Floor SpeechNeutral1996-07-10

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

HealthcareTaxesEnvironmentEducationSocial SecurityLabor

Context

On 1996-07-10, Representative Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY-7) delivered a floor speech titled "DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997" in the House.

Full Text

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996) [Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)] [House] [Pages H7220-H7243] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3755. in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walker in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 43 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 39\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes 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. Mr. Chairman, I would call the attention of the Members to the charts beside me. First, a chart depicting the expenditures of the U.S. Government in 1962, Jack Kennedy's heyday, when the Federal Government in that fiscal year spent $106.8 billion with a very minor deficit. The deficit today runs around $150 billion. It was a different day, a different era. Half of that was defense, which is depicted in the lower yellow portion of the pie, and roughly one-sixth of the budget, a little bit more than one-sixth, is the nondefense discretionary portion, which includes the programs funded in this bill. {time} 1900 The blue portion refers to the entitlements, which at that time consisted of Social Security and welfare and various other mandatory spending programs. The red is interest on the debt, which then was a ``big'' $7 billion. Times have changed, Mr. Chairman. Today--for fiscal 1997--the chart looks entirely different. More than half is blue, the mandatory portion of the budget, which is now Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other mandatory programs. The total amount now that we propose to spend is $1.6 trillion compared to $106 billion in fiscal 1962. Today we spend 15 times more than we spent back in Jack Kennedy's day. As I say, half of it is for mandatory spending. We raise most of the money, and we transfer it to other people. We tax the American people and pass it on to the next guy. The discretionary portion looks entirely different. Before, half of the whole budget was defense; now it is only one-sixth. But the other sixth, or the other half of the third, represents discretionary spending which is now about $269 billion, and a good portion of what is in this bill makes up that amount. Actually some of what is in this bill is also funded in the blue, or the mandatory portion, but what is significant about this chart is the red. The significant of the red on this chart is the fact that it has grown disproportionate to the entire pie, which itself has grown by 15 times since 1962. The red represents the interest on the debt. Within the next year or so the red, the interest that we pay on the debt, the borrowing of $100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion a year over the last many years, is now rapidly approaching the same amount of money and soon will, exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation, our first priority under the Constitution of the United States. So I have heard various Members from the other side of the aisle troop down here and say we have to take care of the little children, the infirm, the elderly, we have to take care of the disabled and people who cannot help themselves, and my answer is if we do not get a handle on this problem, all of those people along with every one of us is in deep trouble. The interest on the debt is the first thing the Government must pay. Otherwise we default. If we do not want to default, we have to pay the interest on the debt even before we worry about the security of our Nation and of every man woman and child in this Nation. If we do not get that interest on the debt under control, if we do not get this borrowing in control, that tendency that has caused us to borrow up to $100, $200, to $300 billion a year, because we are spending that much more than we receive every single year with the exception of perhaps 3 years since World War II, frankly, the red color on the chart will encompass everything else, and we will not be able to afford anything else. So I would say take care of the little children first by balancing our books. Now, the other side will say, well, we are balancing them on the backs of the children. I say that is not true. The fact is we are making significant savings. In fiscal year 1995 we saved a net of $16 billion, in fiscal year 1996 a net of an additional $20 billion. In fiscal year 1997, which we are in now, it will be another 15 to $20 billion. Minimum, a net savings to the American taxpayer of $53 billion under what was appropriated by the Democrats when they had control last in the Congress. If we look at President Clinton's budget compared to where he would take us had he had a Democratic Congress, we are saving around $80 billion, all of that out of the discretionary spending. That savings is achieved by cutting everything fairly and equitably. Is it out of education? No. First of all, the Federal Government only spends roughly 5 percent of the entire education budget. This is the chart showing what the United States spends on education. State and local governments spend 95 percent; the Federal Government puts up an additional 5 percent. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that despite the fact that we have heard this hue and cry about cutting the people that are least able, total nondefense discretionary spending is going up. The fact is, yes, we are eliminating duplicative programs. We have cut unnecessary programs. We have already eliminated a number of programs; gone from 655 in 1995, to 515 in 1996, and to 464 in 1997, in this bill. At the same time the savings generated by these eliminations are, in fact, going to the States in the form of block grants, block grants for States and localities to spend the money as they please. Community service block grants has gone up from $390 to $490 million. For child care and development programs, it has gone up from $935 to $950 million. For social services block grant, it has gone up from $2.4 to $2.5 billion. And for maternal and child block grants, it has gone up by $3 million from $678 to $681 million. We are spending more, not less, on block grants. Student aid is going up. The student aid has increased. Maximum Pell [[Page H7221]] grants are going up per person, per individual recipient. The overall student aid has gone up. The TRIO Program has gone up. For the very most disadvantaged people spending has gone up. Work-study spending has gone up. So has spending for various other programs. It has already been pointed out title I grants to the States are kept even. We have been hearing there are cuts in these programs. Head Start is staying even. We are not cutting these things. There has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of political breast beating about how these programs are being cut. They are not being cut. They are staying even. The point is we can go ahead and spend all the money and worry about manana if we would like to, but the poorest of the poor will suffer the most. The people on pensions will suffer the most. The people trying to plan for their children's education by borrowing to get them in college or borrowing money to buy a house or to buy a car will pay most as long as the Government continues to borrow to make up for the deficit that it has created by spending more money than it receives year after year after year. When are we going to bring some common sense to the system? Well, I will tell my friends, we have begun, and we are not balancing the books on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged; we are putting this country back on an even keel in an orderly fashion. If we have our way, within 6 years we will have a balanced budget. If we do not have our way, if the other side has their way, this country is going broke. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me simply respond to the gentleman who just spoke by saying the following: On defense, the difference between now and Jack Kennedy's time is that when Jack Kennedy was President we were in the beginning of the Vietnam war, we had a raging hot cold war, and the Soviet Union was in its heyday. That is a little different than the situation is today. With respect to interest on the debt, I would simply suggest that that interest on the national debt is not out of control because we are overinvesting in education. In fact, under this bill and under the Republican budget over the next 5 years, we will see a per pupil reduction in the Federal investment of almost 20 percent. On the Pell grant front, which is the main program that helps kids go to college, in 1976 that program covered about 48 percent of the cost of going to college. Today it covers only about 20 percent of the cost. Federal support for education as a percentage of what local school districts provide has shrunk from 5.6 percent just 2 years ago when the Republicans took control of this place to about 4.7 percent under this bill. That is almost a 20-percent reduction. At the same time, the States' share of meeting t

Referenced legislation: HRES472, HRES472, HR2748, HR3744, HR3755

View original source →

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996) [Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)] [House] [Pages H7220-H7243] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 3755. in the committee of the whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walker in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 43 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 39\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes 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. Mr. Chairman, I would call the attention of the Members to the charts beside me. First, a chart depicting the expenditures of the U.S. Government in 1962, Jack Kennedy's heyday, when the Federal Government in that fiscal year spent $106.8 billion with a very minor deficit. The deficit today runs around $150 billion. It was a different day, a different era. Half of that was defense, which is depicted in the lower yellow portion of the pie, and roughly one-sixth of the budget, a little bit more than one-sixth, is the nondefense discretionary portion, which includes the programs funded in this bill. {time} 1900 The blue portion refers to the entitlements, which at that time consisted of Social Security and welfare and various other mandatory spending programs. The red is interest on the debt, which then was a ``big'' $7 billion. Times have changed, Mr. Chairman. Today--for fiscal 1997--the chart looks entirely different. More than half is blue, the mandatory portion of the budget, which is now Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other mandatory programs. The total amount now that we propose to spend is $1.6 trillion compared to $106 billion in fiscal 1962. Today we spend 15 times more than we spent back in Jack Kennedy's day. As I say, half of it is for mandatory spending. We raise most of the money, and we transfer it to other people. We tax the American people and pass it on to the next guy. The discretionary portion looks entirely different. Before, half of the whole budget was defense; now it is only one-sixth. But the other sixth, or the other half of the third, represents discretionary spending which is now about $269 billion, and a good portion of what is in this bill makes up that amount. Actually some of what is in this bill is also funded in the blue, or the mandatory portion, but what is significant about this chart is the red. The significant of the red on this chart is the fact that it has grown disproportionate to the entire pie, which itself has grown by 15 times since 1962. The red represents the interest on the debt. Within the next year or so the red, the interest that we pay on the debt, the borrowing of $100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion a year over the last many years, is now rapidly approaching the same amount of money and soon will, exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation, our first priority under the Constitution of the United States. So I have heard various Members from the other side of the aisle troop down here and say we have to take care of the little children, the infirm, the elderly, we have to take care of the disabled and people who cannot help themselves, and my answer is if we do not get a handle on this problem, all of those people along with every one of us is in deep trouble. The interest on the debt is the first thing the Government must pay. Otherwise we default. If we do not want to default, we have to pay the interest on the debt even before we worry about the security of our Nation and of every man woman and child in this Nation. If we do not get that interest on the debt under control, if we do not get this borrowing in control, that tendency that has caused us to borrow up to $100, $200, to $300 billion a year, because we are spending that much more than we receive every single year with the exception of perhaps 3 years since World War II, frankly, the red color on the chart will encompass everything else, and we will not be able to afford anything else. So I would say take care of the little children first by balancing our books. Now, the other side will say, well, we are balancing them on the backs of the children. I say that is not true. The fact is we are making significant savings. In fiscal year 1995 we saved a net of $16 billion, in fiscal year 1996 a net of an additional $20 billion. In fiscal year 1997, which we are in now, it will be another 15 to $20 billion. Minimum, a net savings to the American taxpayer of $53 billion under what was appropriated by the Democrats when they had control last in the Congress. If we look at President Clinton's budget compared to where he would take us had he had a Democratic Congress, we are saving around $80 billion, all of that out of the discretionary spending. That savings is achieved by cutting everything fairly and equitably. Is it out of education? No. First of all, the Federal Government only spends roughly 5 percent of the entire education budget. This is the chart showing what the United States spends on education. State and local governments spend 95 percent; the Federal Government puts up an additional 5 percent. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that despite the fact that we have heard this hue and cry about cutting the people that are least able, total nondefense discretionary spending is going up. The fact is, yes, we are eliminating duplicative programs. We have cut unnecessary programs. We have already eliminated a number of programs; gone from 655 in 1995, to 515 in 1996, and to 464 in 1997, in this bill. At the same time the savings generated by these eliminations are, in fact, going to the States in the form of block grants, block grants for States and localities to spend the money as they please. Community service block grants has gone up from $390 to $490 million. For child care and development programs, it has gone up from $935 to $950 million. For social services block grant, it has gone up from $2.4 to $2.5 billion. And for maternal and child block grants, it has gone up by $3 million from $678 to $681 million. We are spending more, not less, on block grants. Student aid is going up. The student aid has increased. Maximum Pell [[Page H7221]] grants are going up per person, per individual recipient. The overall student aid has gone up. The TRIO Program has gone up. For the very most disadvantaged people spending has gone up. Work-study spending has gone up. So has spending for various other programs. It has already been pointed out title I grants to the States are kept even. We have been hearing there are cuts in these programs. Head Start is staying even. We are not cutting these things. There has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of political breast beating about how these programs are being cut. They are not being cut. They are staying even. The point is we can go ahead and spend all the money and worry about manana if we would like to, but the poorest of the poor will suffer the most. The people on pensions will suffer the most. The people trying to plan for their children's education by borrowing to get them in college or borrowing money to buy a house or to buy a car will pay most as long as the Government continues to borrow to make up for the deficit that it has created by spending more money than it receives year after year after year. When are we going to bring some common sense to the system? Well, I will tell my friends, we have begun, and we are not balancing the books on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged; we are putting this country back on an even keel in an orderly fashion. If we have our way, within 6 years we will have a balanced budget. If we do not have our way, if the other side has their way, this country is going broke. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me simply respond to the gentleman who just spoke by saying the following: On defense, the difference between now and Jack Kennedy's time is that when Jack Kennedy was President we were in the beginning of the Vietnam war, we had a raging hot cold war, and the Soviet Union was in its heyday. That is a little different than the situation is today. With respect to interest on the debt, I would simply suggest that that interest on the national debt is not out of control because we are overinvesting in education. In fact, under this bill and under the Republican budget over the next 5 years, we will see a per pupil reduction in the Federal investment of almost 20 percent. On the Pell grant front, which is the main program that helps kids go to college, in 1976 that program covered about 48 percent of the cost of going to college. Today it covers only about 20 percent of the cost. Federal support for education as a percentage of what local school districts provide has shrunk from 5.6 percent just 2 years ago when the Republicans took control of this place to about 4.7 percent under this bill. That is almost a 20-percent reduction. At the same time, the States' share of meeting t Referenced legislation: HRES472, HRES472, HR2748, HR3744, HR3755