[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1610-E1611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                       HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 2, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2127) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes:

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2127, the Labor-Health and Human 
Services-Education appropriations bill, is loaded with legislative 
riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and it cuts too 
deeply into critical programs. I will be voting against the bill unless 
major changes are made today.
  First, I want to acknowledge Chairman Porter for his efforts. He was 
given an allocation that was significantly lower than the fiscal year 
1995 allocation, and he did his best to craft an acceptable bill. He 
also opposed the many riders attached in the full committee. I am 
strongly supportive of the 6 percent increase in funding for the 
National Institutes of Health, the increased funding for breast cancer 
research, and breast and cervical cancer screening, increased funding 
for the Ryan White CARE Act, the funding for the Violence Against Women 
Act programs in the bill, and the preservation of the DOD AIDS research 
program.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill for many reasons. I am 
strongly opposed to the changes made in the full committee. The most 
egregious amendment eliminates funding for the title X family planning 
program, transferring the funding to block grants. To eliminate this 
program when we are trying to end welfare dependency and reduce the 
number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies is an outrage.
  Not only does the transfer to block grant programs fail to ensure 
that the $193 million for title X will go to fund family planning 
programs, but the very nature of the block grants 

[[Page E 1611]]
selected ensures that this funding will be drastically reduced. The 
maternal and child health block grant includes many set asides, 
resulting in the diversion of $84 million of the $116 million 
transferred from title X. Thus, 70 percent of the money transferred to 
this block grant could not go to family planning services even if 
States wanted to earmark the funds for that purpose.
  Later today, Representatives Greenwood and Lowey will be offering an 
amendment to restore the funding for title X. Congressman Smith will 
then offer an amendment that restates the bill's provision to eliminate 
the funding for title X. The Greenwood-Lowey amendment includes 
specific language clarifying what is already the case for title X--no 
funding can be used for abortion, nor can funding be used for political 
advocacy. Title X prevents abortion--these clinics are prohibited from 
providing abortions or directive counseling.
  I will also be offering an amendment later today with Congresswoman 
Lowey and Congressman Kolbe to strike the Istook language in the bill 
allowing States to decide whether to fund Medicaid abortions in the 
cases of rape and incest. This is not an issue about States' rights. 
States can choose to participate in the Medicaid Program; however, once 
that choice is made, they are required to comply with all Federal 
statutory and regulatory requirements, including funding abortions in 
the cases of rape and incest. Every Federal court that has considered 
this issue has held that State Medicaid plans must cover all abortions 
for which Federal funds are provided by the Hyde amendment.
  Abortions as a result of rape and incest are rare--and they are 
tragic. The vast majority of Americans support Medicaid funding for 
abortions that are the result of those violent, brutal crimes against 
women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella amendment.
  Another amendment added in committee makes an unprecedented intrusion 
into the development of curriculum requirements and the accreditation 
process for medical schools. An amendment will be offered by 
Congressman Ganske and Congresswoman Johnson to strike this language in 
the bill, and I will be speaking in favor of their effort as well.
  There is also troubling language in the bill that restricts the 
enforcement of title IX in college athletics. Congresswoman Mink will 
be offering an amendment to strike this language, and I urge support 
for this amendment.
  Several additional amendments attempt to legislate on this bill, and 
I am opposed to these efforts as well. The entire appropriations 
process has been circumvented in the last several bills, and I am 
outraged at the efforts to bypass the appropriate, deliberative 
legislative process in this House. I am particularly troubled by the 
efforts of several colleagues to severely restrict the advocacy 
activities nonprofit organizations. If my colleagues believe that 
current law regarding such activities is insufficiently restrictive, 
then they should seek to change it through the appropriate legislative 
channels, not through the appropriations process.
  In regard to funding cuts in the bill, I am very concerned with the 
scope of the cuts in education programs. I am very dismayed by the 
elimination or severe reductions in the Goals 2000 Program, the Women's 
Educational Equity Act, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, the Office 
of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, Head Start, the IDEA 
Program, title I, Vocational Educational, and the School to Work 
Program.
  I am also concerned with the bill's disproportionate cuts in drug and 
alcohol treatment and prevention programs. The bill would cut 68 
percent of the demonstration programs and 18 percent of the total HHS 
treatment and prevention funding. Some of the current programs that 
will be hardest hit are those serving women and children. I am 
particularly concerned with reductions for residential substance abuse 
treatment programs serving pregnant women and children; Congressman 
Durbin and I have worked over the past several years to expand the 
availability of these critical services that save lives and tremendous 
health and social costs. The cost of not treating drug and alcohol 
problems far exceeds the savings in this bill.
  I am further concerned with the elimination of the consolidated AIDS 
research budget appropriation, and, for the first time since 1983, the 
lack of a specific funding level for AIDS research at NIH. While report 
language added by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi improves the bill, I 
remain concerned that the current centralized AIDS research effort 
through the OAR will be diminished. A strong OAR vested with budget 
authority is the most effective way to coordinate and guide the 24 AIDS 
efforts within the institutes at NIH. I will be working with the Senate 
to restore the current structure of the OAR consolidated budget of the 
NIH.
  I will also be working to restore funding for the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, the Older Americans Act, and the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. While it is impossible to provide 
level funding for every program in this bill with such a reduced 
allocation, I believe that many of these programs have suffered cuts 
that are too deep to sustain their important functions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to address many of the 
problems in the legislation, and if they fail, to oppose the bill.


                          ____________________