[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MORE ON CUTS AFFECTING WOMEN AND CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to share a few 
stories with you that I think are appropriate when you look at the 
debate which we are facing here in Washington, not only this week but 
for the next several weeks.
  They are about some children. They are kids that I remember but I do 
not know their names. Let me tell you why.
  The first child I remember was in St. John's Hospital in Springfield, 
IL in my district. I was invited to come to the unit there where 
premature infants are being cared for and of course you put on a gown 
and a mask and walk in with the nurse and the doctor. And they pointed 
to a tiny little isolette with a little baby in there, no larger than 
the size of my hand, a baby that had its eyes taped shut and had more 
tubes and monitors in its small body than
 were imaginable.

  The story of course was that that baby was born too soon and as a 
result would be in this intensive care unit for at least a month and 
maybe longer with the hopes that when she did come out at the end, she 
would then be able to grow like a normal baby and lead a normal life.
  The heroic efforts that were being undertaken for that infant are 
repeated every day across America. Unfortunately, repeated too many 
times.
  Several years ago we took a look at the incidence of low-birth-weight 
babies in our country and found some shocking results. It turns out 
that the infant death rate in America was higher several years ago than 
in most industrialized countries in the world. Think about it. Our 
country, with the best medical resources, was still having children 
born of low birth weight with problems that really haunted them, many 
of them for the rest of their lives. When I talked to the head of the 
medical school, Dr. Richard Moy in Springfield, IL at the SIU Medical 
School, he said, ``Congressman, the saddest part of it, this is 
entirely preventable; this is entirely preventable. If we can bring 
mothers in early in their regular pregnancy, give them prenatal care, 
we have the medical knowledge to deliver a healthy baby in virtually 
every case.''
  So the Federal Government, which is often the butt boy and the target 
of so many criticisms, decided to really invest money to reduce the 
number of low birth weight babies. The program we chose is one that has 
been around for awhile. It is called the WIC Program, the Women, 
Infants and Children's Supplemental Feeding Program. And we decided to 
take some of our precious Federal tax dollars and put it into our most 
precious asset, these children who will be tomorrow's leaders, our 
kids.
  And you know what, it is working. It is working because now 40 
percent of the infants in America are being brought into the WIC 
Program, kids especially vulnerable from low income families. I am 
proud to tell you that we are seeing the infant death rate in this 
country go down. Surely we still have low-birth-weight kids but not as 
many as we would without the WIC Program.
  The reason I tell you this story and tell you the story about this 
little infant is that we are now debating whether or not to cut the 
money for that WIC Program. That is right, whether or not we are going 
to cut the money for the program that is trying to keep fewer low-
birth-weight babies being born in America. In the name of a balanced 
budget, in the name of cutting spending, in the name of reducing the 
Federal role, we are going to cut this program.
  My friends, the Republicans on the other side say it is the way to 
save money. Do you really save money with a low-birth-weight baby? Do 
you know how much it cost at St. John's Hospital several years ago for 
that low-birth-weight baby? At least $1,000 a day. So a pregnancy, 
which ordinarily would cost $1,500 to $2,000 under normal circumstances 
ended up with a baby that costs us, as taxpayers, $30,000 a month with 
the hopes that that little girl would come out of that experience and 
lead a normal life and not need more care afterward.
  What a false economy. Yet the Republicans argue that reducing the 
money for WIC is what America really needs and really wants for its 
future.
  Let me shift to another child, a child I saw in my own hometown 
again, at a school breakfast program. A happy child, a kid who was 
having fun, who got to school early so that she could get that little 
lunch or little breakfast, rather, and have her day ahead of her. She 
was happy and bouncing around and having a good time of it. I talked to 
a teacher about the school breakfast program and school lunch program. 
I said, what do they mean to you? And she said they mean everything. 
Did you ever consider the chore that faces a teacher trying to teach a 
child who is hungry? That child is listless, stares at its hands, 
stares at the floor, cannot concentrate. I do not have a chance, she 
said, in terms of teaching that child.
  So we invest each year in the basics of providing nutrition for 
school lunch programs and school breakfasts so that kids can go through 
that learning experience and come out happy, healthy, and learning. The 
Republicans have told us we need to cut that program, too. I hope we 
keep those images in mind as we get into this budget debate. We 
certainly cannot have a strong America without strong children. It is a 
false economy for us to cut programs for children, and I hope that the 
Gingrich Republicans will think twice before they make these cuts.


                          ____________________