[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 27572-27574]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier we were discussing the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. It is a bill that I have taken an 
interest in as the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. One of the 
smaller spending bills, it has now become one of the largest. You might 
wonder what has happened.
  It turns out that the District of Columbia appropriations bill has 
become a vehicle in the closing hours of this session for a lot of 
legislative attempts at spending. In fact, the largest nondefense 
budget to be considered by the Congress each year is for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related 
agencies. It is the largest bill. It passed the Senate in one form a 
few weeks ago. But the bill in its original form never has passed the 
House of Representatives. In fact, they went the entire session 
debating about whether or not there would be enough money to fund 
critical programs for education and health. The House could not muster 
a majority to pass that bill during its regular session. It had to wait 
for a conference committee which involved the District of Columbia to 
finally bring it to the floor just a few hours ago where it passed with 
a very close vote. It now is headed to the President's desk for his 
consideration after we vote on Tuesday. It is my guess that the 
rollcall will be by and large a partisan rollcall, but that the bill 
will pass the Senate and head down to the White House.
  It is also fairly certain that bill will be vetoed by the President. 
In fact, the D.C. appropriations bill, as I mentioned earlier, has 
bought a ticket on the Titanic. This bill is going to sink, as it 
should, and let me tell you why it should.
  I can't understand why we wait until the closing days of the session 
to address the issue of education. It is the last priority in Federal 
spending from the congressional perspective. It is the first priority 
of every American family. We just don't get it. We don't connect with 
people who time and time again, when asked in opinion polls for the 
major concern we face as a nation, identify education.
  Yet in this congressional session it is an afterthought. We have done 
everything else; now let's look at education. I don't think the 
American people expect that kind of conduct from Congress. They don't 
expect Members in the closing hours of any session to finally get 
around to talking about schools, kids, and education. That is exactly 
what we have done.
  This bill, which the President should veto and send back to Congress 
to work on more, guts the class size reduction initiative, an 
initiative which allows hiring more than 100,000 teachers nationwide so 
that first and second grade classrooms have fewer kids. Every teacher 
and parent knows the wisdom of that decision. Yet the Republican 
majority resists. They voted for it last year; now they don't want it.
  They ought to come to Wheaton, IL, and the schools I visited there. 
This is considered to be a fairly conservative area politically. They 
are for the President's initiative. They have seen it work. Why this 
bill wants to kill that initiative, I don't know. They are not 
listening to teachers or parents when the Republican majority insists 
on that. The Republican bill funds 3,400 fewer afterschool centers. 
Almost a million kids in America are denied afterschool programs, a 
million who would have received it if the President's request had gone 
through. The kids will be out of school at 3 in the afternoon with 
little or no adult supervision and nothing constructive to do. The 
Republican majority says that's fine; that is the way it has to be. I 
don't think so. I think our vision of America should be broader. We 
know kids going home to an empty house or hanging around a mall or 
street corner are not engaging themselves in learning. I think the 
President's proposal was far better.
  There are many other areas of concern, including denying title I 
reading and math teachers. Think about that. At a time when we need 
more scientists and computer engineers, we are going to eliminate 5,400 
title I teachers who would have been included in the President's budget 
to teach reading and mathematics. Cut reading instruction for 100,000 
kids, and they fall behind in their classes.
  Is this the kind of bill we want to kick off the new century? Does 
this define our priority in education? I think not. I think it is a bad 
political decision. I hope the President wastes no time in vetoing it 
and sending it back to the Republican majority to address.
  The worst part of the bill, if that isn't bad enough, has to do with 
medical research. Every administration tries in some way, shape, or 
form to find something to do legally with the budget which will allow 
them to get away from some tough decisions. Democrats have done it; the 
Republicans have done it. What we have done with the National 
Institutes of Health is tragic. The National Institutes of Health--and 
I am sure most Americans are familiar with that name--is the agency we 
assign the responsibility of finding cures for the diseases that plague 
Americans and people across the world.
  When one of my former colleagues in the House of Representatives, 
Bill Natcher of Kentucky, who passed away several years ago, used to 
bring this bill to the floor, he would say: This is the people's bill, 
the one that everyone can identify with because we are all interested 
in schools, education, and safety in the workplace.
  The people's bill isn't being treated very well when it comes to 
medical research. I had a chance to look at comments made in the House 
of Representatives during this debate by my friend

[[Page 27573]]

and former colleague, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, CA. 
I think she hit the nail on the head when she said our former Speaker, 
Tip O'Neill, said all politics is local. But in this bill all politics 
is personal. It is as personal as the woman with breast cancer, the man 
with prostate cancer, or people with AIDS who look to us for hope.
  As a Senator, one of the more emotional things I have to go through 
each year is a visit from different groups interested in the National 
Institutes of Health funding. They come to me in desperation. They are 
the mothers and fathers of children with juvenile diabetes; they are 
the mothers and fathers of autistic children; they are people who are 
suffering from cancer and heart disease and rare diseases with names 
that one might never have heard. They say: Senator, do something; make 
sure the National Institutes of Health have the money they need to look 
into medical research to save our children's lives and to give them 
some hope.
  That is a tough responsibility for anyone to face. Doctors face it 
every day, but politicians and Senators face it rarely. When we do, it 
is not a comfortable situation. I always assure them I will do 
everything I can, I will pass every bill I can to put money in medical 
research.
  For the last several years, we have increased the amount of medical 
research. That is good. My colleague in the House, John Porter, a 
Republican from Illinois, has been a leader in that. I salute him for 
that. I think we should continue on that track. This bill, 
unfortunately, takes a giant step backwards because this bill, as it is 
drafted and being sent to the President, says the National Institutes 
of Health must postpone the awarding of medical research grants until 
the closing weeks of next year. It means that universities and medical 
researchers all across America are put on hold. They won't be given the 
money to research diabetes, cancer, heart disease, AIDS and all the 
other things we are concerned about. They have to wait.
  What do their official organizations say about that? The American 
Council on Education says of this approach in the Republican bill to 
delay medical research in America:

       . . . research programs cannot be stopped and started up 
     again without considerable, often irretrievable loss to 
     research progress.

  The Association of American Medical Colleges says of this Republican 
idea:

       The cumulative impact of these effects will slow the 
     overall pace of research.

  The Coalition for Health Funding says:

       The net effect would be a significant slowing of biomedical 
     research endeavors.

  This isn't just a budget gimmick. This isn't a way to save face. This 
is, frankly, something that should alarm every American family. If 
there is not someone in your household who is ill, you are blessed, but 
tomorrow that can change.
  For those who sit patiently in doctors' waiting rooms, in hospitals, 
praying for a miracle for help from Washington when it comes to medical 
research, this bill is no hope at all. This bill takes a step 
backwards. The President should veto this bill. Basically, it says to 
the National Institutes of Health, we will give you more money but wait 
8 months. Let's let medical research stand on hold for 8 months. Mr. 
President, 40 percent of their spending, 60 percent of their grants 
will be delayed until the closing days of the next fiscal year. This is 
beyond budget gimmickry. This is unfair. It is inhumane. If for no 
other reason, President Clinton should veto this bill.
  What it does to the Centers for Disease Control is also awful.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it true that in addition to the so-called forward-
funding, they are also talking about an across-the-board cut that would 
also affect the programs at the National Institutes of Health in 
addition to what the Senator has spoken about?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is true. I concede the overall spending is moving 
up, but they are slicing it back as part of the 1-percent, across-the-
board cut.
  As we learned from the Congressional Budget Office yesterday, if the 
Republican leadership is to keep their hands out of the Social Security 
trust fund to accomplish this, 1 percent won't be enough. They will 
need to cut back 5.8 percent, which means less money for medical 
research than otherwise would have been there.
  By failing to make the necessary, tough, hard choices about where to 
spend money and where not to respond, they have tried to spread this. 
And by doing so, they have hit areas such as medical research.
  Mr. REID. Isn't it true, also, when they talk about 1 percent--which 
we know has to be 6 percent--isn't there that much waste in government? 
The Senator knows they are talking not about looking at pockets of 
waste, fraud, and abuse. But these are indiscriminate, across-the-board 
cuts; is that not true?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is correct. As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, he has had the responsibility of putting together a budget. 
We are supposed to make choices. Some programs are worth investing in 
and some are not. Instead of making the choice, the Republican 
leadership says let's take a cut across-the-board on all of these 
projects and programs.
  I am not going to stand here and say there is waste, fraud, and abuse 
when it comes to medical research. We fund at the current time fewer 
than half of the requests. People come to NIH and say: We have an idea 
for a cure for diabetes, or something to do with asthma, arthritis. 
These people are vetted, the professionals look at them, the money is 
given.
  This approach is not only going to cut a percentage off the money for 
medical research, it is going to delay 40 percent of the funds until 
the closing days of the year. So all the researchers are put on hold, 
and all the people out in America, worried about these medical 
conditions for themselves and their families, frankly, are going to be 
faced with that same delay.
  Mr. REID. I ask one last question to the Senator from Illinois. I 
think the Senator has done a good job of indicating these cuts are 
related to real people, people who get sick. They are not numbers. They 
are not statistics.
  It was a few months ago at the West Front of the Capitol that I was 
here with Miss America. There has been a new Miss America in the last 
few weeks. The 1998 Miss America is a diabetic. She was out there 
because she has hope that what we are doing at the National Institutes 
of Health will allow her and the millions of other people who are 
diabetic to be cured.
  This will slow up the grants to these people who, we are told, are on 
the verge of a breakthrough so children and others with diabetes can 
look forward to the date when they will no longer have to take the 
insulin shots, sometimes three times a day. Isn't that right?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Nevada is right. Again, let me remind 
you, this is a budget gimmick. If you delay the spending in an agency 
until the closing weeks of the year and then when you calculate how 
much it is going to cost, it won't come out to the same dollar amount. 
In order to meet some budget guidelines and conform with some 
regulations and rules, they make this decision to make an across-the-
board cut and delay the spending.
  If somebody came to the floor and said, I have a great idea, let's 
delay paying Members of Congress until the last few weeks of the year, 
I think we might have some resistance here. I think some of my 
colleagues and my wife and I might see that a little differently. When 
it comes to medical research, we are prepared to do that. How can you 
say that to the families you have met and I have met who come and 
expect us to do our very best to encourage medical research?
  Let me tell you another area. The Centers for Disease Control gets 
$2.8 billion. What do they do? They try, across the United States, to 
do things such as reduce the incidence of HIV and AIDS, try to reduce 
tuberculosis, immunization programs for kids, things that make America 
healthier. This appropriation the Republicans

[[Page 27574]]

have brought to us delays until the very end of the fiscal year a third 
of that money. Slow down your effort to try to stop the spread of AIDS, 
this appropriation bill says. I think that is irresponsible.
  If there is any reason for the President to veto this bill, it is in 
the area of health research and disease prevention. I hope the 
President vetoes it, sends it back up in a hurry, and says to the 
Republican leadership: Roll up your sleeves and get serious. If you are 
going to make cuts in order to achieve some budget goals, don't start 
with medical research, don't start with children who are suffering from 
diseases where we might find a cure, don't go to the Centers for 
Disease Control which has an important mission for all Americans to 
make this a healthier nation. No, go somewhere else.
  I have been elected to the Congress, the Senate, now, for 17 years. 
There are some areas that are really worth a fight. We can talk about 
roads and bridges. They mean a lot to a lot of people. But when it 
comes to education and health, I think that is worth a fight. I invite 
the President's veto as quickly as possible. Send this bill back up 
here and say to the leadership, on both sides of the Rotunda, that they 
have a lot more to do. Balancing this budget on the backs of kids who 
need special tutorial help to learn to deal with reading and math is 
unconscionable. Balancing this budget on the backs of thousands who 
receive assistance from the Women, Infants, and Children Program for 
nutritional assistance, so babies are born healthy, that is 
unconscionable.
  For those of us who next year again will face a steady stream of 
people--from Illinois, in my case, Nevada in the case of Senator Reid--
who come to our office and beg us, please do something about medical 
research so my child might live, I want to be able to look them in the 
eye and say: We did the right thing. We encouraged the President to 
veto an irresponsible bill, a bill which would have delayed medical 
research for a lot of people across America who are depending on it for 
their survival.
  When it comes down to the closing hours of the session, sometimes 
things move through quickly and people are anxious to get home. I know 
I speak for myself and I probably do for many others when I say I am 
prepared to stay as long as it takes to see that the National 
Institutes of Health and all their medical research responsibilities do 
not become part of the political gamesmanship of the end of this 
session.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________