Summary:

All articles in House section

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
(House of Representatives - August 03, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8318-H8359] ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of 90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated, it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about $480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing home. In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received primary heating assistance. Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a year. Furnaces were replaced in [[Page H 8319]] 107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and the average household income is $11,400. Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this program, they have an average household income of $7,631. The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it will only worsen the condition. But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically about the size of New England, excluding Maine: I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance Program possible. Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my own house. I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3 years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of. I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil. I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5 years. Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me, and he said something to me that I will never forget. He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes, I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage and to pay the electric bill. That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us toward a balanced budget. We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not, let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be bankrupt. That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year. I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below zero. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint America with more opportunity? Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in 1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon, followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in America, and we cannot afford to do that. This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4 years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future. They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for any children. The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving, caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it makes no human sense. That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our children, our future. [[Page H 8320]] Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this bill we declare our priorities as a nation. Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices Republicans have made in this bill. There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they need to learn and succeed in school. In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room. Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by 50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991. Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996 than could in 1995. That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents. Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking from society rather than contributing to it. Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers. Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their son. That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for immunizations and to the dentist for checkups. Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his learning disability was diagnosed and addressed. Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them help Guy. As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at Charles County Community College. Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working for a small business and supporting her family. In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he is doing well and is ready to learn. In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli Lilly, AT, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting children ready to learn is the key to future economic success. But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. announcement by the chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding time to me, and I will try to be brief. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance. It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the facts, as this time, but it was a good performance. That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth, and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the time I hoped I won on this bill. I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win, but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win, and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing the youngsters of America. The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head Start Program. Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government, spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices. {time} 1115 This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion. To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion. Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to whether or not this program works at all. Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''. That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion. In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion. Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start are not the only children in America. All of the children of America, roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity, their education, their nourishment is important to the future of America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for those children to become the real future of America. This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9 percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control. What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will not be concerned about the escalating interest on the debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years. We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because, after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill. It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make the cuts. It is time to pass this bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.'' You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000 kids out of Head Start. Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them. [[Page H 8321]] You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than $65 billion. We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over $200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha. You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2. Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. Where in God's name are your priorities? Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars. As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is where the money has gone, to try to improve quality. As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to 704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look at the people behind those numbers. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190- percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in preserving it. I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall funding for rural health care. According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate. In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless cluster. We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for 12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health, area health education centers, health education training centers, and many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have no health care provider whatsoever. My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done. While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for living in the heartland of this great country. I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America; this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget. Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start Program. Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how many children are we going to kick out of the program. Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to be kicked out of this program. Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to kick off. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5, 10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together. We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending priorities. The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start. Defeat this bill. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes remaining. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start. It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start. It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and 4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger. If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children in both urban and rural areas. {time} 1130 Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories. Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her Head Start teacher that led [[Page H 8322]] her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami. Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for the poor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill. This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that we need to invest in our children. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people. But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's poorest families. Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little children. I say, shame on you. The American people support Head Start--for good reason. Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school. Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion, ``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for children and families.'' Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar: Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year- olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them are from families with incomes below the poverty level. The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for this program. President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.'' Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and most vulnerable in our society. Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and success led to success. She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge Wilkie Ferguson, Jr. Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed. This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue. The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars worth of services in return. These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated in volunteer programs last year. These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older Americans to do a lot of good in our communities. Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further changes will be made today. But 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, the full committee attached a number of legislative riders in the full committee. I will 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 these violent, brutal crimes against women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe 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 even before a fall report is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to strike this language, and I urge support for her 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 urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders before they consider final passage. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start. How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress? I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer Service. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an early childhood development program. It is a program for children of working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have the money to do it. [[Page H 8323]] Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to being a dropout. Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with the services that the program is designed to provide. We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money, taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of Head Start. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse treatment. The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive diseases. Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques should be equally successful in treating substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the gentleman's comment. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of American adults and 3 percent of adolescents. The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research study would help to advance both the private and public sectors' understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost effectively treat substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Missouri further to address this issue. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean- spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this budget, this appropriations bill represents. Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, with infant mortality. Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to make it. In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that let them live. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the long term, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of America today. Today, Mr. Chairman. We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about the children of today. Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with the highest rates of infant mortality in the country. Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, so that we can solve this terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the Congress would be doing this. {time} 1145 Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to American citizens or businesses. Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens. This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major metropolitan centers in America. At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and again this bill is intended to provide funding for those [[Page H 8324]] communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis. I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women, youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the organization and delivery of care in health services. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or high-cost settings. The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where the HIV epidemic continues to grow. I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard]. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor- HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps' volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value and experience of our country's older Americans. As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do so, if we do not deny them the opportunity. Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and the numbers are growing. The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and care for children afflicted with a serious illness. In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from the guidance and love of a senior. The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in daily activities helping them remain independent and in their communities. These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise, time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society neglects. It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of senior volunteerism with these cuts. Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship, Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if they have nothing to offer. Republicans are wrong. Seniors most certainly have much to offer. Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care research. As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health transition grant program. I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health at the Federal level. We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one more barrier by removing the rural health research component. So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I certainly urge all Members to support it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida. These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only thing preventing these kids from a life of crime. Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our communities, to be cut. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Shame, shame, shame. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income seniors. In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls' club. I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a helping hand in their older years. Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and community service projects. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the Green Thumb program. This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major, critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life for our senior citizens. We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors. This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to participate in our communities. [[Page H 8325]] This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42 million over what was in last year's. As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the sacrifices they have made in our behalf. Vote against this appropriations bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill this morning. We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are increasing funding for the National Institute of Health. Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill. They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan White or the National Institutes of Health. So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and supporting and increasing funding for these programs. What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the National Institutes of Health to support some of these other boondoggles in the program? If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical. The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, ``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing the best we can. I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. {time} 1200 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently and not be an economic burden on their families or society. The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly patients. But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes. Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity. In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP]. These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose time had come. Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he or she can live independently. I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond quickly and provide greater community safety. These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they are repeated in every congressional district. I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and protect the economic benefits of these programs. Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority. The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer. It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death. So we are talking about priorities. This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything, regardless of whether people live or die. You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack of consistency and borders on hypocrisy. So what we would have you to do is to understand there are consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority. Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which serves thousands of senior citizens across America. Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come face to face with our constituents. As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low- income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination [[Page H 8326]] grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there is no Goals 2000 Education Program. But just how do you explain to people that the House of Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program. Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens. How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens that they will just have to ``make do.'' ``Stay cool the best way you can.'' Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior citizens. They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an unsettling thought. I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this sweltering heat. Where is our compassion? I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban included to protect them. It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase; we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse, and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating, eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices even tougher. What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions are taken on this bill today. There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts opportunities for older workers who still want to work. Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our senior cit

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
(House of Representatives - August 03, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8318-H8359] ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of 90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated, it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about $480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing home. In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received primary heating assistance. Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a year. Furnaces were replaced in [[Page H 8319]] 107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and the average household income is $11,400. Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this program, they have an average household income of $7,631. The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it will only worsen the condition. But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically about the size of New England, excluding Maine: I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance Program possible. Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my own house. I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3 years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of. I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil. I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5 years. Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me, and he said something to me that I will never forget. He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes, I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage and to pay the electric bill. That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us toward a balanced budget. We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not, let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be bankrupt. That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year. I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below zero. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint America with more opportunity? Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in 1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon, followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in America, and we cannot afford to do that. This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4 years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future. They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for any children. The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving, caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it makes no human sense. That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our children, our future. [[Page H 8320]] Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this bill we declare our priorities as a nation. Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices Republicans have made in this bill. There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they need to learn and succeed in school. In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room. Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by 50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991. Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996 than could in 1995. That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents. Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking from society rather than contributing to it. Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers. Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their son. That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for immunizations and to the dentist for checkups. Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his learning disability was diagnosed and addressed. Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them help Guy. As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at Charles County Community College. Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working for a small business and supporting her family. In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he is doing well and is ready to learn. In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli Lilly, AT, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting children ready to learn is the key to future economic success. But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. announcement by the chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding time to me, and I will try to be brief. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance. It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the facts, as this time, but it was a good performance. That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth, and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the time I hoped I won on this bill. I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win, but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win, and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing the youngsters of America. The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head Start Program. Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government, spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices. {time} 1115 This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion. To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion. Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to whether or not this program works at all. Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''. That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion. In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion. Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start are not the only children in America. All of the children of America, roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity, their education, their nourishment is important to the future of America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for those children to become the real future of America. This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9 percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control. What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will not be concerned about the escalating interest on the debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years. We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because, after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill. It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make the cuts. It is time to pass this bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.'' You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000 kids out of Head Start. Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them. [[Page H 8321]] You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than $65 billion. We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over $200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha. You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2. Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. Where in God's name are your priorities? Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars. As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is where the money has gone, to try to improve quality. As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to 704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look at the people behind those numbers. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190- percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in preserving it. I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall funding for rural health care. According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate. In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless cluster. We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for 12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health, area health education centers, health education training centers, and many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have no health care provider whatsoever. My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done. While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for living in the heartland of this great country. I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America; this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget. Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start Program. Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how many children are we going to kick out of the program. Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to be kicked out of this program. Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to kick off. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5, 10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together. We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending priorities. The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start. Defeat this bill. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes remaining. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start. It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start. It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and 4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger. If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children in both urban and rural areas. {time} 1130 Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories. Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her Head Start teacher that led [[Page H 8322]] her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami. Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for the poor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill. This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that we need to invest in our children. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people. But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's poorest families. Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little children. I say, shame on you. The American people support Head Start--for good reason. Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school. Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion, ``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for children and families.'' Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar: Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year- olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them are from families with incomes below the poverty level. The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for this program. President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.'' Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and most vulnerable in our society. Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and success led to success. She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge Wilkie Ferguson, Jr. Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed. This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue. The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars worth of services in return. These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated in volunteer programs last year. These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older Americans to do a lot of good in our communities. Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further changes will be made today. But 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, the full committee attached a number of legislative riders in the full committee. I will 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 these violent, brutal crimes against women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe 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 even before a fall report is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to strike this language, and I urge support for her 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 urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders before they consider final passage. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start. How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress? I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer Service. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an early childhood development program. It is a program for children of working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have the money to do it. [[Page H 8323]] Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to being a dropout. Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with the services that the program is designed to provide. We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money, taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of Head Start. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse treatment. The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive diseases. Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques should be equally successful in treating substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the gentleman's comment. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of American adults and 3 percent of adolescents. The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research study would help to advance both the private and public sectors' understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost effectively treat substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Missouri further to address this issue. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean- spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this budget, this appropriations bill represents. Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, with infant mortality. Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to make it. In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that let them live. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the long term, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of America today. Today, Mr. Chairman. We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about the children of today. Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with the highest rates of infant mortality in the country. Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, so that we can solve this terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the Congress would be doing this. {time} 1145 Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to American citizens or businesses. Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens. This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major metropolitan centers in America. At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and again this bill is intended to provide funding for those [[Page H 8324]] communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis. I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women, youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the organization and delivery of care in health services. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or high-cost settings. The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where the HIV epidemic continues to grow. I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard]. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor- HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps' volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value and experience of our country's older Americans. As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do so, if we do not deny them the opportunity. Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and the numbers are growing. The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and care for children afflicted with a serious illness. In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from the guidance and love of a senior. The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in daily activities helping them remain independent and in their communities. These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise, time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society neglects. It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of senior volunteerism with these cuts. Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship, Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if they have nothing to offer. Republicans are wrong. Seniors most certainly have much to offer. Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care research. As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health transition grant program. I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health at the Federal level. We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one more barrier by removing the rural health research component. So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I certainly urge all Members to support it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida. These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only thing preventing these kids from a life of crime. Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our communities, to be cut. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Shame, shame, shame. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income seniors. In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls' club. I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a helping hand in their older years. Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and community service projects. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the Green Thumb program. This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major, critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life for our senior citizens. We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors. This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to participate in our communities. [[Page H 8325]] This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42 million over what was in last year's. As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the sacrifices they have made in our behalf. Vote against this appropriations bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill this morning. We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are increasing funding for the National Institute of Health. Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill. They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan White or the National Institutes of Health. So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and supporting and increasing funding for these programs. What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the National Institutes of Health to support some of these other boondoggles in the program? If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical. The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, ``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing the best we can. I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. {time} 1200 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently and not be an economic burden on their families or society. The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly patients. But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes. Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity. In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP]. These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose time had come. Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he or she can live independently. I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond quickly and provide greater community safety. These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they are repeated in every congressional district. I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and protect the economic benefits of these programs. Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority. The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer. It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death. So we are talking about priorities. This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything, regardless of whether people live or die. You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack of consistency and borders on hypocrisy. So what we would have you to do is to understand there are consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority. Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which serves thousands of senior citizens across America. Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come face to face with our constituents. As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low- income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination [[Page H 8326]] grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there is no Goals 2000 Education Program. But just how do you explain to people that the House of Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program. Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens. How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens that they will just have to ``make do.'' ``Stay cool the best way you can.'' Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior citizens. They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an unsettling thought. I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this sweltering heat. Where is our compassion? I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban included to protect them. It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase; we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse, and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating, eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices even tougher. What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions are taken on this bill today. There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts opportunities for older workers who still want to work. Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our

Summary:

All articles in House section

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
(House of Representatives - August 03, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8318-H8359] ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of 90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated, it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about $480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing home. In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received primary heating assistance. Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a year. Furnaces were replaced in [[Page H 8319]] 107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and the average household income is $11,400. Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this program, they have an average household income of $7,631. The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it will only worsen the condition. But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically about the size of New England, excluding Maine: I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance Program possible. Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my own house. I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3 years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of. I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil. I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5 years. Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me, and he said something to me that I will never forget. He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes, I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage and to pay the electric bill. That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us toward a balanced budget. We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not, let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be bankrupt. That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year. I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below zero. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint America with more opportunity? Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in 1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon, followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in America, and we cannot afford to do that. This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4 years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future. They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for any children. The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving, caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it makes no human sense. That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our children, our future. [[Page H 8320]] Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this bill we declare our priorities as a nation. Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices Republicans have made in this bill. There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they need to learn and succeed in school. In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room. Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by 50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991. Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996 than could in 1995. That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents. Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking from society rather than contributing to it. Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers. Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their son. That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for immunizations and to the dentist for checkups. Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his learning disability was diagnosed and addressed. Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them help Guy. As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at Charles County Community College. Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working for a small business and supporting her family. In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he is doing well and is ready to learn. In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli Lilly, AT, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting children ready to learn is the key to future economic success. But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. announcement by the chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding time to me, and I will try to be brief. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance. It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the facts, as this time, but it was a good performance. That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth, and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the time I hoped I won on this bill. I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win, but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win, and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing the youngsters of America. The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head Start Program. Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government, spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices. {time} 1115 This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion. To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion. Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to whether or not this program works at all. Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''. That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion. In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion. Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start are not the only children in America. All of the children of America, roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity, their education, their nourishment is important to the future of America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for those children to become the real future of America. This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9 percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control. What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will not be concerned about the escalating interest on the debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years. We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because, after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill. It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make the cuts. It is time to pass this bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.'' You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000 kids out of Head Start. Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them. [[Page H 8321]] You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than $65 billion. We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over $200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha. You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2. Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. Where in God's name are your priorities? Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars. As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is where the money has gone, to try to improve quality. As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to 704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look at the people behind those numbers. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190- percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in preserving it. I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall funding for rural health care. According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate. In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless cluster. We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for 12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health, area health education centers, health education training centers, and many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have no health care provider whatsoever. My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done. While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for living in the heartland of this great country. I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America; this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget. Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start Program. Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how many children are we going to kick out of the program. Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to be kicked out of this program. Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to kick off. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5, 10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together. We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending priorities. The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start. Defeat this bill. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes remaining. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start. It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start. It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and 4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger. If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children in both urban and rural areas. {time} 1130 Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories. Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her Head Start teacher that led [[Page H 8322]] her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami. Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for the poor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill. This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that we need to invest in our children. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people. But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's poorest families. Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little children. I say, shame on you. The American people support Head Start--for good reason. Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school. Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion, ``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for children and families.'' Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar: Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year- olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them are from families with incomes below the poverty level. The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for this program. President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.'' Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and most vulnerable in our society. Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and success led to success. She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge Wilkie Ferguson, Jr. Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed. This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue. The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars worth of services in return. These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated in volunteer programs last year. These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older Americans to do a lot of good in our communities. Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further changes will be made today. But 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, the full committee attached a number of legislative riders in the full committee. I will 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 these violent, brutal crimes against women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe 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 even before a fall report is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to strike this language, and I urge support for her 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 urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders before they consider final passage. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start. How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress? I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer Service. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an early childhood development program. It is a program for children of working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have the money to do it. [[Page H 8323]] Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to being a dropout. Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with the services that the program is designed to provide. We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money, taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of Head Start. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse treatment. The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive diseases. Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques should be equally successful in treating substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the gentleman's comment. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of American adults and 3 percent of adolescents. The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research study would help to advance both the private and public sectors' understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost effectively treat substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Missouri further to address this issue. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean- spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this budget, this appropriations bill represents. Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, with infant mortality. Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to make it. In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that let them live. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the long term, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of America today. Today, Mr. Chairman. We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about the children of today. Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with the highest rates of infant mortality in the country. Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, so that we can solve this terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the Congress would be doing this. {time} 1145 Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to American citizens or businesses. Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens. This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major metropolitan centers in America. At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and again this bill is intended to provide funding for those [[Page H 8324]] communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis. I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women, youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the organization and delivery of care in health services. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or high-cost settings. The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where the HIV epidemic continues to grow. I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard]. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor- HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps' volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value and experience of our country's older Americans. As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do so, if we do not deny them the opportunity. Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and the numbers are growing. The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and care for children afflicted with a serious illness. In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from the guidance and love of a senior. The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in daily activities helping them remain independent and in their communities. These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise, time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society neglects. It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of senior volunteerism with these cuts. Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship, Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if they have nothing to offer. Republicans are wrong. Seniors most certainly have much to offer. Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care research. As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health transition grant program. I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health at the Federal level. We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one more barrier by removing the rural health research component. So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I certainly urge all Members to support it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida. These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only thing preventing these kids from a life of crime. Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our communities, to be cut. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Shame, shame, shame. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income seniors. In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls' club. I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a helping hand in their older years. Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and community service projects. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the Green Thumb program. This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major, critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life for our senior citizens. We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors. This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to participate in our communities. [[Page H 8325]] This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42 million over what was in last year's. As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the sacrifices they have made in our behalf. Vote against this appropriations bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill this morning. We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are increasing funding for the National Institute of Health. Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill. They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan White or the National Institutes of Health. So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and supporting and increasing funding for these programs. What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the National Institutes of Health to support some of these other boondoggles in the program? If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical. The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, ``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing the best we can. I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. {time} 1200 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently and not be an economic burden on their families or society. The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly patients. But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes. Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity. In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP]. These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose time had come. Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he or she can live independently. I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond quickly and provide greater community safety. These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they are repeated in every congressional district. I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and protect the economic benefits of these programs. Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority. The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer. It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death. So we are talking about priorities. This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything, regardless of whether people live or die. You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack of consistency and borders on hypocrisy. So what we would have you to do is to understand there are consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority. Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which serves thousands of senior citizens across America. Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come face to face with our constituents. As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low- income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination [[Page H 8326]] grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there is no Goals 2000 Education Program. But just how do you explain to people that the House of Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program. Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens. How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens that they will just have to ``make do.'' ``Stay cool the best way you can.'' Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior citizens. They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an unsettling thought. I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this sweltering heat. Where is our compassion? I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban included to protect them. It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase; we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse, and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating, eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices even tougher. What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions are taken on this bill today. There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts opportunities for older workers who still want to work. Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our senior cit

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
(House of Representatives - August 03, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H8318-H8359] ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of 90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated, it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about $480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing home. In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received primary heating assistance. Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a year. Furnaces were replaced in [[Page H 8319]] 107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and the average household income is $11,400. Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this program, they have an average household income of $7,631. The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it will only worsen the condition. But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically about the size of New England, excluding Maine: I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance Program possible. Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my own house. I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3 years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of. I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil. I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5 years. Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me, and he said something to me that I will never forget. He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes, I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage and to pay the electric bill. That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us toward a balanced budget. We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not, let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be bankrupt. That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year. I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below zero. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint America with more opportunity? Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in 1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon, followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in America, and we cannot afford to do that. This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4 years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future. They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for any children. The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving, caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it makes no human sense. That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our children, our future. [[Page H 8320]] Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this bill we declare our priorities as a nation. Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans? The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices Republicans have made in this bill. There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they need to learn and succeed in school. In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room. Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by 50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991. Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996 than could in 1995. That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents. Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking from society rather than contributing to it. Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers. Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their son. That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for immunizations and to the dentist for checkups. Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his learning disability was diagnosed and addressed. Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them help Guy. As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at Charles County Community College. Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working for a small business and supporting her family. In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he is doing well and is ready to learn. In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli Lilly, AT, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting children ready to learn is the key to future economic success. But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. announcement by the chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding time to me, and I will try to be brief. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance. It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the facts, as this time, but it was a good performance. That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth, and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the time I hoped I won on this bill. I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win, but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win, and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing the youngsters of America. The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head Start Program. Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government, spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices. {time} 1115 This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion. To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion. Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to whether or not this program works at all. Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''. That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion. In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion. Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start are not the only children in America. All of the children of America, roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity, their education, their nourishment is important to the future of America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for those children to become the real future of America. This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9 percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control. What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will not be concerned about the escalating interest on the debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years. We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because, after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill. It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make the cuts. It is time to pass this bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.'' You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000 kids out of Head Start. Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them. [[Page H 8321]] You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than $65 billion. We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over $200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha. You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2. Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. Where in God's name are your priorities? Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars. As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is where the money has gone, to try to improve quality. As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to 704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look at the people behind those numbers. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190- percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in preserving it. I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall funding for rural health care. According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate. In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless cluster. We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for 12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health, area health education centers, health education training centers, and many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have no health care provider whatsoever. My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done. While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for living in the heartland of this great country. I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America; this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget. Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start Program. Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how many children are we going to kick out of the program. Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to be kicked out of this program. Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to kick off. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program. Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5, 10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together. We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending priorities. The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start. Defeat this bill. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes remaining. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start. It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start. It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and 4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger. If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children in both urban and rural areas. {time} 1130 Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories. Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her Head Start teacher that led [[Page H 8322]] her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami. Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for the poor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill. This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that we need to invest in our children. Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people. But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's poorest families. Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little children. I say, shame on you. The American people support Head Start--for good reason. Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school. Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion, ``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for children and families.'' Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar: Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program. Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year- olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them are from families with incomes below the poverty level. The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for this program. President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.'' Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and most vulnerable in our society. Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and success led to success. She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge Wilkie Ferguson, Jr. Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed. This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue. The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars worth of services in return. These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated in volunteer programs last year. These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older Americans to do a lot of good in our communities. Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further changes will be made today. But 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, the full committee attached a number of legislative riders in the full committee. I will 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 these violent, brutal crimes against women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe 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 even before a fall report is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to strike this language, and I urge support for her 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 urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders before they consider final passage. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start. How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress? I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer Service. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an early childhood development program. It is a program for children of working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have the money to do it. [[Page H 8323]] Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to being a dropout. Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with the services that the program is designed to provide. We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money, taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of Head Start. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse treatment. The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive diseases. Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques should be equally successful in treating substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the gentleman's comment. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of American adults and 3 percent of adolescents. The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research study would help to advance both the private and public sectors' understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost effectively treat substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Missouri further to address this issue. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean- spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this budget, this appropriations bill represents. Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, with infant mortality. Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to make it. In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that let them live. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo]. Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the long term, for future generations. Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of America today. Today, Mr. Chairman. We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about the children of today. Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with the highest rates of infant mortality in the country. Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, so that we can solve this terrible problem. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the Congress would be doing this. {time} 1145 Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to American citizens or businesses. Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens. This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major metropolitan centers in America. At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and again this bill is intended to provide funding for those [[Page H 8324]] communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis. I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women, youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the organization and delivery of care in health services. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or high-cost settings. The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where the HIV epidemic continues to grow. I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard]. Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor- HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps' volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value and experience of our country's older Americans. As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do so, if we do not deny them the opportunity. Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and the numbers are growing. The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and care for children afflicted with a serious illness. In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from the guidance and love of a senior. The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in daily activities helping them remain independent and in their communities. These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise, time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society neglects. It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of senior volunteerism with these cuts. Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship, Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if they have nothing to offer. Republicans are wrong. Seniors most certainly have much to offer. Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care research. As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health transition grant program. I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health at the Federal level. We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one more barrier by removing the rural health research component. So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I certainly urge all Members to support it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]. Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida. These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only thing preventing these kids from a life of crime. Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our communities, to be cut. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Shame, shame, shame. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income seniors. In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls' club. I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a helping hand in their older years. Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and community service projects. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the Green Thumb program. This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major, critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life for our senior citizens. We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors. This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to participate in our communities. [[Page H 8325]] This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42 million over what was in last year's. As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the sacrifices they have made in our behalf. Vote against this appropriations bill. Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee. Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill this morning. We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are increasing funding for the National Institute of Health. Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill. They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan White or the National Institutes of Health. So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and supporting and increasing funding for these programs. What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the National Institutes of Health to support some of these other boondoggles in the program? If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical. The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, ``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing the best we can. I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for the bill. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. {time} 1200 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently and not be an economic burden on their families or society. The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly patients. But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes. Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity. In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP]. These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose time had come. Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he or she can live independently. I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond quickly and provide greater community safety. These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they are repeated in every congressional district. I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and protect the economic benefits of these programs. Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority. The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer. It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death. So we are talking about priorities. This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything, regardless of whether people live or die. You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack of consistency and borders on hypocrisy. So what we would have you to do is to understand there are consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable bill. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority. Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which serves thousands of senior citizens across America. Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come face to face with our constituents. As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low- income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination [[Page H 8326]] grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there is no Goals 2000 Education Program. But just how do you explain to people that the House of Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program. Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens. How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens that they will just have to ``make do.'' ``Stay cool the best way you can.'' Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior citizens. They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an unsettling thought. I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this sweltering heat. Where is our compassion? I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban included to protect them. It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase; we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse, and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating, eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices even tougher. What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions are taken on this bill today. There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts opportunities for older workers who still want to work. Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our