John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coalition substitute. This substitute shows that we can wipe out the deficit without wiping out programs. We can take on this task today of balancing the budget in 7 years only because 3 years ago, we began the quest for a balanced budget on our side of the aisle. Let put that in context. On January 13, 1993, one week before he left office, President Bush handed in his ``Economic Report of the President.'' Turn to page 69 of this Report, and you will see that President Bush projected a deficit for 1993 of $332 billion. In March 1993, this House passed a budget, solely with Democratic votes, which put the deficit on a path downward and steered us away from that projection. Yesterday, the President announced the results. The deficit for fiscal year 1995 was $164 billion--half the deficit President Bush projected for his last year in office. But for what we have achieved over the last three years, we would still be looking at deficits as far as the eye can see. We could not even hope to balance the budget in seven years. Even so, balancing the budget in this time-frame is a tall order. My first problem with the Republican budget resolution was that it took a tough problem and made tougher by stipulating $350 billion in tax breaks, mostly for upper-income Americans. Those tax cuts have been compromised down to $245 billion; but guess who bears the brunt of that compromise? Working families, whose Earned Income Tax Credit will be reduced by $23 billion so that the Alternative Minimum Tax can be taken off the books, and some of the largest corporations in America can be taken off the hook when it comes to paying a fair share of taxes. What are the consequences of such tax breaks? It's very simple: spending has to be cut by $245 billion more than otherwise needed to balance the budget over 7 years. And where do these extra spending cuts fall? On the old and very young, who depend on Medicaid, which the Republicans would slash by $182 billion. And they hit the elderly again, in the form of higher premiums for Medicare, and benefit payments so low they are sure to shut down small hospitals and rural as well as inner city hospitals. Not everyone in this House seems concerned by such a scenario. Yesterday, the Speaker, with some pride, told a gathering from Blue Cross-Blue Shield that under his proposal, Medicare as we know it will ``wither on the vine.'' I cannot vote for a budget that will cause Medicare ``to wither on the vine.'' I am not willing to wreck programs on which peoples' lives depend under the guise of balancing the budget, especially when it is not necessary to commit such carnage. We have before us a substitute that offers a better way to a balanced budget. It reduces the cost of Medicare by more than I would like, but by enough to ensure that its solvency. It lowers the cost of Medicaid, but saves its integrity. And it puts us on a straighter course to a balanced budget because it avoids any diversion into tax cuts until the task is accomplished. I urge my colleagues to vote against a budget that will cause Medicare to ``wither on the vine,'' and wreck Medicaid, and run up the cost of student loans. We can wipe out the deficit without wiping out programs that millions of Americans depend on. We should all vote instead for the Sabo-Stenholm-Orton substitute.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans would have us believe that Medicare is standing on the brink of bankruptcy. Having told 37 million beneficiaries whose lives depend on Medicare, having told them that their security is becoming worthless, they [[Page H 10457]] have the audacity to say the Democrats are scaring people. In truth, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is not standing on the brink of bankruptcy, it is sitting on a surplus of $136 billion. That is not my definition of insolvency. It is true that this year Medicare will be drawing down that surplus, but even in 1999, the insurance trust fund will have assets of almost $100 billion. That is not my idea of a crisis. Do we need to reduce the cost of Medicare? Sure we do, but the Democratic substitute lowers the cost by $90 billion over 7 years, and that end result--$90 billion of relief to the hospital insurance trust fund--is all the Republicans accomplish by $270 billion of savage cuts, because not only do they reduce the cost of Part A, but they also reduce the payroll taxes paid into it by $36 billion. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, one of the first bills brought to the floor in keeping with the Contract For America was H.R. 7, the National Defense Revitalization Act. Its very title implies that our Armed Forces are not ready, that they lack vitality. Now I question that assessment. But there is some findings in the preamble of that bill, and I would just like to read them again so that those who voted for it can be reminded of what assessment is contained in that bill. It says, A return to the ``hollow forces'' of the 1970's has already begun. At the end of fiscal year 1994, one-third of the units in the Army contingency force and all of the forward-deployed and follow-on Army divisions were reporting a reduced state of military readiness. During fiscal year 1994, training readiness declined for the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific fleets. Funding shortfalls for that fiscal year resulted in a grounding of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft squadrons and cancellation and curtailment of Army training exercises. [[Page H 9401]] Marine and naval personnel are not maintaining the standard 12- to 18- month respite between 6-month deployments away from home. Marine Corps units are spending up to 2 of their first 4 years away from their base camps. The significantly increased pace of Department of Defense operations has U.S. Forces overdeployed. Now these findings are, I think, over some. They run counter to the Pentagon's assertions that our troops on the whole, with some exceptions, are ready, but following on these premises and these concerns, our committee in its markup of the defense authorization bill this year, our committee added by my calculation $2.8 billion to the administration's request of $91.9 billion for readiness. That is a 3- percent plus up. The Senate Armed Services Committee on the other hand provided $800 million less than the Clinton administration requested. So, this motion before us is very simple. It says, ``Stick to your guns. Stand by the House's position on the issue of readiness.'' This is an opportunity to act once again on our readiness concerns, which I think all of us to one degree or another share. If we think our forces are in any way in a downward spiral, or that they are overdeployed, or if we think we are trending back or slipping down the slippery slope to the hollow forces of the 1970's, then a 3-percent plus up is a modest step indeed to reverse that trend. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand by the House's position on readiness, to stiffen the resolve of our conferees, and to vote for this motion.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for years and years the Department of Defense out of simple basic prudence has retained the right to recoup some of the billions of dollars that we invest, the U.S. Government invests, through the Department of Defense in the development of highly technical and highly sophisticated military systems. In order to facilitate the sale of nonmajor pieces of equipment, a blanket waiver has been in effect for some time so that these items, items of electronics gear and what have you of not major cost, can be sold without any issue of recoupment being collected. In addition, the Department, out of ordinary prudence, has also said to defense contractors, if it is necessary to make the deal, if you need to have the recoupment waived in order to be price competitive, then you can apply to us. And in fact the record shows that recoupment is routinely waived, almost invariably waived. The Department of Defense has in fact waived $773 million in these nonrecurring cost charges from 1991 through 1994 alone. So whenever it is necessary to waive it, it is there, no further statutory authority is necessary for that purpose, and it is routinely and liberally granted in order to make the sale go. So we have before us a statutory provision in a bill that is supposed to save the Government money that would waive this authority altogether. Why do we want to wipe out the authority to recoup some of the investment that we, the United States, has made in these systems, that is about to be cashed in by the defense contractors when they sell the system abroad? Let me give you one particular case why I do not think clearly we need to waive the recoupment. Let us assume we have a very unique system for which there is no competition, no match anywhere else in the world, there is not even a question of price competitiveness, and another country wants to buy that system, and they come to the Department of Defense for approval to make the sale. Why should not DOD, why should not the American people collect some percentage of what we invested to develop that unique system? If we wipe out as a matter of statutory law the provision that allows DOD to exact this charge, 3 to 5 percent on military sales, then we will forego that opportunity altogether, willy-nilly across the board.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me also point out that the cost of this waiver, depending, could be as much as a billion over the next 5 years. That has to be recovered under the budget rules from some source. The rule book solution to that is it must be recovered from mandatory spending. If it comes out of DOD's mandatory spending, that means it comes out of personnel retirement accounts. It is the only place we have got any real mandatory or direct spending in the DOD budget. The offset, therefore, requirement to make [[Page H 8927]] this waiver possible will be DOD retirement programs.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, especially when it is liberally waived in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense whenever required.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my understanding. It is waived on a case-by-case basis obviously. It is not waived as a blanket matter except for nonmajor pieces of equipment.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his magnanimity, as well as his support. I appreciate it.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have been here for 7 terms now, and I have seen the cycles rise and cycles fall with respect to defense procurement policy making. In one period we get very prescriptive about the rules we make, and the next period we realize that we have been overprescriptive, we have been much too specific, and we back off and give the Department of Defense, in particular, more running room, more discretion, more flexibility, and more responsibility. But always mainly our effort is directed towards the black-letter rule, the procedures, and yet most of us who have ever been involved in running a business realize that when our businesses succeeded or failed, it was not the rule book or the policy manual we turned to first. It was the people who worked for us, and I think we should heed that own practical experience when we look at the defense procurement, and, in revisiting the rules one more time, making another cut at the rules to see if we cannot make defense procurement much more efficient. I do not think we should overlook the fact that we have got to do something about the quality, the calibre, the incentives, the rewards, the accountability of the acquisition work force, and that is the purpose of my amendment. My amendment simply encourages the Secretary of Defense to set up pilot projects to improve acquisition or procurement by improving the people who manage the system. It will allow far greater flexibility in hiring, and firing, and promoting, and incentivizing the people who work in defense acquisition. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would go further than this particular amendment does. I would actually impose upon the Secretary of Defense a requirement that he undertake certain demonstration projects to test out the viability or feasibility of flexing up his personnel policies in the acquisition work force, but in the interests of achieving a consensus this bill, this amendment, simply encourages the Secretary to do that and to use authority that is already on the books, title 5, section 4703, United States Code, which gives that same authority to the Office of Personnel Management. This particular amendment simply starts out by saying the Secretary of Defense is encouraged to utilize that authority and to undertake demonstrational pilot projects that will experiment with, attempt on a broad scale, much more flexible and innovative procedures in hiring, and firing, and rewarding, and penalizing those who fail or succeed. This is a first step, and is long overdue, towards implementing one of the key reforms that was recommended 10 years ago by the Packard Commission. In its report in 1986 the Packard Commission said DOD must be able to attract, and retain, and motivate well-qualified acquisition personnel. The Packard Commission recognized that acquisition reform would not happen if we just rewrite the rule book. This is an exercise that we do frequently, and we wonder why we do not get results. It is because we are not doing enough to change the people that implement and follow the rules. We have to upgrade the caliber of people who manage acquisition. We have got to reward them for good performance, penalizing or replacement for inadequate performance, and, above all, hold them accountable. My amendment would allow the DOD to restructure their personnel regulations for acquisition managers without regard to existing classifications in the Civil Service Code in order to attract better technical talent to keep people who are knowledgeable and capable, and reward them accordingly, and to motivate the whole work force better. Mr. Chairman, this reform is not only recommended by the Packard Commission, but by the National Academy of Public Administration, once again more than 10 years ago, and our followup to it has been all too feeble.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. That is what we are about here. We want to make sure this system is still open to A.J. Higgins, that will ensure that we have the kind of innovation that keeps us abreast of technology and that will assure that we do not fall victim to having a cartel, a club of pre- qualified bidders who are the only ones eligible to participate in this shrinking procurement pie. I support the amendment that the gentlewoman, our ranking Member, has offered. I think it improves upon title I of it and corrects some of the deviations that the bill otherwise tends towards veering away from the standard of full and open competition.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have three basic principles at issue before us. About 10 years ago, in the midst of all kinds of procurement excesses, Congress amended procurement law and established in the Competition and Contracting Act a vigorous commitment to the principle of free, full, and open competition. Basically, the philosophy of that was that if we had full and open competition, we could say to the public, ``This is the public's money you are spending. You are getting your value's worth because it is a result, what we are doing, the contracts we are awarding are a result of full, open, and vigorous competition.'' So I think that we can still say 10 years later any deviation from full and open competition ought to be staunchly defended. I think we ought to be wary right now of deviating from full and open competition for a particular reason. We are downsizing acquisition in the defense arena, drastically cutting the amount that we appropriate every year for the so-called investment accounts, research and development and procurement, by huge percentages. There is a tendency there for the haves, for those who are now defense contractors, to want to exclude the others because the pie is shrinking, and there are just so many pieces you can cut out of a shrinking pie. So there is already a tendency, because of downsizing of funding of procurement for the haves, to try to exclude the have-nots, and we want to be very careful so we do not dovetail procurement law at this very point in the history of procurement funding and make it easier for the haves to rule out the have-nots. I fear we still have too much tendency toward that in this revision of the bill. Do not take it from me. Read what the Chamber of Commerce said in a letter they wrote at the end of July, looking back at this bill. They said, We do not believe that any case has been made for modifying the standards and practices of full and open competition. We are unaware of any testimony or study that such a change is needed. On the contrary, it was specifically considered and rejected by the advisory panel on codifying and streamlining acquisition laws whose 1,800-page report was the foundation for P.L. 103-355, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. So that is the first principle here. Let us be extremely careful about the deviations we make from full and open competition. Second, to the extent we do and to the extent we allow and authorize those who manage this system in the [[Page H 8871]] executive branch to manage and operate the competitive system and to determine who can bid and who cannot bid, who wins the bid, who is excluded and who is included, then we should at least lay down our own principles to guide them. The second point that the Chamber made, and speaking for small businesses in particular, is, and I am reading from their letter, ``We are perplexed by a theme reflected in so many of the bills' provisions eliminating clear statutory standards and substituting virtually unfettered discretion in the career regulation writers to shape the procurement system as they see fit.'' We are virtually letting them make sandlot rules, to make up the rules as they go along and giving them next to no criteria for doing so. Read the bill itself. Pick up a copy of it. I am reading from page 13, 2304(d), ``Standards for determining when the use of competitive procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth in the Federal acquisition regulations.'' That is basically the bare language of the statute. That is the prescription we are giving to the regulators who write the rules and regulations, the black-letter law that will determine who gets included and who gets excluded. The Speaker just made a very compelling speech. I would like to share another anecdote about procurement history that goes back some years. When Ike had retired and gone to Gettysburg, he was interviewed once. Somebody asked him ``General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, who were the heroes of the Second World War who were unsung, the people who helped win it, the people who played a pivotal role who did not get adequate credit?'' The first person he mentioned was Andrew Jackson Higgins, A.J. Higgins, a small boat manufacturer who made bayou boats in New Orleans, LA, who came on during World War II to make PT boats and the famous Higgins boats that made the amphibious landings possible. That is the very kind of small business we want to make provision for.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize an event of special importance in my 5th Congressional District of South Carolina. On October 1, 1995, the Pee Dee Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in South Carolina will commemorate the bicentennial of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. [[Page E 1773]] Nearly 200 years ago, certain individuals decided to leave the John Street Methodist Church in New York because of discrimination and denial of religious liberties. These individuals organized what was to become the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Zion was added to their name in 1848 to distinguish this denomination from other African Methodist bodies. The Right Reverend George E. Battle, Jr., bishop of the Pee Dee Conference, has declared a week of celebration for the week of October 1-8, 1995, to commemorate the founding of their denomination. I congratulate the many churches of the Pee Dee Conference as they celebrate their 200th anniversary and commend them for having kept the faith, and morally and spiritually nourished individuals and families within their congregations, and for having been vital forces in their communities. I extend to the Pee Dee Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church my best wishes for their next century of service.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference and the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] to instruct conferees to H.R. 2, the line-item veto bill. I am pleased, frankly, that we are finally naming conferees, although I am disappointed that it has taken so long. I would like to give some credit to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], for prodding us to this point in the process. Mr. Speaker, 8 months ago, February 6, the House passed H.R. 2; the Senate passed its version of the bill on March 23. We did it with great fanfare. In fact, the date that was chosen, February 6, was not fortuitous; it is the birthday of Ronald Reagan. My friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, said this was one of the proudest days of his life. The Republican leadership took particular pride in the fact that they were willing to give a Democratic President this substantial accession of power. The Speaker himself said during the debate: [[Page H 8607]] For those who think that this city always has to break down into partisanship, you have a Republican majority giving to a Democratic President this year without any gimmicks an increased power over spending. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], said: A few years ago when we started pushing for this legislative line-item veto, there were a few doubting Democrats who said, ``Solomon, it is easy for you to support the line-item veto when your party controls the White House, but we bet you will not be so gung ho when we have a Democratic President.'' Well, here we are. We get a Democratic President, and here is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] up here fighting for the same line-item veto for that Democratic President. So in view of all of the fanfare, what has been the fate of this bill? Almost 150 days after the House and Senate have passed it in different versions, and significantly different versions, that is part of the problem, we are finally getting around to appointing conferees. What happened to the gung ho enthusiasm, to the bipartisan spirit? One has to wonder whether the Republican leadership is no longer so sure that it wants to give these broad powers to a Democratic President. One has to wonder whether they are concerned, afraid that this might give the President too much leverage during the upcoming budget battle. Whatever the reasons may be, I hope we can finally go back to that bipartisan spirit, that enthusiasm that was expressed on February 6. Mr. Speaker, I still have constitutional questions about this bill. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] knows, every time we brought it up, I have been out here with an alternative that I think is a more workable alternative that would clearly pass constitutional review. However, I finally came around to voting for this, because I think it will help restore credibility in the congressional spending process if we give the President some additional power to cull out wasteful spending and to send it back here for final review. Mr. Speaker, the question I am raising today is whether we are going to match our rhetoric with action today, and I hope the conferees will not just take their appointment, but move quickly to resolve differences between the House and Senate bill. I think we have to move to the House bill. I think the Senate has come up with an unworkable proposal as well as an unconstitutional proposal. Let me take just one final moment to urge support for the motion of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and to commend the gentlewoman for bringing forward this particular motion. This should not be controversial. All they do is make clear that H.R. 2 applies to fiscal year 1996 spending bills, even if these bills become law before H.R. 2 is finally enacted. As a result of the delay in passing H.R. 2, the item veto bill, it could be interpreted to exclude fiscal year 1996 spending measures from its coverage. It was never the intent of the House, I do not believe when we passed the bill, to exclude fiscal year 1996 spending bills. In fact, when H.R. 2 was considered by the House, we passed the Obey amendment. The Obey amendment gave the President the authority to veto items in fiscal year 1995 appropriation bills within 10 days after passage of H.R. 2, even if H.R. 2 was enacted. So I do not think that the Collins amendment should be controversial. If we are true to our intent here, true to our purpose, we will make this part of the instruction, and I hope it will come back, the conference report itself, will come back with the Collins provisions incorporated.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the Boston Globe published an extremely moving article by a courageous young Boston attorney, Ken Schwartz, who recently contracted lung cancer. I would like to share an abridged version of this article with my colleagues. As he battles this dreadful disease, Mr. Schwartz recounts the many acts of kindness displayed by this nurses, physicians, and doctors. Mr. Schwartz explains that ``these acts of kindness--have made the unbearable bearable.'' Reading the article, I was struck by the courage and perseverance Mr. Schwartz displays as he fights the illness. Despite the odds, Mr. Schwartz shows a tenacity and bravery I found inspiring. I was also moved by the kindness exhibited by Mr. Schwartz's caregivers and the importance of these acts in helping sustain Mr. Schwartz. Too often, we take for granted the special efforts of health professionals who give of themselves every day to save lives and cure the sick. I know that every Member of the House join me in praying for Mr. Schwartz's complete recovery. [From the Boston Globe] A Patient's Story [By Kenneth B. Schwartz] Until last fall, I had spent a considerable part of my career as a health-care lawyer, first in state government and then in the private sector. I came to know a lot about health-care policy and management, government regulations and contracts. But I knew little about the delivery of care. All that changed on November 7, 1994, when at age 40 I was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. In the months that followed, I was subjected to chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and news of all kinds, most of it bad. It has been a harrowing experience for me and for my family. And yet, the ordeal has been punctuated by moments of exquisite compassion. I have been the recipient of an extraordinary array of human and humane responses to my plight. These acts of kindness--the simple human touch from my caregivers--have made the unbearable bearable. During September and October of 1994, I made several visits to the outpatient clinic of a Boston teaching hospital for treatment of a persistent cough, low-grade fever, malaise, and weakness. The nurse practitioner diagnosed me as having atypical pneumonia and prescribed an antibiotic. Despite continued abnormal blood counts, she assured me that I had a post-viral infection and didn't need an appointment with my physician until mid-November, if then. By mid-October, I felt so bad that I decided I could not wait until November 11 to be seen. Disappointed with the inaccessibility of my physician, I decided to seek care elsewhere, with the hope that a new doctor might be more responsive. My brother, a physician who had trained at Massachusetts General Hospital, arranged for an immediate appointment with Dr. Jose Vega, an experienced internist affiliated with MGH. Dr. Vega spent an hour with me and ordered tests, including a chest X-ray. He called within hours to say he was concerned by the results, which showed a ``mass'' in my right lung, and he ordered a computerized tomography scan for more detail. I remember leaving my office for home, saying quickly to my secretary, Sharyn Wallace, ``I think I may have a serious medical problem.'' Indeed, the CT scan confirmed abnormal developments in my right lung and chest nodes. The next day, Dr. Vega, assuring me that he would continue to be available to me whenever I needed him, referred me to Dr. Thomas Lynch, a 34-year-old MGH oncologist specializing in lung cancer. Dr. Lynch, who seems driven by the ferocity of the disease he sees every day, told me that I had lung cancer, lymphoma, or some rare lung infection, although it was most likely lung cancer. My family and I were terrified. For the next several months, my blood pressure, which used to be a normal 124 over 78, went to 150 over 100, and my heart rate, which used to be a low 48, ran around 100. Within 72 hours of seeing Dr. Lynch, I was scheduled for a bronchoscopy and a mediastinoscopy, exploratory surgical procedures to confirm whether I indeed had lung cancer. Until this point, I had thought that I was at low risk for cancer: I was relatively young, I did not smoke (although I had smoked about a cigarette a day in college and in law school and for several years after that), I worked out every day, and I avoided fatty foods. The day before surgery, I was scheduled to have a series of tests. The presurgery area of the hospital was mobbed, and the nurses seemed harried. Eventually, a nurse who was to conduct a presurgical interview called my name. Already apprehensive, I was breathing hard. The nurse was cool and brusque, as if I were just another faceless patient. But once the interview began, and I told her that I had just learned that I probably had advanced lung cancer, she softened, took my hand, and asked how I was doing. We talked about my 2-year-old son, Ben, and she mentioned that her nephew was named Ben. By the end of our conversation, she was wiping tears from her eyes and saying that while she normally was not on the surgical floor, she would come see me before the surgery. Sure enough, the following day, while I was waiting to be wheeled into surgery, she came by, held my hand, and, with moist eyes, wished me luck. This small gesture was powerful; my apprehension gave way to a much-needed moment of calm. Looking back, I realize that in a high-volume setting, the high-pressure atmosphere tends to stifle a caregiver's inherent compassion and humanity. But the briefest pause in the frenetic pace can bring out the best in a caregiver and do much for a terrified patient. The nurse left, and my apprehension mounted. An hour later, I was wheeled to surgery for a biopsy of the chest nodes and the mass in my lung. I was greeted by a resident in anesthesiology, Dr. Debra Reich, who took my pulse and blood pressure and said gently, ``You're pretty nervous, huh?'' She medicated me with tranquilizers, but that did not stop me from asking about where she lived, where she had trained, and whether she was married. I jokingly asked her how come she was the only Jewish doctor I had met during my time at MGH. When it turned out that she lived down the street from me and liked the sandwiches at the same corner shop, Virginia's, I felt comforted. She squeezed my shoulder, wished me luck, and wheeled me into surgery. When I awoke, I was told that I had adenocarcinoma in my right lung and in several chest nodes--in other words, advanced lung cancer. I don't remember a lot about those hours, but I remember Dr. Vega's face, with tears in his eyes. I also remember feeling very sad and scared. It was clear that I would soon begin a new chapter in my illness and undergo the classic treatment for such advanced cancer: intensive chemotherapy and radiation, followed by surgery to remove the tumors, nodes, and entire lung, if necessary. Dr. Lynch told me that this option presented the real possibility of a cure. Over the next week, I had a series of additional radiologic scans to determine if the cancer had spread beyond my chest. These scans are incredibly scary: You are placed in a tube resembling a sarcophagus, with only 6 inches between you and the walls, and you may spend several hours inside, deafened by the clanging machine. And the scans always raise fears about whether more bad news is around the corner. Dr. Vegas or Dr. Lynch always made it a point, though, to relay results within 24 hours, so my family and I didn't have to endure the anxiety of uncertainty any longer than necessary. The scans of my body, head, liver, bones, and back were clear. I was relieved. The doctors soon began an intensive regimen of chemotherapy and radiation, with the goal of destroying the cancer and preparing for surgery to remove my lung. Before being admitted for my first five-day course of chemotherapy, I had a radiation-simulation session. During such sessions, therapists meticulously map their targets by marking your skin where the radiation should be directed. I was asked to lie on a table in a large, cold chamber. The radiation therapist, Julie Sullivan, offered me a blanket and, mentioning that the staff had a tape deck, asked if I had any requests: I recalled my college days and asked for James Taylor. Listening to ``Sweet Baby James'' and ``Fire and Rain,'' I thought back to a time when the most serious problem I faced was being jilted by a girlfriend, and tears ran down my cheeks. As therapists came and went, Julie Sullivan held my hand and asked me if I was OK. I thanked her for her gentleness. After having a Port-o-Cath implanted in my chest--a device that allows chemotherapy to be administered without constant needle sticks in the arm--I was admitted to MGH in mid- November. During that and other hospitalizations either my mother or sister would say overnight, often sleeping in cramped chairs. When I awoke at night in an anxious sweat or nauseated, I would see one of them and feel reassured. While doctors managed my medical care, my day-to-day quality of life and comfort were in the hands of two or three nurses. These nurses showed competence and pride in their work, but they also took a personal interest in me. It gave me an enormous boost, and while I do not believe that hope and comfort alone can overcome cancer, it certainly made a huge difference to me during my time in the hospital. During the period between my two chemotherapies, when I also received high-dose radiation twice a day, I came to know a most exceptional caregiver, the outpatient oncology nurse Mimi Bartholomay. An eight-year veteran who had experienced cancer in her own family, she was smart, upbeat, and compassionate. I had to receive fluids intravenously every day at the clinic, and while there we talked regularly about life, cancer, marriage, and children. She, too, was willing to cross that professional Rubicon--to reach out and talk about my fear of dying or, even worse, my fear of not living out my life, of not biking through the hills of Concord and Weston on summer weekends with my brother, of not seeing my child grow up, of not holding my wife in my arms. And she took the risk of talking about her own father's recent bout with cancer. I cannot emphasize enough how meaningful it was to me when caregivers revealed something about themselves that made a personal connection to my plight. It made me feel much less lonely. The rule books, I'm sure, frown on such intimate engagement between caregiver and patient. But maybe it's time to rewrite them. After my second round of chemotherapy, I was ready for the final state of what we hoped would be a cure: surgery. Before this could happen, Dr. Lynch repeated my radiologic scans, to be sure that the cancer had not spread. He assured me that the chance of any such metastasis was remote--less than 5 percent--although it would be a disaster if it occurred. The scans were endless, scary, and lonely. While members of my family stayed with me in the waiting rooms, they could not accompany me to the scanning rooms; the experience again was harrowing. But I felt my greatest fear while awaiting the results. After a week of tests, I had one last scan of my bones. I was concerned when the technologist asked to do a special scan of my back that had not been done before. The next day, I called Dr. Lynch's office and asked his assistant, Mary Ellen Rousell, when I could come in to find out the results. She said, ``How about this afternoon?'' and then added, ``You might want to bring someone.'' My heart skipped. When my wife and I entered Dr. Lynch's office and saw his face, our hearts sank. He was ashen. He said that while all the other scans were clear, there appeared to be a metastatic tumor in my spine. He explained that this meant that lung surgery at this point would be futile, since other metastases were likely to surface. Dr. Lynch said that he could not be 100 percent certain that this was a tumor and that, because so much was at stake, we should do a biopsy. My wife and I wept openly--in part because, looking at Dr. Lynch's face, we felt that he had lost hope. I could not help but ask what treatment options were available, and he mentioned a drug called Taxol. Still being the lawyer, I quizzed him. Me: What is the percentage of people who benefit from Taxol? Dr. Lynch: Forty percent. Me: How much do they benefit? Dr. Lynch: They can get several years of life, although it is not a cure. And the median survival for patients on Taxol with your advanced stage of disease is nine months. Nine months! My wife and I cringed. I ended the session by asking Dr. Lynch, ``How do you do this work?'' And he answered, in genuine pain, ``By praying that I don't have days like today.'' I desperately needed to regain hope, and I needed Dr. Lynch to regain his sense of hope. A few days later, I had the biopsy. Dr. Lynch met with my family to report that, indeed, after considerable searching, the pathologist had found small deposits of adenocarcinoma in my vertebra. It was now confirmed that I had metastatic lung cancer. Although my brother and my father, who is also a physician, raised the possibility of radical surgery on my back and lung to remove all the tumors, Dr. Lynch and the surgeons rejected this option because further metastases were likely to appear, and the surgery would be debilitating and reduce my quality of life at a time when my life could well be substantially shortened. The clear treatment was more chemotherapy. Dr. Lynch again recommended the use of Taxol, with the hope of slowing the cancer's spread. It was crucial to my wife and to me that he not give up hope. I understood his surprise and disappointment at the metastasis; in fact, as one friend suggested, his distress at that event was a sign of his caring about me and his involvement with my case. But we desperately needed him to give us a realistic basis for hope--and he had. The next day, I began a new chapter in my fight. And once again, Mimi Bartholomay was by my side, monitoring my reaction and assuring me that most people tolerated Taxol very well. I had no allergic reactions, and I felt good that the battle was under way. I had hoped that maybe this could buy me time. Time was now my best friend, since it could allow medical research to advance and doctors to find new strategies and maybe even a cure for advanced lung cancer. During this period, with help from my father, who has had a long and distinguished career in academic medicine, I began to explore potential cutting-edge protocols that could supplement or follow Taxol. My father arranged a meeting for my wife and me with Dr. Kurt J. Isselbacher, a distinguished researcher and director of the MGH Cancer Center. He is a small man with a large presence and piercing blue eyes, and he was surrounded by medical books, papers, and many pictures of his family. He was upbeat, telling us of protocols under way that showed promise in fighting metastatic tumors. Like several others, he told me a personal story that cut to the bone: A close family member, he said, had been diagnosed with advanced cancer, which the attending oncologist had said was ``very, very bad.'' The family member had said to him: ``Kurt, you have helped so many people in your life, can you now help me?'' He personally treated the family member in that person's home with chemotherapy, and, 21 years latter, that person is thriving. Dr. Isslbacher offered to serve as an advocate for me, to work with my father and Dr. Lynch to find the most promising protocols. I told him at the meeting that while I had no illusions, I was deeply moved by his refusal to give up and by his abiding hope; I was especially affected because such hopefulness was not coming from a faith healer but a distinguished researcher. He had strengthened our resolve to fight. In recent months, I have had several setbacks: a bone scan that showed four to five additional tumors, and a CT scan that showed significant progression of the cancer in both lungs. The only good news was that it had not spread to my head or liver. I am pained, but not surprised, at the relentlessness of the disease, and I am straining to retain hope that one of the experimental treatments may succeed where chemotherapy has failed. For the first time, I recently mentioned to Dr. Lynch the idea of a hospice service and wondered how I might reduce future pain as the cancer progresses. Dr. Lynch answered that we were still a long way from that discussion, that we still had many avenues to explore, and that he remained as committed as ever to doing whatever he could to extend my life in a quality way. Around the time of the CT scan, when I was feeling particularly dejected, I had an appointment with Mimi Bartholomay for an injection. She was running late, and as she approached me in the clinic waiting room, she looked harried. But as she got closer, she could see how unhappy I was, and she put her arm around me and directed me to a private room. I began to cry , and she intuitively responded: ``You know, scan days are the worst. But whatever the results, we are not going to give up on you. We're going to fight with you and for you all the way.'' I hugged her and thanked her for hanging in there with me. If I have learned anything, it is that we never know when, how, or whom a serious illness will strike. If and when it does, each one of us wants not simply the best possible care for our body but for our whole being. I still am bound upon Lear's wheel of fire, but the love and devotion of my family and friends, and the deep caring and engagement of my caregivers, have been a tonic for my soul and have helped to take some of the sting from my scalding tears.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to recognize an important event in my congressional district. On October 1, 1995, the Pee Dee Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in South Carolina will commemorate and celebrate the Bicentennial of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Nearly 200 years ago, a group of individuals decided to leave the John Street Methodist Church in New York because of discrimination and denial of religious liberties. These individuals organized what was to become the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. Zion was added to the name in 1848 to distinguish this denomination from other African Methodist bodies. The Right Reverend George E. Battle, Jr., Bishop of the Pee Dee conference, has declared a week of celebration of this anniversary for the week of October 1-8, 1995. I would like to recognize and congratulate the many African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches of the Pee Dee conference as they celebrate their 200 years and to commend these congregations for the vital work they provide families within their communities. I would also like to extend to them my best wishes for their next century of faithful service.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, Richard W. Riley, Secretary of the Department of Education and former Governor of my State of South Carolina, recently addressed the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation [CSAVR] as part of their annual meeting here in Washington. CSAVR is a national organization composed of the chief administrative officers of the State vocational rehabilitation agencies with responsibility for the administration of the Rehabilitation Act in the States and territories. They provide eligible individuals with mental or physical disabilities with the services needed for them to be placed in jobs in the competitive labor market. In light of the recent attempts by the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee to diminish the work of these dedicated men and women, I urge my colleagues to read Secretary Riley's remarks. Remarks of Richard W. Riley Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to meet with you today. I want to thank Joe Owens and Elmer Bartels. I would like to recognize Judy Heumann, my Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services who has worked so effectively on these issues and her Deputy, Howard Moses who is here today. a program that works All of you are to be commended for the work you are doing in your states to help make the Vocational Rehabilitation program one of the shinning examples of what works in our nation--a truly successful working relationship between states and the federal government--a program that has helped more than nine million individuals with disabilities, from all walks of life, to secure gainful employment. Each year more than 200,000 people enter or return to the competitive labor market or become self-employed--becoming fully contributing taxpaying members of our national [[Page E 1640]] community. You are filling a need that needs to be filled. A poll taken last year revealed that 68 percent of people of working age with disabilities are not working and need services to help them get to the next level. It is a unique program--and one which works. As a former governor, I understand the concerns of some seeking to limit federal involvement in some areas of our lives. I certainly am all for lowering the federal bureaucracy when it can be accomplished without loss of important services. In fact, at the Department of Education, we have proposed the elimination of 59 education programs and the consolidation of 27 others. But I also know the cutting for the sake of cutting is not necessarily a positive thing. And the elimination of a federal role when it is necessary and legitimate is bad public policy. There are certain important responsibilities that we must uphold at the national level in order to ensure continued high quality programs like vocational rehabilitation that are, in effect, run by the states. We certainly do not want to micro-manage your rehabilitation programs. But we can help to facilitate these important programs and provide the financial support that will keep your vocational rehabilitation programs running effectively. I am so pleased that in my own home state of South Carolina, I was able to play a role in the development of a strong network of facilities that provide services to mentally and physically disabled people across the state. The program is still growing and helping people from all over the state become contributing members of the economy. I am pleased to see Charles La Rosa, the South Carolina State Director here today. Charles has continued to provide the leadership that makes this program the success that it is. All across the state, new training centers--which, as you all know, are one of the essential pieces of successful vocational rehabilitation--have been opened, some even rising out of the vacant buildings left by closed car dealerships. Today, this network--which now has 22 facilities--can boast that no one who wants to participate in the program will have to go farther than 50 miles to get to one of these centers. And I know that South Carolina is not alone in this success. I can cite success stories of individuals across the nation who were completely dependent upon others for support and who are now, because they have gotten the proper vocational training, entering the world of independent work and living. Fully three-fourths of the people who have received rehabilitation training throughout the nation as the result of this program, and who are now gainfully employed, report that their own earned income is their primary source of support. This is extraordinary and speaks volumes to those who might characterize this program as just another government handout. As most people agree--and as we certainly are hearing in the current debate over welfare reform--people do not prefer to be supported by others, whether by government entitlement or family. Most people want, more than anything, to work and be contributing members of society. This program gives millions of individuals that chance. comprehensive approach to job training Of course, as you all know, vocational rehabilitation is more than just a job referral or search program. It is more than simple employment training. And this is a crucial distinction. Because, while many individuals need little more than job training and a helpful boost into the job market . . . a large majority need more assistance, guidance, encouragement and specialized services before they can become independent. At its core, the vocational rehabilitation program offers a consistent, supportive, individualized, comprehensive treatment that helps to create a productive relationship or partnership between specially trained counselors and teachers, and individuals with disabilities. At its best, it offers ``one-stop shopping''--a means for disabled individuals to get into, or return to, common activity and increased productivity. 75 years of success Happily, Congress has long understood the value and importance of vocational rehabilitation. Since its creation 75 years ago, this program has been continually reauthorized and expanded with bipartisan support. It has included special features that do not exist in regular job training programs. And it has created additional safeguards and encouragement to coordinate among different agencies so that individuals in need of services may be served efficiently and without delay. As we all know, these are uncertain times which require stern budgetary measures. But these times also require thoughtfulness and consideration. This is not the time for arbitrary and shortsighted action. Certainly, there are proposals floating around Capitol Hill these days which arouse my concern in this regard. I am worried that in the budget-cutting, big government-shrinking zeal of these times, some very valuable programs--including vocational rehabilitation--could be harmed. While I strongly share the sentiments of some of these reformers to improve accountability and provide greater services for more people who need them. . . I do not, as I said earlier, believe in wholesale cutting or consolidating without careful thought and clear justification. The inclusion of vocational rehabilitation in a broad-based consolidation of job-training programs could have a lasting negative impact on this program, and more importantly, could harm the very people it is intended to help. The vocational rehabilitation program is the only job training program that includes an eligibility criterion of physical or mental disability. Adequately meeting the needs requires well-trained staff capable of offering a wide array of specialized services. Consolidation with other job training programs could well endanger this vital specialized capacity. Moreover, coordination between this program and other job training programs does not necessarily require a merging of these programs. States are already afforded great latitude and flexibility in a number of areas. Members of my staff have recently met with some of you who have developed statewide ``one-stop shopping'' programs that encourage coordination between employment training and vocational rehabilitation programs. So I hope you understand that our commitment to this program remains as strong as ever. We will, of course, continue our work to improve the program, and continue to help states in their efforts to educate employers about disabilities. Now I may be preaching to the choir today, But I cannot say how strongly I feel about helping those who can become independent, contributing members of our society to do so. And, if we can break down a few barriers and overcome some prejudices at the same time--so much the better. When I was Governor of South Carolina, it was one of my greatest pleasures to work, along with my wife Tunky (who was also very active in this area) to expand opportunities in employment and rehabilitation. I was so pleased recently to learn that in South Carolina, even with a relatively high unemployment rate, individuals who have been trained in the State vocational rehabilitation centers are among the most desired employees. They understand the value of work and supervision, know how to work with their peers and colleagues, and know the value of production. And ultimately, we can't ask for anything more. Anthropologist Margaret Meade, wrote, ``If we are to achieve a richer culture. . . we must weave one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.'' I believe that working together, we can achieve the rich diverse culture that is the ultimate goal of the American experience. This is the promise of America, the promise of education, and the promise of rehabilitation.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, read this substitute. Coburn huffs and puffs for three long pages, and then, and then it blows out of steam. It does not even decree a report. In a long convoluted sentence, what it does is say it is the policy of the United States to encourage the industry to establish a fund to explore the problem further. This would be laughable if it were not so serious. What this is, this Coburn substitute, is another in a long line of red herrings. It is another attempt to derail and sidetrack a solution to this problem. We have a solution before us, but we will not have an opportunity to vote upon it unless we defeat Coburn first, because Coburn is a substitute and everyone should understand it. It, too, is a V-chip which will block our opportunity to have an opportunity to vote upon the V-chip amendment that many Members of this House on both sides of the aisle support and parents in this country desperately want.