible location.
  In his speech, Secretary Riley referred to just such a model, which 
he called ``early childhood family centers.'' I believe we should be 
encouraging every community in this country to work toward this goal. 
And, thanks to Chairman Smith, this bill sets up a working group at the 
Department of Education, along with HHS and Labor, to make this vision 
a reality. I am very excited about this effort, and am hopeful that its 
work will enable us to better Marshall our precious Federal resources 
for children and their families.
  I would also like to point out a provision in the committee report 
that should help us accomplish that end. The committee report 
encourages the Secretary of HHS to promote colocation of Head Start 
programs with public schools, health care and social services in 
approving facilities construction permitted by the reauthorization.
  Mr. Chairman, I would prefer that our language here be even stronger 
than it is. When we are giving Head Start a mere 30 percent of the 
increase the President requested, I think it is entirely appropriate to 
urge that construction funds be used only to promote service 
integration through colocation. It gets our children and families the 
most for our money, recognizing that the money is far less than it 
should be given the need.
  It is going to be a long process to weave service integration into 
the fabric of our Federal programs. Efforts like Congresswoman Nita 
Lowey's link up for learning have already begun the process, as has 
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's coordinated services section of H.R. 6. 
The new title I program and the Head Start reauthorization also move in 
this direction, and so does the bill before you today.
  I am looking forward to working with Chairman Smith and my 
subcommittee colleagues on this important undertaking, as well as with 
the authorizing committees on both sides of the Capitol and on both 
sides of the aisle.
  In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff for their 
fine work in putting this bill together. Mike Stephens, Bob Knisely, 
Sue Quanius, Mark Mioduski, Joanne Orndorff, and Meg Holland have all 
been a pleasure to work with. As Mr. Natcher always said, this is the 
people's bill, and I commend it to my colleagues.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the very distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, 
Education and Related Agencies. I note with sadness that this is the 
first Labor, HHS appropriations bill in many years to come to the floor 
that is not being managed by our late colleague, Mr. Natcher. I do want 
to commend chairmen Obey and Smith, and ranking Republicans McDade and 
Porter for carrying on and keeping the process moving. However, Mr. 
Natcher will never truly be replaced.
  While I do plan on voting for this bill, it does not mean that I am 
completely satisfied with everything in this massive appropriations 
bill. For example, I would have preferred that the Appropriations 
Committee eliminate the funding for more of the programs that the 
administration had recommended cutting. Nevertheless, I think the 
Appropriations Committee deserves credit for bringing this bill before 
us under the tight constraints of the budget caps. In addition, I would 
like to comment on some specific areas of this bill that touch upon 
programs authorized by the Education and Labor Committee, of which I am 
the Ranking Republican.


                               education

  Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased by the generous increase 
provided to the Even Start family literacy program. Illiteracy is one 
of the biggest problems facing our country, and these programs will 
play a key role in welfare reform and crime reduction efforts. Even 
Start addresses these concerns from a family perspective, providing for 
the literacy and education needs of parents as well as their children. 
It provides parents with education and parent training. In addition, it 
provides their children with an early childhood education program. The 
family literacy approach embodied in Even Start will help us ensure 
participating children never experience the problems faced by their 
parents--it helps break the cycle of poverty. Through this investment 
in Even Start, we are helping to insure a literate, well-trained work 
force as well as preventing welfare dependency and involvement in 
criminal activities. I thank my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee for their support for this important, effective program.
  I was also pleased to note that the Appropriations Committee has not 
agreed with the administration's proposal to eliminate the chapter 2 
program. Chapter 2 provides local school districts with the only 
flexible Federal dollars they can use for innovative, locally developed 
programs to improve the educational achievement of their students. Both 
the House and Senate authorizing committees have continued this 
important program in the elementary, secondary education 
reauthorization bills, and I am hopeful that the final Labor, HHS 
appropriations bill will include a similar amount or more for the 
chapter 2 program.
  I want to commend the Appropriations Committee, particularly my 
colleague Mr. Bonilla, for addressing what has become known as the 
``85/15 rule.'' This rule states that Institutions of Higher Education 
must have at least 15 percent of their revenues generated from sources 
that are not derived from funds provided under title IV of the Higher 
Education Act. Many Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed 
serious reservations about the Department of Education's intent to 
apply the regulation implementing this section of the 1992 amendments 
to a period of time prior to the effective date of the regulation. The 
Appropriations Committee's delay in the effective date of this 
regulation will allow institutions sufficient time to comply with its 
intent. As a result, quality training institutions will not be forced 
out of the program for failing to comply with confusing and unforeseen 
accounting rules. I will oppose any efforts to strike this provision 
from the appropriations bill and hope that my colleagues do likewise.
  I am pleased to see that the committee has included in its report, 
language regarding the Department of Education's plans to expand 
current regulations to provide supplementary services to special 
populations under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
Education Act. The report states the committee's concerns about the 
policy implications of any expansion of current regulations and 
encourages the Department to consider submitting any new regulatory 
changes to the negotiated rulemaking process. While I have hoped the 
committee would prohibit the Department from issuing any new 
regulations on this issue, I support the committee's approach. I 
strongly believe that the Department's proposed regulations will impose 
an unfunded mandate on States and local school districts and cause 
confusion and disruption in the States and local school districts. This 
issue should be addressed during the reauthorization of the Carl 
Perkins Vocational Education Act next year and I urge the Department to 
reconsider their position.
  There are several funding recommendations in this bill for Education 
programs that cause me concern, but there is one in particular that I 
have complained about for years; and that is the funding for children 
with disabilities. Under the Individual With Disabilities Education 
Act, schools are legally obligated to provide all the special education 
services children need, regardless of the Federal appropriation. 
Congress currently provides only 7 percent of the costs of special 
education required by the law. This is a distant cry from the 40 
percent funding level Congress said it would provide by 1983. In 
today's dollars, $315 million additional funding would be needed to 
increase the Federal commitment to special education costs by just 1 
percent.
  In my testimony before the Labor, HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
recommended an increase in funding for the part B State grant program, 
and I am disappointed that the committee only maintained level funding 
between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995. It is unfair to the 
States and school districts and families of children with disabilities 
for Congress to continue ignoring the commitment it made to this 
program. This is a classic example of an unfunded mandate.


                            human resources

  Everyone will deny it, but it is hard to avoid the ``coincidence'' 
that has linked the budgets for Head Start and the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] during this appropriations cycle. It 
began when the administration requested a $700 million increase for 
Head Start, and at the same time requested a $700 million decrease for 
LIHEAP. I have previously stated my opinion that Congress should resist 
the temptation to continually throw more money at a politically popular 
Head Start Program that is suffering from severe growing pains. 
Instead, I think we should wait until the new quality assurance 
mechanisms included in the recently enacted reauthorization are 
implemented before providing increased funding for Head Start. On the 
other hand, LIHEAP is a program that consistently achieves its purpose, 
and this past unusually harsh winter proved the importance of a program 
that helps low-income households heat their homes.
  While I would have done it differently, I do respect the 
Appropriations Committee's more reasonable trade-off between Head Start 
and LIHEAP. Head Start received, in this bill, an increase of $210 
million, one of its smallest increases in several years. On the other 
hand, LIHEAP funding was decreased by $250 million, which is much more 
rational than the administration's recommended 50 percent slashing of 
the program.


                              job training

  In the area of job training, I commend the Appropriations Committee 
for recognizing programs for dislocated workers, school-to-work 
transition, and funding for the one-stop delivery of job training 
services as priorities in the Labor, HHS, education appropriations 
bill. In saying this however, I do want to express my growing concern 
over the vast number of Federal programs we have developed over the 
years that provide education, training, and employment assistance to 
adults and out-of-school youth. I urge members of the Appropriations 
Committee, as well as all Members of the House to join with us in 
making sense out of this fragmented system prior to consideration of 
the next funding cycle.
  To address this concern, I recently introduced the Consolidated and 
Reformed Education, Employment, and Retraining Systems Act--the CAREERS 
Act--that would consolidate over 80 separate programs--as identified by 
the GAO--into seven block grant systems. Under this legislation, States 
and localities would be provided with streamlined and more flexible 
funding for further reform of work force preparation systems. Such 
consolidation is expected to result in administrative savings over 
time, and in much more efficient and high quality systems. Again, I 
encourage the Appropriations Committee to work with those of us on the 
authorizing committee in the coming year to develop a true system of 
work force preparation in this Nation that is both efficient and 
effective, similar to that envisioned in the CAREERS Act.


                                 labor

  On the Labor front, I am opposed to a provision in the bill which 
prohibits the Department of Labor from implementing or administering 
the Davis-Bacon Act ``helper'' regulations. The helper regulations 
authorize the use of semiskilled workers, working under the direct 
supervision of higher-skilled journey-level workers, to be employed on 
Federal construction projects. After nearly a decade of court 
challenges, the helper regulations have been found to be fully 
consistent with the language and purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act. I 
would like to point out that identical language was contained in the 
fiscal year 1994 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. This was 
accompanied by committee report language which stated that the 
conferees were taking the action on a one-time basis and that further 
action should be taken by the authorizing committee of jurisdiction. As 
this provision constitutes a significant, questionable change under the 
Davis-Bacon Act, this issue should be considered in the Committee on 
Education and Labor, and not addressed through a rider attached to an 
appropriations bill.
  Regarding another Labor issue, the Appropriations Committee has 
recommended a total appropriation of $312.5 million for the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an increase of $16 
million over 1994. While I will not argue with the total amount of the 
appropriation, I note that OSHA's budget for enforcement activities 
would be increased by about $10 million, or more than 5 percent, while 
``compliance'' activities are increased only by about 2 percent. 
Unfortunately, that seems to reflect that prevailing priorities over at 
the Department of Labor these days as well--although they talk about 
wanting to promote ``cooperation'' with employers, all we see coming 
out of the agency these days is a heavy emphasis on enforcement. You 
can fool people only so long before they see that what you are really 
doing is discouraging business with heavy fines, and then business will 
understandably go elsewhere.
  In addition, the Appropriations Committee would begin to fund, at 
about $3 million in the first year, an expensive new data collection 
program by OSHA. The problem is that we do not yet know what that data 
program is going to look like--OSHA has not proposed regulations and 
the report that they were supposed to issue in March, to answer 
questions about their intentions, is still not here. From what has been 
released, I would say that there are going to be some very 
controversial parts to what is proposed, and so it may never get off 
the ground. So I would hope that this $3 million in new money that is 
allocated for data collection by OSHA would not be spent until we have 
a much better idea of what kind of data collection program OSHA is 
proposing.


                                closing

  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to once again commend the 
Appropriations Committee for their hard work in bringing this bill to 
the floor today. As I said, I do not agree with everything in it, but 
taken as a whole it is definitely a bill I can support.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. This 
legislation includes funding for the highest priority domestic 
programs. It deserves your support.
  As our colleagues know, this has been a difficult year for our 
subcommittee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Congress. We were 
all saddened by the illness and eventual passing of our distinguished 
chairman, Mr. Natcher of Kentucky. It is difficult to express how much 
we miss him. He was one of a kind and a joy to his colleagues. If he 
were here, Chairman Natcher would surely tell you that ``this is a good 
bill.'' And it is.
  Let me begin by expressing my thanks and my admiration for our acting 
chairman, Mr. Smith of Iowa. He has taken up where Mr. Natcher left off 
and has worked with the members of the subcommittee to shape a bill 
that responds to the many challenges that face our country.
  I believe that the strength of our country is defined by the health, 
education, and well-being of our people. President Clinton honored his 
commitment of putting people first by his investments funded in this 
subcommittee--for jobs, health and human services, and education.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has been developed within the budget 
discipline required by the Revised Budget Enforcement Act. 
Discretionary spending for fiscal year 1995 will actually be less than 
spending for this year--the first reduction in discretionary spending 
since 1969.
  While budget discipline is necessary, it is particularly painful when 
it comes to this bill. Virtually every program in this subcommittee's 
jurisdiction is deserving of higher levels of funding. As I frequently 
tell our chairman, there are no bad programs in our bill. That makes 
deliberations over relative priorities very difficult work.
  I particularly commend Chairman Smith for his leadership in shaping 
the public health prevention initiative in this legislation. Through 
our extensive hearings, it became clear that before doing anything 
else, the committee had to rebuild basic public health prevention 
programs. Thus, the bill contains $160 million in new funding for a 
package of 14 programs at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention [CDC] and the Health Resources and Services Administration 
[HRSA].
  The bill contains increased funding for the CDC to fund unmet needs 
identified by the nearly 300 community-level planning groups across the 
country implementing HIV prevention reform. These HIV prevention 
reforms, along with the new strategic planning authority and other 
reforms at the Office of AIDS Research at the National Institutes of 
Health, bring new hope to our Federal AIDS response.
  This bill also contains funding which responds to many challenges 
regarding women's health. Funding for breast cancer research is 
increased by 17 percent at the National Cancer Institute. Funding for 
breast and cervical cancer screening at the CDC is increased by 22 
percent triggering important provisions in the authorizing legislation 
allowing more comprehensive preventive health evaluations for low-
income women. Funding for the Office on Women's Health at the Public 
Health Service is tripled to $3 million. Funding for control of 
sexually transmitted diseases is increased to allow for chlamydia and 
other diseases of concern to women.
  The bill also provides for significant increases for the investments 
outlined in the President's budget request--including the National 
Institutes of Health, Head Start, drug treatment, and an initiative to 
respond to the backlog in disability claims at the Social Security 
Administration.
  The Department of Labor has received well-deserved new resources to 
respond to the needs of dislocated workers and disadvantaged youth. The 
bill contains funds to continue our commitment to expand on Jobs Corps 
programs and funding to maintain the Summer Youth Employment and 
Training Program. Both the Department of Labor and the Department of 
Education have received significant new funding to implement the 
School-to-Work Program for individuals not intending to seek higher 
education.
  The bill also provides significantly increased funding for 
implementing Goals 2000 and compensatory education as authorized in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The bill continues a major 
commitment to higher education.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is an investment in the health and well-being 
of the American people. Again, I commend our chairman and I thank the 
subcommittee staff for their hard work and skill in assisting the 
subcommittee in developing this important legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the White House's fiscal year 1995 budget would have 
abolished all funding for the Adolescent Family Life Program, the sole 
program in the entire Federal Government with the responsibility of 
promoting abstinence among teenagers. While the AFL only costs about $7 
million a year, it was still deemed too much.
  The advantages of teenage abstinence are obvious. It is the only 
guarantee against unwanted pregnancy. It is the only guarantee against 
sexually transmitted diseases. And while it is not a guarantee against 
social problems, like welfare dependency, it is the best first step we 
have.
  Fortunately, the AFL's pluses were apparent to my friends Chairman 
Neal Smith and ranking Republican John Porter of the Subcommittee on 
Labor-HHS-Education. With their help, the AFL's funding has been 
restored in this bill.
  Abstinence as a Federal program should not disappear. Among the $700 
billion the Department of Health and Human Services will spend and the 
$50 million the Federal Government will spend to provide contraceptive 
services to America's young people, there is still room for the ray of 
hope that the AFL offers.
  It is a message of hope and values that young people are seeking.
  When Emory University asked 2,000 young, sexually active girls what 
they would like most to be taught in a pregnancy-prevention class, more 
than four out of five answered: ``How to say no without hurting the 
other person's feelings.''
  Students of both sexes in Emory's Postponing Sexual Involvement 
program were five times less likely to become sexually active than 
students on average.
  In a recent story on Norplant, the long-term contraceptive provided 
in Baltimore public schools, ABC News reported that of the students 
they talked to, every single one of these sexually active girls 
confided to us they wish they'd said no (to sex).''
  Asked how long they wish they had waited, all the girls responded: 
until marriage.
  Patricia Funderburk-Ware, former head of the AFL program, has 
written:

       The sad part is that abstinence until marriage probably was 
     not seriously presented as a viable option for these girls. 
     Someone made a judgment that it was unrealistic--an 
     unacceptable concept for them--perhaps because most were 
     black, poor and in the inner city.

  I would say to my colleagues, if we're not going to spend as much on 
abstinence as we spend on contraceptives, at least we should be 
spending something. Teenagers may not read the Federal budget, but 
they're smart enough to figure out what message Uncle Sam is sending. 
The AFL program makes that a message of hope.
  The Adolescent Family Life Program tells our children that we have 
enough faith in them to offer more than just contraception. Promoting 
abstinence tells our young people that we care about them enough to do 
more than just abandon them to the pressures of adolescence and then 
try to minimize the physiological damage.
  My colleagues, I ask for your support to continue Federal funding of 
teen abstinence programs. Respect for the dignity of our children 
demands no less.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4606, a 
bill to make appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, and 
Human Services and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year 
1995.
  I want to begin by joining my colleagues in commemorating the service 
of the late subcommittee chairman, Bill Natcher, who led this panel so 
capably and with such devotion for 14 years. It is impossible to 
replace a legendary figure like Chairman Natcher. But I am pleased to 
say that this most vital bill now rests in the very dedicated and sure 
hands of Congressman Neil Smith, the new subcommittee chairman.
  I congratulate Chairman Smith and his outstanding staff headed by 
Mike Stephens for meeting, head-on, the difficult challenges we faced 
in developing the fiscal year 1995 bill. As much as any other 
subcommittee, the Labor-HHS panel is the testing ground for how 
Congress will respond to the fiscal and social realities facing our 
Nation.
  Stated simply, we must cut and invest. We must continue the difficult 
job we started in 1993 by steadily reducing the Federal deficit. At the 
same time, we must seize this opportunity to reorient our budget 
priorities toward investments in the building blocks of our economy and 
society: our people. The bill Chairman Smith and the subcommittee 
members bring to the floor today meets that test.
  The $252.3 billion provided by this bill represents a cut of $7.1 
billion below the fiscal year 1994 bill. In addition, H.R. 4606 
provides nearly $2 billion less than the amount requested by the 
President and eliminates 21 Federal programs. This is a tough bill, 
containing cuts which many will find difficult to accept. But the 
fiscal and social problems confronting this country demand tough 
choices, so we can focus our limited resources where they are needed 
most--in programs that address crime, economic competitiveness, public 
health, and the breakdown of our families and communities.
  The investments contained in H.R. 4606 will expand economic 
opportunities for dislocated workers, jump-start nationwide school 
reform, provide increased support for preventive health and biomedical 
research, respond to pressing public health threats, such as AIDS and 
TB, and continue the expansion of successful programs, including Head 
Start and Job Corps.


                          department of labor

  I want to take this opportunity to focus on a number of investments 
which address some of our Nation's most pressing needs. In the 
Department of Labor, the subcommittee included significant investments 
in worker retraining, the implementation of the new School-to-Work 
Opportunities Act, the development of a nationwide system of one-stop 
career centers, and a special initiative designed to improve compliance 
with Federal requirements related to worker safety and fair labor 
practices.
  These are investments in our Nation's most valuable resource: the 
potential of our people. These are investments which will pay back 
dividends many times over in enhanced economic opportunity and 
competitiveness. If we are to rebuild our communities, fight crime, and 
promote families, we must offer our people the chance to obtain 
marketable skills. The investments in this bill will bring us 
significantly closer to those goals.


                department of health and human services

  In the Department of Health and Human Services, the bill provides an 
additional investment of $384 million in the National Institutes of 
Health [NIH], raising total expenditures for NIH to $11.3 billion. 
Included in that increase is a $50 million expansion for breast cancer 
research, which is critical to maintaining our commitment to finding a 
cure for this devastating illness which kills 46,000 American women 
each year. Under the bill, total NIH expenditures for breast cancer 
research will exceed $350 million in fiscal year 1995. This represents 
a 58-percent increase during the past 2 years.
  Like many of my colleagues, I would have preferred to allocate even 
more to the NIH. Few, if any, Federal expenditures support such high 
quality of work and return so much in terms of improving our Nation's 
quality of life. It should be noted, however, that with the exception 
of one program, NIH received the highest percentage of any of the 
administration's investment requests.
  I also want to mention the preventive health initiative, which my 
colleagues, Representative Pelosi and Representative DeLauro, and I 
crafted in close cooperation with the chairman and other members of the 
panel. The initiative consists of increases totaling $146 million for a 
number of important programs, including the Breast and Cervical Cancer 
Screening program, Community Health Centers, AIDS prevention and 
education, sexually transmitted disease prevention, infectious 
diseases, and family planning. These investments are both a response to 
pressing public health concerns and an important downpayment on health 
care reform.
  The prevention initiative will provide critical new resources to help 
New York address ongoing public health crisis, including AIDS and TB as 
well as growing problems that demand greater attention, including 
sexually transmitted diseases, Lyme disease, foodborne diseases, 
hantavirus, hepatitis, and infectious diseases in child care settings. 
Expanded funding for family planning services will be critical to any 
strategy to address the teen pregnancy crisis in this country.
  With regard to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
[LIHEAP], the subcommittee restored $495 million to the program out of 
a total cut of $745 million requested by the administration. Despite 
claims that relatively stable oil prices have eliminated the need for 
this program, the simple truth is that millions of Americans continue 
to struggle to meet their heating expenses. For over 1 million New 
Yorkers, LIHEAP is a lifeline that protects them from freezing 
temperatures and, in some cases, homelessness. The drastic cut proposed 
by the administration would have had devastating consequences for New 
York and the Nation.
  While there are a number of accounts in the bill that--resources 
permitting--would have merited higher levels of funding, I want to 
express strong support for providing additional funds for the Child 
Care and Development Block Grant. H.R. 4606 provides an increase of $42 
million over fiscal year 1994. This amounts to only 21 percent of the 
administration's requested increase for the program.
  Child care is essential to any strategy for improving the life 
chances of low-income working families. Child care is a prerequisite 
for ending welfare dependency and enabling parents to obtain marketable 
skills. I will continue to work to see that we enhance the funding 
level for the child care and development block grant before this 
measure reaches the President's desk.


                        department of education

  In the Department of Education, in addition to investments in 
education reform and school-to-work transition, the bill increases 
funding for the reauthorized title I program by $334 million. The bill 
also includes $30 million for the State Postsecondary Review Program 
[SPRE] which is establishing a crucial Federal-State partnership for 
improving the integrity and effectiveness of Federal student aid 
programs. Student aid programs are estimated to lose approximately $4 
billion per year to waste and fraud. It is essential that the Education 
Department give the highest priority to implementing the SPRE program 
as soon as possible.
  I am also pleased that the subcommittee included $3.1 million for the 
newly established Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership 
Program. This is approximately $1 million over last year's funding 
level. I want to reiterate the subcommittee's recommendation that the 
Department include the Early Intervention Program as a central 
component of a comprehensive strategy aimed at helping at-risk teens 
prepare for higher education.


                           the hyde amendment

  I am clearly disappointed that we are unable to lift the Hyde 
amendment from this appropriations bill. The Hyde amendment is a 
punitive policy that discriminates against poor women by denying them 
access to basic health care, which includes the full range of 
reproductive health care services, including abortion. We must continue 
working to erase the two-tiered system of health care which jeopardizes 
poor women's health, and renders the right to choose meaningless for 
far too many women.
  Health care reform, however, presents us with a historic opportunity 
to address inequities in women's health care, and I am hopeful now that 
we can focus our attention on winning the battle to ensure that all 
women, regardless of income, have comprehensive reproductive health 
care, including abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a challenging time to be a member of the Labor-
HHS Subcommittee, because so much is at stake and our resources are so 
scarce. The American people are demanding performance and 
accountability from Government. The only way that Congress can fulfill 
that mandate is to embrace the tough choices and invest aggressively in 
what works. H.R. 4606 does that. I urge my colleagues to give this bill 
strong support.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Iowa in a 
colloquy concerning the Higher Education Act, title IX-E, Minority 
Faculty Development Fellowship Program. I wish to clarify the 
committee's intent regarding the eligibility of institutions which 
participate in the program.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to have a 
colloquy with the Congresswoman on this important program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. The committee report language which accompanies H.R. 4606 
indicates that fellowships are to be made available through 
institutions of higher education. I would appreciate it if the chairman 
would help me to clarify that the authorization legislation for title 
IX-E also sought to ensure that programmatic and fellowship support 
could be made available through consortia and other interinstitutional 
collaborations. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the 
committee intends that individual institutions, as well as consortia 
and other interinstitutional collaborations, be eligible to participate 
in the Minority Faculty Development Fellowship program.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York has 
correctly stated the committee's intent with regard to the institutions 
that are eligible to participate in the Title IX-E Program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Serrano], a very valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4606, the 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  I must first pay tribute to Chairman Bill Natcher, whose illness and 
death this year marked the loss of a legendary Member and the end of an 
era for this House.
  The torch has passed to new leaders, particularly to our subcommittee 
chairman, Neal Smith. Chairman Smith has done an extraordinary job on 
this bill, the largest and most complicated appropriations bill, and in 
many ways the most important to every person and family in the Nation.
  Chairman Smith worked closely with subcommittee members and consulted 
widely with full committee members and other Members of the House, the 
administration, and the public. He made the hard choices required to 
set priorities among the many vital programs in the bill, and, despite 
very difficult circumstances, crafted a very fair bill.
  I don't imagine anyone, including Chairman Smith, thinks this bill is 
perfect; it isn't. But with the resources the subcommittee was given to 
work with, it is as fair an allocation as could be hoped for.
  One problem took some extra effort. The budget request actually cut 
funding for most disease prevention activities of the Center for 
Disease Control, but the subcommittee, working together, was able to 
identify savings that made it possible to provide some increases for 
these vital public health functions.
  I would certainly like to see more spending than the bill contains 
for Ryan White, for biomedical research and public health generally, 
for jobs and job training, for Head Start and programs for our children 
and families, for Goals 2000, but we simply weren't allocated enough 
money to do more.
  My colleagues must recognize that H.R. 4606 is a very good bill and I 
urge all Members to support its passage.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] is 
recognized for 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the 
Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1995. I commend Chairman Smith, the ranking minority 
member, Mr. Porter, and the members of the subcommittee and committee 
for their efforts on this very difficult bill. With limited funding, 
the committee has managed to continue to fund critical health and human 
services, education, and labor programs. While I will be working to 
increase funding for several programs in the bill during conference, I 
respect and commend the members for their efforts.
  Despite the extreme restrictions in funding, the committee provided 
$384 million in increased funding for the National Institutes of 
Health. Even in this time of budgetary restrictions, we must continue 
to provide strong support for biomedical research.
  I commend the committee for the increased funding provided for AIDS 
research, prevention, and services, substance abuse treatment, breast 
and cervical cancer screening, the Office of Research on Women's 
Health, and the injury control program, which helps fund domestic 
violence prevention efforts. I concur with the committee's report 
language urging that the highest priority be given to research on 
breast, cervical, ovarian, and prostate cancer within the increased 
appropriation for the National Cancer Institute.
  I am also pleased that the committee included report language that I 
submitted urging the National Institutes of Health to give high 
priority to the Women's Interagency HIV Study, and to the development 
of a microbicide to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted 
diseases, including HIV infection, in both women and men. It is 
critical that women have a method of protection that they can use, with 
or without their partner's cooperation or knowledge.
  I also commend the committee for increasing funding for the Women's 
Education Equity Act [WEEA]. This act promotes gender equity through 
the funding of educational programs, such as the Eisenhower Math and 
Science Educational Program, which was created to improve the skills of 
teachers and the quality of math and science instruction. Legislation 
which I introduced and which is included in WEEA will improve the 
effectiveness of the Eisenhower Programs by allowing training in 
gender-fair teaching practices in math and science, and by clarifying 
that informal educational opportunities will be eligible for funding.
  The bill also includes increased funding for a number of other 
critical investments in education, job training, health, and human 
service programs. The committee has done the best possible job given 
the limited amount of funding, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  I wish to clarify the Appropriations Committee's intentions regarding 
funding for displaced homemakers. The committee urged the Department of 
Labor to improve access to longer-term intensive services. I want to 
clarify with the gentleman from Iowa that the committee's 
recommendation means that the Department should allocate funding for 
appropriate long-term services for displaced homemakers based on 
successful models currently being provided by displaced homemaker 
programs throughout the country.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, displaced homemaker programs in my 
district and throughout the country need the resources to help women 
become economically self-sufficient.
  I also wish to clarify the Appropriation Committee's intentions 
regarding funding for technical assistance and training for local 
displaced homemaker programs. There is a long history of committee 
support for Women Work!--formerly the National Displaced Homemakers 
Network--for the technical assistance and training services it provides 
to the more than 1,300 programs across the country. These services have 
a proven track record resulting in improved programs for displaced 
homemakers at the local level. The committee favors funding levels to 
maintain Women's Bureau support for customized technical assistance 
and training services for displaced homemaker programs at the same 
level as provided in fiscal year 1994.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct. The 
committee intends that the Women's Bureau maintain support for 
technical assistance and training for displaced homemaker programs at 
the fiscal year 1994 level if possible. Women Work! has a long track 
record of being an effective provider of technical assistance and 
training to local programs. I have heard from many of my colleagues and 
from service providers around the country about the high quality and 
importance of the services that the network provides. We intend for the 
Women's Bureau to continue to provide technical assistance and training 
for displaced homemaker programs through effective programs such as 
Women Work!

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, today, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support the 1995 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill we have before 
us. By passing this legislation, we will help Americans and their 
families to address some of the toughest problems they face. If we 
adopt this bill, we can provide real help to: those who have lost their 
job or are looking for their first job; children who need special 
assistance so they can learn; people who are suffering from devastating 
diseases, such as cancer and AIDS; and students who need assistance in 
order to go to college.
  As a member of the subcommittee that drafted this legislation, I 
cannot fully express to the House how difficult the choices were that 
had to be made in order to live within our discretionary budget 
allocation. It is fair to say, I believe, that none of us are 100 
percent happy with the funding levels provided for every program in the 
bill--there is no doubt that several programs could use significantly 
greater resources.
  So I commend our chairman, Mr. Smith, for his leadership under these 
extremely difficult circumstances and for the wonderful job he did in 
assuming the chairmanship he inherited from Mr. Natcher. Chairman Smith 
has brought to the House a finely crafted bill which brings much needed 
help to our working families and which responds to Americans' health 
and education needs. This is a good bill that reflects to the greatest 
extent possible the administration's priorities within very tight 
fiscal constraints.
  I also want to commend our ranking member, Mr. Porter, and all of my 
subcommittee colleagues for their consideration throughout our 
deliberations on the bill. Every member of the subcommittee worked very 
hard and made the difficult choices that had to be made in completing 
our work on the bill. I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff 
and other Members' staff for all of their hard work, as well.
  Mr. chairman, one of the subcommittee's most pressing priorities was 
to do as much as possible to assure that all working people benefit 
from the economic recovery underway in some regions of our country. And 
there is good news about jobs. New jobs are being created, many of them 
good jobs.
  At the same time, these continue to be the most difficult of times 
for many working men and women. The pace of mass layoffs is, if 
anything, increasing. Throughout our country, hard working people are 
loosing their jobs, or living in fear of seeing their name show up on 
the next list of terminated employees.
  Right now, as some in our economy prosper, working people are 
experiencing one of the highest rates of permanent job loss in history. 
Over 2 million of the 8 million currently unemployed have permanently 
lost their jobs, and often their careers. These workers are living 
through the highest rate of long-term unemployment ever recorded.
  The administration made clear to the subcommittee that one of its 
highest priorities was to target additional assistance to help our 
Nation's unemployed workers find new, and hopefully better jobs. This 
bill does that. It includes a significant increase in funding for job 
retraining, and for the one-Stop-Shop initiative. These programs--
guided by an administration committed to improving the services 
provided to unemployed workers--are bringing a new level of assistance 
to workers struggling to find new jobs, struggling to once again be 
able to contribute to a prosperous future for themselves, their 
families, and their communities.
  The administration also made clear to the subcommittee that another 
key priority was to assure that all young people are given the 
opportunity to get the education and training they need to compete for 
good first jobs. Two key components of this effort are the School to 
Work Program and the summer jobs program. I'm pleased to say that the 
bill before you today includes significant increases for these two 
programs, and it also includes vital funding for college aid programs 
that make all the difference in allowing so many young people to reach 
their goal of earning a college degree.

  And in order to make sure our children have the proper foundation to 
enable them to do well in school, we increased the Head Start Program 
by $210 million. I was also pleased that, with our chairman's 
leadership, the subcommittee turned back efforts to cut impact aid 
targeted to the neediest of our students and school districts.
  As a very strong supporter of biomedical research, I am not totally 
satisfied with what the committee was able to include for the National 
Institutes of Health. I believe it is critical that we maintain our 
commitment to biomedical research so we can continue to make advances 
in the prevention and treatment of disease.
  However, even in the face of our tough budget constraints, we were 
able to provide more than 70 percent of the administration's requested 
increase for the NIH--a total of $11.32 billion--which is the largest 
percentage increase in the bill for any of the President's health 
investment initiatives. Within the NIH total provided, I am pleased 
that funding for breast cancer research will be increased by 
approximately 17 percent, and that the budget for AIDS research is also 
increased and consolidated in the Office of AIDS Research. I am also 
pleased to report that the committee rejected the administration's 
proposal for a pause in indirect research costs.
  The committee was also able to provide increases above fiscal year 
1994 levels for several important disease prevention and care programs 
including: $22 million for the breast and cervical cancer screening 
program; $63 million for AIDS prevention; $13 million for community 
health centers; $47 million for the Ryan White AIDS Care Programs; $6 
million for family planning; $2 million of lead poisoning prevention; 
$60 million for substance abuse treatment, and $10 million to fight the 
spread of tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. I want to 
again especially thank our chairman for his leadership in advancing the 
critical public health initiatives included in this bill.
  Finally, I want to make sure the House knows that the subcommittee 
was able to restore almost all of the cuts the administration had 
proposed for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Thousands 
of senior citizens and low-income families depend on this program to 
help them keep their homes warm in the cold months. This past winter 
demonstrated how important LIHEAP is, and while we couldn't bring the 
program fully back to the fiscal year 1994 level, I want to thank my 
colleagues for their support in providing the highest level of funding 
possible given all the competing priorities in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. While I believe we could wisely spend additional resources 
on several programs funded in this bill, the committee has done the 
best job it could possibly do given the tough limit on discretionary 
spending we faced.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bentley], a very hard-working and able 
member of our subcommittee.
  (Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, as we begin consideration of the fiscal 
year 1995 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, I want to take a 
brief moment to thank Chairman Smith and his very capable staff for 
assembling a bill that I think is good for the country. I also want to 
thank my ranking member, Mr. Porter, and his staff for their fine work 
during the course of a very lengthy hearing schedule.
  Despite the fact that we all would have liked to have seen higher 
levels for the National Institutes of Health, headquartered in 
Bethesda, MD, this is a bill with which we can all live. I am pleased 
that the committee sought to increase programs such as Healthy Start 
which has done so much to help bring down the appallingly high levels 
of infant mortality which continue to plague many regions of the 
country. And I am pleased that the committee rose to meet the challenge 
of providing comprehensive, community-based services that will help 
alleviate this problem.
  Community-based services are vital to accomplish what we are 
endeavoring to accomplish in improving the health of American citizens. 
We also need to set up community-based programs with our police 
departments to help the community in every way.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill adequately addresses the 
issue of prevention of offering much needed assistance to many of our 
struggling young families through innovative programs such as Family 
Support Centers. In addition, this bill provides a much needed funding 
increase for in-home services for the frail elderly in order to provide 
seniors with the opportunity to live at home. There also are generous 
increases for programs that provide key services to the severely 
disabled, thus giving them the opportunity to remain independent. In 
remembering Chairman Bill Natcher for his years of diligent service at 
the helm of the Committee, I want to salute Chairman Smith and the 
entire committee staff for moving diligently forward during the 
difficult transition following the death of Mr. Natcher.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] and my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I share 
districts in southern California, in San Bernardino County. We 
essentially cut up most of the territory of the county and the 
population as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] that 
I would like to enter into a colloquy with he and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], who has also received a series of complaints, a 
growing volume of complaints, as I have, from constituents regarding 
the extended length of time it takes to have their cases resolved by 
our Social Security office in San Bernardino, which we both share in 
our districts.
  I have received a letter from the chief administrative law judge that 
begins to outline the problem. There are over 6,000 cases pending in 
the one county office. That is about 4 times the number of cases 
pending just last year. This is not a reflection of the fine work of 
the Social Security staff, but outlines the enormous challenge that our 
staff and constituents are facing.
  I appreciate your subcommittee recognizing this ongoing problem and 
appreciate your willingness to add $194 million to this bill in order 
to address the situation. However, I am sure these problems are 
developing all around the Nation, not just in California. I hope there 
is more we can do.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in any comments the gentleman 
might have. These problems, while they do not just affect our 
districts, are very important to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] and myself.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] has correctly stated our joint situation involving our 
county, the largest county, I might say, in the United States. Our 
office has received the same type of complaints as the gentleman's 
have. We think this is an extremely serious problem. We do appreciate 
the fact that this bill addresses it.
  I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the additional 
resources through the Social Security Administration, and of course, we 
hope that the subcommittee will be able to do even more in the future.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains on each 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], my colleague both in Congress and 
in the general assembly.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I have addressed an issue on this floor on 
several occasions before dealing with the counterproductive Labor 
Department regulations which discourage supermarkets from hiring young 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, report language included in this legislation directs 
the Department of Labor to review the regulation which have been 
causing the problem, H.O. 12. On two separate occasions I have risen on 
this floor and talked about H.O. 12, and how its enforcement by the 
Department is having a detrimental effect on job opportunities for 
teenagers.
  H.O. 12 prohibits teenagers from using paper baler machines. When the 
regulation was written in 1954, it made good sense. However, modern 
paper baler machines are very different, and they are much safer. I 
know, because I recently inspected one in my own district.
  It has been the policy, however, of the Department of Labor to levy 
large fines against grocery stores under this regulation, even though 
there was no clear evidence of safety risks to teenagers. This policy 
has discouraged grocery stores from hiring young people.

                              {time}  1610

  After I contacted the Department of Labor, their response to me 
seemed to show they had little recognition or information about this 
regulation or the current standards they were enforcing. I have asked 
them to look into this and the response has been very marginal. We know 
today that modern baler machines must meet the standards of the 
American National Standards Institute, which are very rigorous.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] for raising this 
issue in the report language. He has included language which directs 
the agency to take a hard look at their enforcement of this outdated 
regulation. This language can do a lot to put our young people back to 
work.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4606. On behalf of the people of Guam, I certainly appreciate some of 
the items in there that are unique to the territories. I stand in 
support of this legislation. It not only meets the educational needs of 
our youth but speaks to the inclusion of all U.S. citizens no matter 
where they live and recognizes some very unique historical 
circumstances.
  If I could just be allowed to mention a couple of items. One is the 
attention given to the preservation of indigenous languages and 
cultures. One which is also near to us is the native Hawaiians which we 
will be discussing a little bit later.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4606. On behalf of my 
district, I see this appropriations bill as a positive step in 
addressing Guam's needs. And from a national perspective, I think this 
bill strikes an appropriate balance between innovative public spending 
and sound frugal budget practices.
  H.R. 4606 includes a provision to help U.S. territories improve their 
education systems. The bill includes $2,937,000 for territorial 
education improvement, a modest program but one that strikes at an 
inherent inequality among our nation's schoolchildren. Test scores show 
that children in the territories do not have the same opportunities as 
their stateside counterparts. By efficiently directing these funds to 
those who need it most, the authorizing and appropriating committees 
succeeded in putting Federal dollars to work in a productive way.
  This bill recognizes the importance of assisting in the preservation 
of the culture and history of indigenous peoples. This is evident in 
the inclusion of the Native Hawaiian Education Program which we will be 
debating later today.
  Other national efforts are also acknowledged in H.R. 4606 such as 
school-to-work and Goals 2000. The bill directs substantial funds to 
this initiative which assists those students who might otherwise fall 
between the cracks in our educational system after high school and 
before employment or further education. This legislation's support for 
bilingual education programs authorized in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act is also a powerful investment in our youth, both in my 
district and the nation at large. We must equip our youth with the 
tools to surpass our expectations. Language skills are an essential 
tool in that effort.
  H.R. 4606 recognizes the educational needs of our youth and attempts 
to meet these needs with prudence in a time of fiscal restraint and it 
speaks to the inclusion of all U.S. citizens no matter where they live, 
while it recognizes some very unique historical circumstances. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill and address the needs of America's 
students.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the 
gentleman from Iowa regarding some provisions under the Higher 
Education Special Grants section of the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations, $397,000 in funding for assistance to Guam institutions 
of higher education has not been included as it was in last year's 
appropriation. These funds compensate Guam for the tremendous impact 
Micronesians place on our higher institutions of education.
  Would the gentleman consider supporting the funding for this 
assistance if it is included in the Senate appropriations?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would 
assure the gentleman that if this matter is included, I would 
definitely consider it. However, we have been told that it is not 
authorized at this time and we have to work with the committee on that.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] the ranking 
Republican, for their work in developing the legislation. Theirs has 
not been an easy job, with many tough choices forced by the existing 
budget caps. For example, they made reductions in impact aid, they 
accepted a third of the President's proposed reduction for LIHEAP, they 
canceled programs such as substance abuse grants, dropout demonstration 
grants, follow through, foreign language assistance, bilingual 
training, and some construction programs. They did that in order to 
make room for many of the President's priorities. These cuts helped to 
accommodate modest increases in chapter I, Head Start, health research, 
and training for the unemployed.
  Mr. Chairman, we call this pay as you go budgeting around here. The 
Clinton administration has come up with a new term. They like to refer 
to it as cut and invest. Any way we describe it, the committee is to be 
complimented for setting important priorities within a very tight 
budget.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, because 
this bill recognizes that investing in education is critical to solving 
many of the urgent problems facing our Nation.
  I know how difficult it was to produce this bill. Chairman Smith, and 
the members of the subcommittee, are to be complimented on the openness 
of their process, and for giving many Members, including me, the 
opportunity to testify.
  In the end, however, there simply is not enough money to meet all of 
our Nation's needs--particularly for education, which is our most 
important investment for tomorrow.
  In coming years, we must be able to maintain important programs, such 
as chapter I, and we must get new initiatives, such as coordinated 
services, off the ground.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I will be fighting to make 
sure that sufficient funds are available for education in future years.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress can do this by sticking to its resolution to 
increase Federal spending on education by 1 percent every year until it 
accounts for 10 percent of the Federal budget.
  If we make good on that resolution, future education spending bills 
will be true investments in our children--an investment that will reap 
long-term results for our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, let us pass this important bill and get on with the 
urgent task of providing more where more is urgently needed.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I alluded to this, but I want to say it more 
specifically because with all of the accolades, I feel very humble, I 
could not have been here as chairman with a bill that seems to meet 
with such approval had it not been for the very conscientious and hard 
work of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and of each of the 
members of the subcommittee. This is not any one Member's bill, this is 
everyone's bill.
  Mr. Chairman, reference was made to our late chairman who, of course, 
cannot be replaced completely. We just do the best that we can. The 
gentleman has set a model.
  At this point in time, we hope that this bill is a bill that would 
have met with his approval. I think that we have done the best that we 
can, but we did have a great advantage in that we had the same staff 
available to us that we had for the last several years and that the 
former chairman had. That helped us a great deal, even though we 
started more or less in the middle of the year putting this bill 
together.
  Mr. Chairman, I heartily recommend this bill to the House.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that it is a great and 
distinct pleasure to work with the gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of 
the committee. I thank him for his very kind words. I look forward to 
working closely with him for a long time to come. I echo that this is a 
bill I think Bill Natcher would say was a good one.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, recently, I joined 100 of my colleagues in 
a letter to Chairman Smith, urging the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to support the Impact 
Aid Program in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, by accepting 
the authorizing committee's numbers.
  Beyond question the Impact Aid Program is vital to school districts 
serving military children and students who live in communities impacted 
by Federal property. Impact aid provides basic resources for essential 
school services. It is already critically underfunded.
  Moreover, under this bill, impact aid will be one of the hardest hit 
of the Federal education programs. These disproportionate cuts will 
deny federally impacted schools funds which may be necessary for their 
survival.
  We continue to ask our educators and our school districts to produce 
the finest students in the world. It is time we gave them the resources 
to do so.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 4606, 
the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. This 
bill fails to put money where Congress' mouth is. Members of the House 
continually espouse their support for education reform, but when put to 
the test, would rather spend their dollars on wasteful defense projects 
than educating the Nation's children. That is proven by the fact that 
while the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill's total is $7.1 
billion less than the current level, the Defense appropriations bill's 
total is $3.5 billion more than the current amount.
  H.R. 4606 shortchanges students at an early age. The bill clearly 
demonstrates Congress' lack of commitment to investing in our 
children's education. Chapter I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, which provides assistance to the poorest school 
districts, is given $302 million less than the administration's request 
and only $302 million more than the current year's allocation. With 
such meager funding, students residing in poor districts will never be 
able to receive an education which is on part with that of their 
counterparts living in wealthier districts.
  H.R. 4606 also allocates a paltry amount for the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools Programs at a time when our schools have become a more 
hospitable environment for crime and substance abuse than reading and 
writing. These national programs have been cut by more than one-half of 
the current year's funding level.
  Additional, this bill makes it more difficult for disadvantaged 
students to receive a high-quality college education. By imposing a cap 
on the number of students eligible to receive Pell grants, the bill 
makes it no longer possible to boast that in this country, no one who 
is qualified for admission to college will be turned away because of 
inadequate resources. If that is not slamming the door on the American 
dream, then I am not sure what is.
  Moreover, the cap represents a misguided attempt to cut education 
costs. For example, while the overall number of students eligible for 
the maximum Pell grant award is declining, the number of these students 
who enroll at United Negro College Fund institutions and historically 
black colleges and universities is increasing. The cap therefore 
ignores the educational needs of poor African-Americans and other 
people of color as well.
  Not only is education given short shrift in the bill, but libraries 
also are underfunded. Federal support for libraries is cut by $30 
million, and zero funding is recommended for public library 
construction.
  Finally, H.R. 4606 is a raw deal for individuals with disabilities. 
The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 
[NIDRR] within the Department of Education is being funded at a level 
slightly below last year but $1.5 million higher than the 
administration's request. The low request and funding level run counter 
to the administration's policy to ``end welfare as we know it,'' since 
NIDRR primarily supports research and training activities designed to 
maximize the employment of individuals with disabilities. The National 
Council on Disability [NCD] also is recommended for a cut in funding. 
This cut is a tremendous blow to the civil rights of individuals with 
disabilities, as NCD takes an active part in monitoring compliance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

  Overall, the bill is an embarrassment to the administration and the 
Congress. If we cannot commit ourselves to fully fund education, 
libraries, and programs for individuals with disabilities, then to what 
can we commit ourselves? The democratic ideal of self-empowerment is 
meaningless to underprivileged Americans unless they have access to 
world-class education and training.
  The strategy of no cuts for defense is a blunder immense. Education 
is the innocent victim of this misguided policy. With great reluctance 
I vote ``yes'' for this bill. We must all pray that the administration 
will find its way in the next session. In 1995 education must become 
the No. 1 priority.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, recently the House passed H.R. 6, which 
reauthorizes many elementary and secondary education programs, 
including the Impact Aid Program. This program provides funds to school 
districts which, because of the presence of Federal land or a Federal 
activity, have a reduced tax base.
  Early last month, I joined 101 of my colleagues in sending a letter 
to Neal Smith, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, seeking 
full funding of the Impact Aid Program, in the amount of $889 million 
for fiscal year 1995. Current funding is $798 million. Unfortunately, 
the subcommittee's bill allows for only $728 million, a cut of $70 
million, approximately 10 percent from the current level of funding.
  Each year, federally impacted school districts receive less and less 
of the impact aid funds which the Congress has promised. And yet each 
year they are supposed to take on more and more initiatives, update 
their facilities so that their students can compete in the global 
economy, and protect themselves against increasing school violence. 
Their budgets are squeezed so tightly that many schools are hard 
pressed to maintain existing programs.
  There are approximately 2,500 federally impacted school districts and 
over 2 million federally connected children. These children must remain 
our priority.
  While I intend to support the fiscal year 1995 Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill, I urge the House and Senate conferees to restore 
the funding for this important program.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my serious concerns 
about the language in H.R. 4606 concerning the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. The bill cuts $250 million from the $1.475 
billion in fiscal year 1995 funding that we appropriated last year in 
accordance with LIHEAP's forward funding schedule. It also provides a 
reduced funding level of $1.225 billion for the program in fiscal year 
1996.
  In its report, the committee states that the rescission in LIHEAP 
funding was prompted by overall funding constraints and by the need to 
shift funding to the President's investment priorities of education, 
job training, health care, and biomedical research.
  Reading the report the question immediately entered my mind: what 
could be a higher priority than heat during the bitter cold winters 
that many northern States experience? Food, clothing, and shelter are 
the immediate responses. But heat in the winter actually ranks equally 
with them as a fundamental human necessity. People do not survive 
without any of these things, including heat in the winter. Having them 
all is a matter of subsistence not comfort.
  I support education, job training, and biomedical research. These 
programs give our less fortunate citizens the tools they need to 
achieve their goals, advance themselves economically, and improve the 
quality of their lives. But it is hard to understand how effective a 
job training or education program will be when the participant in that 
program must return after class to a freezing home, or when the 
participant is afflicted with anxiety because he knows that he cannot 
pay the heating bills piling up on the table at home.

  LIHEAP is a survival program, not a self-improvement program. It is 
directly linked to the health of our citizens. A 1992 study by Boston 
City Hospital found that the number of clinically underweight children 
visiting the emergency room increased dramatically in the period 
immediately following the coldest month of winter. After considering 
and ruling out chronic illness as a primary cause of this phenomenon, 
researchers estimated that the children's low weights resulted from 
increased caloric demand due to cold stress, and from a lack of food 
due to the economic stress caused by high heating costs. Mr. Speaker, 
these findings are a disgrace. None of our citizens should ever have to 
choose between food and heat.
  The $1.5 billion originally appropriated for fiscal year 1995 is far 
from excessive. In fiscal year 1985, the program received $2.1 billion, 
but funding steadily declined to $1.35 billion in fiscal year 1993 in 
unadjusted dollars. If LIHEAP funding had remained constant since 
fiscal year 1985 in dollars adjusted for inflation, today's 
appropriation would have to be about $2.7 billion--much higher than the 
$1.5 billion that we appropriated last year, and higher still than the 
reduced level of $1.225 billion contained in H.R. 4606. And even at 
recent funding levels, LIHEAP covered less than 25 percent of the 
average recipient's energy bill, and literally millions of people got 
no assistance despite meeting the eligibility requirements for the 
program. We should be increasing LIHEAP funding, not cutting it.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand as well as anyone in this body that we 
need to cut spending to reduce the deficit and begin to pay down our 
enormous debt. But before we begin the process of cutting, we need to 
set priorities, and LIHEAP ranks at the top of the priority list. I 
hope that, should the Senate provide more funds for LIHEAP in its bill, 
the members of the committee will reconsider their current position and 
accept a higher Senate funding level in conference.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, as the chief sponsor of the Hyde amendment, I 
want to address a serious problem faced by the States in implementing 
this funding limitation which was first passed by Congress last year.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the language of the modified 
abortion funding limitation amendment which required the Medicaid 
Bureau to take upon itself the functions that it did when, on December 
28, 1993, an official issued the misguided and burdensome directive to 
the States on abortion funding. The language on its face merely recites 
a passive situation as a condition precedent for receipt of funds. It 
does not preclude, however, the investigation and proper disposition of 
suspected cases of fraud on the part of hospitals, physicians, Medicaid 
recipients, etc.
  Mr. Chairman, it was never our intention to require States to pay for 
abortions in cases of rape and incest. The thrust of the Hyde 
amendment, as our colleagues well know, was to place restrictions on 
Federal abortion funding, with certain exceptions. We did not intend to 
override State laws and policies to require States to pay for 
abortions; but we recognized that if States so chose to pay for 
abortions in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment, Federal 
reimbursement would now be available.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, this was the administration's own 
interpretation of the impact on States of repeal of the Hyde amendment. 
Prior to enactment of the modified Hyde language in 1994, the 
administration stressed in several statements the rights of States to 
determine whether or not to pay for abortions--even those abortions for 
which Federal reimbursement was available.
  On March 30, 1993, senior Presidential adviser George Stephanopoulos 
participated in a White House briefing that dealt fairly extensively 
with the administration's budget proposal to repeal the Hyde amendment 
and open the door to full Federal funding of abortion. ``As you know,'' 
Mr. Stephanopoulos stated, ``there are several states now which do have 
some restrictions on abortion funding, several others that don't. They 
will continue to maintain that flexibility.''
  On the same day, White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers said this 
about the President's decision to seek repeal of the Hyde amendment: 
``No, this would not mandate that States spend their money that way. * 
* * If the Hyde amendment is repealed, States will then have the 
flexibility to determine how that money is spent. Some States would 
then choose to spend it on abortions. Other States will still have 
restrictions against it.''
  Two days later, Dee Dee Myers reiterated the President's support for 
State flexibility. ``What the President has done in terms of 
overturning the Hyde amendment or moving to make that change is that 
the Federal Government ought not to dictate policies to the 
States,'' Ms. Myers said. ``Medicaid, for example, is funded by a 
combination of State and Federal funds,'' Ms. Myers continued. ``The 
President believes that the States ought to have more discretion over 
how that money is spent and that the Federal Government ought not to 
dictate it,'' she added.

  Lorraine Voles, deputy press secretary at the White House, had this 
to say: ``The States will have flexibility about their funding for 
abortions. Some states will and some States won't.''
  Finally, respect for State flexibility upon repeal of the Hyde 
amendment was strongly implied in a letter which Secretary Shalala 
wrote to the late chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Natcher, on June 8, 1993. ``As indicated in the President's budget, the 
administration prefers to work out an approach on this sensitive issue 
[i.e., abortion funding] which is consistent with both State and 
Federal law.''
  Thus, several administration officials made similar statements on the 
implications of repealing the Hyde amendment, a policy change which had 
been discussed for weeks--if not months--before it was formally 
announced. All statements affirmed the right of States to determine 
whether or not to fund abortions when partial Federal reimbursement is 
available. No statements made during this time indicated that the 
availability of Federal funds for abortions would require States to pay 
for these same abortions.
  The fiscal year 1994 Hyde amendment was enacted with the knowledge 
that 37 States had laws or policies restricting abortion funding, and 
that at least two of these States restricted funding under their State 
constitution. Based on our own understanding that the Medicaid Program 
is essentially a State-run program which receives Federal assistance, 
and taking into account the administration's prior and repeated 
statements that States would maintain the flexibility of deciding 
whether or not to fund abortions, we did not believe that the 
Department of Health and Human Services would proceed to order the 
States to pay for abortions whenever Federal funding is available.
  Nevertheless, after the Hyde amendment was signed into law, without 
any notice or opportunity for comment, the Medicaid Bureau issued a 
directive which completely belied the administration's previous 
statements. Moreover, it went even further afield by reading into the 
modified Hyde amendment a mandate on the States to allow abortionists 
to waive reporting requirements in cases of rape or incest. This 
requirement--manufactured out of thin air--would effectively gut all 
State antifraud provisions. The administration's hostility to reporting 
requirements is clearly demonstrated by its attack on the Pennsylvania 
law which pays for abortions in cases of rape and incest but which has 
reporting requirements.
  Since this administration announced in March 1993 that the President 
wanted to repeal the Hyde amendment in its entirety, a policy statement 
that was repeated in 1994 in the fiscal year 1995 budget request and 
which showed its preference for no restrictions on Federal funding of 
abortion, it is arguable that this position has strongly influenced 
its interpretation and use of the modified Hyde amendment.

  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the law requires the States to 
pay for abortions when Federal reimbursement is available. Therefore, 
it should not be necessary, when the law is sufficient, for Congress to 
enact new legislation to correct every faulty administration decision. 
Moreover, the Rules of the House of Representatives preclude this 
Member, or any other Member, from offering an amendment to the Labor/
Health and Human Services Appropriations bill to make this 
clarification. Such an amendment would be subject to a point of order 
under clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislating on an 
appropriations bill.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, as much as I would like this issue to be 
resolved quickly and definitely, the House is not able to clarify its 
intent at this time.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as we consider H.R. 4606 
today, the bill appropriating funds for fiscal 1995, I am pleased that 
the House Appropriations Committee restored most of the proposed cuts 
in the low-income energy program known as LIHEAP. I commend the 
committee for recognizing the needs of millions of our citizens whose 
homes have been warmed and weatherized with LIHEAP's help.
  Earlier this year, I presented to the committee a letter signed by 
all members of the Congressional Black Caucus in support of restoring 
funds for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. Since many of us in 
the caucus have a disproportionate number of low-income people in our 
districts, this program is particularly important to minority Members 
of Congress.
  As you know, for fiscal year 1995, the President proposed only $750 
million, compared to the $1.4 billion we appropriate for fiscal year 
1994. Coming after a particularly harsh winter in many parts of the 
country and several scorching summers, these cuts are difficult to 
understand. Commendably, the bill before us today restores most of 
those cuts and provides $1.2 billion.
  Most studies show that the programs is a great help to poor 
households, many of which contain elderly and handicapped persons. 
Recipients receive help with their heating and cooling costs, with 
weatherization and in some cases, as crisis intervention.
  In Michigan last winter, more than 372,000 households received some 
heating help under LIHEAP. Approximately two-thirds of these households 
were headed by single parents and senior citizens, living on incomes of 
less than $8,000. For these families, an annual heating bill in 
Michigan can be as high as $1,000. One study shows that 20 percent of 
families who experience unmet heating assistance needs will become 
homeless.
  Having a warm house is not just a luxury. It is a necessity. Not only 
does it help us adults function better, it provides a good home 
environment for our children to study and to learn.
  I hope some day we can eradicate poverty and eliminate the need for 
this program, but until then, I will continue to work so that a warm 
home is a reality for every American.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, as our late colleague Bill Natcher used 
to remind us, this bill is really the heart and soul of what we do as a 
Congress. It supports the health and education of our people, and as 
such it contributes mightily to the strength of our Nation. It's a bill 
that always deserves our support.
  However, I would not be totally forthcoming if I did not share with 
my colleagues some reservations I have with the way this bill treats 
student aid funding. No matter how one looks at it, this is not a good 
student aid budget. The bill before us today cuts student aid funding 
by $75 million below last year's funding level. State student incentive 
grant funding is the lowest it has been since 1976. Work study and 
supplemental grants are frozen for the second year at their 1993 
levels. In nominal dollars the Pell grant maximum is equivalent to its 
1990 level. No, this is not a good student aid budget.
  I understand and appreciate the dilemma the Appropriations Committee 
has been faced with in dealing with the impact of last year's budget 
resolution and very tight 602(b) allocations. Yet in my opinion student 
aid has been asked to disproportionately share the burden of those 
decisions. And I think this will have long-term damaging consequences. 
Because when we short-shrift our future leaders, we're short-shrifting 
the future of our Nation. I'm afraid we may be doing that with this 
student aid budget.
  This bill includes, for the first time in its history, a cap on the 
number of students who can receive Pell grants. I know this is 
being proposed as a one-time-only cap, hopefully a cap that will never 
go into effect. But we've had experiences with past one-time-only 
solutions to budget problems. An example of that is the origination fee 
charged on student loans. That was supposed to be, if not a one-time-
only proposition, at least a short-term charge to students. It was 
implemented in 1981. It's still with us today. So, I'm suspicious of 
one-time-only propositions.

  But even if I did not have this suspicion, the Pell cap is a bad 
idea, for it fundamentally alters the Pell Grant Program. Under a cap, 
Pell becomes a race to the application gate. What was once the 
foundation of our student aid system--a grant that would be available 
to every eligible student no matter at what point in time they apply to 
college or for assistance--becomes a rationing system that rewards the 
best advised and those who can fill out and have processed their 
student aid forms fastest. Those who can master the mysteries of the 
student aid application process and who, with good guidance, apply to 
college early, will survive a cap. However, those students who decide 
late to apply to college and those who aren't always encouraged that 
postsecondary education is a viable option for them--in many cases the 
poor, the working class, single parents, women with dependent children, 
minority students--these students will be left at the gate. If the word 
spreads that the guarantee of a Pell grant is no longer there, these 
students may decide not to pursue college or advanced training. Or 
conversely, we may have a stampede to get in first in the Pell grant 
lottery, which could frustrate the hopes of the committee that the cap 
will never be implemented. Whatever the outcome, capping the number of 
students who can receive a Pell award is a terrible idea.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress we enacted the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1992. One of the highlights of that legislation was the 
fact that it brought some certainty, reliability, and stability to our 
system of Federal student aid. Those 1992 amendments gave students and 
parents some confidence that they could plan early for college. Today 
we're taking that ability to plan away from the most disadvantaged of 
those students and their parents. It's a big mistake. I hope it is not 
a harbinger of things to come. I urge the committee and the House to 
correct these policy directions in the next appropriation bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
concern that the funds designated under H.R. 4606 fall far short of the 
funds needed to achieve our national education strategy. Over the past 
18 months, we have undergone the process of reauthorizing the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. During this debate, we have 
discovered that the Federal Government plays an inadequate role in our 
Nation's education system, and accordingly, this administration had 
pledged a substantial increase in funding for education programs.
  Sadly, the appropriations process has not yielded the results we had 
been promised. Our current budget constraints could not allow the full 
increase of $700 million in the Chapter 1 Program which will mean that 
hundreds of thousands of children will continue to be unserved or 
underserved through this program. Comparing the administration's 
request for funding in fiscal year 1995 to what was actually 
appropriated, one will notice a net decrease in funding of 0.6 percent 
compared to 1994. And, compared with the other agencies in this 
appropriations bill, education only received 32 percent of the 
recommended increase requested by the administration while Health and 
Human Services received 85 percent and Labor received 49 percent of 
their recommended increases.
  On the positive side however, there are increases in a number of 
important programs. Bilingual education received an additional $23 
million and Goals 2000, our Nation's new education reform plan, 
received an additional $283 million.
  These numbers represent our Nation's commitment to the education and 
training of our future work force. Unless we reevaluate our efforts in 
this area, we will not be able to produce the kind of workers that are 
able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market. I urge my 
colleagues to place more emphasis on these vital programs in the future 
and to consider the Federal Government's role in education as the 
ultimate investment we can make for the future of our children.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, 
the 1995 appropriations bill for the Departments of Health and Human 
Services and Education. At the outset, I want to compliment our 
chairman, Mr. Smith, and our ranking Republican member, Mr. Porter, for 
the outstanding work they have done under very difficult circumstances.
  This legislation, which in one way or another affects the lives of 
virtually every American family, provides funding for quality program 
after quality program. Unfortunately, our allocation this year did not 
allow us to provide the level of support we would have liked for each 
and every program. We have had to make some very difficult choices in a 
year in which the President's budget request for the programs within 
our jurisdiction was $3.1 billion greater than our allocation.
  One area which I am most concerned about is funding for biomedical 
research. In the National Institutes of Health, our Nation has one of 
the world's richest resources of medical and scientific talent. The 
investment our committee and Congress has made in NIH has been repaid 
many times over in important medical breakthroughs that have saved 
lives, eased pain and suffering, and offered people throughout the 
world renewed hope.
  Many mysteries remain, however, and we must continue the search for 
the clues that will one day lead to a cure for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, 
and so many other diseases. This bill provides a 3-percent increase in 
NIH funding for 1995. This, unfortunately, fails to keep pace with the 
inflation index for biomedical research which is estimated to be 4.1 
percent.
  My colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, has made efforts I supported 
at the subcommittee, full committee, and will again try today to 
increase funding for NIH. We believe that at a time when we are 
considering health care reform and the need to reduce the cost of 
health care, NIH should be one of our Nation's priorities for finding 
ways to treat some of the most debilitating and costly diseases.
  Regardless of the final appropriation we agree on for NIH in 
conference, my experience is that the Director and his Directors of 
each of the Institutes will continue to provide quality research. It 
has been my pleasure to develop a special relationship over the years 
with Dr. Claude Lenfant, Director of the Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, which has oversight responsibility for the National Marrow 
Donor Program.
  This is a program that the committee continues to give high priority 
to and which continues to save lives every day throughout our Nation 
and the world. The chairman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Porter, and each of the 
members of the subcommittee are heroes of the program for their 
continuing support and interest.
  Every time I report to the House on our ongoing work with the 
National Marrow Donor Program, the news gets better and better. Under 
the direction of the program's chairman of the board, Admiral Elmo 
Zumwalt, Jr., one of the program's greatest heroes, the national 
registry had grown to 1,256,692. During the past year, an average of 
21,000 potential donors joined the national registry each month.
  An area of particular concern to our committee, and especially to my 
colleague from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, who has also been one of the program's 
heroes, is the need for greater growth in the number of minority 
donors. It is a pleasure to report that principally through the 
allocation of specially designated funding the past three by this 
committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on National Defense, on 
which I also serve, more than one-third of all the new donors recruited 
in the past year were from minority groups. Each month, 200 minority 
focused drives are held throughout our Nation.
  The key to the success of the National Marrow Donor Program continues 
to be people. It is so heartening to see the miraculous growth of the 
program continue as more and more people learn of the possibility that 
they could save the life of a person somewhere in the world suffering 
from leukemia and any 1 of 60 other blood disorders.

  The odds of finding a matched bone marrow donor in the general 
population is 1 in 20,000. With the tremendous growth in the national 
registry, the growing racial diversity of the donors, and the number of 
fully typed donors, supported in large part with funding provided by 
our two subcommittees, more than 56 percent of all new patients 
searching the registry find at least one completely matched donor. A 
significant number of other patients find one or more near perfect 
matches, which with the experience our transplant centers have acquired 
through the large number of transplant procedures, leads to almost the 
same rate of success for patients.
  In the 6\1/2\ years since the national registry became operational, 
more than 2,500 patients have been given a second chance at life. Every 
month, 62 transplants are facilitated through the national registry, 
and not a month goes by where bone marrow doesn't cross international 
boundaries to save a life here or abroad.
  The success of the National Marrow Donor Program is something every 
Member of Congress can be proud of and I appreciate the continuing 
support of each of my colleagues for my efforts to see that we pursue 
our goal to one day find a matched donor for every patient in need of a 
bone marrow transplant.
  The National Marrow Donor Program is one of the many valuable 
programs funded in this bill. Time does not allow me or any member of 
our subcommittee to list every single program. There are two others, 
however, that I want to highlight and thank my colleagues for their 
continuing support.
  The first is the National Youth Sports Program, for which the 
committee has included $14 million in fiscal year 1995. This program 
provides an opportunity for more than 60,000 low-income children, 
primarily from minority communities, to spend 6 weeks during the summer 
on a college campus. For most participants, this is the first time they 
have ever been on a college campus let alone have the opportunity to 
use the facilities and tap into the talent of their faculty and staffs. 
We have found that over the past 26 years of the program, this 
experience has encouraged many, many students to pursue a new found 
dream of a college education.
  The name does not fully tell the story of all the benefits 
participants derive from the program. In addition to sports skills and 
training, students also receive physical examinations, hot lunches, 
math and science instruction, and tough antidrug and antigang messages.
  These programs are underway as we speak today on 170 college campuses 
throughout our Nation and I would encourage my colleagues who are 
fortunate enough to have programs in their district to take some time 
during the Fourth of July district work period to go out and visit with 
the students and faculty and staff to see firsthand how excited they 
are about this tremendous way they spend their summer.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to a small but very 
important program our subcommittee continues to support at my request. 
This is the Emergency Medical Services Program for Children which 
provides instruction and training for emergency room personnel into the 
special needs of children who require treatment in emergency rooms.
  The Institute of Medicine reported last year on the unmet need for 
pediatric emergency medical services throughout our Nation and 
indicated strong support for the roll this program has played in 
developing these services and training programs.
  Accidents and injuries continue to be the leading cause of death and 
disability for America's children. They result not only from unsafe 
environments in which accidents occur, but also from the lack of access 
in many communities to emergency medical services capable of meeting 
the unique needs of children. Since 1985, the Emergency Medical 
Services Program for Children has recognized this great unmet national 
need and has taken some very important steps to reach out on a State-
by-State basis to make the public, hospital administrators, and 
emergency response personnel more aware of the special needs of 
children and to provide training and equipment to better treat them and 
save lives.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have only had time to talk about several 
of the many programs included in this legislation. It is a good bill, 
although there are areas which demand greater support. However, given 
our tight fiscal constraints, the Committee has made the difficult 
choices that are necessary to ensure that our limited resources are 
allocated to provide the greatest return to the American people.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Chairman 
Smith on adding report language to this appropriations bill, regarding 
Hazardous Occupation Order Number 12, as it relates to cardboard 
balers.
  I have been interested in making common-sense reforms to this 40-
year-old regulation to reflect the numerous technological advances that 
have occurred in the manufacturing of cardboard balers. My suggested 
changes would not affect safety in any way. It simply would allow 
workers under the age of 18 to deposit cardboard into a dormant baler, 
not to operate the machine.
  I was first alerted to this situation earlier this year when I was 
contacted by grocery store owners from my district who told me that 
they had been cited and fined by the Labor Department for violations 
involving the placement of cardboard materials into a nonoperating 
baler by employees under 18 years of age.
  My grocers told me that because of these fines, which can be as much 
as $10,000 for each violation, they are no longer hiring young people, 
or they have decided to cut back considerably on the number of 
teenagers that they employ in their stores.
  With 1.3 million teenagers unemployed, it seems counterproductive to 
have a regulatory policy that discourages certain businesses--such as 
supermarkets--from hiring young people. Unbelievably, the Department of 
Labor has no data that shows young people are at risk or have been 
injured when tossing cardboard into a dormant baler. Just the other 
week, the administration urged the business community to hire some 
300,000 teenagers for the summer, but here is an example of regulations 
that prompt businesses not to hire young people.

  Mr. Chairman many of my colleagues share these same concerns and 
frustrations with this issue of Hazardous Occupation Order Number 12, 
and how it is being enforced by the Department of Labor. As a matter of 
fact, 71 members of the House joined with me in sending a letter to 
Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, requesting information in this area. I 
am inserting our letter to the Labor Department to be made a part of 
the record.
  To conclude, I should mention that it has been 10 weeks since we sent 
this letter, and that we have not received a response yet.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
     Hon. Robert Reich,
     Secretary of Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to you in an effort to 
     seek common sense improvements in the Hazardous Occupation 
     Order Number 12 (HO 12) as it relates to scrap paper balers.
       As you know, HO 12 was adopted in 1954 under authority of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act. It prohibits 16 and 17 year 
     olds from operating or assisting to operate balers, wire 
     stitchers, guillotine paper cutters or staplers, as well as 
     other pieces of equipment used in the paper industry. Major 
     advances in baler safety technology have taken place in the 
     last 40 years since HO 12 was adopted, and we are perplexed 
     as to why the regulatory framework does not reflect these 
     changes. We believe HO 12, as it applies to balers, is very 
     outdated.
       Specifically, we strongly oppose the current enforcement of 
     HO 12 that prohibits a 16 and 17 year old from even placing 
     materials into a baler. It seems unbelievable to fine small 
     businesses thousands of dollars for this simple act, when 
     modern balers cannot be operated during the loading process. 
     At a time when the nation has more than 1.3 million 
     unemployed teenagers, it seems counterproductive to have 
     regulatory policies that discourage their hiring or 
     significantly hamper usage of their skills.
       We request answers and supporting information to the 
     following questions within 14 days.
       How many minors have been injured or killed by throwing 
     cardboard boxes into a baler, not operating it?
       Where there have been injuries, how old was the baler, did 
     it meet current safety standards? Exactly what injuries were 
     sustained and how did they occur--that is what part of the 
     baling process was the individual doing?
       In what industries did these injuries occur?
       What is the total assessed fines for the last three years 
     for placing material in a baler? Information provided 
     previously was for the entire standard not singly for balers.
       We believe that improving this standard would be a positive 
     step towards relieving the cumbersome maze of regulations 
     that currently stifle the nation's small businesses.
           Sincerely,
         Larry Combest, John Boehner, Ron Klink, Joe Knollenberg, 
           Peter DeFazio, Thomas Ewing, Henry Bonilla, Bill Baker, 
           Robert Michel, James Talent, Sam Johnson, Bill Barrett, 
           Peter Hoekstra, John Doolittle, Mike Kreidler, James 
           Walsh.
         Mac Collins, Michael Huffington, Harry Johnston, Dick 
           Armey, Ron Machtley, Richard Baker, Tom DeLay, Donald 
           Manzullo, Dan Miller, Jay Dickey, Ron Wyden, Glenn 
           Poshard, Peter Torkildsen, Spencer Bachus, Don 
           Sundquist, Jim Ramstad, Jim Kolbe, Tillie Fowler, David 
           Mann, Craig Thomas, John Linder, G.V. (Sonny) 
           Montgomery.
         William Goodling, Ike Skelton, Ralph Hall, Thomas Bliley, 
           Marge Roukema, Joe Skeen, Harris Fawell, W.J. (Billy) 
           Tauzin, Earl Hutto, Bill Emerson, Lamar Smith, Tom 
           Petri, Steve Gunderson, Cass Ballenger, Alan Mollohan, 
           Norman Sisisky, Joseph McDade, Jan Meyers, James 
           Bilbray, Jon Kyl, Joel Hefley, James Hansen.
         Charles Stenholm, James Moran, Bill Zeliff, Jimmy Hayes, 
           Hamilton Fish, Jr., Mike Parker, Charles Canady, Bob 
           Stump, Rob Portman, Bill Brewster, Ed Pastor.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me congratulate the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa, the chairman of the subcommittee, 
for doing an excellent job in his maiden voyage with this particular 
subcommittee. He and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Illinois, I think under very difficult circumstances have done an 
excellent job. It just does not seem right not to have Bill Natcher, 
our late beloved chairman of this subcommittee, on the floor. Mr. 
Chairman, I speak for a lot of the Members in this body when I say that 
Bill Natcher could not have a more worthy successor than the gentleman 
from Iowa who has done such great work over the years in the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, and who I know 
will labor hard in probably one of the most important subcommittees, 
the most difficult of the subcommittees, I would say, all the 
subcommittees are important, but this one spends by far the largest 
amount of money and has great responsibility.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, is fortunate to have the 
continuity of the staff, the professional staff, of this subcommittee 
to work with him. I know that it was difficult for him to stay within 
the 602(b) allocation and he has brought this particular bill in $7.1 
billion less than last year's fiscal appropriations bill and some $1.9 
billion under the administration request. I congratulate the gentleman 
on his work.

                              {time}  1620

  I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy 
in a matter that does give me some concern, however. It seems to me 
that in the bill there is an $8 million cut in the Supportive Services 
and Centers Program and the Congregate Nutrition Program within the 
Older Americans Act, and I am also informed that because of this cut, 
over 1.5 million meals will not be served next year to the older 
Americans of this country and around 80,000 fewer seniors will receive 
less services than they presently receive in their homes and in the 
community.
  I think you will agree that if such cuts were to take place that 
would be unfortunate, because it would hurt thousands and thousands of 
needy Americans around the country.
  I hope that the gentleman from Iowa will take another look at that in 
conference and attempt to support the Supportive Services and Centers 
Program, but particularly the Congregate Meals Program closer to the 
1994 level. Now, I know we could probably debate whether the cuts will 
translate into that many fewer meals being served to seniors around the 
country. That is something that is, I think, somewhat conjectural.
  But the Office on the Aging suggests that we are talking about 1.6 
million less meals being served to seniors, many of them who do not 
receive any other nutritious meal during the day than that particular 
meal.
  I wonder if the gentleman will respond?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I would hope they are not cut. I would point out 
that at these meal sites they do get voluntary contributions; that 
means that where they have been getting a dollar they will have to try 
to get a dollar and one cent in voluntary contributions. I think they 
can. I do not think the meals will be cut.
  They may have to get a little higher contributions from some of the 
people who attend.
  However, I do want to say that I like working with the gentleman and 
his committee. There are 14 of these senior citizens aging programs. We 
tried to allocate that money within that as best we could. There was 
only a two-thirds of 1 percent cut rather than the 3\1/2\ percent from 
current services that the whole bill had to take. So we did favor these 
programs, undoubtedly.
  We also, within the 14 programs, tried to favor those that helped 
those people who were shut in, who cannot even go to a meals site. We 
tried to favor those kinds of programs, too.
  On the other hand, within that, even though they are only cut two-
thirds of 1 percent rather than 3\1/2\ percent from current services, 
if we can find more money in conference, we would be glad to increase 
it. Or if there is some shifting within the 14 programs that could be 
done and the gentleman's committee would recommend that, we would 
certainly very seriously consider that.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, one of the things that I am very interested in is older 
American issues. The Older Americans Act has been probably one of the 
greatest blessings, something we can be very proud of, and while the 
gentleman is correct, we can expect more voluntary contributions, the 
gentleman knows that that is somewhat problematic. Those voluntary 
contributions do not always take place.
  As a result, we could end up with the kind of numbers that the Office 
on Aging suggests, a million and a half less nutritious meals for 
senior citizens.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. To put it in perspective though, that is out of 
245 million meals. They do serve a lot of meals. They serve a great 
purpose all over this country.
  Mr. HUGHES. But, you know, to a hungry senior citizen who does not 
get a nutritious meal, that statistic does not mean anything. And, 
frankly, I would like to work with the gentleman before he goes to 
conference and hopefully during conference and try to look at areas 
even within the Older Americans Act, if we could find some funding to 
shift to make sure that nutrition programs, that Congregate Meals 
Program, is protected.
  And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I will be glad to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         program administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs and for carrying out section 908 of the Social 
     Security Act, $90,276,000, together with not to exceed 
     $45,073,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Mink of Hawaii) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sharp, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4606) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________