[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8315-H8318]
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
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 208 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2127.
{time} 1029
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 further consideration of 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 with Mr.
Walker in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
August 2, 1995, title II had been designated.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will
be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] will be recognized for 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
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, the total discretionary funding for the
Departments of Health and Human Services declines by $1 billion from
$29.2 billion to $28.2 billion, or 3.5 percent. Mandatory spending, on
the other hand, increases from $152 billion to $170 billion.
One of the committee's top priorities is funding for biomedical
research. The bill provides $11.9 billion for the National Institutes
of Health, which is an increase of $642 million, or 5.7 percent.
The committee believes strongly we should permit scientists to
determine the funding priorities at NIH rather than Members of
Congress. As a result, the committee has not earmarked funds for
specific diseases or directed NIH to fund particular research
mechanisms. These decisions should be, and are under the bill, left to
scientists.
Another high priority in the health and human services section of the
bill is support of preventive health programs. Funding is maintained
for the Centers for Disease Control and prevention programs supporting
increases for a broad range of prevention programs and funding many
others at last year's
levels. Increases are provided for childhood immunization, breast and
cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted diseases, chronic and
environmental disease, and infectious disease.
The committee has also adopted a strategy of preserving funding for
the large block grants which permit States flexibility to provide a
broad range of services or to reduce or eliminate funding for the
smaller categorical programs which must be used for very specific
purposes and constituencies.
For example, the bill preserves funding at the 1995 levels for the
substance abuse and mental health services block grants, the preventive
health services block grant, the community services block grant, and
the child care and development block grant. The bill level funds the
title X family planning program at $193 million. Ryan White AIDS
treatment programs are level funded, with the exception of title I
assistance to cities, which is increased by $23 million in recognition
of the new cities coming on board in 1996.
Funding for health professions training is maintained at the 1995
funding level and is provided in one consolidated line item, pending
reauthorization of various training programs.
The core programs addressing rural health care needs are protected.
The National Health Service Corps is level funded at $120 million, as
is the Rural Outreach Grants Program at $26 million; $10 million in
continuation costs is provided for rural hospital transition grants.
In addition to supporting ongoing programs to address violence
against women, such as the Family Violence Program, the bill provides
an additional $39.9 million for violence against women programs
specifically authorized in the crime bill.
Funding for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research declines
by 21 percent, to $125 million, and the bill abolishes the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Health, with its allocation of 14 deputy
assistant secretaries and 6 special assistants at grade 15 or above,
and transfers some of its core functions to the Office of the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
Funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is
eliminated because the original justifications for this program at the
Federal level no longer exists.
The bill does make a very small reduction in Head Start funding of
$137 million, or 3.9 percent from last year, but even with this small
reduction, Head Start is still funded at over $3.3 billion for fiscal
year 1996.
We reduce in the bill Federal administrative costs by cutting overall
administrative budgets by 7.5 percent and congressional and public
affairs offices by 10 percent. The bill changes current law by 10
percent.
The bill changes current law by providing States with the option of
providing Medicaid funding for abortion in cases of rape or incest. It
also prohibits use of Federal funds to discriminate against medical
schools who do not include abortion training as part of their overall
Ob/Gyn training, and bans human embryo research by NIH.
All of these provisions are the subject of possible amendments today.
I believe that this section of the bill reflects a thoughtful
approach to the funding for the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday we talked about the implications of this bill
for working Americans. Today we are moving to the portion of the bill
that attacks our most vulnerable citizens.
This is really the second stage of a three-stage attack on the
elderly, on disabled, and poor Americans.
Last week, this House adopted legislation which will substantially
increase the rent that low-income elderly will pay to live in section 8
housing and other federally subsidized housing. In September we will be
considering legislation that will radically scale back the options of
senior citizens on Medicare and will substantially increase their out-
of-pocket expenses, and today we are attacking vulnerable Americans on
another front in this bill.
This bill kills the program that helps pay winter fuel bills and
summer air-
[[Page H 8316]]
conditioning costs when the alternative is that their heat and
electricity will be cut off, 6 million American families, 80 percent of
whom make less than $10,000 a year, we are going to kill that program.
The bill will dramatically cut back opportunities for part-time
community service work for programs like Green Thumb. We are cutting
Federal support for senior center activities, RSVP programs, senior
aides, foster grandparents. We are even cutting elderly nutrition
programs, and so we are at midstream in a process that hits the same
group of people, older Americans living on $8,000 to $10,000 a year or
less, and we are hitting them over and over and over again.
The problem is that right now people are living on the edge. They
cannot take one hit much less three, and so I think you have a right to
ask who is going to pick up the slack.
In some cases, no question, maybe their kids may be able to step in.
In those cases, we will be shifting the burden right back on to working
Americans. In other cases, there may be some local help. But given the
cuts that we are already making in aid to schools and other areas, that
is not very likely.
So, in many cases, we are simply looking at the prospect of many of
these people falling through the cracks or being tossed out the window,
and if you think it is hyperbole, listen to what the Wall Street
Journal reported last November when it said, ``More than two decades
after the creation of a Federal law aimed at providing free meals to
anyone over 60, several million older Americans are going hungry and
their numbers are growing steadily. The Federal food programs cannot
keep up with the Nation's rapidly graying population. For the first
time, we have growing waiting lists,'' it quotes a Federal official as
saying. ``The level of malnutrition is only increasing.'' This was not
in a left-wing newspaper. This was in the Wall Street Journal.
Or take a look at this New York Times headline and the story. The
story read, ``A gray-haired man in a blue Yankee cap lifts the lid off
of a garbage bin next to a supermarket. Peering inside, he pulls out a
tray of mushrooms still wrapped in plastic, slips it surreptitiously
into a small gym bag, as shoppers stroll in front of the supermarket.
Elderly people go almost unnoticed as they scavenge for food in garbage
bins just around the corner.'' These are not homeless people. They are
not entirely destitute. But they are driven to the unappealing and even
humiliating task of foraging through trash by a disturbing combination
of immediate financial need and more general fear of the future.
This picture, while I know it does not show up very well, shows older
Americans searching for food outside of a supermarket in a dumpster--in
a dumpster. We have come to this.
We are going to be providing a big capital gains tax cut. We are
going to be eliminating the minimum corporate tax that the high-flying,
truly needy corporations of this country now pay but will not be paying
under the new tax bill. So that again you have a laundry list of large
corporations ranging from AT&T down through you name it, who will wind
up not paying taxes, again, just like they did not pay taxes between
1982 and 1995 even though they made $60 billion in profits.
{time} 1040
We are going to be doing all of that and paying for it by taking jobs
away from our seniors and by taking literally food out of the mouths of
not just kids, but out of our low-income elderly.
Mr. Chairman, it is really hard to put this bill in context because
there is really no precedent for what is being done. We are witnessing
an attempt to implement policies that are radically out of the
mainstream.
Take, for instance, the foster grandparents program. It is hard to
find anybody who is familiar with that program who does not think it is
one of the best things that has ever happened to this country.
It takes low-income elderly, gives them a minimum wage for providing
care and companionship to young kids 20 hours a week. These are kids in
foster care or State institutions. Some are very severely retarded,
they are autistic; they are kids who would not receive love or
attention from any other source.
Some people thought the Reagan administration was pretty hard-
hearted, particularly when it came to the disadvantaged and to programs
to help them, but I would like to read something.
Mr. Chairman, let me read this quote: ``It is really hard to say who
benefits more in this program, the child or the foster grandparent.
What of the children in the program? They have been abandoned,
forgotten, the victims of pernicious neglect. They range in age from
infancy to 21 years. The fact is, it is doubly beneficial. That is one
reason why the cost of the program is so worthwhile.''
You know who said that? Not some left-wing socialist. Nancy Reagan.
That is who said that. Yet, you are going to gut those programs.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, I know that there are going to be
some amendments offered today to try to make a token apology to the
seniors and the vulnerable in this country by restoring a few pennies
in the almost $10 billion savaging that you are doing these
populations, and I guess there is no harm in bringing up those
amendments. It is a little conscience money that you are going to
provide so you can take back home and tell your constituents, you care
at least a little bit.
All I would say is that regardless of how many fig leafs you pass on
this floor today, you cannot fix up this bill, and those little
conscience amendments still do not remove the obligation for people of
both parties to keep our bipartisan commitment to these programs for
the vulnerable.
Some of these programs were started on a bipartisan basis by people
like Mel Laird and Gaylord Nelson, two bipartisan Wisconsin products.
We ought not abandon these programs or the people who are helped by
them. I urge you, no matter what happens on amendments today, vote this
turkey down.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the overall cut in the
Department of Health and Human Services in the discretionary funds is
3.5 percent. Of that, a portion is in salaries and expenses that are
cut by 7.5 percent. The overall cut in services is perhaps under 3
percent, and most of the spending in this section of the bill is
mandatory spending that will continue regardless of what is contained
in the bill. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] greatly,
greatly overstates the effect of what the bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Miller].
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an integral part of
our effort to balance the budget, the moral and economic challenge of
our time. This bill meets its share of the burden and therefore
deserves every Member's support. These are the tough choices we are
having to make to balance this budget.
These are the specifics that follow after the budget that we approved
earlier this year, and we have prioritized what we consider the most
important areas, funded those, and said, wait a minute, do we need to
fund everything just because it has been in the budget for years and
years and years?
Mr. Chairman, this bill was not undertaken in a haphazard or
malicious way. We went about this very thoughtfully and determined our
priorities. We have over 1,200 programs under our jurisdiction in this
subcommittee and for each one, we asked a simple question: Is this
Federal undertaking absolutely critical or can it be reformed or
eliminated? Some programs which were not found to be Federal concerns
were eliminated, while others were deemed essential and received
increases.
By setting priorities, we eliminated programs that do not work and
strengthened ones that do. Spending taxpayer dollars on useless
programs is not compassion. Balancing the budget and setting priorities
is real and true compassion. There are many programs which we found to
be essential.
Some of these include the five prevention programs within the Centers
for Disease Control which all received increases above their 1995
funding levels. The first is the breast and cervical cancer screening
program. The subcommittee's recommended increase of
[[Page H 8317]]
$25 million, which goes from $100 to $125 million, will provide enough
funding to permit the expansion of this program into all States,
thereby allowing greater access for low-income, high-risk women to
receive screening and referral services for the detection of breast and
cervical cancer at earlier and more treatable stages.
The prevention program of infectious disease received over a 20-
percent increase. This additional funding is intended to provide sorely
needed resources to the CDC for addressing such monumental problems as
the ebola virus and E. coli which we have all heard so much about
lately.
Additionally, the bill increases funds for chronic and environmental
disease prevention and sexually transmitted disease prevention by $15
million. This will permit enhancement of programs such as diabetes
control and education, cancer registries, birth defects, disabilities,
and other diseases.
Finally, the subcommittee provides additional protection for our most
important resource: Children. The Childhood Immunization Program has
gone from $465 million to $475, a $10 million increase, which will
permit the CDC to purchase more vaccines, expand clinic hours, and
provide increased outreach opportunities ensuring vaccination for
previously unreachable children.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does fund those items in which the Federal
Government has a legitimate and necessary role. AIDS prevention has
gone from $569 million to $595 million. The Ryan White Program, the
AIDS Treatment Program, goes from $633 million to $656 million.
Overall, the bill increases funding for prevention programs by $63
million. This is $63 million which will go toward assisting low-income
women and children to achieve better health care and $63 million which
will go toward securing the safety of our Nation by protecting us from
infectious diseases.
A further example of setting priorities is the proposed increase in
funding for the National Institutes of Health, a real treasure to this
country. The majority party realizes that even when resources are
necessarily restricted, it is important to continue to fund and support
those programs which are critical for future development.
It is estimated that the advances derived from the National
Institutes of Health research save $69 billion annually in medical care
costs. Additionally, federally supported biomedical research creates
high-skilled jobs and supports the biomedical industry generating a
positive balance of trade for our country.
I do not believe the importance of biomedical research can be
understated. And for those reasons, this bill increases the overall
spending for the National Institutes of Health by $642 million, a 5.7-
percent increase. Let me repeat that. The National Institutes of Health
has an increase in spending of $642 million, or 5.7 percent. This
translates into millions of new research dollars for finding a cure for
cancer or AIDS, as well as additional millions for battling the
debilitating diseases such as hemophilia and cerebral palsy.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for this Congress to make some tough
choices. For too long we have allowed programs which do not provide any
tangible or national benefit to receive precious Federal dollars. We
cannot increase NIH and prevention spending unless we are willing to
make cuts somewhere else. If we are to ensure the relative prosperity
of future generations, we have to stick to our funding levels and make
the decisions based on a program's relative worth.
Mr. Chairman, President Clinton's 1996 proposed funding for NIH was
at $11.3 billion, $165 million below what we are proposing to spend on
NIH. We are proposing to spend, in this bill, $165 billion more than
President Clinton even requested.
The center of our debate today is where are our priorities, what
programs can we point to that have a direct benefit on society and have
had a success in health care?
These are the tough choices we have to make, but we have to remember
the bottom line is we must balance this budget over the next 7 years.
That is what is important for our children and grandchildren in this
country, is to get on that glidepath to a balanced budget. That is what
is going to give the benefits that we need for the standard of living,
the quality of life that affects all Americans. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
This is a mean-spirited attack on the elderly, working families, and
our Nation's children. Nowhere is this assault more evident, than with
the bill's total elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, which provides life saving assistance to low-income families
and seniors.
It is an outrage that this Congress would take the heat away from our
seniors to give a cool $20,000 tax break to the Nation's most wealthy.
The draconian and heartless action of the committee to eliminate all
funding for the Low income Home Energy Assistance Program jeopardizes
the health and safety of millions of Americans who rely on these funds
to heat and cool their homes.
In my home State of Connecticut, nearly 70,000 households benefit
from $27 million in home energy assistance. In my district alone,
nearly 13,000 households benefit.
Marie Brown of Wallingford is one of the many people in my district
who depend on energy assistance to heat her home in the winter. It gets
very cold in Connecticut. Marie's $500 a month budget isn't enough to
pay her home heating bills after she has paid rent, medical costs and
other expenses.
Marie calls home energy assistance ``a blessing,'' and says that
``this is the best thing they have ever done, especially for the
elderly.'' Eliminating energy assistance would force Marie and other
seniors on fixed incomes make choices they shouldn't have to make--
choices between home heating and necessities such as food or medicine.
If energy assistance is eliminated, what are we going to say to Marie
Brown and the millions of families who depend on this program?
I do not want to tell them that to ensure people have adequate
shelter is no longer a priority for Congress and that tax breaks for
the Nation's wealthy are a more pressing concern. I will not carry that
message.
It is unconscionable that low-income seniors and working families in
extreme need would be swept aside so that Republicans can offer the
wealthy an unnecessary tax break.
Just last month, the Nation experienced an unusually harsh heat wave,
which caused the deaths of 400 people in Chicago. The Governor of
Illinois was able to offer the citizens of his State emergency energy
assistance to prevent future fatalities. Under this bill, Governors
across the Nation would not have those emergency resources, and just
possibly more men and women would die. Energy assistance is truly life-
saving assistance and we have an obligation to provide it to people in
need.
I urge my colleagues to stand by working families and the elderly.
Support amendments to restore energy assistance to millions of seniors
and working families, whose survival should be our No. 1 priority.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to play directly to the comments made
by the minority Member who is in control of the time at the moment. The
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] just a few minutes ago said that
the bill that is before us represents the Republican controlled
Committee on Appropriations majority's careful and thoughtful
consideration of priorities; and, No. 2, the elimination of spending
Federal dollars on useless programs.
Mr. Chairman, let us look at one of those programs. The Republican
controlled Committee on Appropriations has completely eliminated the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the so-called LIHEAP
Program, completely eliminated that.
Mr. Chairman, that program serves almost 6 million families around
this country. Usually it is thought about as a program that covers
people who have problems with the cold from the Rocky Mountains east to
the eastern seaboard along the northern tier, but as the gentlewoman
from Connecticut just pointed out, emergencies this summer in Chicago
where there were more than 400 dead and emergencies over the Southern
Plains and in the Southwest
[[Page H 8318]]
where the heat has been up in the 115 range at various times, those are
the kinds of places where even a little bit of money is used on
exceptionally hot days like today, and here in Washington for that
program.
Six million people are covered by this program, mostly half of them
are elders, the most vulnerable people to both heat and cold, the most
vulnerable people, and those are the people. That is the priority for
cutting off a program on the part of the Republican majority here.
The question of priorities, this $1 billion that is eliminated from
the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, their priority is to put in
instead, in a different bill, their priority, one new B-2 bomber that
costs the same amount, or one new amphibious transport ship, neither of
which was acquired by the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Olver] talked about the LIHEAP Program. The LIHEAP Program came
out of the energy crisis we had in the 1970's. It was a program that
has outlived its usefulness. It is a very costly program of over $1
billion a year.
The cost of energy now as a percent, compared to that, is less, and
yet, we want to keep that billion dollar a year program going. Even
President Clinton has asked for dramatic reductions in that program.
Mr. Chairman, we have to set priorities. We have to balance this
budget.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] on bringing an excellent bill to the floor today.
I would like to discuss with him the Transitional Living Program.
Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman from Missouri would yield, I would be
glad to engage him in a colloquy.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the en bloc
amendment adopted yesterday includes an additional $1.3 million for the
TLP Program. It is also my understanding that this funding will be used
for nine agencies who provide services to homeless and runaway youth.
This funding will provide a 1-year extension to those nine TLP grantees
whose grants are expiring in September 1995. The nine grantees could
then competitively compete in the spring or summer of 1996 for fiscal
year 1997 grants without having to dismantle or eliminate their
programs in October 1995.
Mr. PORTER. The gentleman is correct. This funding will provide a 1-
year extension for these nine agencies only.
Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his
time and for his attention to this matter.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we have seen all this before. You have
seen it on late night television, and ad, the fellow with the Ginzu
knives. He brandishes them. He swings them over his head, and whack, an
onion is in two. Before you know it, a radish lies in slivers. He can
whack anything with those knives, whether it needs whacking or not, and
what we have this morning is the Republican equivalent of a Ginzu knife
ad.
The Older Americans Act, whack; student financial assistance, whack;
assistance for education, whack. They keep slicing up the American
middle class. Well, we have heard for 40 years from the Republicans
about how they could solve all these problems by simply whacking out
waste and fraud. If they can do it with whacking the waste and fraud,
why do they not do that and stop slicing with their Ginzu knives the
American middle class?
I have got a program called the Retired Senior Volunteer Program. It
has operated for 23 years in Travis County. It provides 2,000 of our
citizens opportunities to volunteer. Nobody has ever suggested that it
involved one cent of waste or fraud, and yet, they have got their
knives out whacking it, terminating it, so that seniors in our
community will not have the opportunity to have the coordination they
need to give back to the community.
Mr. Chairman, it is wrong. It is wrong. Why not use a surgical knife
and cut out the waste and the fraud and leave middle-class America
alone?
{time} 1100
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
(Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot about what my distinguished
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are upset about with this
bill. Now, I am not on the Committee on Appropriations, I do not deal
on a day-to-day basis with millions of dollars for this program or to
this person, so I have a little bit different perspective. I thought
maybe I would discuss a little bit about what I am upset about and what
this title is designed to address.
I have a 3 year old little girl, she is going to be 3 in 2 weeks. She
is going to owe $100,000 in taxes during her working lifetime just to
pay the debt service that the last generation of congressional
leadership ran up on the Federal debt in the last 20 years, and I am
kind of upset about that.
This country, if we continue on the current course of spending, will
be bankrupt inside of 10 years. It will take the entire Federal revenue
to pay for Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the debt service. I
am a little bit upset about that.
My parents believed what you did was you paid off the mortgage and
left your children the farm. The last generation of congressional
leadership sold the farm and is leaving the rest of us the mortgage,
and I am kind of upset about that.
Now what does this bill do about it in this title? It does not cut
spending in this bill; it slows the growth rate of Federal spending.
What are my honorable and distinguished colleagues on the other side
doing about this? Well, they voted against the balanced budget
amendment by and large. They have opposed our seven year plan to
balance the budget, they are offering no plan of their own, and they
savage their own president when he even talks about developing a
consistent plan to balance the budget, and I am pretty upset about all
of that.
Mr. Chairman, and I am going to speak here to the people who are
listening also, what you are hearing here is a desperate attempt to
preserve a status quo that has failed and that is indefensible. We are
trying to turn this budget around, it is like a big ocean liner. We are
taking some initial steps to turn it around now. This is a good bill
and it should be passed.
____________________