[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.


                          ____________________