[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 132 (Monday, October 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H9244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  OPPOSE H.R. 782, OLDER AMERICANS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that today would be a day to 
celebrate. For 4 years, the Older Americans Act has languished in this 
House of Representatives. The authorization expired 4 years ago. We 
have been operating off of a continuing appropriations resolutions for 
4 years.
  Because of that, there has been no inflation adjustment in many 
crucial programs for our senior citizens. Because of that, there has 
been no review and addition to the Older Americans Act of new programs 
to serve the vital needs of our seniors.
  I introduced bipartisan legislation the beginning of the session. We 
have more than half of the Members of this House of Representatives on 
that widely agreed-upon legislation.
  But now, in rather a bit of a surprise move, the Republican 
leadership is popping out an Older Americans Act revision to the floor, 
H.R. 782, under suspension of the rules, no amendments allowed, that is 
extraordinarily controversial. Why is it controversial? Well, because 
in a pique, in a pique, the Republican leadership is very angry with 
one of the many senior groups which participates in the Older Americans 
Act employment programs, the National Council of Senior Citizens, who 
regularly advocate for progressive issues for seniors, for prescription 
drug coverage and other things. Yes, they ding the Republican 
leadership and the Republicans a bit.
  So in a pique, to get at that one group that they hate, they are 
going to take and penalize all the other senior groups who actually do 
90 percent of the senior employment and arbitrarily change the program.
  What are the Republicans, the party of small government, the party of 
the private sector, the party of charitable nonprofit groups going to 
do? They are going to rip money away from a very successful program 
being operated now by dozens of other senior groups and give it to the 
States.
  Well, one might say, what is wrong with that? Well, even in my own 
State, which is recognized as the leader on senior citizen issues, they 
are less efficient and less capable. They get fewer people placed for 
the same amount of money as the private nonprofit senior groups do. 
They get fewer people through this program. They serve a different 
clientele.
  Actually, the States serve the easier-to-serve clientele, the urban 
clientele, the more educated clientele than do the disbursed groups 
like Green Thumb and others who go into rural areas where the States do 
not have the capability of going.
  This is extraordinarily unfortunate that this bill should come 
forward in this form. It is going to come forward under the suspension 
of the rules. No amendments allowed. We could have at least had a fair 
fight over this issue. Given the fact that more than half of the House 
has cosponsored my legislation, bipartisan legislation, I believe we 
would have prevailed.
  But we will not be allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. There 
will be 40 minutes of debate. We have waited 4 years. Only the people 
who are running this House of Representatives after 4 years could 
deliver a turkey like this, a bill that is going to hurt senior 
citizens.
  Instead of helping them when this should have been a day to celebrate 
for America's senior citizens, it will be a day that we will look back 
upon and say how is it now that the Older Americans Act senior 
employment programs were destroyed, they were destroyed because a few 
people in the majority were mad at one senior group that gets a tiny 
fraction of the money under this bill. So they dumped money into State 
bureaucracies that were incapable of doing the job. That is a sad day.
  In addition to that, we find that the administration is very opposed 
to this. Perhaps they can even get this on to the veto list if they try 
hard enough. The Secretary of Labor has said that they find 
unacceptable the changes that were made to the Senior Community Service 
Employment program authorized under title 5 of the Older Americans 
Acts. We believe this change would significantly diminish the 
effectiveness of the Senior Community Service Employment programs.
  So why? Why are they doing this? It is so sad. Again, just to repeat 
one last time that, because they are angry at one senior citizen group 
that has advocated against some of their priorities, their misplaced 
priorities here, they going to penalize all the senior citizen groups, 
including Green Thumb, which has got one of the most successful 
employment programs for hard-to-serve rural low-income seniors in this 
country and provides vital services in thousands of communities across 
America.
  They are going to have millions of dollars ripped out of their budget 
and delivered to State bureaucracies that will not spend it as 
efficiently and perhaps will not be able to spend it at all.
  I urge people to oppose this bill under the suspension of the rules.

                          ____________________