[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4606) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1628


                     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. 4606, with Mr. Sharp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
bill had been read through page 2, line 11.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    training and employment services

       For expenses necessary to carry into effect the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, as amended, including the purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles, the construction, 
     alteration, and repair of buildings and other facilities, and 
     the purchase of real property for training centers as 
     authorized by the Job Training Partnership Act; title II of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1991; title XV, part A of Public Law 
     102-325; title VII, subtitle C of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and 
     Nontraditional Occupations Act; Goals 2000: Educate America 
     Act; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; $5,524,991,000 
     plus reimbursements, of which $5,035,179,000 is available for 
     obligation for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996; 
     of which $150,000,000 is available for the period July 1, 
     1995 through June 30, 1998 for necessary expenses of 
     construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of Job Corps 
     centers, including $51,254,000 for new centers; of which 
     $184,788,000 shall be available for the period October 1, 
     1994 through June 30, 1995; and of which $140,000,000 shall 
     be available for obligation from July 1, 1995 through 
     September 30, 1996, for carrying out activities of the 
     School-to-Work Opportunities Act: Provided, That $63,666,000 
     shall be for carrying out section 401 of the Job Training 
     Partnership Act, $84,841,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 402 of such Act, $8,880,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 441 of such Act, $1,500,000 shall be for the National 
     Commission for Employment Policy, $5,579,000 shall be for all 
     activities conducted by and through the National Occupational 
     Information Coordinating Committee under such Act, $3,861,000 
     shall be for service delivery areas under section 
     101(a)(4)(A)(iii) of such Act in addition to amounts 
     otherwise provided under sections 202, 252 and 262 of the 
     Act, $1,044,813,000 shall be for carrying out title II, part 
     A of such Act, and $598,682,000 shall be for carrying out 
     title II, part C of such Act: Provided further, That no funds 
     from any other appropriation shall be used to provide meal 
     services at or for Job Corps centers.


            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out the activities for national grants or 
     contracts with public agencies and public or private 
     nonprofit organizations under paragraph (1)(A) of section 
     506(a) of title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $320,190,000.
       To carry out the activities for grants to States under 
     paragraph (3) of section 506(a) of title V of the Older 
     Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $90,310,000.


              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of benefits and 
     payments as authorized by title II of Public Law 95-250, as 
     amended, and of trade adjustment benefit payments and 
     allowances under part I, and for training, for allowances for 
     job search and relocation, and for related State 
     administrative expenses under part II, subchapters B and D, 
     chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 
     $274,400,000 together with such amounts as may be necessary 
     to be charged to the subsequent appropriation for payments 
     for any period subsequent to September 15 of the current 
     year.

     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For activities authorized by the Act of June 6, 1933, as 
     amended (29 U.S.C. 49-49l-1; 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E)); title 
     III of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-
     504); necessary administrative expenses for carrying out 5 
     U.S.C. 8501-8523, and sections 225, 231-235, 243-244, and 
     250(d)(1), 250(d)(3), title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
     amended; as authorized by section 7c of the Act of June 6, 
     1933, as amended, necessary administrative expenses under 
     sections 101(a)(15)(H), 212(a)(5)(A), (m) (2) and (3), 
     (n)(1), and 218(g) (1), (2), and (3), and 258(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.); necessary administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program under section 51 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and section 221(a) of the 
     Immigration Act of 1990, $146,697,000, together with not to 
     exceed $3,269,013,000 (including not to exceed $1,653,000 
     which may be used for amortization payments to States which 
     had independent retirement plans in their State employment 
     service agencies prior to 1980, and including not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 which may be obligated in contracts with non-State 
     entities for activities such as occupational and test 
     research activities which benefit the Federal-State 
     Employment Service System), which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund, and of which the sums available in 
     the allocation for activities authorized by title III of the 
     Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the 
     sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative 
     expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through December 31, 
     1995, except that funds used for automation acquisitions 
     shall be available for obligation by States through September 
     30, 1997; and of which $144,763,000 together with not to 
     exceed $817,224,000 of the amount which may be expended from 
     said trust fund shall be available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, to fund 
     activities under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, 
     including the cost of penalty mail made available to States 
     in lieu of allotments for such purpose, and of which 
     $232,437,000 shall be available only to the extent necessary 
     for additional State allocations to administer unemployment 
     compensation laws to finance increases in the number of 
     unemployment insurance claims filed and claims paid or 
     changes in a State law: Provided, That to the extent that the 
     Average Weekly Insured Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 
     1995 is projected by the Department of Labor to exceed 2.772 
     million, an additional $27,800,000 shall be available for 
     obligation for every 100,000 increase in the AWIU level 
     (including a pro rata amount for any increment less than 
     100,000) from the Employment Security Administration Account 
     of the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act and in Public Law 103-112 which are 
     used to establish a national one-stop career center network 
     may be obligated in contracts, grants or agreements with non-
     State entities.


        advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and section 104(d) of Public Law 
     102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the 
     ``Federal unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1996, $686,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 1995, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.

                    Office of the American Workplace


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Office of the American 
     Workplace, $30,411,000.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $66,388,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation


               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program through September 
     30, 1995, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $11,493,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such 
     Corporation in connection with the termination of pension 
     plans, for the acquisition, protection or management, and 
     investment of trust assets, and for benefits administration 
     services shall be considered as non-administrative expenses 
     for the purposes hereof, and excluded from the above 
     limitation.

                  Employment Standards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including reimbursement to State, Federal, 
     and local agencies and their employees for inspection 
     services rendered, $242,860,000, together with $1,059,000 
     which may be expended from the Special Fund in accordance 
     with sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and Harbor 
     Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Labor is authorized to accept, retain, and spend, until 
     expended, in the name of the Department of Labor, all sums of 
     money ordered to be paid to the Secretary of Labor, in 
     accordance with the terms of the Consent Judgment in Civil 
     Action No. 91-0027 of the United States District Court for 
     the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (May 21, 1992): 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Labor is authorized 
     to establish and, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3302, collect 
     and deposit in the Treasury fees for processing applications 
     and issuing certificates under sections 11(d) and 14 of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 
     211(d) and 214) and for processing applications and issuing 
     registrations under Title I of the Migrant and Seasonal 
     Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


                            special benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal 
     Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees' 
     Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections 
     4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and 
     benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $258,000,000 
     together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to 
     August 15 of the current year: Provided, That such sums as 
     are necessary may be used for a demonstration project under 
     section 8104 of title 5, United States Code, in which the 
     Secretary may reimburse an employer, who is not the employer 
     at the time of injury, for portions of the salary of a 
     reemployed, disabled beneficiary: Provided further, That 
     balances of reimbursements unobligated on September 30, 1994, 
     shall remain available until expended for the payment of 
     compensation, benefits, and expenses: Provided further, That 
     in addition there shall be transferred to this appropriation 
     from the Postal Service and from any other corporation or 
     instrumentality required under section 8147(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, to pay an amount for its fair share of 
     the cost of administration, such sums as the Secretary of 
     Labor determines to be the cost of administration for 
     employees of such fair share entities through September 30, 
     1995: Provided further, That of those funds transferred to 
     this account from the fair share entities to pay the cost of 
     administration, $5,299,000 shall be made available to the 
     Secretary of Labor for expenditures relating to capital 
     improvements in support of Federal Employees' Compensation 
     Act administration, and the balance of such funds shall be 
     paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may require that any person 
     filing a notice of injury or a claim for benefits under 
     Subchapter 5, U.S.C., Chapter 81, or under Subchapter 33, 
     U.S.C. 901, et seq. (the Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
     Compensation Act, as amended), provide as part of such notice 
     and claim, such identifying information (including Social 
     Security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.


                    black lung disability trust fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $994,864,000, of which $943,005,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 1996, for payment of all benefits as authorized 
     by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7), of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on advances as 
     authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and of which 
     $28,216,000 shall be available for transfer to Employment 
     Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, and 
     $23,333,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, and $310,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, for expenses of 
     operation and administration of the Black Lung Benefits 
     program as authorized by section 9501(d)(5)(A) of that Act: 
     Provided, That in addition, such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation, interest, or other benefits for any 
     period subsequent to June 15 of the current year: Provided 
     further, That in addition such amounts shall be paid from 
     this fund into miscellaneous receipts as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury determines to be the administrative expenses of the 
     Department of the Treasury for administering the fund during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by section 
     9501(d)(5)(B) of that Act.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $312,500,000, including not to exceed 
     $70,615,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 
     fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and 
     health programs required to be incurred under plans approved 
     by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may retain up to $500,000 per fiscal year of 
     training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized 
     by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for 
     occupational safety and health training and education grants: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, 
     administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or 
     order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
     which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming 
     operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and 
     employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule, 
     regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer 
     employees who is included within a category having an 
     occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most 
     precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs ten or 
     fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $197,519,000, of which $5,851,000 shall be 
     for the State Grants Program, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration is authorized to promote health and 
     safety education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the Department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of 
     section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement of 
     any training requirements, with respect to shell dredging, or 
     with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface 
     clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $296,761,000, of which $5,134,000 shall be for expenses of 
     revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1996, together with not to exceed 
     $54,102,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

                        Departmental Management


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of five sedans, and including up to 
     $4,392,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of 
     People With Disabilities, $156,002,000, which includes 
     $6,500,000 which shall remain available until expended for 
     use by appropriate Departmental agencies for ADP equipment 
     acquisition, systems development and associated support 
     related to Departmental enforcement programs; together with 
     not to exceed $328,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $185,281,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 2001-10 and 2021-26.

                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $47,676,000, together with 
     not to exceed $3,860,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds in the Employees' Compensation 
     Fund under 5 U.S.C. 8147 shall hereafter be expended for 
     payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses to any 
     individual convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1920, or of 
     any felony fraud related to the application for or receipt of 
     benefits under subchapters I or III of chapter 81 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended by the Secretary of Labor to implement or 
     administer either the final or proposed regulations referred 
     to in section 303 of Public Law 102-27.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 103. Not to exceed 1 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Labor in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 3 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 104 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 104. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act to 
     the Department of Labor shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) 
     creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for 
     any project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
     restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) 
     reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) 
     contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified fifteen days in advance of such reprogramming of 
     funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act to the 
     Department of Labor shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a 
     reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, 
     projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding 
     for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of 
     personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) 
     results from any general savings from a reduction in 
     personnel which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress, 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title I of the bill be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order on title I?
  If not, are there amendments to title I?


                    amendments offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Porter: On page 17, line 9, 
     strike ``$156,002,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$145,422,000'';
       On page 29, line 20, strike ``$2,166,148,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$2,106,148,000'';
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``$4,408,775,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$4,402,690,000'';
       On page 52, line 26, strike ``$359,358,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$348,134,000'';
       On page 24, line 15, strike ``$1,919,419,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$1,938,159,000'';
       On page 24, line 20, strike ``$1,259,590,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$1,271,922,000'';
       On page 24, line 24, strike ``$162,832,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$164,513,000'';
       On page 25, line 5, strike ``$726,784,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$733,942,000'';
       On page 25, line 10, strike ``$626,801,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$632,988,000'';
       On page 25, line 15, strike ``$536,416,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$541,725,000'';
       On page 25, line 19, strike ``$877,113,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$885,731,000'';
       On page 25, line 24, strike ``$513,409,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$518,495,000'';
       On page 26, line 4, strike ``$290,335,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$293,255,000'';
       On page 26, line 9, strike ``$266,400,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$269,087,000'';
       On page 26, line 13, strike ``$431,198,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$435,486,000'';
       On page 26, line 18, strike ``$227,021,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$229,326,000'';
       On page 26, line 23, strike ``$166,155,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$167,867,000'';
       On page 27, line 4, strike ``$47,971,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$48,540,000'';
       On page 27, line 9, strike ``$181,445,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$183,307,000'';
       On page 27, line 13, strike ``$290,280,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$293,200,000'';
       On page 27, line 17, strike ``$542,050,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$547,414,000'';
       On page 29, line 4, strike ``$1,337,606,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$1,350,696,000'';
       On page 29, line 12, strike ``$114,370,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$115,581,000'';
       And amend the report accordingly.

  Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be considered en bloc and that the debate be limited to 30 minutes, to 
be divided equally between the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] and 
myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the request relate to this amendment and all 
amendments thereto?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] will 
be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning I would like to commend a 
young lady who is a Presidential Management Intern from NIH working on 
my staff, Susan Hill, who has been with us for 5 months now and has 
been doing a tremendous job in my office helping with this bill and 
other legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, she reflects the caliber of the people at NIH, and we 
very much appreciate having her as a member of our staff during this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $105 million to the National 
Institutes of Health and offset funding in administrative and 
unauthorized accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, I said in my opening remarks on this bill that NIH is a 
treasure, and it is.
  It represents half of all biomedical research conducted in our 
country, the so-called basic research that undergirds every medical 
improvement.
  This is not research that would otherwise be done by industry. It is 
a service that can only be supported at the Federal level.
  While companies are engaged in applied research and development to 
bring new drugs and devices into the health care system, NIH provides 
the basic research that makes these advances possible.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is the world leader in biomedical 
research and development in large measure due to the foresight of 
Congress in showing support for a strong NIH.
  Let me reiterate that the United States is the world leader in 
biomedical research and development.
  We not only have the most advanced diagnostic devices and procedures, 
we have the best prevention, early diagnosis and treatment of diseases.
  The NIH is vital to all of this. Its contributions have helped extend 
life expectancy dramatically over the last 40 years.
  Beside the obvious health benefits, the NIH supports high-quality, 
high-skilled jobs. Virtually every researcher in this country, public 
or private, has been trained or supported in part by NIH.
  The NIH supports a positive balance of trade in medical research and 
advances.
  It spawned the biotechnology industry, one of the fastest growing 
industries in the country and one that also produces a positive balance 
of trade.
  The FDA is poised to approve a new biotech product that can detect 
cervical cancer through blood tests. Until today there has been no good 
diagnostic test for this cancer, causing thousands of deaths every 
year.

  With a new, cheap diagnostic test, thousands of lives will be saved 
as the disease is diagnosed early in its treatable stage.
  It is inconceivable that this test could have been developed without 
the basic research on structural biology that came out of NIH.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to list just a few examples of how NIH saves 
lives and money.
  In 1970 lithium treatment for manic depression was developed by NIH 
and approved for widespread use. In the 24 years since then the use of 
this drug has saved over $145 billion in prevented hospitalizations 
that were previously required for manic depression.
  The NIH supported the development of many vaccines including the 
polio vaccine, which has saved more in prevention than Congress has 
invested in NIH in its entire history. One discovery has saved the 
entire cost of NIH throughout its history.
  Finally, the economic costs of hypertension are estimated at $18.2 
billion per year. The Heart, Lung and Blood Institute helped develop 
blood pressure drugs and public education campaigns which ensure that 
over 70 percent of Americans with high blood pressure are controlling 
it today through the use of regular medication.
  As these examples demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, biomedical research is 
key to health care reform and saving money in the long term.
  Research ought to be at the top of the health care agenda.
  Recent advances in genetic science have created greater opportunity 
to prevent, cure, and treat disease than ever before.
  Yet, despite the past commitment of this subcommittee to NIH, we are 
not taking advantage of these opportunities.
  Less than one in four meritorious NIH grants is funded, and it has 
become very difficult to recruit and train new researchers.
  We are in real danger of losing an entire generation of biomedical 
researchers.
  At a time when we lead the world and opportunities are manifest, we 
should redouble our commitment to this enterprise.
  Unfortunately, the subcommittee mark provides only a 3-percent 
increase for the Institutes, less than biomedical inflation.
  My amendment, while it would still fall short of the President's 
requested increase, would get each Institute nearly to the inflation 
level.
  While this is far less than we need to do to maintain our leadership 
position in the world, it would at least ensure that NIH is not losing 
ground to inflation.
  The NIH is an area in which we should be going forward, not backward.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment offsets the funding in four places.
  First, it would offset $60 million dollars in the Substance Abuse 
Block Grant.
  This increase resulted from the President's request for over $300 
million for a Hard Core Drug Treatment initiative.
  Neither the hard core initiative nor the underlying block grant are 
authorized for 1995.
  The amendment offsets program administration in the Departments of 
Labor and Education and the Administration on Children and Families.
  The offsets for Labor and Education do not include any built-in 
increases such as rent or pay increases identified in the budget.
  In addition the offsets exclude certain program increases such as 
employee training and printing for the Student Guide.
  The offset for Administration on Children and Families would level 
fund program direction at the 1994 amount.
  Mr. Chairman, these are difficult choices. I understand that the 
Departments are trying to do more with less, and I understand the need 
for additional drug treatment funding.
  But as I said in my opening remarks, I believe our job on the 
Committee on Appropriations is to provide funding for our highest 
priorities, and that means offsetting funding in areas of relatively 
lower priority.
  Nor should the proposal to offset administrative funding in any way 
reflect on the quality of employees at the Departments, who I feel are 
very high-caliber people.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that many Members will rise to oppose this 
amendment on the grounds that it is insensitive to the needs of the 
programs which would be offset.
  I want everyone to understand that I am bringing this amendment to 
the floor because I believe we are facing a true crisis at NIH.
  If we do not act over the next 5 years to create real and stable 
growth in our biomedical research enterprise, we will: Lose world 
leadership in this critical industry; lose high paying, high skill 
jobs; compromise our balance of trade; lose a generation of scientific 
talent that will take 10 or 20 or 30 years to rebuild, and lose the 
greatest opportunities in medical science ever available to mankind: 
opportunities to improve our health and the quality of life, and the 
opportunities to control health care costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to raise alarms for everyone in 
this House and to ask for the support of all Members in the years ahead 
and beyond to ensure that NIH continues to grow and continues to 
provide the kinds of opportunities for all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the fighter for NIH, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], my dear colleague, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be very remiss today if I did not join in this 
debate providing for more research for the National Institutes of 
Health, the NIH. One of the very highest priorities that I have in the 
Congress, in fact, is health research, and this appropriation bill 
provides for health research, and this amendment is a very important 
step in the right direction.
  Why?
  Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately money for the NIH does not really 
keep up with inflation, particularly medical inflation, and I think 
that that is a shame.
  This amendment is, in fact, budget neutral. It does not impact the 
deficit, and yet it will add $100 million for NIH.
  Now why is this important?
  Well, a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit the 
University of Michigan cancer center in Ann Arbor, and I visited with a 
physician there by the name of Dr. Michael Clark, and I had the chance 
to again talk to Mike this afternoon on the phone, and I can tell my 
colleagues that they are on the brink of some very exciting, very 
exciting, changes in the way that our life may be led with regard to 
cancer research in the future.
  The day that I was there, Mr. Chairman, they had a marvelous night 
where, in fact, a virus that they had developed was identified as 
killing cancer cells. causing cell death in breast cancer cells. This 
week, probably, they will be in trials with mice, and within a year the 
virus that they developed, which I saw on the slides killing breast 
cancer cells, will be in humans before the year is out.
  They are looking at the most common childhood cancers, Mr. Chairman. 
They know that it will likely be very effective in controlling and 
eliminating colon cancer, as well as gastric cancers. The ultimate 
goal, of course, will be to cause the cells to kill themselves, not 
even requiring surgery in the future.
  Now why is this amendment important?
  Well, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], my friend, 
indicated, one out of four research applicants to the NIH are not 
funded because of lack of money, and, as I sat with Dr. Clark, and 
looked through his slides and saw those cells that had virtually 
exploded, he told me an alarming fact. Seventy-five percent of the time 
that he spends in the lab is for filling out forms seeking funds from 
the NIH. In other words, Mr. Chairman, only 25 percent of the time that 
he is able to spend is doing the actual research, and I think that is a 
shame. His research, which could prove to be the promise and the hope 
for all Americans, has so far only cost less than a million dollars, 
and yet all of his time, almost, is composed of filling out those 
forms.
  Mr. Chairman, this research is very important, and this amendment is 
very important, because it will bring the NIH to the level of funding 
that it ought to be to look for real good medical research.
  There is another thing that we can do, too. Because of the cuts in 
the NIH not keeping up with inflation, the number of us in both the 
House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, have introduced 
a bill that will improve and protect the health of all Americans 
through an increase in the funding available for health research that 
holds the promise for the prevention, cure and treatment of disease and 
disability. This bill, H.R. 4260, introduced by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne], my good friend, myself, and the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], has a parallel bill in the Senate. It 
is called Harkin-Hatfield. Already here in the House we have 54 
cosponsors of this bill, and it is important because it provides a 
private means of supporting the NIH in addition to the amounts that are 
funded through this appropriation bill. Virtually every medical group, 
whether it be cancer, or diabetes, leukemia, Parkinson's AIDS, Lou 
Gehrig's ALS, heart association, virtually every disease group in this 
country supports our bill to provide more money for NIH.
  The NIH provides for the hope and promise of all Americans, and I 
would urge the adoption of this amendment and further work on H.R. 
4260.
  I do appreciate the work of the chairman of this committee for giving 
the increase that we did have. I wish that it could be more. I know the 
gentleman wishes that it really could be more, too. And I think the 
thoughtful way this amendment was structured, so that it is budget 
neutral, certainly helps us fiscal conservatives in a priority we all 
want.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], but very 
reluctantly. This bill is put together very delicately that I do not 
think we should add other money to the NIH accounts at this time.
  I would like to point out that on an average in this bill programs 
are held to 96.5 percent of current services, but in the National 
Institutes of Health we did allocate a minimum of 3 percent increase to 
each one over the dollars that they got last time. The average is $384 
million.
  Now in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, some of the institutes were 
increased more. For example, the Genome Center got a 20-percent 
increase, and I think everybody agrees it is one of the very important 
programs right now. There are great opportunities that probably cut 
clear across the line in helping in all these diseases.
  I also want to point out, as my colleagues know, drug abuse is very 
important, too, and this would cut drug abuse funding by $60 million. 
It would cut some other things, and we are reluctant. We just did not 
have enough money to do all the things we wanted to do.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, for the first time, I think the 
head of the National Institutes of Health was requested to do a little 
study on how many of the upper half of the applicants were not funded 
and to try to find out what happened to them. Well, this study showed 
that of the upper half, only 10 percent were not funded within a couple 
of years. That is much lower than it has been. We do not know yet how 
many of those actually continued in research under some other team or 
went into research under a private company, a pharmaceutical company 
maybe, or some foundation. There is a high suspicion that the upper 
half were being funded, if not through NIH, then through some other 
funding mechanisms, and we need to know that. They have not been asked 
to research that before, and we are going to find that out, and I think 
the new head of the institute, Dr. Varmas, wants to find that out.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, the reimbursements to university 
has been from 40 to 83 percent, an enormous reimbursement to university 
that does not go to the researchers. I know they furnish the 
facilities, but the difference between 40 percent and 83 percent means 
that in some universities a much larger share of Federal funding is 
going to researchers than at other universities. NIH and the 
administration are working to renegotiate those reimbursement rates. If 
they can get that down within the year to a range of 37 to 70 percent, 
that will also free up more money for more of these grants, and that is 
something that we expect them to work on. I personally think anybody 
that is over the median ought to be looked at very carefully--see for 
sure whether or not they are justified because any additional money 
that is not justified comes out of research. We need to be putting all 
we can into research.
  So all I have to say to the gentlemen who support this amendment, is 
that I do not disagree with the need. We all support NIH. But we do 
have a very delicate balance in this bill, and I would hope at this 
time that in view of that and in view of all of us as wanting to do all 
that we can, and we will, and if we can find more money, we would like 
to put more money into NIH, and I would hope that perhaps at this point 
we could withdraw the amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is obviously not a Republican or Democratic 
matter. The NIH is supported broadly and in a bipartisan way by, I 
think, every single Member of this Congress. NIH was one of the 
President's initiatives this year. I commend the President for that.
  Unfortunately, in last year's budget, the President had originally 
suggested only a 1 percent increase for NIH. We ended up with a 6 
percent increase overall. This year the President suggested 4.7 
percent, but, unfortunately, we were forced to work with far lower 
602(b) allocations, and, believe me, on a bipartisan basis, within 
those allocations we did the best we can to fund NIH.
  Obviously there is no program, no institution, no agency, no 
department, that can escape the fact that we have a very tightly 
constrained budget. NIH is not escaping it either, with an increase 
that is below inflation.
  I know the chairman's commitment to NIH. It is a very, very strong 
commitment. He feels he has done the very best he can by it. I respect 
that. I raise the issue to point the way to the future. I believe that 
unless we can get a larger allocation or raise NIH to a higher 
priority, we are going to develop very severe problems in keeping the 
lead in biomedical research through NIH.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Senate can bring in a higher number 
for NIH and that in conference we can recede to that higher number and 
do a bit better.
  I very much appreciate my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Upton], coming 
to the floor and expressing his strong feelings about this subject in 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that the chairman and I both are 
strong supporters of NIH, feel we are doing the best we can, and are 
concerned about the future of funding for biomedical research, I would 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendments, at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                amendments en bloc offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Porter:
       On page 8, line 4, strike ``$30,411,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$29,784,000'';
       On page 8, line 8, strike ``$66,388,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$63,959,000'';
       On page 9, line 9, strike ``$242,860,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$237,791,00'';
       On page 13, line 6, strike ``$312,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$296,428,000'';
       On page 15, line 19, strike ``$197,519,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$194,607,000'';
       On page 16, line 23, strike ``$296,761,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$291,101,000'';
       On page 17, line 1, strike ``$54,102,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$51,927,000'';
       On page 17, line 9, strike ``$156,002,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$143,459,000'';
       On page 20, line 17, strike ``$3,008,225,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$3,121,225,000'';
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``$4,408,775,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$4,402,690,000'';
       On page 52, line 26, strike ``$359,358,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$346,008,000''; and
       On page 53, line 4, strike ``$58,325,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$56,570,000''.

  Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that time for 
debate on these amendments and all amendments thereto be limited to 60 
minutes, to be divided equally between the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide a total 
increase of $100 million for community health centers, and it would be 
offset by reductions in administrative and enforcement accounts.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is my attempt to begin to enact real 
health care reform right now. We have waited 2 years for action on this 
national imperative. Still, congressional committees are struggling 
with reform strategies. Only two of five congressional committees have 
cleared health reform bills as of today.
  But, Mr. Chairman, through my amendment, we can make progress on this 
issue now. All of the major health care reform bills seek to broaden 
access to health care for the uninsured. The minority leader's bill 
contains a substantial expansion of community health centers as one 
mechanism to increase access to care. These centers provide health care 
in underserved areas for those people unable to afford it. These are 
people primarily in heavily urban or rural areas that traditionally 
lack a strong health care infrastructure or sometimes any health care 
infrastructure at all.
  Mr. Chairman, the funding provided by my amendment would support an 
additional 125 community health centers and serve an additional 848,000 
Americans. In other words, it would provide access to health care for 
the first time to nearly 1 million additional people.
  This amendment will not solve the health care problem by itself, but 
it will make a significant contribution to the solution.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offsets funding only in administrative 
accounts and enforcement accounts. It includes reductions in program 
administration at the Departments of Education, Health and Human 
Services, and Labor, and it includes a freeze at the 1994 level for 
enforcement programs at OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, and the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.
  In short, the amendment would provide access to health care for 
almost 1 million Americans by reducing Federal bureaucracy and 
enforcement.
  When I offered this amendment in the committee, some Members 
complained that it was designed to block real health care reform. 
Rather, Mr. Chairman, this is one component of real health care reform. 
Nevertheless, we will clearly need to do more. We need to have 
insurance reforms to prohibit exclusions based on preexisting 
conditions. We need to improve portability and guarantee renewability. 
We need antitrust reforms. We need medical liability reform. We need to 
abolish Medicaid and empower the poor with real purchasing power in the 
health care marketplace.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this is a good first step. We do not have to wait 
for the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and 
Education and Labor. We can act today to grant access to health care 
for nearly 1 million more Americans.
  I commend this amendment to the House and ask for its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly say at this point I do not have 
another speaker and will reserve most of my remarks for later. At this 
moment I want to say I am opposed to this amendment, very strongly 
opposed to the amendment. At a later time, I will conclude the debate.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would hope this does not become a 
Democrat-Republican amendment. It is not an urban-rural amendment, and 
it is not a reform-antihealth care reform amendment. There are some 
things we can do for this calendar year 1995 to reform health care, and 
this is one of those important changes in dealing with the whole issue 
of access to health care, in particular in those underserved areas, the 
inner cities and in the rural areas.
  This amendment does two things: It expands the community health 
centers, which are traditional areas in the urban areas in the East and 
West Coasts of this country, and it recognizes, unfortunately, the 
community health centers are not that common a facilitator for health 
care access in the Midwest, and so it doubles the rural outreach grants 
which has become our particular vehicle.
  This is important because 25 percent of our population lives in rural 
America, and yet a 1991 study by the Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities found that there are 97 physicians for every 100,000 people 
in a rural area, compared to 225 physicians for every 100,000 people 
who live in the cities.
  Recognizing throughout the health care reform debate that the 
integration and cooperation and coordination of health care delivery is 
the key, we have recognized that these two vehicles, within budget 
allocation, can become a major tool to increase access to health care 
in 1995.
  Let me tell you what the rural outreach grant program is. It was 
created in 1990. It is funded at $26 million at the present time. These 
are grants awarded by Health and Human Services. They require that 
there be a consortium arrangement of three or more health care 
providers to bring access to health care to people that otherwise would 
not have it.
  Let me give you a couple of examples in my own Congressional 
district. One of those programs, frankly, the first outreach grant that 
we had in western Wisconsin, was known as Kids Care. It was through a 
grant to the Wisconsin Center for Public Representation. What they did 
in working with a county health agency is they set up a whole service 
of preventive health care to children not on medical assistance, but 
from low income families who were uninsured, exactly the targeted 
population which is the whole basis for health care reform.

                              {time}  1700

  Likewise, St. Mary's hospital in Sparta has a mobile office van, 
medical office van that travels throughout the rural service delivery 
area bringing the same kind of preventive health care and diagnostic 
health care aimed primarily at young children, young mothers in 
pregnancies to bring access to these people in these very small, 
unincorporated rural areas who have neither the money, the 
transportation, nor the access to health care in their particular 
communities.
  This is not new spending, my colleagues. This is not health care 
reform beginning in 1998. This is health care reform now. This is 
access to people regardless of condition and regardless of income, if 
they are uninsured. I would encourage and plead with my colleagues, 
rural, urban, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, please vote 
for this amendment and send the signal that we can do health care 
reform at least a small step in 1995.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter 
amendment, Community health centers are a crucial component of any 
health reform legislation; they provide valuable medical services to 
individuals across the country.
  One of the biggest issues in the health reform debate is how to 
improve access. Individuals who do not have access to routine care many 
times use the local hospital emergency room for their medical services. 
While some may go to the emergency room for minor illnesses, the sad 
truth is that most wait until they are seriously ill.
  In my Florida congressional district, this trend is beginning to 
change because community health centers in the Tampa Bay area are 
providing health access to all residents. And it is making a 
difference--more and more people are receiving routine preventive, 
primary, and acute care services on a regular basis.
  In addition, valuable health care dollars are being saved because 
people are going to the community health centers instead of the 
hospital emergency rooms.
  The Tampa Community Health Center has four locations serving 
Hillsborough County. These facilities provide comprehensive pediatric 
and adult health services to residents regardless of their ability to 
pay. The number of clinic users has steadily increased since 1990. As a 
result of the Tampa Community Health Center, more people are seeking 
care on a regular basis at these clinics, in many cases seeking 
preventive care and less people use the emergency rooms for these 
purposes.
  Another success in our area is the Mothers' and Child Care Clinic of 
Clearwater. Since this clinic opened in 1991, the local hospital 
emergency room visits have steadily declined. In 1990, there were 71 
emergency room births by mothers with no prenatal care; by 1993, these 
births were reduced to 24.
  Pediatric emergency room visits have also drastically declined. In 
1990, there were 7,400 pediatric emergency room visits at Morton Plant 
Hospital; in 1993, there were only 6,400.
  Community health centers give many a choice--if more community health 
centers are built, more people will be given access to routine health 
care. The Porter amendment would provide more individuals with this 
opportunity.
  Passage of the Porter amendment would be a welcome response to our 
country's problems regarding health care access. Community health 
centers are successful because individual health care needs are taken 
into account. Quality care is available to all residents, regardless of 
whether or not they have health coverage.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Porter amendment so more people 
will have access to valuable health care services.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following statistics:


       mothers' and children's care of clearwater, clearwater, fl

       Mothers' and Children's Care of Clearwater (MCCC) began in 
     January 1991 with only obstetric services. In October 1991, 
     Johnny Ruth Clark Center joined with Morton Plant Hospital to 
     include pediatric services.
       More people in our area are becoming medicaid eligible. 
     MCCC fills in these gaps.
       Morton Plant emergency room births by mothers with no 
     prenatal care has decreased dramatically.
       1990.--71 births.
       1991.--51 births (the year MCCC clinic opened).
       1992.--35 births.
       1993.--24 births.
       Morton Plant Hospital pediatric emergency room visits:
       1990--7,400 (MCCC was not open).
       1991--7,400 (MCCC only provided OB services).
       1992--6,500.
       1993--6,400.
       MCCC sees almost 13,000 pediatric cases annually.
       At MCCC, 10,000 pediatric visits cost around $500,000. 
     Therefore, even if money is not being saved, many more 
     children are being provided with good health care in the 
     clinic for approximately the same amount of money.


            good samaritan clinic (dr. dormois) holiday, fl

       Clinic open 3 years--there has been over 11,000 patient 
     visits. It is crisis oriented.--9,300 medical; 1,800 dental.
       Number of medical providers participating (all volunteers): 
     60 doctors; 12 dentists; 70 nurses; 70 social workers, and 50 
     clerical volunteers.
       Only accepts patients who do not qualify for Federal 
     entitlement programs and do not have insurance. Clients are 
     the working poor--people who fall through the cracks.
       Approximately 100-130 patients are seen each week. Includes 
     children and adults up to age 65.
       Five to 10 patients with dental problems are seen each 
     week.
       Agreements exist with medical specialists to provide 
     additional care.
       Clinic is advertised by word of mouth, social agencies, 
     etc.
       Clinic relies on donations and medical provider volunteers.


                  tampa community health center, inc.

       Established January 22, 1987.
       Funding provided under Section 330 and 340 of Public 
     Service Act.
       Currently operating 4 locations serving Tampa and 
     Hillsborough County.
       Provide comprehensive pediatric and adult ambulatory health 
     care services to residents of the catchment area regardless 
     of their ability to pay.
       26,837 individuals served generating 93,608 patient visits.
       Center specific inpatient referral reduction: below shows 
     the number of users of patient visits by year by type 
     (outpatient and inpatient), and the reduction in the ratio of 
     outpatient to inpatient.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Users    Encounters  Outpatient  Inpatient
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990......................      3,705      14,629      13,912        717
1991......................      4,393      16,957      16,382        575
1992......................      5,513      16,701      16,617         84
1993......................      5,669      18,435      18,425         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This graphic shows that the Tampa Community Health Centers, 
     Inc. has shown a steady increase in the number of users and 
     patient visits, but the number of inpatient visits compared 
     to the outpatient has steadily declined.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the chair of our Health 
Reform Task Force and ranking member on the Subcommittee on Health of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment. The community health centers have bipartisan support 
in this Congress and have enjoyed that broad support for many years. 
This funding to expand that system throughout America is not only 
directly related to the solution to our health care problems but is 
long overdue.
  There are few things this Congress could do that would more affect 
people's lives. Of the 125 new clinics that this would provide, all 
have demonstrated need. All have met all of the funding criteria. All 
cannot operate for lack of funds.
  In fact, there are 150 centers prepared to open that have 
demonstrated need and that have met all of our criteria. In addition, 
there are 75 additional applicants who have been able to demonstrate 
that they would exist in a medically underserved area.
  It is high time we put our dollars on the line behind all those words 
that we have been saying for so many years about the 37 million 
uninsured. These clinics tend to be located in the very areas where the 
majority of Americans without health insurance live. They are in the 
areas where there is a shortage. They are in the areas where often the 
poorest live. They are in the city neighborhoods. They are in the most 
isolated rural areas. They are where the people who have the least 
access to health care live. And furthermore, even if we mandate that 
all employers provide health insurance, even if we mandate that 
everyone in America has health insurance, there will still be problems 
in accessing the system until we expand our community health center 
system.

  There is a lack of transportation in cities and in rural areas. There 
is a lack of providers in many areas of the Nation. It is only by 
expanding this infrastructure of care that we can make access to 
community health care a reality for the majority of those 37 million 
who are uninsured.
  In my State of Connecticut, these community health centers helped 
those that went through serious periods of unemployment, because it 
made access available and affordable, whether one was covered or not 
covered.
  I hope that we will lay aside our differences today and vote for this 
amendment, because it is the heart and soul of one of the critical 
pieces of the solution to access for health care. It supports those 
kinds of institutions that provide holistic care, that create the 
relationships that mean that prenatal care is accomplished, that create 
the relationship that assures that well-child care is carried out in a 
timely fashion.

                              {time}  1710

  Community health centers create the relationships through which 
substance abuse, family abuse and violence can be addressed. They are 
comprehensive, they are holistic, they are family oriented, and they 
are located where the people who need them can reach the health 
services that are so critical to the lives of our children and the 
strength of our families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], the Republican leader.
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding time to me.
  The Porter amendment reflects our Republican view that the best 
health care reform is that which makes health care available to those 
who need it most at the earliest possible date.
  There is sometimes a tendency to believe that those without insurance 
are not getting health care, but that is not accurate.
  Most people receive health care when they really need it and one of 
the key programs that provides such care, regardless of insurance 
status, is the Community Health Center Program.
  Such centers provide ready access to health care in one's own 
neighborhood or community.
  So, regardless of what kind of insurance reforms we ventually 
undertake, there is a need for an expanded Community Health Center 
Program.
  It will provide care through the transitional period of expanded 
insurance coverage and provide access to care that is essential 
regardless of insurance status.
  Our health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care Now Act, 
provides for nearly doubling the Community Health Center Program over a 
5-year period, at the rate of $100 million a year.
  The $100-million increase over last year called for in the Porter 
amendment thus represents the initial down payment on this 5-year 
effort to extend health care to those in underserved areas.
  Underserved areas, of course, exist in both urban and rural regions 
of our country. Since community health centers are primarily located in 
urban areas, the need for increased access to health care in rural 
areas is provided for by the doubling of funding in the Porter 
amendment for the Rural Outreach Grants Program.
  I believe there is widespread support for the Community Health Center 
and Rural Outreach Grant Programs, but there seems to be a view on the 
part of some in this body that nothing should be done until the 
grandiose health reform plan is approved.
  In fact, the President has even proposed reductions in these 
programs.
  That is the wrong way to look at it!
  The only effective way to achieve workable health care reform in all 
its aspects is through a step-by-step approach, doing as much as we can 
at each stage to bring improvements to the American people at the 
earliest possible time.
  This is the time, and stage, to begin expanding the Community Health 
Center Program and the Rural Outreach Grant Program.
  Expansion of these programs must be done through the appropriations 
process. So why not now? Let us adopt the Porter amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we all support community health centers very, very 
strongly. If we did not support community health centers, we would not 
have put an additional $19 million into this bill, which is enough so 
they will open some more community health centers.
  However, Mr. Chairman, this is a part of health reform, and when we 
have a health reform bill, it will find financing for this kind of an 
increase that is proposed here without taking it out of education and 
other programs.
  When we have a health bill, for example, a lot of people will be 
insured who are not insured today, who can go to these health centers 
and pay for this kind of a service, so they will have a lot more 
revenue. These health centers do get more money than they do out of the 
Federal Government from insurance and from the contributions that they 
are able to get from the people that go there. What this amendment will 
do, it will take $15 million, a little over $15 million, from the 
Department of Education that they need to reduce fraud and abuse in 
student aid.
  We are going to have amendments here later, Mr. Chairman, an 
amendment to strike that concentrates on some of the fraud and abuse 
that is in student aid. We hardly know how to get at it. They need this 
money. We do not want to take money they need.
  We did not give extra money to any of these departments for salaries 
and expenses unless they had a good reason. In fact, the general trend 
was to cut them. We do not want to take money away from the money that 
the Department of Education needs for their effort to reduce fraud and 
abuse in student aid.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, they need the money to implement Goals 2000. That 
is a new program. We have the school-to-work program, and we have the 
direct loans. Those need to be implemented. This would take money from 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, in the Department of Health and Human Services they 
would lose over $6 million that they need for quality improvements and 
monitoring in Head Start. Virtually everybody is for Head Start now. I 
remember when it was not that way, but it is now.
  They need the money for these improvements in Head Start. We are all 
talking about how we can improve Head Start, give deprived children 3 
and 4 years old an equal opportunity to get started in the first grade.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor programs would be cut by $47 
million, and that includes money for improvements in the consumer price 
index in BLS. I point out that this is very important to industry. This 
is important to our economy. It is done every 10 years. They need this 
money. We are at that point in the cycle when they need to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Porter amendment will increase the deficit by $44 
million. That is the budget authority amount. It will not do that in 
outlays, but it does in budget authority. The bill already, as I said 
before, has $19 million over what it had before in community health 
centers.
  What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, in summary, is that it is not the 
gentleman from Illinois, but there is, it seems to me here, whether we 
like to admit it or not, there is a tendency to want to say, ``We do 
not need a health reform bill because we can take care of these 
community health centers without a health reform bill.'' However, to 
take care of the community health centers without a health reform bill, 
we would be taking money from programs that need it very badly.
  What we need to do, I think, Mr. Chairman, is wait for the health 
reform bill. It will finance at least this number of health care 
centers.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased the gentleman is 
explaining this, because when I walked on the floor I was terribly 
confused. As the gentleman knows, I grew up in Iowa, and he was the 
first person I ever voted for for Congress. I know the gentleman has 
already been out there supporting this, so it sounded like a role 
reversal, with the compassion coming from the other side, and I could 
not quite figure it out.
  What the gentleman is saying is, they are taking money out of 
education, Goals 2000, Head Start, all these other things that we have 
done, and some of it they were just adding to the deficit. Is that how 
we are getting there?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but getting at fraud 
and abuse in student aid, that is a big item. We do not want to take 
money out of that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members should just wait here a few weeks. We are 
going to have a health care bill, and in the health care bill we will 
take care of these community centers. It will certainly be a very high 
priority. Taking money out of other programs today in this bill is not 
an answer for having a health care bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman for clearing that up.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Porter 
amendment, reluctant in that of course we all respect and regard the 
excellent work the community health centers do, and the rural health 
outreach. However, as with everything in our bill, we would like to 
increase all of them, all of the programs. They are all excellent.

                              {time}  1720

  As someone is the press described it in dealing with the competing 
demands in this legislation, it is lamb eat lamb, because everything in 
here is so good.
  As I said, we would love to give more money to community health 
centers. It is not the price, it is the money. There just is not any 
more. Unfortunately in order to give more money to community health 
centers, we would have to make cuts as our chairman mentioned earlier 
in some very important initiatives that also help people. I believe 
that cutting the budget for administration for children and families, 
their program administration, would be a serious cut. The Education 
Department, their administration, we should not cut it. The list goes 
on and on. I will not repeat it because our chairman has already laid 
out what the offsets would be.
  Mr. Chairman, while the Porter amendment is very attractive and while 
the community health centers are excellent and do a very good job, I 
look forward to continuing work with the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. 
Porter] on health care reform where we can appropriately address the 
access and coverage of affordable health care to all Americans, 
community health centers being one way that we can do that.
  As far as this legislation is concerned, we have had a very difficult 
time meeting the challenge that the initiatives propose, making the 
difficult choices, subjecting all of the proposals to very harsh 
scrutiny so that we know we are wringing it out and getting our money's 
worth for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, as I say, I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois, not because the health centers are not worthy 
recipients of more funds, but because so many initiatives in this 
legislation deserve more funds.
  As I said earlier to the gentleman from Illinois, it is not the 
price, it is money, and the offsets are too expensive for us to approve 
this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Porter amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to see people talk against the 
development and increasing community health centers. I have been around 
this country, had the privilege of doing that for the last couple of 
years now, especially this last year, talking about problems in health 
care.
  When we get into big urban areas and when we get out into the far 
rural reaches, the place that best serves underserved communities, 
underserved groups of people, are community health care centers. I 
visited a community health care center in southern California--I 
believe it was in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson]--did a wonderful job of outreaching to people, taking care 
of people's needs. In that health care center, there were little old 
ladies and men that were getting eye care, eye glasses where they would 
not go before; expectant mothers were getting prenatal care, on and on, 
the whole realm of health care needs that people were getting at 
community health care centers.
  I visited a rural health care center where nurse practitioners, 
because they could not afford doctors at that point, were taking 
medical histories from incoming patients, then directing them on to 
further health care where people did not have the opportunity to get 
health care before.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear the argument that, oh, this is too expensive, 
we are going to take money out of some type of enforcement program for 
scholarships or we are going to take money out of here. We are talking 
about spending hundreds of billions of dollars in health care reform, 
and we need to do health care reform, but if we ignore, if we blind 
ourselves to simple solutions to big problems, then we are doing wrong.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois for bringing forth the idea 
that we ought to expand our community health care centers, our rural 
intake centers where people are getting real health care and a real 
solution to a very, very real problem.
  We talk about lambs eating lambs. If we do not take care of America's 
health care, the poor's health care, underserved health care, rural 
health care--and that is what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
is trying to do in this amendment--we are blinding ourselves to a very, 
very real problem in this country. I do not understand the logic of 
people that are trying to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Illinois in putting this 
program in. I ask this body to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how times have changed. I can remember when 
Republican members of our subcommittee used to oppose amendments that I 
offered trying to expand funding for community health centers. Now, 
however, the worm seems to have turned. I think we ought to be frank in 
admitting what this amendment is all about.
  What we have here is a political figleaf. It is being offered by 
people who do not have any intention whatsoever of voting for 
comprehensive health care reform, and yet they want to be on record 
somewhere, somehow, on the cheap, supporting an initiative which 
appears to provide greater access for people to basic health care. Of 
course it is okay if the taxpayers pay for it, they just do not want 
employers to pay for it. That is, I think, an interesting aspect of the 
amendment before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sop to the principle of health care 
access which will then be used to justify a vote against real health 
reform when it comes down the pike in a few weeks.
  I would also point out that it is ironic to discover where the 
funding would supposedly come from to pay for this. It would come by 
taking $16 million out of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. I used to work with asbestos before I came to Congress. 
I did not know as a worker that asbestos was a carcinogen, that 40 
percent of British shipyard workers who had worked with it in World War 
II died from exposure to it. I think workers who are exposed to 
dangerous chemicals or dangerous health practices in the workplace have 
a right to know it and have a right to know that their Government will 
protect them.
  The Mine Safety and Health Administration would be cut by $3 million. 
Would anybody in this room like to leave their job and go work in a 
mine? Do Members know any profession that is more dangerous?
  I would suggest this amendment says that we ought to pull the plug on 
funding for some of the most vulnerable people in this country in order 
to support a political figleaf that is aimed at providing some help for 
other people in this country who are equally vulnerable. I do not think 
that is the way to do business. I think the way that we provide health 
care for people who desperately need services of these community health 
service organizations is to provide expanded health care for all, to 
provide guaranteed private health insurance coverage for all, and then 
add the support structure and support services to go with it.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a very good reason why the association that 
normally lobbies for community health centers has not come out in 
support of this amendment. My office talked to them. They said they do 
not have any intention of supporting this amendment because they 
recognize what it is, a political figleaf, and they have no intention 
of being used as a pawn in the health care debate. That is what 
community health centers are being used as today through this 
amendment.
  I urge Members to see through this sham. I urge Members to vote 
against it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chief deputy whip.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed by the mean-spirited nature of the 
remarks that we just heard. It seems to me that the motivations of the 
gentleman from Illinois ought not be called into question on this, that 
he has indeed been an advocate for community health care centers as 
have many of the people that spoke on our side.
  It seems to me that what we are hearing is a redefinition of the 
priorities by the Democrats at the moment. What they have told us in 
just the last few minutes is that community health care centers and 
health care in general is not as high a priority as bureaucracy in a 
number of programs that are included in this program.
  What the gentleman from Illinois is doing is cutting money out of 
bureaucracies, not out of programs, out of bureaucracies, out of 
administrative expenses in order to find some money to do community 
health care centers. Why is it important to do that? Because whether or 
not we get to a health care bill, and the Democrats have so screwed up 
the health care debate at this point that they are not even sure they 
can get to a bill, but here is something that we can do right now, and 
here is something where we can actually in a global sense save costs in 
the system, because it is hospital emergency rooms that are carrying 
far too much of the primary care coverage in this country at the 
present time and that is the single most expensive place to access 
health care. Yet with the expansion of community health care centers, 
we can in fact reduce some of those overall costs in health care and do 
it in a responsible way.

                              {time}  1730

  The Democrats today are coming to the floor and telling people they 
ought to reject that as an argument. Beyond that, there are a number of 
specialized people, specialized kinds of constituencies that community 
health care centers serve.
  I happen to have a large migrant farm population in one part of my 
district. They are served by community health care centers. It provides 
access they would not otherwise have to health care and thereby lowers 
the overall cost to the system.
  What the gentleman from Illinois is doing is extremely responsible. 
He is doing it not at the expense of other people. He is doing it at 
the expense of bureaucracy.
  To suggest, for example, that somehow Goals 2000 has risen to a level 
that it is more important than the health care of this country, it 
seems to me, is a ludicrous argument. Here is a chance to decide what 
your real priorities are. If your real priorities are to do something 
significant about helping to access primary health for people in this 
country, you will vote for the Porter amendment. If what you are doing 
is just you are playing politics with the subject, suggesting the only 
way to deal with the health care issue is in the big global bill that 
is coming down the pike, maybe, I would suggest that that is exactly 
the wrong approach.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to sort of step away from the 
politics of this for a minute that have been discussed here and discuss 
what I have seen on a firsthand basis with respect to the delivery of 
health care. That is what this is all about.
  We can talk about all the health care plans we want across the United 
States of America, but the bottom line is we need to have medical 
personnel who will be able to deliver health care to the individuals 
who need it. It has shifted a tremendous amount in the United States of 
America even in the last 5 years, but particularly perhaps in the last 
3 or 4 years. As HMO's have sprung up, as alternate forms of health 
care delivery other than going to a doctor's office have sprung up, we 
are seeing more and more people who are very comfortable with the 
concept of going to a community health clinic or to a rural health 
clinic or whatever it may be in order to receive their health care.
  In my State of Delaware where I was Governor for a few years, I saw 
this opportunity grow, and I saw individuals who were not able to 
otherwise get health care be able to get it because of the expansion of 
these units and because the doctors and other individuals took a great 
deal of interest in these delivery systems. It took people out of the 
emergency rooms. It gave them health care they did not have before. It 
made a fundamental difference.
  Today we are in a situation in which we are debating health care in 
the Congress of the United States of America. Hopefully it will come to 
this floor, and when it comes to this floor, I think you are going to 
find in practically any piece of legislation which we are going to have 
before us the concept of having community health clinics and rural 
health clinics for the delivery of the health care in addition to 
whatever else is in there.
  It is for that reason I think we should be supportive today of this. 
I do not think it is a matter of politics. I think it is a matter of 
health care for the people of the United States of America.
  I would encourage all of us to support this. I believe that the 
offsets that we have are basically increases in administration in very 
good programs, but the bottom line is health care is important.
  We do not know if we are going to pass a health care bill or not. If 
there is one single thing we could do other than pass a universal 
health care program, whatever it would have in it, it would be to have 
the delivery system for those who do not have the opportunity not to 
get health care expanded. I believe this would do it.
  I support this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reluctantly speak against 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be very nice if we could vote for additional 
money for community health centers, vote for additional money for child 
care, vote for additional money for DARE programs, all kinds of 
substance abuse programs. I would like to see a lot more money in 
prevention.
  But as my colleague on our committee and the rest of my colleagues 
know too well that we had to make some really tough choices, and under 
the leadership of our distinguished Chair, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith], we made those choices.
  Now, no one has been a greater advocate of community health centers. 
They are working tremendously well in our communities. There are people 
who are reaching out, reaching out to those who really need those 
services, and in fact, in this bill we did increase the funds for 
community health centers, and in fact, we also put a down payment on 
health care reform by increasing the whole preventive package by $146 
million. The community health center increase of $13 million was just 
part of it. So it is not as if we are waiting for health care reform. 
We have done some very important things in this bill with our 
prevention package, and an increased investment in community health 
centers was part of it.
  So I am proud to have worked with my colleagues from Illinois on an 
increase for the community health centers. I wish we could work 
together and do more. Let us hope we can continue to do more next year.
  But as we know too well, we had a tough job, and in order to invest, 
we had to cut, and we were still able to expand the vital services that 
we can be proud to take back to our individual districts.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, not because it 
is not a good idea, but we have had to make some tough choices, and we 
have done very well under the leadership of our Chair.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure everyone 
understands fully and clearly that this has been a carefully and 
correctly thought out amendment, and contrary to what was said earlier, 
we do not in any way cut those basic education funds. Head Start, which 
has doubled over 5 years, has a $210 million increase program, not 
touched by this amendment; Goals 200, a $283 million increase, not 
touched by this amendment; chapter I, $334 million increase, not 
touched by this amendment; apprenticeships, $179 million increase, not 
touched by this amendment; OSHA, the State grants, not cut at all; 
AMSHA, the State grants, not cut at all.
  Give us credit when we put together a carefully crafted, well thought 
out amendment that establishes a better set of priorities.
  This ought not be a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats, urban 
and rural people alike, ought to have the courage to stand up and say 
there is a better idea on the floor, and I am going to have the courage 
to vote for it.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply repeat, for OSHA Safety and 
Health Administration, $16 million cut; for Pension and Welfare Benefit 
Administration, the organization that is supposed to protect the 
integrity of America's private pension systems, $2.4 million cut; Mine 
Safety and Health Administration, $2.9 million cut.
  Now, those programs cannot be run without administrators. Those 
programs cannot be administered without administration. You cannot have 
people in the field unless there is somebody to direct them.
  The fact is the amendment makes those cuts. It is very clear. The 
Education Department has already been cut in terms of personnel by 20 
percent in terms of people since 1980. This will cut $13 million 
additional.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, were not the administrative numbers you 
talked about in OSHA, Pension reform, AMSHA, et cetera, were not those 
increases over 1994?
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, whether they were or not, you are 
cutting the committee recommendations. As you well know, under previous 
administrations, those agencies have been squeezed for years.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman of my committee 
that I am, in fact, for health care reform, as I said in my opening 
remarks.
  This is only one component of health care reform. I might not be for 
the same health care reform my chairman is, but I certainly am for it.
  We consider community health centers to be a very important component 
of that, and we are not cutting, as the gentlewoman from Colorado 
seemed to suggest; we are not cutting Goals 2000 or Head Start or any 
other program.
  This is a simple judgment that Members have to make, and the judgment 
is this: Do you want to spend $87 million more on creating 125 new 
community health centers that will serve 848,000 Americans who are not 
served today?

                              {time}  1740

  Or do you want to spend that money on increases--we are not cutting--
on increases in administrative costs in the three departments and in 
the enforcement of OSHA, MSHA, and PWBA? I believe that people on our 
side of the aisle want to spend that money on community health centers 
and providing direct services to people who do not have them today. I 
think that is an honest choice. I think it is a real choice. It is not 
a fig leaf. The community health centers are very much a part of the 
plan that we have for health care reform. We consider it a higher 
priority. We would like to spend more money on that. We think the 
choice is a real and honest one and ought to be made in favor of doing 
so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time. I ask my colleagues, please vote against this amendment. We are 
all for community health centers. I think we will end up this year with 
about the same number that they are talking about without cutting these 
important programs that are being cut.
  The way we are going to do it is, whenever we increase the number of 
people who have health insurance, the health insurance benefits will 
pay for health centers. When they go to the health center, they will 
pay under their health insurance. At this point we do not know for sure 
what is going to be in that health bill, but we have got to depend on 
it increasing the amount of benefits available to help pay for the 
health centers. We do not want at this point to cut the important 
things like reducing the fraud and abuse, student aid, improvements in 
Head Start program, improvements in the consumer price index, so very 
important to business in this country. We do not want to do that at 
this time.
  We probably will not be out of conference until sometime in September 
on this bill, and by that time we should have the health care reform 
matter settled. At this point we have the bill balanced, we have 
increases only in those instances where they are needed, and I think 
they are needed. We should not take the money they are going to take 
out today in order to finance these community health centers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge, please vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 205, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--224

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Callahan
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Hilliard
     Olver
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Ridge
     Washington

                              {time}  1804

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Pryce of Ohio for, with Mr. Hilliard against.

  Ms. WOOLSEY, and Messrs. GILMAN, PALLONE, and BROOKS changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DORNAN, GORDON, and PICKLE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. DeLay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeLAY: Page 18, strike lines 13 
     through 16.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on the current amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 
minutes, to be equally controlled by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
DeLAY] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time will be limited to 40 minutes, to be equally 
divided between the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. DeLAY].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLAY].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to language contained in the 
Labor, HHS appropriations bill and offer an amendment to strike this 
onerous provision. The language in the bill would prohibit the 
Secretary of Labor from using any funds to implement or administer the 
final Davis-Bacon helper regulations. These regulations are court-
tested, final regulations which the Department of Labor had already 
begun implementing before the current prohibition. The language 
contained in the bill arbitrarily prohibits these regulations without 
ever giving them the opportunity to work or realize any of their 
projected benefits.
  Helpers are semiskilled workers who work under direct supervision of 
higher skilled journey-level workers. Helpers are widely used in the 
private sector, where approximately 75 percent of all construction work 
is performed by contractors who use semiskilled helpers. The helper 
regulations serve the original purpose of the Davis-Bacon Act--bringing 
practices on Federal construction projects in line with locally 
prevailing practices on private work. In fact, Vice President Gore's 
National Performance Review recently recommended changes to bring 
the antiquated Davis-Bacon Act into the realities of today's 
construction marketplace, which these regulations clearly do.

  Under the regulations, helpers are paid the locally prevailing wage 
rate for the type of work they perform. Without the helper regulations, 
all workers on Federal projects, regardless of task, must be paid the 
high-wage rate paid to a skilled craftsman. In this way, the helper 
classification serves as an entrance into construction for groups not 
traditionally prevalent in the industry--for example, minorities and 
women. The helper classification serves as a strong first step up the 
job ladder for workers who are interested in furthering their education 
and pursuing a career in construction. Forcing contractors to pay all 
workers the high journey-level wage rate effectively precludes groups 
who have not previously trained in construction from having the 
opportunity to work on Federal construction projects.
  I would also like to mention that one of the chief opponents to the 
helper regulations, organized labor, has seen fit to allow their own 
classification of helpers or subapprentices over the last decade in 
order to meet the private marketplace's changing needs. However, they 
are refusing to allow the taxpayer to enjoy the same advantage for fear 
of losing their crown jewel, their cash cow, and their control over 
young people's entrance into the construction industry together with 
their stronghold in the Federal construction market.
  It has been estimated that when the helper classification becomes 
widely used on Davis-Bacon projects, an estimated 250,000 jobs will be 
created and $600 million a year will be saved. By prohibiting helpers 
on Davis-Bacon projects, we are further aggrevating the very problems 
which top the American agenda today--our Nation's huge Federal deficit, 
lack of job creation, and near-stagnant economy.
  More than a decade of litigation and debate regarding the helpers 
issue has culminated in favorable rulings by both the U.S. District 
Court (1990) and the U.S. Court of Appeals (1992), affirming that 
helper regulations are fully in-line with the purpose of the Davis-
Bacon Act. The Supreme Court denied an appeal of those rulings.

  With all the benefits associated with the helper regulation--benefits 
to contractors, disadvantaged workers, and the Federal Government--one 
may wonder why we are arbitrarily prohibiting their implementation. 
Supporters of this ban will tell you it is to protect against shoddy 
construction and unsafe working conditions for construction employees. 
Come on. This argument simply does not hold water. Let us face it, this 
arcane system only exists on Government construction projects. Nonunion 
and union shops both have helpers on private construction projects.
  As I previously mentioned, in the private sector more than 75 percent 
of all construction is performed by contractors who use semiskilled 
helpers. There is simply no rationale for assuming that Federal 
construction is any different than private construction in this regard. 
A recent OSHA study found that open shop employers, the majority of 
whom employ semiskilled helpers on their jobsites, are safer than their 
union counterparts. The OSHA report, ``Analysis of Construction 
Fatalities''--The OSHA database 1985-89 showed that over the 5-year 
period of the report, the unions experienced a fatality ratio of 20.9 
per 100,000 workers--more than 25 percent higher than the open shop's 
15.1 per 100,000 workers. While construction unions account for 
approximately one-fifth of the total work force, they also account for 
more than one-fourth of the fatalities in the industry. The safety of 
construction employees would not be affected by the use of helpers on 
Davis-Bacon construction projects.
  Further, construction must be performed to specifications and 
contractors are not paid for faulty work. Plain and simple, if a 
contractor were to perform shoddy construction, he would jeopardize his 
payment and his reputation. Quality of Federal construction would not 
be jeopardized by employing helpers on those projects.

  Although the committee has seen fit to continue to allow this 1 year 
ban of the Davis-Bacon helper regulations, I would like to reiterate my 
strong objection to this prohibition. The helper regulations have been 
one small positive step toward alleviating the burdens imposed by the 
outdated, unnecessary Davis-Bacon Act. They at least help bring the law 
back to its original intent, which it certainly does not meet in 
practice today. The Davis-Bacon Act and this prohibition discriminates 
against minorities and women and the very group it intended to help--
small, local contractors. It continues business as usual by lining the 
pockets of the unions with taxpayer dollars.
  I suggest that all Members take a close look at the prohibition 
provision contained in this legislation and consider it when voting on 
this appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeLay 
amendment to strike the ``helpers'' provision from the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill.
  The provision at issue prohibits the Department of Labor from 
implementing revised ``helpers'' regulations which control the wages 
paid to certain workers on Federal construction projects subject to the 
Davis-Bacon Act.
  The Davis-Bacon Act requires that contractors who undertake Federal 
construction projects pay the local prevailing wage to mechanics and 
laborers on those projects. The act protects workers employed building 
Federal projects. The fundamental policy of the act is that the 
existence of Federal construction should not undermine the prevailing 
wages and benefits in local communities.
  A secondary benefit of the act is that it ensures quality 
construction of Federal buildings. Quality construction saves money in 
the long run; a valuable objective when public money is at stake. 
Payment of prevailing wages insures that firms that use highly skilled, 
highly paid workers are not underbid by unscrupulous contractors using 
unskillled low-wage labor.
  In the early 1980's, the Reagan administration Department of Labor 
promulgated rules which would have allowed payment of lower wages to 
helpers who performed tasks in conjunction with journeymen and 
laborers. These regulations changed prior rules regarding the use of 
helpers in that they allowed creation of a separate classification and 
wage scale for helpers even when their duties overlapped with those of 
journeymen and laborers and even when the contractor had no formal 
certified training programs for the helpers.
  These regulations, if implemented, would have harmful effects. First, 
they would allow contractors to shift work from highly productive 
journeymen to lower skilled and lower paid helpers. Second, they would 
undermine apprenticeship training programs because contractors would 
substitute helpers for apprentices. Both of these practices run 
contrary to the goal of creating high skilled, high paying jobs in the 
Nation instead of low skilled dead end work.
  The implementation of these regulations was stalled for several years 
by litigation during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In the 
meantime, the House and the Senate have voted several times to bar the 
implementation of these regulations in the past 3 years. The moratorium 
in the current bill extends the one adopted last year in the House-
Senate conference report for Labor-HHS-Education appropriations for the 
1994 fiscal year.
  The Department of Labor has informed us that it intends to issue 
revised helpers regulations within the upcoming fiscal year. These 
regulations should resolve this issue. The provision in the 
appropriations bill will allow the conclusion of the administrative 
process without decreasing the standard of living enjoyed by 
construction workers. Accordingly, we ask for your support in defeating 
the DeLay amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeLay 
amendment. When we talk about helper, what are we talking about? We are 
talking about a new subclass of worker, a worker where we are not 
required to pay any benefits. We are not required to put in any 
training. All we have to do is give them the lowest possible rate, not 
the highest, but the lowest.
  The gentleman from Texas says Davis-Bacon has the highest possible 
rate. That is not true. Davis-Bacon is the prevailing rate based upon 
the marketplace in that locality. It is not the highest possible rate.
  The Associated Building and Contractors Organization, not known to be 
a union organization, claims that if this amendment goes through, 40 
percent of the current work force under Davis-Bacon will be replaced by 
a lower class, lower-paid worker, low-paid workers, low-skilled 
workers, these so-called helpers.
  Let us protect the working men and women of this country. Let us 
protect those who paid their dues, who worked through this system form 
apprenticeship.
  Mr. Chairman, defeat the DeLay amendment.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Filner].
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment by the gentleman from Texas.
  Skilled American workers are under attack--right here in the Halls of 
Congress--the very institution that should be protecting them.
  What America needs and deserves today is a better trained, more 
highly skilled work force. If we were to pass this amendment we would 
be guaranteeing the exact opposite--a labor force that is dangerously 
undertrained and ill-informed. We cannot allow this.
  Federal construction jobs today require the best workmanship 
available--work that is the product of intensive training and on-the-
job experience. Funding these proposed changes to the Davis-Bacon Act 
would ultimately serve to deny our workers safe and thorough training. 
They deserve quality training--and nothing less.
  The previous two administrations undermined the strength and quality 
of America's work force, and this amendment continues that misguided 
tradition. I believe this new administration and this new Congress are 
friends and supporters of American workers--let's not betray our 
country's most valuable resource.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, we ought not be discussing Davis-Bacon on 
an appropriations bill today. Unfortunately, the Appropriations 
Committee has once again decided to include a legislative rider 
regarding the Davis-Bacon Act in an appropriations bill. I hope that we 
can end this annual process of debating the Davis-Bacon Act as part of 
the appropriations process by striking this legislative rider from the 
bill.
  This rider would overturn regulations issued by the Department of 
Labor allowing the use of semi-skilled helpers on contracts subject to 
the Davis-Bacon Act. These regulations have been developed over the 
last 10 years through a painstaking and thorough process. They have 
passed every conceivable court test. The courts have repeatedly held 
that the regulations are consistent with the intent of the Davis-Bacon 
Act.
  This amendment is an issue of fiscal responsibility, efficiency and 
increased competition in Federal construction and creating jobs. 
According to CBO the helper regulations will reduce the cost of Federal 
construction by approximately $600 million a year once they are fully 
implemented. Over the next 5 years, they will result in savings of 
nearly $2.3 billion.
  By allowing contractors on Federal construction projects to utilize 
the more flexible work rules that are used in the private sector, the 
regulations will open up Federal construction to many small and 
minority contractors who are unable to compete for Federal contracts. 
today. Without the regulations, contractors who want to compete for 
Federal contracts have outdated workrules imposed on them. For example, 
the same unskilled worker must be classified as a journeyman carpenter 
to carry lumber one day and reclassified--with all the attendant 
paperwork--as a journeyman plumber to carry or hold pipe the next day. 
Thus, labor is allocated inefficiently, costs rise, and semi-skilled 
workers are denied entry-level jobs. The regulations reflect changes in 
the construction industry since the passage of the act in 1931. The 
utilization of helpers was virtually non-existent in 1931, but has 
become a widespread practice in private construction. Today, about 75 
percent of the construction industry uses helpers for semi-skilled and 
unskilled tasks to assist a variety of skilled craftsmen on private 
contracts. The regulations are consistent with the intent of the Davis-
Bacon Act--that Federal contracts should reflect the local market and 
that the Federal Government should not use its power to impose a wage 
structure on local markets.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not make a legislative change of this 
magnitude in a rider on an appropriations bill. The House should deal 
with the issue of Davis-Bacon in the proper way--in authorizing 
legislation. There are several proposals to make changes in the Davis-
Bacon Act. Harris Fawell and I have introduced comprehensive reform 
legislation. The National Performance Review proposed modest reforms of 
the Davis-Bacon Act. Austin Murphy has proposed Davis-Bacon legislation 
as well. If we are to consider changes in the Davis-Bacon Act, we 
should resolve all of the issues regarding the Davis-Bacon Act by 
debating all of these proposals and any other suggestions on how the 
Davis-Bacon Act can be improved, instead of going through the annual 
process of legislating on an appropriations bill.
  When a similar rider was included in the Labor--HHS appropriations 
bill last year, the committee report stated that the Appropriations 
Committee would not continue the prohibition but would allow this issue 
to be resolved through the authorization process. It has been over a 
year since then, and we are still waiting for an authorization bill to 
come out of subcommittee. We should return this issue to the place it 
belongs--the authorizing committee. There are ongoing discussions to 
see if there is a resolution to the issue of Davis-Bacon that is 
acceptable to all sides of this body. These discussions may not 
succeed, but we should not undercut these good-faith discussions 
through legislative riders on an appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to strike this legislative rider from the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vigorous opposition to the 
DeLay amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeLay 
amendment. I do so as someone who has supported the Davis-Bacon law 
through the years.
  I believe very strongly that what we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, 
is reducing the cost of building government projects to the taxpayers. 
That has appeal to me as a fiscal conservative. However, the problem is 
this. What we are really talking about doing, Mr. Chairman, is reducing 
the cost of wages to workers in this country.
  I happen to believe very strongly that when the government, whether 
it is the city, the county, the State or the Federal Government, builds 
a building, we as a matter of public policy should be prepared to pay 
the workers that are building that building a living wage. That is what 
we are talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, that includes benefits, so that these workers do not 
show up in our emergency rooms without health care, or that they do not 
show up on welfare later on in life because they do not have some kind 
of a retirement program to take care of their family, or themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a penny-wise, dollar-foolish concept. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fundamental question of whether we are going 
to pay working men and women who have hammers in their hand every day 
across this country a living wage, yes or no. I believe as a matter of 
public policy, when it comes to building government projects, we should 
be committed to paying our working men and women a living wage.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Before I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii, I would just respond to my 
good friend from Kansas.
  As many as 75 percent of all construction jobs, Mr. Chairman, are not 
union wages or under the auspices of the Davis-Bacon Act, and they are 
making livable wages. Mr. Chairman, the whole point of this is letting 
people get into the construction industry that have been prohibited 
from doing so because of arbitrarily set wage rates.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
  It is now 10 years. That is how long this issue has been debated and 
litigated in the courts. In 1990, the U.S. district court held that the 
helper regulations were fully consistent with the Davis-Bacon Act. In 
1992, the U.S. court of appeals followed suit in reaching the same 
decision. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal of these rulings. 
Now, we are faced again with congressional action which would fly in 
the face of these judicial decision by prohibiting the implementation 
of the Department of Labor's helper regulations.
  As Mr. DeLay explained earlier, helpers are semi-skilled workers 
working under the supervision of higher skilled workers on construction 
projects. The private sector uses these helpers in 75 percent of all 
construction work. Now, we simply want Federal contractors to have the 
same right to use them in projects falling under Davis-Bacon.
  There are many benefits to the helper regulations--foremost of which 
is giving the semi-skilled a foot in the door. These workers want to 
start their way up the ladder of success, but the lack of these 
regulations hold them down and prevent them from getting ahead. 
Unfortunately, these actions tend to hurt the minorities and women 
most.

  It has also been estimated that these regulations would help create 
250,000 jobs and save the Federal Government $600 million a year. In a 
time of economic uncertainty and budgetary constraints, it is time we 
use some fiscal sanity. People need to work and the Federal Government 
needs to save money.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be the first to admit that I do not much care 
for Davis-Bacon. In fact, I want to outright abolish it. I believe it 
is an anachronism of the New Deal and is costing the American taxpayer 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year. However, if we are not going to 
repeal it, we might as well lessen its impact. This amendment would do 
this by opening the Federal construction market to those who are 
currently prevented from entering it. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, there is a good reason 
these regulations have never been fully implemented. The regulations in 
question were crafted in 1982 to accomplish a simple goal--rob American 
construction workers of the opportunity to move into and to hold on to 
good, high-skill, high-wage jobs.
  First, these regulations were designed to undermine our States' right 
to build strong apprenticeship programs--programs that give young 
working men and women entering the work force the training and skills 
vital to a future that holds more than just the promise of dead-end, 
low-wage jobs.
  Second, these regulations were designed to encourage replacing 
skilled construction workers--many of whom are graduates of the very 
apprenticeship programs under attack from these same regulations--with 
the use of unskilled, low-wage workers.
  So let us be clear what this debate is about:
  It is about whether we allow implementation of a regulation that 
would cause massive job losses among good, skilled construction workers 
as some contractors move to substitute these workers with lower-paid 
helpers.
  It is about whether we jeopardize construction quality and safety by 
enabling the employment of semi-skilled and unskilled helpers to 
perform work previously done by skilled workers.
  It is about whether you support or oppose giving young people just 
entering the construction trades the right to receive good training 
that leads to good jobs.
  Secretary Reich is now in the middle of working with all interested 
parties to find a solution to the helper issue. It is the 
administration that asked the committee to continue the prohibition for 
1 additional year to have enough time to resolve the issue in a 
sensible and responsible manner. A solution that moves us further along 
the road to a skilled work force vital to our Nation's global 
competitiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be defeated. We must give the 
administration the time needed to resolve this issue in a way that 
protects the livelihoods and the lives of American construction 
workers.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Valentine], a gentleman who is retiring from this 
House and will duly be missed because he is a stalwart on this issue 
and we appreciate all the work that he has done on this issue.
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Delay 
amendment to the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this body, the other body, administrations, and the 
courts of this country have been dealing with the Davis-Bacon Act and 
its meanings since long before I came to Congress. It seems we have 
toiled with this issue every year. In an effort to put an end to this 
battle, the Clinton administration's Department of Labor issued 
regulations to govern the use of helpers on Federal construction 
contracts. Yet, still we continue to have our battles today.

  The DeLay amendment would strike from this bill language that 
effectively prohibits the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing 
helper regulations and thereby allowing the Labor Department to 
implement their plan to bring Federal construction in line with private 
construction--allowing the use of helpers in many instances.
  Allowing the use of helpers on Federal contracts means the Government 
can save money, while allowing untold numbers of young Americans to 
gain experience in the construction industry. CBO and GAO studies have 
shown that full implementation of helper regulations could save this 
country around $600 million in Federal construction labor costs and 
could create as many as 250,000 new jobs in the industry. Given the 
extremely high unemployment rate in the construction industry, these 
jobs are desperately needed.
  The Labor Department regulations do not seek to eliminate the 
protections under Davis-Bacon, but simply to augment them by allowing 
the use of helpers where that is practical.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to eliminate the ban on construction 
helpers. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the DeLay 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
Let me tell my colleagues why. I have a father who for 30 years was a 
laborer in construction and on many occasions he worked on Federal 
projects, mostly on freeway projects. Contrary to one of the earlier 
speakers, the gentleman from Ohio who said that Davis-Bacon hurts 
minority workers, let me tell my colleagues, Davis-Bacon helps minority 
workers. My father would not be able to say he is a pension member of 
the Laborers Union with benefits, with the opportunity to have some 
health care were it not for the fact that there are provisions in our 
laws like Davis-Bacon that made sure that my father, a minority worker, 
a laborer, was able to not only provide his skills in this construction 
project but at the same time understand that he would be protected as 
well because he has been providing some good work at a decent wage.
  I would urge the Members to look at these helper provisions that were 
passed back in the 1980's and see that, in fact, we are not talking 
about helper provisions, we are talking about provisions that tell an 
employer that he can hire someone and call the individual a helper and 
never provide any further training to get that person to become a 
journeyman, someone who can become very skilled in that particular area 
and at the same time never provide the benefits or protections that 
most workers would want and deserve given the work that they do.
  Let us provide the dignity to every worker, the dignity that we all 
deserve and would like to have not only for ourselves but for our 
children. Let us make sure that anyone who works on any project is able 
to say that they have provided us what we deserve as taxpayers and 
American people, and that means a good construction project that 
provides dignity to the workers that help build America.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this particular amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I feel honored to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], who serves on the Committee 
on Education and Labor and does tireless work on that committee.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, i rise in support of the amendment. 
Obviously, as has been indicated, an appropriations bill should not be 
loaded with important major labor legislation as this bill is. This 
bill will knowingly waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money on 
Federal construction and will deny thousands of semiskilled entry 
workers the opportunity to gain the experience they need to break into 
the construction field, including nontraditional workers such as 
minorities, women, and native Americans. How is this done? By simply 
refusing to let the Department of Labor, not contractors, by the way, 
but the Department of Labor, to implement new rules which would allow 
for a job classification which they would create, not contractors, for 
the use of journeymen helpers in Federal construction when it is the 
prevailing custom in the area of the construction project.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already talked about what these journeymen 
helpers are. In the spring of 1993 after nearly a decade of litigation 
with consturction labor unions, the Department of Labor was finally 
authorized to begin implementation of a new helper regulation in regard 
to federally financed construction projects. But shortly thereafter, 
the Department was forced to suspend the implementation because we had 
an appropriation bill like this which simply said:

       We are going to pull out all funds and you will not be able 
     to implement what the court has said you have every right to 
     implement and what the Department of Labor wants to 
     implement.

  Both the district court and the court of appeals has found that the 
DOL helpers' regulations are totally consistent with the language of 
Davis-Bacon and as has been brought out, over 75 percent of all 
construction work in this Nation is done by private construction where 
journeymen helpers are used extensively.
  Do Members think construction standards in the private sector somehow 
are inferior in quality when compared to Federal buildings? Of course 
not. Are they lower in cost? You bet they are.
  Why? Because without helpers, there are more journeymen obviously 
being paid at journeyman wage rates of, say, $30 or $35 or $40 an hour 
as opposed to helper wage rates at $10 or $12 per hour. That does not 
mean we are taking away journeyman jobs, it simply means that 
journeymen have semiskilled helpers and, yes, these helpers will also 
learn how to be journeymen and they can actually use a hammer on a job 
or a saw or something like that. Of course, construction unions don't 
like those kinds of prevailing job classifications.
  Mr. Chairman, this can save taxpayers something like $600 million per 
year according to CBO and GAO. The whole concept of Davis-Bacon, after 
all, is that the prevailing wages and the prevailing job 
classifications defined and authorized by the Department of Labor, not 
by contractors, will be what controls in federally funded construction 
projects. But the construction trade unions will not allow it. They 
have fought the new job classifications in the courts since 1982. They 
lost, they always lost. So each year they come back to the court they 
control. What court do they control? They control Congress, and they 
come back to their friends to make sure that the taxpayers have to 
continue to pay unnecessary higher union rates for Federal construction 
projects. I say unnecessary higher rates.
  Is there any Member who would insist that in building his or her home 
the contractor, for instance, must use plumbers, carpenters, and other 
journeymen at journeyman wage rates to do semiskilled work which is 
normally performed by journeymen helpers? We would never do something 
like that. Then why in the world do we insist that when we build 
Federal buildings that helpers for journeymen cannot be used? Do 
Members know why?
  Because it is the people's money, it is not our money. We sill not do 
what is done in common sense, in construction in the private sector. We 
ought to do it in the public sector, too, and save $600 million per 
year to boot.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment. We ought to pass it.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, the remainder of my 
time.
  Let me just say that I greatly appreciate the gentleman from Illinois 
and his remarks.
  The members of the Black Caucus and the members of the Hispanic 
Caucus ought to really take note, the chairman of Ed and Labor gave us 
a little history of Davis-Bacon, but he always leaves out the history. 
The reason Davis-Bacon was passed, and I will show you in the 
Congressional Record the speech that was made, was to keep blacks from 
competing for construction jobs in the Northeast.
  And I use the term ``blacks.'' They used another term in the 
Congressional Record. That is the reason for Davis-Bacon, is to keep 
competition out, particularly minorities and women.
  If you do not believe me, what was all of that protest about in 
Chicago just a couple of weeks ago, because the blacks were complaining 
about the white-faced construction unions taking all the jobs and not 
allowing minorities to participate in these construction jobs? What we 
are saying is if you have helper provisions then that allows the semi-
skilled worker an entry into the construction industry. That is what we 
are talking about. We are not keeping people out or lowering wages.
  In fact, the prevailing wages are always the union wages.
  I ask you to support the DeLay amendment and allow everyone to 
participate.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would point out to the gentleman from Texas another reason it 
passed is because President Hoover was for it.
  Things have changed since those days, have they not?
  These regulations have been around in one form or another since 1982. 
They were blocked by the Federal courts for many years, and then were 
given approval in 1990 finally, this regulation and rule, and Congress 
blocked them again in a supplemental bill in 1991. They were allowed to 
go into effect in 1992 and 1993, and in the fall of 1993, that is a 
year ago, again, there was this provision put into the bill, and there 
was a separate motion on it. It is the same Congress we have now, so I 
assume everybody knows how the majority would vote, and I assume they 
would vote the same way.
  This provision was requested again this year, because the 
administration is negotiating, I hope, a final settlement to this. They 
are going to change the regulation.
  The chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor spoke here 
today. He says, ``Give them another year. Give them 1 more year with 
this limitation.'' The administration has sent a letter up here; the 
Secretary of Labor says, ``Give us another year.'' This is the kind of 
thing that you cannot settle just by having the existing regulation or 
not having any regulation at all. He says they are trying their best 
through negotiation and rulemaking to settle this.
  So I say just leave this in the bill this year. Give them 1 more 
year, and the gentleman from Texas will not have to do this every year 
after this.
  Let us vote ``no'' on it today.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, there is a 1-year moratorium in the Labor-
HHS-Education bill to prohibit the Department of Labor from 
implementing 13-year-old Reagan-era regulations designed to create a 
subclass work force called helpers under the Davis-Bacon Act. I rise in 
opposition to the amendment to strike the moratorium.
  Supporters of these regulations say: But they will assure jobs for 
women and minorities in the construction field. They sure would.
  As I just stated, to allow the hiring of helpers would deliberately 
create a subclass of workers, who would be given no skills training, no 
health and safety standard training, and who would be paid very low 
wages on a very permanent basis.
  Creating this new subclass of workers will cause massive job losses, 
with current workers being replaced by the newly created helper who 
works cheap.
  If you think contractors won't jump at the chance to fire skilled 
workers to hire cheap labor, think again.
  This new subclass of helpers will have no training for their jobs, 
and absolutely no knowledge of life-and-death health and safety 
standards that must be met at dangerous worksites.
  What loss of life and limb might result from a work force with no 
health and safety training? Are women and minorities expendable human 
beings? Is that any way to treat women and minorities?
  The rising costs of workers' compensation from workplace accidents is 
already of grave concern to this body and to industry. Are we 
deliberately setting out to make it worse? Have we set a price on the 
value of life and limb?
  I am deeply concerned over the growing trend of creating jobs in this 
country that are low-skilled and that provide wages so low as to 
sentence workers to a lifetime of poverty.
  We started this trend by enacting NAFTA which has caused a mass 
exodus of jobs from the United States.
  To date, 126 companies from 29 States, including West Virginia, have 
moved to Mexico. Those jobs are gone.
  I am trying to create jobs in the construction industry that will 
rebuild the transportation infrastructure of America. I not only want 
those jobs to be well-paying jobs, I want the jobs performed by skilled 
laborers in a safe work environment.
  Let us treat women and minorities as first-class citizens entitled to 
local prevailing wages, to skills training, to health insurance and to 
pension plans, as allowed under the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Let us say no to making women and minorities into a permanent 
subclass or underclass of citizens in America's work force.
  Defeat the amendment to strike the moratorium.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XVI, 
     XIX, and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 
     427(a) of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title 
     V of the Social Security Act, the Health Care Quality 
     Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, Public Law 101-527, and 
     the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, 
     $3,008,225,000, of which $411,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for interest subsidies on loan guarantees made 
     prior to fiscal year 1981 under part B of title VII of the 
     Public Health Service Act: Provided, That when the Department 
     of Health and Human Services administers or operates an 
     employee health program for any Federal department or agency, 
     payment for the full estimated cost shall be made by way of 
     reimbursement or in advance to this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $933,000 shall be available until expended for facilities 
     renovations at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: 
     Provided further, That in addition to fees authorized by 
     section 427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986, fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of 
     information under the Act sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and 
     shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act.


               medical facilities guarantee and loan fund

           federal interest subsidies for medical facilities

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $9,000,000, together with any 
     amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans 
     and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health 
     Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation 
     for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal 
     year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees 
     shall be made.


               health education assistance loans program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the total loan principal any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed at not to exceed $375,000,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $2,946,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.


                      vaccine injury compensation

       For payment of claims resolved by the United States Court 
     of Federal Claims related to the administration of vaccines 
     before October 1, 1988, $110,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 
     202, and 203 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
     1977, and sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; including insurance of official motor 
     vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, $2,086,850,000, of which $3,575,000 
     shall remain available until expended for equipment and 
     construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition, 
     such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which 
     shall be credited to this account: Provided, That for fiscal 
     year 1995 and subsequent fiscal years training of private 
     persons shall be made subject to reimbursement or advances to 
     this appropriation for not in excess of the full cost of such 
     training: Provided further, That funds appropriated under 
     this heading for fiscal year 1995 and subsequent fiscal years 
     shall be available for payment of the costs of medical care, 
     related expenses, and burial expenses hereafter incurred by 
     or on behalf of any person who had participated in the study 
     of untreated syphilis initiated in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 
     1932, in such amounts and subject to such terms and 
     conditions as prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services and for payment, in such amounts and subject to such 
     terms and conditions, of such costs and expenses hereafter 
     incurred by or on behalf of such person's wife or offspring 
     determined by the Secretary to have suffered injury or 
     disease from syphilis contracted from such person: Provided 
     further, That for fiscal year 1995 and subsequent fiscal 
     years amounts received by the National Center for Health 
     Statistics from reimbursements and interagency agreements and 
     the sale of data tapes may be credited to this appropriation 
     and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, 
     That in addition to amounts provided herein, up to 
     $27,862,000 shall be available from amounts available under 
     section 241 of the Public Health Service Act, to carry out 
     the National Center for Health Statistics surveys.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 23, line 5, strike 
     ``$2,086,850,000'' and insert ``$2,073,600,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. With the time to be equally divided between the 
gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Iowa? Is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $13 million from the 
Centers for Disease Control funding, and this amount represents the 
cost of operating a new national vaccine warehouse in Burlington, NJ, 
run by the General Services Administration. This is an outgrowth of the 
administration's plan last year to set up a new national vaccination 
program.
  Incredibly we now find ourselves in the situation where the Federal 
Government is going to run and operate a warehouse to handle nearly 30 
percent of the vaccines to take care of this country's children. There 
was nothing whatsoever in extensive testimony last year in the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
on which I serve, or here on the floor of the House to indicate there 
has ever been a problem anywhere with the distribution system in this 
country.
  The General Services Administration quite frankly lacks the 
infrastructure and experience to move hundreds of millions of fragile 
and highly sensitive biological products safely under a tight schedule 
and under strict Food and Drug Administration requirements.
  One-third of the Nation's vaccines will be stored in a room that 
previously stored paint thinners and solvents, and according to the 
General Services Administration's own diagram, right next to a room 
that is referred to on their drawing plans as ``the flammable room.'' 
So we are now going to figure out and put into place a new Federal 
bureaucracy where a manufacturer in California will ship drugs to a GSA 
warehouse in New Jersey which, at this point, handles chairs, tables, 
paper clips, and paper. We are going to ship from a pharmaceutical 
company in California to a Government warehouse in New Jersey where a 
doctor now in California will have to call the State of California, who 
will then call the Centers for Disease Control, who will then call New 
Jersey so we can finally then ship the vaccination back to California. 
What kind of sense does this make at all, Mr. Chairman?
  Now, incredibly the Centers for Disease Control says it cannot even 
verify the GSA distribution will be cheaper than private-sector 
distribution. In fact, we find ourselves in a situation where we have 
already bypassed and surpassed the 2000 goal of 90 percent immunization 
against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and polio, and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], will talk 
more about those goals in a minute.
  The bottom line is we are going to spend $18 million to do what the 
private sector does and trust the General Services Administration doing 
it.
  Incredibly we are about to do this when there are two General 
Accounting Office reports, one on the Department of Defense, one on the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, which urge both of these Government 
agencies to disband Government warehouses we already will run. So it 
does not work in the Department of Defense, and it does not work in the 
VA.
  Why are we going to spend $19 million that could be spent on outreach 
programs and more nurses and more clinics to reach children, instead, 
so we can run a GSA warehouse full of vaccines and immunizations? I 
would make the point that I think that is absolutely nuts.
  So this amendment simply strikes the funding for that part of the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just say this: I understand the frustration the 
gentleman has. He has a hard time reaching the purpose of his 
amendment. He cannot really reach it, and so he strikes $13 million out 
of an account which has things in it that I do not think he really 
wants to reduce, such as breast and cervical cancer screening, 
tuberculosis control, AIDS prevention, diabetes control, and injury 
control among others.
  By reducing the money in the account, I mean, you can say what you do 
not want to do is to have this warehouse storage, but that is not what 
the amendment actually does.

                              {time}  1750

  You are expressing your frustration, but I do not think that we 
should do that.
  So I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Greenwood], a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Klug-Greenwood-Hastert 
amendment which would strike the estimated $13.25 million that would be 
needed by the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] to pay the General 
Services Administration [GSA] to operate a national vaccine warehouse.
  The GSA's warehouse plan is the inevitable bureaucratic outgrowth of 
a poorly conceived, big government approach to childhood immunization. 
We are all committed to ensuring that all children are vaccinated and 
that vaccinations are available to children whose parents cannot afford 
them. But this is not the way to do it.
  The most effective way to insure that children receive the 
immunizations recommended by pediatricians is to require their parents 
to have their children immunized as a precondition to receive 
Government subsidized day care, Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children, WIC, food stamps, pre-school and school services. The record 
is clear on this. But the administration has insisted on pursuing its 
command and control, Big Brother approach to immunizing children and 
now finds itself in the warehouse business once again.
  The CDC has stated that it will purchase 80 percent of the Nation's 
vaccine supplies for children. Furthermore, it intends to use the GSA 
to store and distribute at least one out of three doses of this vaccine 
from a warehouse in Burlington, N.J. that currently is used to store 
paint solvent and thinner.

  GSA has no experience with storing, handling, or tracking vaccines 
nor the strict licensure and inspection requirements of the Food and 
Drug Administration. I believe it would be irresponsible for the 
Congress to condone such a program which could easily put our 
children's vaccine supply in jeopardy.
  The Federal Government will have to repackage and deliver these 
vaccines to over 70,000 sites when the Vaccine for Children Program is 
implemented in October. In order to ensure that deliveries are made, 
the CDC and GSA will need to develop and operate, by October 21, a data 
delivery system that includes name, street address, days, and hours of 
operation, required doses and replacement schedules for all 70,000 
health providers. I am greatly concerned that the proposed distribution 
system could both disrupt the country's supply of vaccines and put the 
integrity of the vaccine supply at risk.
  Both the Department of Defense and the Veterans' Administration have 
learned the hard way that the Federal warehousing of medicine is a bad 
idea. They have turned to private, commercial wholesale distributors.
   Mr. Chairman, the Vaccine for Children Program can best be operated 
by allowing the manufacturers of these vaccines to deliver them 
directly to the health care providers without a massive Federal 
warehousing operation.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
other cosponsor of this amendment, another colleague of mine from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone will listen carefully to what my 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Klug, is trying to do. What we are talking 
about is striking less than 1 percent of funding for Centers for 
Disease Control so that we can avoid another costly, big-government 
blunder.
  Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, I want all American children to 
grow up healthy. They should be immunized against the horrible diseases 
which claimed so many lives before vaccines. But for some reason, the 
Department of Health and Human Services thinks that it can do a better 
job of distributing vaccines than private companies can. Despite 
studies to the contrary, HHS thinks that not enough children are being 
immunized. However, the most recent data show that we have reached the 
goal of immunizing 90 percent of our children against some of the worst 
diseases.
  So why should the Federal Government be involved in the distribution 
of vaccines? Earlier, HHS asked the Veterans Administration and the 
Defense Department to operate a depot for vaccine distribution. Those 
two agencies said no. Two government studies showed that health care 
products were distributed more cheaply and efficiently by private 
companies than by the government.
  The simple fact of the matter is that this program is not needed, and 
this warehouse is simply another place to store government money.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Klug-Greenwood-
Hastert amendment and strike the funding for this unnecessary 
warehouse.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another one of my 
colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I really do not 
understand why we need to debate this issue. Why is the Department of 
Health and Human Services refusing to follow the law as it was written 
by Congress? And why at a time of scarce financial resources is the 
Federal Government attempting to duplicate what the private sector and 
the States do very well?
  The $3.25 million that the amendment would strike from the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill is money that the Federal Government does not have 
to spend because the private sector and the States already do the job 
of supplying and distributing vaccines very well. And it is estimated 
at a cost that would be far lower than the proposed cost of this HHS 
project.
  We appropriately hear the litany of Members who say they want to cut 
the deficit. If you want to do that, why spend money to fund a request 
that does nothing more than federalize existing programs that are 
already extremely efficient and are providing vaccine at a lower cost 
and with better availability than the proposed program?
  The problem is not the availability of vaccines at an affordable 
cost, the problem is educating people to take advantage of a program 
that is already available.
  If you want to spend more money, spend it on education, not on 
duplicating an efficient system.
  So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and perhaps HHS 
will get the message and get the focus in the right place.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my classmate, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
  Mr. HOBSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
Representative Klug to prohibit the operation of a Federal warehouse 
for the administration's Vaccines for Children Program.
  I have been concerned for some time about this new vaccine program 
and the reduced funding requested for the traditional 317 allocation 
for vaccines. As a result, a number of children in 66 of 88 counties in 
Ohio--particularly rural Ohio--may not have access to vaccinations.
  While the administration seeks to cut by half the section 317 money--
which has successfully provided vaccine to local public health clinics, 
it also seeks to spend over $13 million to fund a monument to 
bureaucracy in a New Jersey warehouse.
  I have a better idea for the $13 million in taxpayer funds: let us 
use it to restore funding to the existing vaccine program.
  Nothing in the law establishing the new vaccine program says anything 
about creating a warehouse. The Government has turned down offers of 
private companies to distribute the vaccines as they currently do, and 
instead is intent on stockpiling them in a warehouse previously used 
for toxic substances, and distributing it without the private 
industry's state-of-the-art system.
  A bureaucratic Government warehouse distribution is all wrong. 
Funding this program is throwing Federal dollars at a problem that 
doesn't exist. Altering the traditional vaccine program is fixing a 
program that isn't broken.
  As you have heard today, the problems with this idea are numerous. 
But the biggest problem is that the Department of Health and Human 
Services fails to recognize the potential failures of a Federal vaccine 
warehouse. What will it take to make them understand?
  Will it be the loss of millions of vaccines due to a faulty 
refrigeration system? Or will it be the contamination of serum 
resulting in illness or loss of a child's life?
  I believe that the administration and HHS are doggedly pursuing their 
agenda in an effort to save face. In the meantime, who will save these 
children?
  Why take the risk? Let us eliminate the funding for this ill-funded 
effort now. Restore the funds to 317, and support the Klug amendment.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another one of my 
classmates, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] who helped 
lead the same fight in the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amazing story of how a good intention of the 
Congress has run amok. Just a year ago here on this floor we passed the 
vaccination for children program. The reason we did it was based on 
data that only 40 to 50 percent of the children by age 2 were receiving 
the necessary vaccination. The fact of the matter is the data we used 
then was 7 years old. We now have new data from July of 1993. The goal 
set out last year by the vaccine for kids program was to get 90 percent 
of 2-year-olds vaccinated by the year 2000.

                              {time}  1900

  I am here to announce that we have accomplished that as of last year. 
We have 90 percent, and this is the CDC's own numbers; 90 percent get 
their diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis as of last year. Ninety percent 
receive their polio, and 86 percent receive their measles, mumps and 
rubella. We have already accomplished with the existing system, the 317 
money and the private sector, we have already accomplished what this 
vaccine for kids program was put into place to accomplish 6 years from 
now, and we are going to spend billions of dollars, billions of 
dollars, setting up warehouses in New Jersey, wasting vaccines all over 
the country. The State of Illinois ordered 120 percent of their 
required vaccines. Why? Because they recognized that because of the 
distribution system set up by the Federal Government under this plan it 
will be 25 percent will be wasted in delivery. This is a boondoggle.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for 
his $13 million, but he has not gone far enough. This program needs to 
be scrapped and started all over again, and what are we doing? Not only 
are we not scrapping this program; oh, no. The program that we are 
taking money from to help fund this program, 317 program, which 
actually works to get money out into the minority community, into the 
poorer communities to try to outreach, has new delivery money to try to 
get people who cannot get immunizations. It is not because they are too 
expensive. It is because we do not have the proper delivery methodology 
to reach into the poorer communities to get these children of poor 
moms, to get them vaccinated. No, we are cutting that fund $64 million. 
We are going to cut that fund, and we are going to fund vaccines for 
kids.

  So, we set up warehouses in New Jersey where they store paint 
solvent. This is absurd. This is absurd. This Congress needs to act 
right now, right now to send a message to this administration to put 
the brakes on this train that is going down the track, ready to go over 
a cliff, cost billions of dollars and do more harm than good.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to prohibit the Centers for 
Disease Control and the General Services Administration from developing 
a system for storing, handling and shipping federally purchased 
vaccines. The gentleman from Wisconsin has expressed concerns that GSA 
does not have the expertise to carry out this responsibility, and I 
wouldn't disagree. That is why the CDC and the Food and Drug 
Administration are also going to be a part of the development, 
implementation and oversight of the program.

  In a further effort to allay concerns about the best permanent method 
of storing and distributing these vaccines, the GAO has been assigned 
to study and report on this question. If they report that a better way 
needs to be found, the Secretary will make the necessary changes at 
that time. In the meantime, however, only the GSA/CDC option gives us 
the ability to implement this badly needed program on time.
  A number of allegations have been circulated recently, about the 
ability of the GSA and CDC to manage this program. Such allegations are 
simply not true. For example:
  The CDC will only purchase the amount of vaccine necessary to 
implement the Vaccines for Children program. No additional vaccine, 
beyond existing needs, will be acquired;
  The GSA/CDC vaccine purchase and delivery system will not supplant or 
disrupt existing State vaccine distribution systems. Fifty percent of 
all childhood vaccines will continue to be distributed by the States. 
Only those states that do not wish to be responsible for delivery will 
be a part of the federal system;
  The CDC, contrary to some allegations, is perfectly capable of 
designing and implementing a safe, effective vaccine distribution 
system, executed by GSA. And the FDA will be called on to inspect the 
storage facility to ensure full compliance with all vaccine storage, 
handling, packaging and distribution requirements;
  Nor will placing the vaccine supply in a central distribution 
facility put us at risk of losing our entire vaccine supply. If fact, 
less than 8 percent of the country's annual vaccine supply will be 
stored in the distribution facility at any one time. I urge my 
colleagues to leave off arguing about non-issues such as these, and 
refocus attention on the reason why we passed this legislation in the 
first place. Just 2 years ago, 45 percent of all American pre-schoolers 
had not been fully immunized. That is the real problem and that is why 
we must defeat this amendment, and get on with the task of implementing 
this vital program as quickly as possible.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I still have several requests for speakers on 
my side, and I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Iowa if he 
would yield us part of his time so we can end this within our time 
constraints.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman 
need?
  Mr. KLUG. We would like to have 4 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 4 
minutes be transferred to the other side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] now has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] who has raised this same issue within the 
Committee on Appropriations debate itself.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with the gentleman's 
concern about the vaccine warehouse. He is very much on point. This is 
an issue that we discussed very extensively both at the subcommittee 
and the full committee, and the report that accompanies this bill now 
contains language which highlights the warehouse as a concern of the 
subcommittee. It requires the CDC and the GSA to comply with all 
applicable FDA guidelines and reserves judgment on the whole question 
of the warehouse pending the outcome of a GAO study that is due in 
July.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of great concern to me personally, as 
well as to other members of the subcommittee and, I understand, to 
Senator Bumpers as well, over in the other body, and I very much thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin for raising this issue.
  For my part, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to watch the matter very 
closely in the conference.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close debate on our side.
  Let me emphasize this one more time:
  The Federal Government has for several years already attempted to run 
health distribution centers in both the Department of Defense and the 
Veterans' Administration. In 1991 a General Accounting Office report 
entitled DOD Medical Inventory said reductions can be made through the 
use of commercial practice, and the GAO concluded that the private 
sector is more efficient at distributing health care products than the 
Government. In September of 1992, Mr. Chairman, a study by the 
Logistics Management Institute reached similar conclusions for the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs. It verified that the expense levels of 
government run depot systems were 12 times higher than subsequent 
commercial bids.
  My colleagues, there is absolutely no reason in the world to have the 
Federal Government spend $13 million on a warehouse to store paint 
thinners and flammable products just a few steps down from fragile 
immunization programs. This is a Government that cannot run the Post 
Office and where mail gets lost in Chicago for weeks at a time, and 
now, if the vaccinations get lost, it is not simply a fact of a letter 
being a day late, or 3 days late, or a week late. It is a fact that 
American kids can die precisely as a result of Government mistakes and 
Government foul-ups.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment so we can spend 
$13 million on immunizing kids and not spend another $13 million on a 
Government warehouse we do not need for a program that already has 
worked well in the private health sector.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, on the merits of whether or not there should be a 
warehouse I would point out that the States are going to be permitted 
to keep their own distribution system, if they want to, and a good many 
States will do that. They will not change things from the way they are 
now. As to those States that do not keep their own distribution system, 
the question is whether or not GSA will do the distributing or it will 
be done by a contract with the various pharmaceutical companies. The 
department says it will be a lot more efficient to do it through the 
GSA because then it will be delivered. No matter how many 
pharmaceutical companies it comes from, it will all be delivered 
together by Federal Express. Whether it is done by GSA through a 
warehouse or whether it is done by the pharmaceutical companies, 
Federal Express will deliver it anyway. But in the event the GSA does 
it, then they will package that from various pharmaceutical companies, 
send it to the same destination. They say it will cost a lot less 
money.
  However, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the merits of that 
question here because the gentleman could not reach it without having 
language on the appropriations bill that would be against the rules. 
All he could do was to reduce the amount of money in a certain account, 
and that account happens to also include a lot of things bedsides this, 
including breast and cervical cancer screening, tuberculosis control, 
AIDS prevention, diabetes control, injury control, and a number of 
other things.

                              {time}  1910

  So actually, the amendment that the gentleman presents, through no 
fault of his own, does not really reach the question of whether or not 
there will be a warehouse anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a no vote on the amendment
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $1,919,419,000.


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out sections 301 and 1105 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, 
     lung, and blood diseases, and blood and blood products, 
     $1,259,590,000.


                 national institute of dental research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $162,832,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney diseases, $726,784,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $626,801,000.


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $536,416,000.


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $877,113,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $513,409,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $290,335,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $266,400,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $431,198,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis, and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $227,021,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $166,155,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $47,971,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $181,445,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $290,280,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $542,050,000.


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $294,877,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided 
     further, That $20,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities 
     construction grants.


               national center for human genome research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $152,010,000.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $15,193,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $123,274,000.


                         office of the director

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $219,474,000: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all 
     National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities 
     the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such 
     appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 1 
     percent by any such transfers and that the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.


                        office of aids research

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out part D of title XXIII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, $1,337,606,000: Provided, That the Director of 
     the Office of AIDS Research shall transfer from this 
     appropriation the amounts necessary to carry out section 
     2353(d) of the Act.


                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $114,370,000, to remain available until expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out the Public Health Service Act with respect 
     to substance abuse and mental health services, section 612 of 
     Public Law 100-77, as amended, and the Protection and 
     Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, 
     $2,166,148,000: Provided, That no portion of amounts 
     appropriated for the programs of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services shall be available for obligation pursuant to 
     section 571 of the Public Health Service Act, other than an 
     amount of $3,750,000 from amounts appropriated to carry out 
     section 510 of that Act.

                     Assistant Secretary for Health


              office of the assistant secretary for health

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the expenses necessary for the Office of Assistant 
     Secretary for Health and for carrying out titles III, XVII, 
     XX and XXI of the Public Health Service Act, $70,261,000, 
     and, in addition, amounts received from Freedom of 
     Information Act fees and reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements shall be credited to this appropriation and shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $2,000,000 of 
     the amount appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     transferred to the Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and 
     Expenses appropriation account.


     retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, and for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan and for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year.

               Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


                    health care policy and research

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $134,624,000, together with not to exceed $5,806,000 to 
     be transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     authorized by sections 1142 and 201(g) of the Social Security 
     Act; in addition, amounts received from Freedom of 
     Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to 
     this appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $13,202,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act $62,637,775,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 1995, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 1995 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1996, 
     $27,047,717,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social 
     Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $37,546,758,000.

                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, and title XIII of 
     the Public Health Service Act, the Clinical Laboratory 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988, section 4360 of Public Law 
     101-508, and section 4005(e) of Public Law 100-203, not to 
     exceed $2,183,985,000, together with all funds collected in 
     accordance with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act, 
     the latter funds to remain available until expended; the 
     $2,183,985,000 to be transferred to this appropriation as 
     authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, from 
     the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal Supplementary 
     Medical Insurance Trust Funds: Provided, That all funds 
     derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from organizations 
     established under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act 
     are to be credited to this appropriation.


      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $15,000,000 together with any 
     amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans 
     and loan guarantees under title XIII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation 
     for the payment of outstanding obligations. During fiscal 
     year 1995, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees 
     shall be made.

                     Social Security Administration


                payments to social security trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, as provided 
     under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act, $25,094,000.


               special benefits for disabled coal miners

       For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Act of 1977, $527,874,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal 
     Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the 
     current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
       For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal 
     Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 1996, $180,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                  supplemental security income program

       For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public 
     Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216, 
     including payment to the Social Security trust funds for 
     administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $21,237,101,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion 
     of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year 
     and not obligated by the State during that year shall be 
     returned to the Treasury.
       For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year, 
     benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For carrying out title XVI of the Social Security Act for 
     the first quarter of fiscal year 1996, $7,060,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there 
are any amendments prior to page 35 through line 5. If there are, I 
would like for Members to stand and tell me at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact no Member has stood, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 35, line 
5, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order in that portion of the 
bill?
  The Chair hears none.
  Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read the next paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses, not more than $5,159,785,000 may be 
     expended, as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act or as necessary to carry out sections 9704 and 
     9706 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as such sections 
     were in effect on January 1, 1993, from any one or all of the 
     trust funds referred to therein: Provided, That reimbursement 
     to the Trust Funds under this heading for administrative 
     expenses to carry out sections 9704 and 9706 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 shall be made, with interest, not later 
     than September 30, 1996.


                   amendments offered by mr. santorum

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Santorum:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       a. On page 35, Line 8: Strike ``$5,159,785,000'' and insert 
     ``5,127,785,000''.
       b. On page 35, Line 20: Strike ``$320,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$352,000,000''.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for agreeing to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. Chairman, last year this committee appropriated $200 million to 
the Social Security Administration to address one of the most pressing 
problems that I hear about from my constituents back in my district, 
and that is the backlog of Social Security disability cases. It is a 
very serious issue, where you have literally a backlog of a year or 
more to deal with a disability claim.
  Unfortunately, as we found out at a hearing before the Committee on 
Ways and means when the secretary of the Social Security Administration 
was there, we found out that the Social Security Administration spent 
$32 million just this year on bonuses for Social Security 
Administration employees, when they were coming here asking for 
additional money to solve a backlog.
  We thought, and I think the press and Members in the other body, 
found that to be an outrage, that they would be spending that amount of 
money on bonuses, when they were coming here, hat in hand, asking for 
more money to clear up backlogs in their own department.
  The payment, these bonuses, were paid to a large number of Social 
Security employees, but the largest amount was paid to the new second-
in-command at the Social Security Administration, some $10,000 bonus 
for an employee who worked there for 2\1/2\ months. The employee has 
subsequently, under the pressure created by that move, given back the 
bonus. The average bonus to high senior executives in the Social 
Security Administration was over $100,000.
  What this amendment does is restore the $32 million to the account 
which this Congress appropriated the $200 million to, to clear up the 
disability backlog. So what this amendment simply does is take $32 
million out of the administration account of Social Security and put it 
in the disability account, so we can dramatically address this 
tremendous problem of backlog of Social Security disability claims, and 
send a message to the Social Security Administration that that kind of 
excess in compensation is not what the Congress is here to tolerate, 
and we want to see action done on disability claims, and action done 
quickly.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is taking $32 million out of a $5 billion 
account. Obviously that is not going to hurt a lot. But he is also 
transferring it to a very good purpose. I understand his reasoning and 
what he said.
  All I want to say is that if there is an aye vote, I do not intend to 
ask for a rollcall. Hopefully we can have a vote right away.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, back in the districts we had a lot of town hall 
meetings, and the No. 1 issue was this issue. I thank the chairman for 
his consideration. What I had to tell them was I did not have to worry 
about them telling me, because my mother, the second she read it, got 
on the telephone and said what are you allowing them to do in Congress, 
son? And I think that this is a very good amendment, and I think it 
will be widely supported on both sides of the aisle.
  I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  As a Member of Congress who represents both people who work in the 
Social Security Administration as well as many who rely on the agency 
for their income, I can personally attest to the damage a decrease in 
funding of this magnitude would inflict. Like many Members, I am aware 
of the frustration and at times the pain that many of our older or 
disabled citizens feel when they have a claim or a problem with the 
Social Security Administration.
  Furthermore, like many of my colleagues, I have tried to work with 
the Social Security Administration at all levels to reform the 
Administration to make it more responsive to needs of its clients, our 
constituents.
  I must say, however, it is my experience that the last thing this 
agency needs to improve its service is a reduction in its 
administrative funding.
  I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to strike the 
money that the agency would spend on employee bonuses. I must question 
the wisdom of this amendment, however, in light of the fact that since 
1983 the number of Social Security employees has dropped approximately 
20 percent, while workloads in recent years have grown 70 percent. 
Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics overall 
productivity at the Social Security Agency has increased by 18 percent 
over the last 5 years.

  There are also a number of pending legislative initiatives that will 
only increase the demand on the Social Security Administration if 
enacted. Rather than taking resources away from the Administration, and 
further frustrating the attempts of its employees to provide quality 
service to our constituents and to prevent, deter, and terminate 
fraudulent claims, we should be rewarding and encouraging exemplary 
service.
  Like other Americans, most Social Security employees are dedicated 
workers who are striving to do a good job.
  We should not take actions here to impeded or discourage the 
employees of the Social Security Agency in their quest to help 
implement the programs that we, the Congress, mandate. Furthermore, we 
should not take the concerns of some Members about employee bonuses out 
on the disabled children, widows, and the elderly who depend on Social 
Security to survive. We should do all we can to help and encourage the 
Social Security Administration employees be as responsive and as 
helpful to our constituents as possible.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition to funding already available under this 
     heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions, 
     $320,000,000, for disability caseload processing.
       In addition to funding already available under this 
     heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions, 
     $130,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, to 
     invest in a state-of-the-art computing network, including 
     related equipment and administrative expenses associated 
     solely with this network, for the Social Security 
     Administration and the State Disability Determination 
     Services, may be expended from any or all of the trust funds 
     as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act.

                Administration for Children and Families


                   family support payments to states

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, except as otherwise provided, under titles I, IV-A 
     (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of 
     the Social Security Act, and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 
     U.S.C. ch. 9), $12,761,788,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-A and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, for the last three months of the current year for 
     unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year, 
     such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-A (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, 
     XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of 
     July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9) for the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 1996, $4,400,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                   job opportunities and basic skills

       For carrying out aid to families with dependent children 
     work programs, as authorized by part F of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,300,000,000.


                   low income home energy assistance

                         (including rescission)

       Of the funds made available beginning on October 1, 1994 
     under this heading in Public Law 103-112, $250,000,000 are 
     hereby rescinded.
       The funds remaining after said rescission shall be 
     available for obligation through September 30, 1995.
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,225,000,000, to be available 
     for obligation in the period October 1, 1995 through 
     September 30, 1996.
       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, an additional $600,000,000: 
     Provided, That all of the funds available under this 
     paragraph are hereby designated by Congress to be emergency 
     requirements pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That these funds shall be made available only after 
     submission to Congress of a formal budget request by the 
     President that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $399,779,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 102-
     394 for fiscal year 1993 shall be available for the costs of 
     assistance provided and other activities conducted in such 
     year and in fiscal years 1994 and 1995.


                     community services block grant

       For making payments under the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act, section 408 of Public Law 99-425, and the Stewart 
     B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, $465,714,000.


                 child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $934,656,000, which 
     shall be available for obligation under the same statutory 
     terms and conditions applicable in the prior fiscal year.


                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $2,800,000,000.


                children and families services programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the State Dependent Care 
     Development Grants Act, the Head Start Act, the Child 
     Development Associate Scholarship Assistance Act of 1985, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, chapters 1 and 2 of 
     subtitle B of title III of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 
     the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, the Native 
     American Programs Act of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 
     (adoption opportunities), the Temporary Child Care for 
     Children with Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act of 1986, 
     the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, subtitle F of 
     title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, 
     and part B of title IV and section 1110 of the Social 
     Security Act, and for necessary administrative expenses to 
     carry out said Acts and titles I, IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX 
     of the Social Security Act, the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 
     U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 
     section 204 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
     1986, title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
     section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, 
     Public Law 100-77, and section 126 and titles IV and V of 
     Public Law 100-485, $4,408,775,000.


                    family preservation and support

       For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act, 
     $150,000,000.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
     $3,440,871,000.

                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, and section 10404 of 
     Public Law 101-239 (volunteer senior aides demonstration), 
     $869,823,000.

                        Office of the Secretary


                    general departmental management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six medium sedans, 
     $89,500,000, together with $31,008,000, to be transferred and 
     expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act from any one or all of the trust funds referred 
     to therein.


                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $63,585,000, together with not to exceed 
     $37,060,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from any one or 
     all of the trust funds referred to therein.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $18,409,000 together with not to exceed $3,874,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from any one or all of the trust 
     funds referred to therein.


                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act, $14,632,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1911(d) and section 1503 of the 
     National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, 
     Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require States as a condition of receiving funding 
     under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to 
     restrict, condition, or otherwise qualify a State's authority 
     to determine (i) whether and under what circumstances a 
     parent's decision to provide non-medical health care for a 
     child may constitute negligent treatment or maltreatment, and 
     (ii) the circumstances under which it is appropriate to order 
     medical treatment for a child who is receiving non-medical 
     health care.
       Sec. 205. (a) Of the budgetary resources available to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services (excluding the Food 
     and Drug Administration and the Indian Health Service) during 
     fiscal year 1995, $37,125,000 are permanently canceled.
       (b) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled among the 
     Department's accounts (excluding the Food and Drug 
     Administration and the Indian Health Service) available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or services and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


                            education reform

       For carrying out activities authorized by titles II and III 
     of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and titles II, III, 
     and IV of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, $528,400,000 
     of which $503,670,000 shall become available on July 1, 1995, 
     and remain available through September 30, 1996.


                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out the activities authorized by title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended by the Improving America's Schools Act as passed the 
     House of Representatives on March 24, 1994, and by section 
     418A of the Higher Education Act, $7,245,655,000, of which 
     $7,212,093,000 shall become available on July 1, 1995 and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 1996: Provided, 
     That $6,698,356,000 shall be available for grants to local 
     education agencies, $41,434,000 shall be available for 
     capital expenses, $102,024,000 shall be available for the 
     Even Start program, $305,475,000 shall be available for 
     title I migrant education activities, $37,244,000 shall be 
     available for title I delinquent and high-risk youth 
     education activities, $27,560,000 shall be for program 
     improvement activities, $15,000,000 shall be for 
     demonstration grants, and $8,270,000 shall be for 
     evaluation.


                               impact aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by the Improving 
     America's Schools Act as passed the House of Representatives 
     on March 24, 1994, $728,000,000 of which $40,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, shall be for payments for 
     heavily impacted districts under section 8004(f).

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the portion of the bill through page 44, line 26, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the question of the gentleman 
from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      school improvement programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles II, III, IV, and V of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's 
     Schools Act as passed the House of Representatives on March 
     24, 1994; the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and title V of the Higher 
     Education Act; $1,424,513,000, of which $1,158,695,000 shall 
     become available on July 1, 1995, and remain available 
     through September 30, 1996: Provided, That $5,899,000 shall 
     be for law related education under section 3702.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are awaiting the arrival of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner], who will be here momentarily. He has an amendment on 
native Hawaiians and the education program. The gentleman's amendment 
would terminate the program by cutting $8.15 million, and the funding 
would not be redistributed.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I supported a similar 
amendment that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] offered on the 
reauthorization bill. The President requested termination of this 
program in his budget, Mr. Chairman, and it is a recommendation that we 
should listen to and we should adopt.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education is overburdened with small 
programs that require a great deal of administrative support. The 
President in his budget request strongly suggested that we eliminate 33 
of those programs. If you sit down with the people at the Department of 
Education and talk with them, you know that they are very, very much 
overburdened with so many small programs that take a great deal of time 
and a large number of personnel to separately administer.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I believe the Boehner amendment should be 
adopted. We are asking all of the department's to do more with less, 
particularly FTE's. We ought to help them by consolidating or 
eliminating many of these small programs, and I think the Boehner 
amendment is one that deserves to be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, Hawaii already receives funding from other Federal 
education programs. For example, $70 million in formula grants alone, 
which go to all States, go in part to Hawaii, and Hawaii also gets 
other funding set-asides and discretionary grants.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman cite specifically 
what he is objecting to?

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting the amendment that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] intends to offer.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, would be cite specifically what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Boehner] is objecting to?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I will have to let the gentleman from Ohio 
do that. His amendment would terminate the Native Hawaiian Education 
Program by cutting $8.15 million from it.


                    amendment offered by mr. boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehner: Page 45, line 9, strike 
     ``$1,424,513,000'' and insert ``$1,416,363,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, 
20 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Iowa:
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment seeks to strike $8 million from this bill for the 
Native Hawaiian Education Program. This amount of money is in addition 
to what Hawaii gets under the bill.
  Under the regular formula, they get $70 million in funds which, under 
that formula, is like any other State. In addition, they get $4.4 
million in setasides from the Drug Free Schools Act, the Vocational 
Educational Act and Individuals With Disabilities Act. They are also 
eligible for discretionary and competitive grants and receive such sums 
as they may win in that process.
  However, I guess my biggest concern about this is the fact that of 
the $8 million, $5 million goes to the Kamehameha school.
  Now, this school was established through an estate left in the will 
of the Hawaiian Princess in the 19th century with a mandate to educate 
native Hawaiians. The estate owns property and investments all over 
Hawaii and, for that matter, in Las Vegas, Wisconsin and Michigan and 
elsewhere. It owns 8 percent of all Hawaiian real estate. We believe 
that the estate is worth some $8 billion, and the endowment for this 
school is an amount of $6 billion, more than the endowment for Yale 
University and Harvard University combined.
  The endowment is run by five trustees. These five trustees, all 
former politicians, former speaker of the Hawaiian House, former 
president of the Hawaiian Senate, these trustees are paid $860,000 
each.
  Let me explain this again. Five trustees over this estate; six 
billion of which is left to fund native Hawaiian programs. These five 
trustees are paid $860,000 each.
  The estate's income last year is estimated to be approximately $177 
million. Half of the money goes directly to fund the school. The other 
half is used to fund activities that are sponsored by the school.
  I say to my colleagues that with the amount of money available to the 
school, certainly the Federal Government does not need to be putting up 
$8 billion, more than half of which goes to fund this school.
  It is kind of interesting that there is about $4 million salaries 
paid each and every year just to the five trustees. The money we are 
paying them basically goes to pay their board of trustees. At a time 
when we are having the fiscal problems that we have, we should not be 
spending money in this matter.
  Second, I would point out that there is no need for the Federal 
Government to fund this native Hawaiian program out of this bill. There 
is no need for the other setasides that are in other bills. The fact 
that the gentlewoman from Hawaii, who sits on the Committee on 
Education and Labor, has $8 million in this bill should not come as any 
great surprise to Members. She does a very good job on the committee. 
She works hard. She has worked hard enough to get the chairman and 
others to have this setaside included.
  I say to my colleagues, we should not be doing this.
  The last point I would make is this. President Clinton, when he sent 
his budget up to Congress, asked that this not be funded. I would also 
suggest that when the President submitted the re-authorization of the 
Elementary, Secondary Vocational Act, the President asked that this 
program not be funded.
  I say to my colleagues, to send $5 million to this school is a waste 
of our taxpayers' money. The $8 million in this bill should not be 
spent, and I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio. It saddens me that there 
is such a lack of understanding of the history and the reasons behind 
the efforts that have been made over the last 10 or 15 years to 
recognize the native Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii.
  Congress has always been sympathetic to native Americans. Most of us 
have native Americans in our constituency. And over the years, the 
programs have been devised and developed and implemented to help Native 
Americans throughout this country.
  Notwithstanding that the native Americans, perhaps some of them live 
on reservations and others live in the cities, over a billion dollars 
have been set aside to help educate and provide for the needs of native 
Americans throughout this country.
  What has not been understood by Members on the other side in 
particular is that native Hawaiians are as much native Americans as any 
of the other individuals that have been heretofore included in the 
definition of a Native American.
  The difficulty is that Members do not understand the history of my 
State and how it was overtaken 100 years ago by a group of 100 or so 
Marines, captured the Queen, imprisoned her in her own palace and took 
over the lands of the kingdom there and exploited it to the use and 
purposes of the American Government and of the American citizens who 
were there trying to build up their businesses.
  After 100 years, we have come to the realization that the Federal 
Government has a basic responsibility to right this wrong that occurred 
100 years ago. So the Congress has been drawn in to try to recognize 
this legal and moral obligation.
  As a consequence, my predecessors have, bit by bit, tried to get 
special programs enacted to help these native Hawaiians who are those 
in our community who are at the lowest end of the economic scale, who 
have the most difficulty in obtaining jobs, who have the most 
difficulty in acquiring homes and having a sense of prosperity in this 
great State of ours.

                              {time}  1930

  One of the basic reasons is that when our delegate came here in 1920 
and got the Congress to enact the Hawaiian Homestead Act, the Congress 
agreed and set aside 200,000 acres in an effort to try to bring some 
sort of justice to this tragedy that occurred to these people.
  What happened was that the 200,000 acres that had been set aside for 
the native Hawaiians were in the remotest areas: no streets, no kind of 
communication, no job opportunities, no link with the economy. As a 
consequence, the native Hawaiian population has had a very difficult 
time.
  It seems to us in Hawaii, Mr. Chairman, that the least we can do is 
to pay special recognition to this need, just as we have done to the 
native Americans in a whole variety of different pieces of legislation. 
That is precisely all that this is about.
  As far as the charges that this fund has been allocated to the 
Kamehameha Schools, the Kamehameha Schools is the expert in terms of 
education for the native Hawaiians. There is no reason to look for 
other grantors to administer this program.
  The $5 million that have been set aside to Kamehameha Schools is 
split, $3 million to Kamehameha Schools, and what they do is they go 
out to the community, they do not use it within their institution, they 
go out to the remotest areas, Waianae, Nanakuli, and they establish 
parent centers and preschools, and they move about trying to get these 
families together, the very essence of the things we talk about on the 
Committee on Education and Labor of having the families become involved 
in their children's progress. This is the essence of what the 
Kamehameha Schools program, known as KEEP, is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I support it wholeheartedly. I hope this Congress will 
agree that this is the least that we can do. It is a very modest 
amount, but it will go a long way to answering the charges that are now 
being made in my State that the Federal Government has completely left 
its obligations behind and refused to provide the assistance that is 
required.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to 
support the efforts of the Committee on Education and Labor that has 
authorized this program. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Committee on 
Appropriations for allowing this to proceed, and I hope the amendment 
will be defeated.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the 
reauthorization process last year for elementary and secondary 
education, there was a bipartisan effort to target scarce Federal 
dollars on broad national education concerns, rather than on specific 
constituencies. The committee's expressed purpose was to eliminate or 
consolidate numerous categorical programs and use the savings to create 
better education opportunities for all students. Unfortunately, we did 
not achieve that goal during reauthorization. This, sadly, is also the 
case with this spending bill. The appropriations committee has 
reinstated funding for most of the programs recommended for termination 
by President Clinton, including moneys for the native Hawaiian program.
  The President called this and a number of other programs in this bill 
unneeded, and duplicative. The Gore Commission on Reinventing 
Government specifically addressed the native Hawaiian program, stating, 
``This program duplicates other programs. The State of Hawaii already 
receives formula grants under such programs as chapter I that may be 
used for the education of eligible Hawaiians.''
  I agree with the President, the Vice President, and my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner]. The House should eliminate the $8.2 
million in funding for the native Hawaiian program. The time has come 
to set priorities on Federal spending, and to eliminate special 
programs that benefit parochial interests at the expense of common 
educational goals. Native Hawaiians can receive money from the same 
pool of chapter I moneys that the rest of the States have access to.
  My colleagues continue to make a lot of noise on the House floor 
about cutting spending, consolidating programs, and reducing the size 
of Government. But our actions run contrary to the tough rhetoric. We 
are passing legislation that is loaded with unnecessary, unauthorized 
and unwanted spending.
  We've got to start eliminating and consolidating somewhere.
  The President drew the line when he proposed zeroing out the Native 
Hawaiian Education Program. Support the President, and Vice President 
Gore, and vote in favor of the Boehner amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman cite specifically 
what he is opposed to?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the additional 
spending of a special categorical program just for Hawaii. It should be 
treated as general funding across all the States, all the country.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman recognize that a 
trust relationship exists between the United States and the native 
Hawaiians?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but we have a trust 
relationship to our senior citizens, in my opinion.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, so the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] would say that the trust 
relationship should be violated with the senior citizens as well as 
with the native Hawaiians?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. No, Mr. Chairman, it should not be.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Only with the native Hawaiians?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we all have senior citizens, in 
Hawaii and in Florida and in New York. Why should native Hawaiians get 
any more than native Floridians? In fact, Mr. Chairman, we probably 
have more native Floridians than there are native Hawaiians.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, is it the 
position of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] that the trust 
relationship exists only for the convenience of the gentleman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, on June 23, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Boehner] rose. He had a little bit different orientation. Then he 
also cited the President, except this time the President, when asked to 
have a cut of $27 million, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] was up 
here begging for $27 million.
  The gentleman from Ohio comes here and asks us to cut out a program 
for little kids in Hawaii, but when it is for the coal companies in 
Ohio, he cannot wait to get down here and say, ``Please give us the 
money. Do not listen to him.''
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. When I get through making my point, Mr. Chairman, I 
will yield. The gentleman has had plenty of time to beat up on 
Hawaiians. I think the coal companies of Ohio can take their share. You 
can dish it out. Let's see how you can take it. I am just getting 
started.
  Mr. BOEHNER. I am sure.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations was asked to cut $27 million. It was stated by the 
gentleman offering the amendment that a wide array of potential 
markets, from coal, from electric power, industrial processes, has 
already been researched, some as early as the 1940's; an ongoing coal 
liquefaction research and development project. He asked that that money 
be stopped.
  Another gentleman in support of that got up and said:

       Let me point out that the Executive Office of the President 
     has sent down a letter telling us they support the cut and 
     moving money out for other programs.

  A second gentleman got up and stated, in support of the amendment, 
``Today we simply ask the House to cut this appropriation by $28 
million and bring the appropriations in line with the President's 
request,'' but the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] got up and said, 
``We are trying to cut funding in this Congress. We are trying to save 
money, but we also realize we have a responsibility in this Congress to 
make sure there is a proper investment in our country in areas where 
the private sector cannot do it alone.''
  Now all of a sudden, I discover that the gentleman has now taken up 
the Bishop Estate. The Bishop Estate manages to stay in existence 
because, while people from the mainland were robbing the Hawaiians of 
all their lands, some of it happened to be able to be saved by the 
Bishop Estate.
  Now the Bishop Estate is not required to educate all of the children 
in Hawaii, but it does so. It does so.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield when I am finished. The 
gentleman has plenty of time. I will give him all the time he wants.
  Then the gentleman says, ``We are going to do this for our children, 
and their children, and the next generation.'' It is too bad the phrase 
``our children'' does not include the children in Hawaii. It apparently 
includes the children of the gentleman in the area, in his 
jurisdiction.
  The gentleman says, ``In Ohio,'' and I am quoting, ``we have a 
separate fund that has been developed that adds money'' to the 
processes the gentleman is referring to. We have a separate fund, too, 
Mr. Chairman, at the Bishop Estate, and Kamehameha Schools, and the 
income from that estate is devoted to the education of Hawaiian 
children, and they have developed the expertise.
  They have developed the programs that reach out into the rural and 
isolated areas of Hawaii so that these children can have the advantage 
of an education that can only be provided in a context that the 
Kamehameha Schools has developed and understood, and has offered to us.

                              {time}  1940

  They merely administer these programs. The Bishop Estate does not get 
this money. Kamehameha Schools does not get this money. As the 
gentleman well knows, in the legislation they are required to take no 
more than 7 percent total administrative expenses. I wonder how much 
administrative expenses is taken in the coal research that was in the 
amendment he asked us to pass?
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that I voted for that. The fact is that the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] voted for that, because we were 
convinced that this is a good thing to do, that while it is a specific 
industry, that people benefit in general throughout the Nation if the 
coal research is done. We agreed with the gentleman. But he comes back 
today and I ask him to accept the same logic that he presented to us, 
that it is to the benefit of all of the people of this country, that 
all of our children receive the best education that they can have in 
the context in which they find themselves.
  Our problem today, Mr. Chairman, is there is the odor of mendacity in 
the room. The oder or mendacity is pervasive on this floor. It is 
characterized and given to deception and falsehood and that is what is 
taking place here today. If there was a consistency in this, I could 
see it, but there is not. Why should our children be picked on in 
Hawaii while the coal industry up in Ohio gets the benefit? How can the 
gentleman stand here today and try to take the money away from our kids 
when he was asking for an exception to be made for him last week on 
June 23?
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Hawaii came to this floor accusing 
me of duplicity because of the fact that I came to this floor last week 
and argued the difference between investment and spending. The coal 
research was an investment in this country, not only for our generation 
but our kids and our grandkids. The fact is there is a big difference 
between that investment in coal research and the extra money that is 
being spent for native Hawaiian children, extra money.
  Let us not forget we are already talking about $74 million that 
Hawaii gets in the regular formula program and the competitive grants 
that they get. We are talking about $8 million extra, $5 million of 
which is going to one school. We have already described the difference 
in how that school spends this money. The gentleman from Hawaii said 
that the Bishop Estate does not have to fund this program. I would 
remind the gentleman from Hawaii that the Bishop Estate is left clearly 
in the language of the estate to educate Native Hawaiian children. That 
is why $177 million dollars that was earned on that estate, that $6 
billion endowment, went to fund this school last year.
  The Federal Government should not be involved in this program 
anymore.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us bring a little bit of sanity to 
the debate. I heard that this amendment was going to affect little 
children. Even Robin Leach of the Rich and Famous would laugh. He would 
highlight this school that is going to receive $8 million. He would 
highlight it on the Rich and Famous. The richest school in America and 
we are going to give them an additional $8 million. What are we talking 
about? We are going to pay the board of trustees who they already 
receive, and these are all ex-politicians, we are going to pay them 
$860,000 a year.
  I would love to retire as an ex-politician in Hawaii with $860,000 a 
year. The assets that they hold in Las Vegas or in Hawaii, over $9 
billion, more than any school in the entire United States. As a matter 
of fact, probably combined.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an endowment of $6 billion, more than Yale and 
Harvard or probably any 20 schools put together. Yet they want $8 
million because it is tradition, because we have violated their rights? 
We are going to hurt little children?
  We cannot afford to give $8 million. This is almost laughable.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is misstating the 
situation. The $8 million does not go to Kamehameha Schools. The 
gentleman is correct. They are operated under a Bishop Estate that 
funds a couple of thousand students on their campus. These funds that 
we are appropriating are going to other children in deprived 
neighborhoods.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is. But it is $8 
million going to special interests in Hawaii, $8 million when they are 
already the richest, probably more than 20 schools put together, of all 
the United States. And they want an additional $8 million. Plus they 
get money from the original formula.
  This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. Let us support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell], a member of the Committee on Education and 
Labor.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am flabbergasted. I cannot believe my ears, what I 
hear. There is an old saying in the law that if the facts are with you, 
you pound the facts, and if the law is with you, you pound the law, and 
if neither facts nor law are with you, you pound the table, or you just 
yell.
  Mr. Chairman, this is absurd. The purpose for this special 
appropriation is to educate children, native Hawaiians. Lo and behold 
it goes to an entity that has five trustees, and they are paid $860,000 
a year apiece? We multiply that by 5, that is $4.3 million, and $5 
million of the $8.2 million is going to that entity. It is barely 
enough to pay for the annual compensation of the trustees.
  What defense do I hear? America owes something to the children of the 
native Hawaiians. Of course we do, I gather. I do not know the full 
history.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAWELL. No; I will not. I do not want to be yelled at anymore. I 
just want to say my say and sit down.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield on a factual matter?
  Mr. FAWELL. I would like to continue on. My ears are still ringing.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an educational matter. I do not think that 
anywhere in this country of ours, if we were serving one of the most 
degrading areas where children need help and so forth, and they set up 
an entity that is going to handle these funds and the entity is as rich 
and as endowed as this entity is, $6 billion endowment, greater than 
Harvard University and Yale? I don't think they should be subsidized by 
the U.S. taxpayers.
  I have in my notes here that these schools actually serve only 6.4 
percent of the State's native Hawaiian population.
  Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers are being asked to give $5 million to one 
of the richest entities on the face of this Earth. The members of the 
board of this entity, the grantee of this Federal largesse, receive 
$860,000 per person per year. Common Cause states that these trustee 
positions at the Kamehameha School are political plums for the State's 
Democrat Party. I've seen some awfully sick pork-spending passed by 
Congress. This has to be among the worst. It is absolutely absurd. We 
ought to just quietly say, ``We, of course, cannot do this, it just is 
absurd.''
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let us just get to the facts. The $8.1 
million in this program goes to the following programs:
  First, native Hawaiian language immersion project; second, native 
Hawaiian family-based education centers; third, native Hawaiian higher 
education demonstration programs; fourth, native Hawaiian gifted and 
talented programs; and fifth, native Hawaiian special education 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, my Subcommittee on Native American Affairs also has 
jurisdiction over native Hawaiian affairs and we have a trust 
responsibility toward Navive American children and native Hawaiian 
children. What we need to do is look at facts.
  In 1983, a Department of Education report documented that native 
Hawaiians scored below all other groups in education testing and that 
this low achievement was directly related to their cultural situation. 
Native Hawaiian children score much higher when they are placed in 
education programs which incorporate their native cultures in their 
studies.
  Mr. Chairman, again, statistics, the per capita income of native 
Hawaiians, $5,341 a year, is 28 percent less than the State average in 
Hawaii. Another statistic, 15 percent of the native Hawaiian population 
in Hawaii is below the poverty level. We are not talking about elite 
children getting special privileges. We are talking about children in 
need, and we have a responsibility to fund these programs.
  The rate of unemployment among native Hawaiians, 7 percent, exceeds 
unemployment rates of all other groups within the State except blacks 
which is 13 percent. The rate of unemployment among the 16- to 19-year-
olds in the native Hawaiian population, 19 percent, is worse than any 
other age group, I repeat, worse than any other age group.
  Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the below-average range of 
test scores. This is a Department of Education study. The rate of 
college completion for native Hawaiians is 8 percent, significantly 
lower than the State average. Fifty-seven percent of all youth in 
correctional facilities in Hawaii are native Hawaiians.
  There is no doubt these services, as well as others, are needed by 
the native Hawaiian community.
  So I ask every Member that has native Americans in their 
congressional districts, in their States, to band together against this 
amendment and rise in strong support of these programs, of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie], of many native Hawaiians that are serving in the House of 
Representatives and the Senate.
  This is not a good initiative. Let us look for cuts elsewhere, and I 
think the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] has a good record of 
looking for cuts elsewhere, but not in this program.
  We have a responsibility to fund these programs.

                           Chapter 6: Summary


                        Statistical Comparisons

       In Chapter 2 of this report, comparisons were made between 
     native Hawaiians and national averages, national averages for 
     other minority groups and other groups within the state of 
     Hawaii. It was noted in that chapter that:
       Although Native Hawaiians compare favorably to other 
     minority groups nationally with regard to income, their mean 
     and median per capita incomes are still just over 75 percent 
     of the national average. Furthermore, the cost of living for 
     a family of four with a low budget in Honolulu, where many 
     Native Hawaiians reside, is 32 percent more than it would be 
     for the average urban area, nationally.
       Native Hawaiians compare favorably to other minority groups 
     nationally with regard to poverty level status. However, 15 
     percent of Native Hawaiians are below the poverty level, a 
     statistic that is substantially higher than the national 
     average of 9.6 percent.
       Native Hawaiians compare favorably to other minority groups 
     nationally with regard to employment status, and their 
     unemployment rate of 6.9 percent is just slightly above the 
     national average of 6.5 percent. However, within the 16 to 
     19-year-old age group, 19.3 percent of the Native Hawaiian 
     population is unemployed, compared with 14.4 percent 
     nationally. Although this percentage is much better than the 
     27.7 percent of blacks and 23.9 percent of the American 
     Indians, Eskimos and Aleutians who are unemployed within this 
     age group, it is worse than the 16.9 percent unemployment 
     rate of Hispanics in this age group.
       Academically, based oh the results of the Stanford 
     Achievement Test scores of sixth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade 
     Native Hawaiians students, the proportion of Native Hawaiians 
     whose scores are above average (i.e. at Stanines 7, 8, and 9) 
     is smaller than the national average, and in the higher 
     grades, a greater proportion of Native Hawaiians score below 
     average than the national average.
       The proportion of Native Hawaiians who are 25 years or 
     older who are high school graduates is much higher than the 
     proportion of high school graduates within other minority 
     groups, and in fact slightly exceeds the national average, 
     while the other minority groups, except for Hispanics, do as 
     well or better than Native Hawaiians with regard to college 
     attendance/completion.
       Although Native Hawaiians are not, in most respects, as 
     disadvantaged nationally as are blacks, Hispanics, or 
     American Indians, Eskimos, or Aleutians, national comparisons 
     provide only part of the picture. Most Native Hawaiians never 
     leave Hawaii, and in fact many never even leave the island 
     where they were born within the state of Hawaii, because of 
     the geographic nature of the state. Therefore their relative 
     advantage or disadvantage must also be viewed within the 
     state context. From a state perspective, Native Hawaiians are 
     among the most disadvantaged groups on the island:
       The mean per capita income of the Japanese ($9,410), 
     Chinese ($9,123) and whites ($8,109) exceeds the state 
     average of $7,417 by 27 percent, 23 percent, and 9 percent 
     respectively, while the per capita income of the Native 
     Hawaiian ($5,341) is 28 percent less than the state average. 
     Furthermore, the per capita incomes of the Japanese, Chinese, 
     and whites are 76 percent, 71 percent, and 39 percent more, 
     respectively, than that of the Native Hawaiians. With respect 
     to income, the Native Hawaiians per capita income is 5 
     percent higher than the mean per capita income for Filipinos 
     ($5,094) and 11 percent higher than the per capita income for 
     blacks ($4,805), who constitute a very small portion of the 
     state population.
       Fifteen percent of the Native Hawaiian population in Hawaii 
     is below the poverty level. This compares with a 12 percent 
     rate for blacks, a 9 percent rate for Filipinos, a 7 percent 
     rate for whites, a 5 percent rate of Chinese, and a 3 percent 
     rate for Japanese.
       The rate of unemployment among Native Hawaiians (7 percent) 
     exceeds unemployment rates of all other groups within the 
     state except blacks (13 percent). The state average for 
     unemployment is 5 percent. Unemployment rates for other 
     groups include 6 percent for whites, 5 percent for Filipinos, 
     and 3 percent each for Japanese and Chinese.
       The rate of unemployment among the 16 to 19-year-olds in 
     the Native Hawaiian population (19 percent) is worse than for 
     any other age group within the Native Hawaiian population 
     except for blacks, who have a 30 percent unemployment rate 
     for this age group within Hawaii. For Native Hawaiians this 
     is particularly significant because over 10 percent of the 
     Native Hawaiian population is in this age group. The state 
     average for unemployment for 16 to 19-year-olds is 12 
     percent. Unemployment rates for other groups include 14 
     percent for whites, 11 percent for Filipinos, and 7 percent 
     for Chinese, and 6 percent for Japanese.
       The enrollment rate of 3 to 4-year-old Native Hawaiians (37 
     percent) is near the enrollment rates for whites (42 
     percent), blacks (35 percent), and the state average (39 
     percent), but they are greatly surpassed by the enrollment 
     rates for the Japanese (56 percent) and the Chinese (47 
     percent). In this regard the Filipinos have the lowest rate 
     of enrollment for this age group (23 percent).
       Native Hawaiians, Filipinos, and blacks are 
     disproportionately overrepresented in the below-average range 
     of test scores and underrepresented in the above-average 
     range of test scores on the Stanford Achievement Test in 
     sixth, eighth, and tenth grade compared to whites, Japanese, 
     and Chinese within the state of Hawaii. After sixth grade, 
     the proportion of blacks and Filipinos in both the below- and 
     above-average ranges improves somewhat, compared to the 
     proportion of Native Hawaiians.
       The enrollment rates for 16- and 17-year-old Native 
     Hawaiians (93 percent) is at the state average and is 
     exceeded only by the Chinese (98 percent) and the Japanese 
     (97 percent). White enrollment for this age group is 90 
     percent and black enrollment is 84 percent. However, all 
     groups except Filipinos have a higher percent of high school 
     graduates than the Native Hawaiians have. (It must be 
     remembered, however, that even the Native Hawaiians have a 
     graduation rate [68 percent] that exceeds the national 
     average of 66 percent).
       Despite the high enrollment rates of 16- and 17-year-old 
     Native Hawaiians, enrollment rates among older Native 
     Hawaiian age groups decline dramatically, compared to the 
     Chinese and Japanese enrollments. Further, the median years 
     of completion for native Hawaiians, which is 12.4 years, is 
     lower than for any group except Filipinos, who have completed 
     a median of 12.1 years of school. These facts may be 
     indicative of difficulties in making the transition from the 
     secondary to the postsecondary arena. This in turn has 
     implications regarding the extent to which Native Hawaiians 
     have received vocational education, which, in Hawaii, is 
     given greater focus at the postsecondary level.
       The rate of college completion for Native Hawaiians (8 
     percent) is significantly lower than the state average of 21 
     percent and of all other groups, including whites (28 
     percent), Chinese (28 percent), Japanese (20 percent), blacks 
     (14 percent), and Filipinos (11 percent).
       Fifty-seven percent of all youth in correctional facilities 
     in Hawaii are Native Hawaiians.

                        Other indicators of need

       During the site visits to the Vocational Education and 
     Library set-aside programs, various people, including those 
     who were part of state agencies, were asked whether the 
     services that were being provided by these set-aside programs 
     had ever been provided elsewhere to Native Hawaiians. The 
     answers were unanimous. All people who were interviewed 
     indicated that the state had never earmarked any funds 
     especially to meet the needs of Native Hawaiians for several 
     reasons. First, little information had been available in the 
     past and was only now being examined in any depth regarding 
     the specific needs of Native Hawaiians as they pertained to 
     library programs and vocational education. Second, because 
     Hawaii consists of many minorities, it was considered 
     inappropriate to focus on the needs of one group, to the 
     exclusion of the rest. Third, the state had insufficient 
     funds to address the needs of each group separately.
       These people were also asked whether these services were 
     actually needed. There was some difference of opinion as to 
     the approach taken for providing services and as to the 
     priority given to various needed services. Furthermore, there 
     was some concern voiced about whether the state's secondary 
     and postsecondary organizations would actually meet the 
     commitments necessary to make the new vocational education 
     program for Native Hawaiians successful. Nevertheless, there 
     seemed to be no doubt that these services, as well as some 
     others, were sorely needed by the Native Hawaiian community.

                       Alu Like and its programs

       All groups, including those who could be competitors 
     against Alu Like, indicated that Alu Like was the only 
     organization that was ready to receive the governor's 
     designation as the grantee for the library and vocational 
     education set-aside programs. Alu Like had the confidence of 
     the Native Hawaiian community and the experience in running 
     large Federal grants. Some people did feel that other 
     organizations could now compete for grants in certain areas, 
     but that there still is no other organization capable of 
     handling large grants.
       The vocational education program has had substantial 
     redirection. Nonetheless, many of the projects initiated 
     under the first grant have been continued by other 
     organizations or have been subsumed in modified form as part 
     of the postsecondary initiative of the second grant. A few 
     projects have been continued unmodified under the second 
     grant.
       Both set-aside programs have had some difficulties in 
     starting up projects quickly, after the grant award, 
     particularly with subcontractors. This problem, however, is 
     an understandable and not uncommon problem in situations 
     where the exact grant amount is unknown prior to the award. 
     It is very difficult and in many instances unsound or 
     unworkable practice to make commitments for staff, equipment, 
     and space when the exact size of the grant is unknown. This 
     is particularly true when the size of the grant could vary 
     sufficiently to increase or decrease the number of projects 
     that could be conducted or have a significant impact on the 
     scope of work that could be done.
       It should be recognized that meeting the needs of Native 
     Hawaiians in the very rural areas, where needs may be 
     greatest, may be more difficult and more costly to achieve. 
     Furthermore, as several people pointed out, until the entire 
     economic situation in some of these areas changes, no amount 
     of vocational education will provide the needed jobs. 
     Furthermore, everyone concurred that the first problem to be 
     addressed in these rural areas is the provision of basic 
     skills. Several people pointed out that although many jobs 
     are becoming available on Kauai, a very rural island in the 
     state which is undergoing economic development, employees are 
     being sought from outside the island and may even be imported 
     from foreign sources, because the people on Kauai lack the 
     basic skills needed for employment. Currently, the Native 
     Hawaiian Vocational Education Program at Alu Like believes 
     that providing only basic skills in such situations is beyond 
     the permissible bounds of the program, although the Federal 
     Program Officer indicated, in a telephone interview for this 
     study, that such activities would be acceptable. This would 
     seem to be an important point of clarification for future 
     activities.

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say there is a great big difference here between native 
Americans and native Hawaiians with respect to the amount of money that 
is available.
  Native Americans do not have an $8 billion trust that is dedicated to 
preserve their culture, dedicated to the education of their young, as 
do the native Hawaiians with regard to the program that we are talking 
about.
  I should also point out that the school that gets this $5 million of 
the $8 million only enrolls 6.4 percent of the eligible population in 
their schools; only one out of seven applicants who are eligible to 
attend the schools actually get in, where the school pays 90 percent of 
the tuition for the room and board and fees, the student only pays 10.
  So let us make sure that we are comparing apples and apples here and 
not something different.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner amendment.
  I am continually shocked and amazed by the pork barrelling that goes 
on in this body during appropriations season--but perhaps I should not 
be. Congress has always abused the appropriations process to get a 
million here and a million there for local parochial projects.
  And it is no different this year. It may be June in the rest of 
America, but it is Christmas time in Washington.
  A perfect example of this practice is the $8 million being allocated 
by this bill to the Native Hawaiian Education Program. Before we use 
taxpayers' dollars for this program, we should carefully examine who 
benefits from these funds.
  Of the $8 million appropriated for this program, $5 million goes to 
the Kamehameha School, which has an endowment larger than Harvard or 
Yale, yet serves only 6 percent of the native Hawaiian student 
population.
  The five members who serve on the board of trustees enjoy salaries in 
excess of $800,000 each year--a substantially higher salary than any 
other educator in the United States. That includes the president of 
Columbia University, the highest paid university president, who makes 
in comparison only $363,000 a year.
  Perhaps these were some of the criteria used by President Clinton 
when he recommended eliminating this program in his budget proposal. It 
is certainly something that this body should consider in making its 
decision today.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Boehner amendment. This year, Let us put Christmas off until after 
election day for a change.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Several weeks ago, I joined with my colleagues to form an Asian 
Pacific American Caucus.
  That decision was driven, in no small part, by the increasing level 
of attacks being directed at legal immigrants in our community.
  Although they have immigrated to this country lawfully, pay their 
taxes, and have played by the rules, some people are questioning 
whether or not they are really deserving of things like childhood 
vaccinations or education assistance.
  So I find it somewhat ironic that, the first time we take to the 
floor as a caucus, it is to try to defeat an amendment aimed at cutting 
education services for the native Americans in our community.
  I have to wonder just how long an American family must have lived in 
this country in order to be considered worthy of Federal benefits these 
days.
  From other measures introduced in this House, it appears that 20 
years is too little. From this amendment, one might conclude that 
anything over 300 years is too much.
  Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of basic fairness. This 
Nation has long recognized that we have an obligation to native 
Americans, whose lands we have taken and whose societies we have 
undermined.
  That commitment is no less important for the native peoples of the 
Pacific Islands than it is for native American communities on the 
mainland.
  The gentleman's amendment would undermine a key component of our 
efforts to live up to a solemn commitment this Nation has made to the 
native Hawaiian people.
  Over 100 years ago, the U.S. Government, in violation of the precepts 
of our Constitution, overthrew the established monarchy of the Hawaiian 
people.
  The damage that was done to native Hawaiian society as a result of 
those events continues to this day.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act is a small attempt to help undo 
that damage, and the appropriation would continue the commitment to the 
native Hawaiian people that we first made in 1921, with the passage of 
the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
  The Nation has a duty, and an obligation, to provide some level of 
social and economic assistance to the native Hawaiian people.
  We recognized that commitment long ago. We must not abandon it today. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defeat the Boehner 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, certainly I would not rise to cross the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii, so I will merely read or merely play the role 
of the administration this evening; I am speaking for the 
administration.
  The administration zero-funded the program for 1995, citing the fact 
the five programs authorized under this program are provided 
exclusively to Hawaiian natives despite the availability of similar 
assistance for eligible Hawaiian natives under such formula grant 
programs as Title I, Even Start, and Special Education.
  Second, the administration cited the fact these programs are funded 
largely through noncompetitive awards to organizations and agencies 
named in the authorizing statute. The same organizations can apply for 
competitive grants.
  The 1990 Census said there were 37,134 native Hawaiian children ages 
5 to 17; of the $8 million that are sent out, $5 million go to the 
Kamehameha Schools who also receive the big money from the trust fund, 
and you have heard all about that.

                              {time}  2000

  But of the $8 million appropriated for the program for the current 
fiscal year, $5 million goes to Kamehameha Schools. Let me then give 
some statistics about the rest of the people.
  There are a total of 540,000 other native American students. They are 
served through the BIA schools and public schools. Approximately 85 to 
90 percent are educated in public schools and another 50,000 attend BIA 
schools.
  Approximately 65 percent of native American students complete high 
school. Of native Hawaiians, 79.5 percent are high school graduates, 
which is higher than the national average of 75.2 percent. Twelve 
percent of native Hawaiians have incomes below the poverty line, while 
27 percent of Indians, Eskimos, and Aleutians have incomes below the 
poverty level. Nationally, 10 percent of the population have incomes 
below the poverty level.
  The median family income of native Hawaiians is $37,269, and for 
native Americans it is $21,750. The national average is $35,335. These 
are the statistics provided by the administration.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Boehner amendment. It seems to me that we can spend a tremendous 
amount of time on an issue that really should not even be discussed 
here. We have an obligation: In 1921 the Hawaiian Home Commission Act 
created a land trust, and we started at that time to try to right some 
of the wrongs that we have seen in this country. The native Hawaiians 
are in fact native Americans, and the U.S. Government has a trust 
responsibility for native Hawaiians similar to that held for native 
American tribes and Alaskan Natives.
  The elimination of the Native Hawaiian Act would be an egregious 
violation of historic, traditional legislative precedent in the manner 
in which this trust relationship began between the United States 
Government and the native Hawaiian people.
  When we sit here and discuss $8 million, we can sit around and talk 
about a B-2 bomber sometimes, and we do not really spend so much time. 
As a matter of fact, during this entire debate I have not heard a B-2 
bomber discussed for the past 2 or 3 months; the B-2 bomber currently 
runs about $850 million, $900 million. If we cut the number, it will be 
about a billion dollars apiece. Here we are talking about an $8 million 
program where people are going out into the rural parts of Hawaii, 
where people are going out and starting preschool programs, where 
people are going out and dealing with family values and getting people 
to be motivated. We have not heard one word about the Sea Wolf 
submarine, $2.8 billion, in order to go under the polar cap to surprise 
the Soviet Union, who are broke. But we are still building the Sea 
Wolf, $2.8 billion. What about our antiaircraft carriers? They are $5 
billion each. You know what? It costs a billion dollars to operate it 
during the year.
  So, even if we decide we do not need it anymore, we have got a 
billion dollars, not a million dollars, a billion dollars that it costs 
to run it. But here we are discussing an $8 million project. You know, 
some of the people on the other side make midgets into giants and make 
giants into midgets. They are really magicians.
  I think that we need to stop beating, for political purposes, an item 
that makes sense, but never talk out about the waste and the fraud that 
we see in other programs.
  So, I urge my colleagues to put aside this business of beating up on 
people and let us defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not being mean-spirited, it 
is not about picking on native Hawaiians. It is about what is right. It 
is about spending $8 million of taxpayer money, giving it to a program 
where $5 million goes to a school for those programs which has a $6 
billion endowment, that has a board of trustees consisting of 5 former 
politicians who get paid $860,000 a year. That is an embarrassment.
  If the estate used the money that was left to fund native Hawaiian 
programs the way it was intended, certainly this money would not be 
needed. But I would argue that $8 million of our money going into this 
program is not a necessary expense for the Federal taxpayers today.
  So, I say to my colleagues, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] pointed out, the averages, these native Hawaiians have above-
average scores, above-average dropout rates.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and I urge adoption.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has been carried in this bill for at least 
a dozen years. It is very strongly supported on the Senate side. I 
think it would be optimistic to think we could take this money out 
here, use it somewhere else, and not have to put it back in by the time 
we get back from the Senate. That is just too optimistic. It will not 
work.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, and briefly for my colleagues so we get 
it straight before we go to a vote: This money is not going to the 
Bishop estate, it is going to learning-disabled kids, it is going to 
gifted and talented children, this is going to specific programs that 
are not otherwise funded. The reason we have to come back here year 
after year is because we have not been recognized in great measure 
because of actions taken in the previous administrations and on the 
other side in the native American legislation.
  We would not have to do it and have to defend our people if we 
received the basic justice that all of you expect for your 
constituents. I ask for justice for us, justice for every American, and 
justice for native Hawaiians, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
Representative Boehner's amendment to strike fiscal year 1995 funding 
for the Native Hawaiian Education Act.
  As a member of the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on 
Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, I can attest to the 
importance of continuing the educational projects which are supported 
through this Federal program. The U.S. Government has a historical and 
legal obligation to the native Hawaiian people since its participation 
in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy over 100 years ago. Cutting 
this program now would be both unprincipled and short sighted.
  In addition, as a Representative from the New York metropolitan area, 
I understand that the great diversity of our Nation's people requires 
special consideration when formulating Federal policy. Regional 
concerns and differences including geography, cultural and economic 
factors, as well as other special considerations deserve the Federal 
Government acknowledgment and support.
  The Native Hawaiian Education Act, established in 1988, attempts to 
achieve just that. The act contains a variety of programs, specifically 
designed to meet the unique needs of native Hawaiian students that 
other Federal programs fail to address. Family-based education 
programs, higher education provisions, programs for gifted and talented 
students, special education programs, and native language programs 
contained in the act are highly successful and deserve our support.
  I urge my colleagues to support the continued funding of the Native 
Hawaiian Education Act and oppose the Boehner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 233, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--188

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bateman
     Carr
     Chapman
     DeFazio
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Michel
     Owens
     Pombo
     Ridge
     Washington
     Weldon
     Whitten

                              {time}  2026

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ALLARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having assumed the 
chair, Mr. Sharp, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4606), making appropriations for the 
Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________