[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. Mr. 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. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  2031


                     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 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] had been 
disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill is considered 
read through page 56, line 11 and open for amendment from page 45, line 
13, through page 56, line 11.
  The text of the bill, through page 56, line 11, is as follows:


                   bilingual and immigrant education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     bilingual and immigrant education activities authorized by 
     title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as 
     amended by the Improving America's Schools Act, as passed the 
     House of Representatives on March 24, 1994 and by title IV of 
     the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology 
     Education Act, $247,572,000, of which $25,180,000 shall be 
     for training activities under part C, and $50,000,000 shall 
     be for the immigrant education program.


                           special education

       For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, $3,106,634,000, of which $2,858,973,000 shall 
     become available for obligation on July 1, 1995, and shall 
     remain available through September 30, 1996.


            rehabilitation services and disability research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance 
     for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller 
     National Center Act, as amended, $2,355,600,000.

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $6,406,000.


               national technical institute for the deaf

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $41,462,000, of which $333,000 for the 
     endowment program as authorized under section 207 and not to 
     exceed $192,000 for construction shall remain available until 
     expended.


                          gallaudet university

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $76,742,000, of which $991,000 shall be for the endowment 
     program as authorized under section 207 and shall be 
     available until expended.


                     vocational and adult education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
     Act, the Adult Education Act, and the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act, $1,456,383,000, of which 
     $1,453,464,000 shall become available on July 1, 1995 and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 1996: Provided, 
     That of the amounts made available under the Carl D. Perkins 
     Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, $400,000 of 
     the amount available for Tech-Prep shall be for evaluation of 
     the program and $25,767,000 shall be for national programs 
     under title IV, including $7,851,000 for research, of which 
     $6,000,000 shall be for the National Center for Research on 
     Vocational Education; $13,000,000 for demonstrations, 
     notwithstanding section 411(b); and $4,916,000 for data 
     systems: Provided further, That of the amounts made available 
     under the Adult Education Act, $5,400,000 shall be for 
     national programs under sections 382 and 383, and $4,869,000 
     shall be for the National Institute for Literacy under 
     section 384.


                      student financial assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1, 3, and 4 of part A, and parts 
     C, E, and H of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     as amended, including, notwithstanding section 401(a)(1), 
     not to exceed 3,930,000 Pell Grant recipients in award 
     year 1994-1995, $7,825,417,000, which shall remain 
     available through September 30, 1996, and of which 
     $54,322,000 shall be for State Student Incentive Grants 
     under subpart 4 of part A.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 1995-1996 shall be $2,340: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, as 
     amended, if the Secretary determines, prior to publication of 
     the payment schedule for award year 1995-1996, that the 
     $6,247,180,000 included within this appropriation for Pell 
     Grant awards for award year 1995-1996, and any funds 
     available from the FY 1994 appropriation for Pell Grant 
     awards, are insufficient to satisfy fully all such awards for 
     which students are eligible, as calculated under section 
     401(b) of the Act, the amount paid for each such award shall 
     be reduced by either a fixed or variable percentage, or by a 
     fixed dollar amount, as determined in accordance with a 
     schedule of reductions established by the Secretary for this 
     purpose.


             federal family education loan program account

       For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed 
     student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended, $62,191,000.


                            higher education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     titles I, II, without regard to section 241(d), III, IV, 
     including chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A, V, VI, VII, IX, 
     part A, and subpart 1 of part B of title X, XI, without 
     regard to section 1151, and XV of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965, as amended; the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961; title VI of the Excellence in 
     Mathematics, Science and Engineering Education Act of 1990; 
     and Public Law 102-423; $954,686,000, of which $8,248,000 for 
     endowment activities under section 331 of part C of title III 
     and $17,512,000 for interest subsidies under title VII of the 
     Higher Education Act, as amended, and $4,000,000 for Public 
     Law 102-423 shall remain available until expended, and 
     $1,500,000 of the amount provided herein for title III shall 
     be available for an evaluation of the title III programs.


                           howard university

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $206,463,000, of which $7,910,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be for a matching endowment grant to be 
     administered in accordance with the Howard University 
     Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and $6,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be for construction.


                   higher education facilities loans

       The Secretary is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available under this 
     heading and in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitation, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     program for the current fiscal year.


         college housing and academic facilities loans program

       For the costs of direct loans, as authorized by title VII, 
     part C, of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $134,000: 
     Provided, That such costs, including costs of modifying such 
     loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and that these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans of not to exceed $8,000,000: Provided 
     further, That obligated balances of these appropriations will 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), as amended by Public Law 
     101-510. In addition, for administrative expenses to carry 
     out the existing direct loan program of college housing and 
     academic facilities loans entered into pursuant to title VII, 
     part C, of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $1,022,000.


                         college housing loans

       Pursuant to title VII, part C of the Higher Education Act, 
     as amended, for necessary expenses of the college housing 
     loans program, previously carried out under title IV of the 
     Housing Act of 1950, the Secretary shall make expenditures 
     and enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year 
     limitation using loan repayments and other resources 
     available to this account. Any unobligated balances becoming 
     available from fixed fees paid into this account pursuant to 
     12 U.S.C. 1749d, relating to payment of costs for inspections 
     and site visits, shall be available for the operating 
     expenses of this account.


 historically black college and university capital financing, program 
                                account

       The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724 
     of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act shall not 
     exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such bonds shall 
     not exceed zero.
       For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically 
     Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
     entered into pursuant to title VII, part B of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended, $347,000.


            education research, statistics, and improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act; 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the 
     Education Council Act, as amended by the Improving 
     America's Schools Act as passed the House of 
     Representatives on March 24, 1994; the National Education 
     Statistics Act of 1994 as passed the House of 
     Representatives on March 24, 1994; and the General 
     Education Provisions Act, $318,775,000: Provided, That 
     $39,320,000 shall be for regional laboratories, including 
     rural initiatives; $4,463,000 shall be for civics 
     education activities; $14,480,000 shall be for the 
     National Diffusion Network; $34,424,000 shall be for 
     Eisenhower professional development Federal activities; 
     and $20,000,000 shall be for Federal leadership activities 
     in education technology.


                               libraries

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     titles I, III, IV, and VI of the Library Services and 
     Construction Act (20 U.S.C. ch. 16), and section 222 of the 
     Higher Education Act, $114,996,000.

                        Departmental Management


                         program administration

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two 
     passenger motor vehicles, $359,358,000.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as 
     authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $58,325,000.


                    office of the inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, $29,199,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No part of the funds contained in this title may 
     be used to force any school or school district which is 
     desegregated as that term is defined in title IV of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, to take any action to 
     force the busing of students; to force on account of race, 
     creed or color the abolishment of any school so desegregated; 
     or to force the transfer or assignment of any student 
     attending any elementary or secondary school so desegregated 
     to or from a particular school over the protest of his or her 
     parents or parent.
       Sec. 302. (a) No part of the funds contained in this title 
     shall be used to force any school or school district which is 
     desegregated as that term is defined in title IV of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, to take any action to 
     force the busing of students; to require the abolishment of 
     any school so desegregated; or to force on account of race, 
     creed or color the transfer of students to or from a 
     particular school so desegregated as a condition precedent 
     to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
     State, school district or school.
       (b) No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for the 
     transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
     of equipment for such transportation) in order to overcome 
     racial imbalance in any school or school system, or for the 
     transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
     of equipment for such transportation) in order to carry out a 
     plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system.
       Sec. 303. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
     used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation 
     of any student to a school other than the school which is 
     nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring 
     special education, to the school offering such special 
     education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an 
     indirect requirement of transportation of students includes 
     the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving 
     the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the 
     pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any 
     combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering. 
     The prohibition described in this section does not include 
     the establishment of magnet schools.
       Sec. 304. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer 
     and meditation in the public schools.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

                      Armed Forces Retirement Home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid 
     from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     Trust Fund, $59,816,000, of which $2,906,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for construction and renovation of 
     the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for the 
     payment of hospitalization of members of the Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home in United States Army hospitals at rates in 
     excess of those prescribed by the Secretary of the Army upon 
     recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and the Surgeon 
     General of the Army.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


        domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic 
     Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $205,771,000.

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-394, $20,100,000 are hereby rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this section of the 
bill?
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the following amendments 
shall be considered to that portion of the bill in the following order: 
by Mr. Mica of Florida; by Mr. Baker of California; by Mr. Crane of 
Illinois; and by Mr. Grams of Minnesota.
  Debate on each of the amendments and any amendments thereto shall be 
20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until after 
disposition of the Grams amendment a request for a recorded vote on any 
of the foregoing amendments.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of question shall be 
not less than 15 minutes.


                     amendment offered by Mr. mica

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:


                   bilingual and immigrant education

       Page 45, line 21, strike ``$247,572,000'' and insert 
     ``$272,572,000'' and line 22, strike ``$50,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$75,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of his amendment, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise tonight to ask this body to recognize a crisis that faces our 
country today. That crisis is the crisis of unfunded Federal 
immigration policy.
  I am asking this body to do something about the burden forced upon 
our States and local governments. Let me make very clear at the outset 
that this amendment does not cut the low energy assistance program. 
While I had originally intended to propose a cut in that program, I 
reserved the right to offer that amendment at a future time. Instead, 
tonight at this time I am offering an amendment which will simply 
reimburse the States for funds they have spent educating children of 
illegal immigrants.
  I am not advocating a corresponding cut. This amendment makes no 
cuts, let me make that perfectly clear, because I believe the 
immigration situation at the State level has achieved the status of an 
emergency.
  My request and amendment are within the existing budget authority. I 
know that the unfunded mandate of educating illegal immigrants is a 
concern of many of my colleagues. But we sat late into the evening 
last night and we discussed this issue. Here we have an opportunity to 
do something about this issue. And we are not going to cut any other 
program, I am not proposing at this time to eliminate any program. What 
I am going to do tonight is to say that we, as a Congress, must address 
a problem.

  I know that this question of illegal immigrants and their education, 
the education of their children and reimbursing the States for expenses 
is of interest to all of my colleagues here in the House, because I 
have with me a letter signed by almost 100 of my colleagues which was 
sent to the honorable chairman from Iowa stating their desire to see 
the Emergency Immigration Education Act fully funded.
  My amendment would do exactly that. My amendment simply increases the 
appropriation for the immigration account by $25 million. Although I 
have not cut other funds in the bill, I offer this amendment on the 
grounds that the immigration situation which we find ourselves in today 
in this country is an emergency. We cannot continue to expect the 
States to fund a failed national immigration policy.
  The Federal Government has responded to natural disasters, including 
hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes. Today our schools are being jolted 
by a disastrous Federal immigration policy, and they are drowning 
financially.
  Three States have sued the Federal Government for refunds and others 
will follow. Is this the way we conduct the business of our Nation and 
our States, by States suing the Federal Government to be responsive? I 
say ``no.'' Is this the manner in which we assist our local 
governments, as they cope with the disaster created here in Washington? 
Let us look at the cost of educating illegal immigrants.
  The total cost to the United States for educating illegal immigrants, 
the children of illegal aliens in this country, is $4.25 billion per 
year. In my State of Florida, it costs an average of $4,000 to educate 
one immigrant child. And do my colleagues know that the State is only 
reimbursed somewhere between $35 and $40 per student?
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. Give our States the 
opportunity to get a little bit back for the money that they have spent 
on taking care of a national disaster created at the national level by 
national policy.
  Again, this does not cut any program. This does not eliminate any 
program. What it does is, it says we have a problem. We must address 
the problem, and this Congress is willing to step forward and see that 
we reimburse our States for a small fraction of the expense that they 
have incurred in the education of these illegal aliens.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2040

  The CHAIRMAN. Who rises in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers. I would ask if 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has other speakers.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would indicate that we are under the time 
limit, and neither the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] nor the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] needs to make a speech. We may 
proceed to a vote.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has no comment at this time, 
but would like to close, then I would like to reclaim my time.
  May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I make this appeal, because I come from a State 
that has been badly impacted by our national immigration policy. We 
have borne the brunt of immigration, Mr. Chairman, not in relation to, 
say, a State like California. California is foremost. The cost of 
illegal immigration to California is absolutely staggering, the amount 
of money that that State spends on education. Florida only spends a 
fraction of it in educating illegal aliens. That State is tremendously 
impacted by this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would expect every member of the California 
delegation to come down here and vote for this amendment, to say that 
this is a Federal obligation, that we must assume a Federal obligation 
here, even though it means expanding slightly the outlay of money for 
this particular program.
  However, Mr. Chairman, it does not exceed, and I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, this does not exceed the budget authority given to this 
committee. What it does is, it says we have a problem. California has 
been ravaged by the problem.
  We are ending up in the State of Florida, and I know in California, 
New York, other States, where we are increasing our local property 
taxes. Many of these local governments have caps, such as in Florida, 
where they cannot raise them any more. The cost of education, the cost 
to local government of handling this illegal immigration problem, has 
reached its cap in many of these jurisdictions.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the greatest increases in costs to local 
government that costs this country, whether it is California, whether 
it is New York, whether it is Pennsylvania, New Jersey. Again, Mr. 
Chairman, if we do not address the problem at the Federal level, we end 
up passing this on to the States, which we have done, requiring the 
States, in fact, to pick up the tab, the local taxpayer to pick up the 
tab.
  Mr. Chairman, here we have an opportunity to stand up and be counted 
tonight. We are not going to do away with anything, Mr. Chairman, 
again, with any program that may be of any particular interest to 
anyone in this body or the House of Representatives in any way.
  What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is we are making a commitment that 
we in fact recognize there is a problem, we are willing to fund that 
problem, we are willing to address that here, we are willing to assist 
our States in meeting the obligation that started here at the Federal 
level, whether it was at the White House or whether it was in this 
body. We have an obligation to the local governments, to our school 
districts, again, to meet this need.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone of the Members to look at their States, 
look at the impact of illegal immigration. We have more illegal 
immigrants in the State of California than there are in 16 States in 
the Union. Is this fair, that we allow our States to absorb this burden 
and not address this problem?
  We did not address this problem last night when it came to cutting 
funds for international peacekeeping forces. We did not address this in 
any other sections of legislation that came before us. This is the 
opportunity that we have, again, without cutting anything, without 
upsetting anyone's apple cart, to say that we do in fact admit that we 
have an obligation and the obligation is above the funding level 
provided in this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a small amount, but it is a meaningful amount. 
At the proper time I am going to call for a recorded vote on this. I do 
want the Members to come down here. They should go back to their local 
districts, back to their school boards, back to their States, and look 
those people in the eye and say, ``We had an opportunity to fund this. 
It was well within the budget constraints provided by the Committee on 
the Budget in Congress, but I did not meet my obligation. I did not 
take care of the obligation and the tragedy that was set forth here by 
our national policy.'' That is the policy of illegal immigration.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there are many other issues of importance, 
but I come from one State that has been severely impacted by this. I 
ask the Members' assistance in this matter, and also to assist the 
other States, California, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, 
Ohio, and the list goes on and on, States that have been severely 
impacted by failed Federal policy.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I submit this amendment for the Members' 
consideration, and intend to call a vote for it and ask for Members' 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to oppose the amendment because there is 
no offset. I know the House rules say the limitation is on BA, rather 
than outlays. In the Senate the rule is that the bill cannot exceed the 
outlay ceiling. When we go through the House with these bills, we have 
to be within the outlays or else we are going to be in trouble in 
conference.
  What the gentleman does is add $25 million but there is no offset.
  Mr. Chairman, we have in this bill many, many places where we could 
add money for budget authority, and there are many places we would like 
to. For example, in the fund for handling disability claims, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to add some money there, but there are no 
outlays to go with it, so we have not done that.
  Mr. Chairman, I just think Members ought to vote against this on the 
basis that we are supposed to present a bill here, and we have 
presented a bill that is within the outlays in our 602(b), and to vote 
for this amendment means that we exceed the 602(b).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Mica] will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].


              amendment offered by mr. baker of california

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baker of California: On page 52, 
     line 9, strike ``$114,996,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$115,996,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Baker] is recognized 
for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to stand 
up here and point out the growth of the administration's budget in the 
Department of Education. Last year they had to suffer over at the 
Department of Education with a growth in their administrative budget of 
only 14 percent. That is when 1 million Californians were out of work 
and most corporations were cutting their overhead drastically.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take $2 million out of this growth in 
administrative overhead and give it to the library budget, which 
Members will see next to the administrative overhead budget. The 
library budget has been cut some $37 million. In other words, we are 
reinventing government this year. Bureaucracy is in, libraries are out.
  As a symbolic gesture, and also as a much-needed addition to the 
libraries, I wanted to take $2 million from administration and put it 
into libraries. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
got here first, and he took, with a successful vote earlier this 
evening, $7 million from administration, which is this year's growth 
rate, and took it for the community health facilities and others, so 
the amendment as it is now drafted would take $1 million of that $7 
million in savings and apply it under the cap, there is $1 million left 
under the cap, and give it to the public libraries.
  Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for a signal from the chairman to see if 
that is within the budget cap of CBO. We will find out later.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAKER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the committee, for his opinion on the 
amendment as drafted.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, we do not have any scoring from CBO, 
and we have found out the hard way that we do not dare move without a 
scoring from CBO. We came up at one point, while we were trying to put 
this bill together, with a $247 million difference between what we 
thought the scores would be and what they thought it should be, but we 
have to go by their scoring. We do not have any way to know what the 
scoring is.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman allow me 
to go to the back of the line? There are two other amendments affecting 
this title of the Education Act, and I could wait until the end, when 
we hear from CBO.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. If the gentleman will yield further, we will not 
hear from CBO for 2 or 3 or 4 days. We are not going to hear from CBO 
tonight. That is not going to do any good.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, even if we roll these over, we 
are not going to roll them over for 3 or 4 days. We will have to vote.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just continue, then. It is very important we 
stop the downward slide of library funding. Libraries are important.

                              {time}  2050

  Libraries are important to every community. They are important to our 
children. To take $1 million and increase that $37 million slide does 
not seem to be unrealistic.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] rise in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, to start with, we do not have an offset. In the second 
place, public library services are being treated like the average in 
the bill. It is 96.5 percent of current services.
  There are numerous programs, I will bet there are 200 programs in the 
bill that would like to be better than average in the bill. There are 
more than 500 programs in the bill. If you reach in and just pick out 
any one program, we can make a good argument for why it ought to be 
treated better than others in the bill. But we had to put together a 
bill that on an average is 96.5 percent of current services. We cannot 
just reach in and pick out one of 200 and not give consideration to the 
others. It is not a good program, but we cannot increase this without 
an offset, and even if we had an offset, I do not think that libraries 
ought to be treated differently than a couple of hundred other programs 
that are in the bill.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. On this chart, I am showing what we are 
doing to libraries this year. It is not that I want to treat this 
program any better. I think it has been treated in this process very 
shabbily.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I do not know about the graph. We are giving it 
96.5 percent of current services and that is as good as most programs 
in this bill. I do not know about the gentleman's graph, but that is 
the fact. It is getting 96.5 percent of current services in the bill.
  Mr. BAKER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if 
we adopted my amendment, then, to give the administrative overhead 96 
percent of their current services, we would have my $2 million.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Without anything in the bill, the gentleman is 
getting 96.5 percent of current services.
  Mr. BAKER of California. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Yes.
  Mr. BAKER of California. If I applied that same standard to the 
administrative overhead of the Department of Education, I would have 
more than $2 million to give to libraries.
  Would the gentleman find that acceptable, because we are holding the 
administration at an equal.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. We are putting out a very delicate bill, Every 
time we increase something, we had to decrease something below 96.5 
percent. This was one of 200 or 300 programs that we thought were 
average programs, that ought not be treated different than others. It 
is a matter of fiscal responsibility. Either we abide by the caps and 
on an average have 96.5 percent of current services or we do not. We 
cannot just pick out all the programs and say they are over average. 
this was one of them we did not put more money that the average in for. 
It is a delicate balance and anybody can make a good argument for 200 
or 300 programs in here.
  Mr. BAKER of California. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am making an argument that we cut the libraries $37 million. I do not 
think that is 96 percent. I am also arguing that the budget of the 
administrative overhead of the Department of Education is increasing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from California. The 
Federal Government spends about $146 million on library programs. This 
is .01 percent of the Federal budget and going down. So while the 
Department of Education budget skyrockets, Federal support for local 
libraries continues to fall. Federal support for local libraries works 
out to about 57 cents per person in the United States, or about the 
cost of a small ballpoint pen or a cup of coffee. For that very small 
investment,we generate enormous returns in providing for our 
constituents a wealth of information resources.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It would shift a very, 
very small amount of money, of dollars, from the Department of 
Education bureaucracy to public library service. It seems to me to be a 
very simple amendment, a very simple choice. It is books or 
bureaucrats, it is a simple choice, and for me that choice means books.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I had pointed out to me why the chart is in gross 
error. The chart refers to the total amount for libraries including 
construction and college libraries. The chart refers to the total 
amount for libraries including construction. The amount for services is 
only $745,000 below 1994, out or $82 million, so it is 3.5 percent 
below current services.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that the money the libraries get 
from this account is probably less than 3 percent of the amount local 
libraries operate on. If they cannot squeeze a little out of that 3 
percent, they are in pretty bad shape. It just should not be treated 
different than several hundred other programs in the bill.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this is a very, very 
small amendment to do a very, very important thing. For 15 or 20 years, 
we have been bleeding our libraries and enhancing our bureaucracy. In 
the last 20 years, we have increased our spending per pupil in real 
terms by double. We have increased our spending in terms of the 
bureaucracy by triple. One third of every dollar we spend on education 
now goes to the classroom. There have been hundreds of stories or 
thousands of stories of people who have learned what they have learned 
in the libraries. I, in fact, have six or seven books by Eric Hoffer, a 
longshoreman from California, who quit school in the fifth grade and 
went to the libraries and became a famous author and a writer because 
of what he learned.
  Mr. Chairman, we are bleeding our libraries. We are taking away from 
the children and giving to the bureaucrats and the owners of the 
National Education Association, the lobby, the money we should be 
putting back into education.
  Until 1952, our schools were run at the local level by parents and 
teachers. Then when the teachers lobby took over, we started declining. 
We had increasing SAT scores in every single year until 1964, which 
just happens to coincide with the year that the Federal Government got 
involved in elementary and secondary education, and we have declined in 
every year since except for a small blip in 1985 or 1986, and it has 
been going down since.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a major overhaul of education. This is a 
small effort to say the kids are more important than the bureaucrats. 
The effort we put into their opportunity to learn is more important 
than we put into offices and the chandeliers of the bureaucrats.
  Let us vote just this one time for the kids.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time to close debate.
  Mr. Chairman, we have just voted to give $8 million to a program that 
has a $9 billion trust fund. We say it is OK to cut the libraries 
because we are getting rid of the construction program. Apparently no 
one needs a new library this year. Yet we allowed last year the 
bureaucracy in the Department of Education to grow by 14 percent and 
this year by another $7 billion, although that has been recently cut 
back.
  It is not too much to ask for $1 million for the libraries. Libraries 
in California run the best literacy programs available, their one-on-
one personal introduction to reading and writing to people of all ages 
who somehow got through school and are still illiterate. Libraries are 
where we introduce young children to the adventure of history and of 
mathematics and of science through reading. I ask for an aye vote for 
$1 million for the library. I ask that Members reduce the bureaucracy 
an equal amount. There is room under the cap and some day CBO will come 
out of the cave and tell us that it is all right to restore some of the 
money to public libraries.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about taking money out of salaries 
and expenses for the Education Department. But we did that on the 
amendment that passed earlier. We did that on the big amendment that 
passed for community health centers. The money is already gone. How 
many times can we spend it? We cannot take the $1 million that we 
already voted to spend and spend it again on libraries. There is no 
offset for this. That is the fact of the matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose the amendment, although it is not a 
big amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Baker] will be postponed.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce for the benefit of Members 
that we are proceeding more rapidly than the time allowed. Therefore, 
if rollcall votes are ordered, they could come earlier than many 
Members are expecting.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].

                              {time}  2100


                    amendments offered by mr. crane

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I have an en bloc amendment and I would like 
to make a unanimous consent request that it might be made in order in 
lieu of the original amendment I submitted. If I may, I would like to 
indicate briefly to the Chairman what it involves, and then I would be 
happy to yield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments, and then the 
gentleman may propound his unanimous consent request.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Crane:
       Page 56, Line 11, strike ``$20,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$292,640,000''.
       Page 35, Line 20, strike ``$320,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$520,000,000''.

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendments 
en bloc?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have to object. I am sorry. But I 
cannot permit reaching back into the bill, or others will want to do 
the same thing.
  I have to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my original amendment.


                    amendment offered by mr. crane.

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crane:
       Page 56, line 11, strike ``$20,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$292,640,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois will 
be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply regretful that my unanimous-consent request 
was rejected, because I think it is something everyone in this Chamber 
can relate to, and that was to divert $200 million of the projected 
$274 million savings under my amendment to processing Social Security 
disability claims.
  The average processing time has grown by more than a month between 
1990 and 1993, on average from 87 days to currently roughly 128 days. 
And disability claims will have grown by 75 percent from 1990 to 1995. 
That means over 1 million backlog cases, and we have constituents 
communicating with each and every one of us on the importance of trying 
to deal with this aggravated problem which is spiraling out of control.
  But so be it. What my amendment, Mr. Chairman, will do is have the 
effect of saving the taxpayers an enormous amount of money.
  In 1967, it had only been 22 years since the Chicago Cubs won a 
pennant. In 1967 Woodstock was still just a farm. In 1967 man had not 
yet set foot on the Moon, and in 1967 Congress created the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting.
  Back in 1967, there were only three television networks, and Congress 
perceived the need for more diversity in broadcasting. The CPB was 
designed to meet that need, giving consumers access to quality 
programming that was not commercially viable. Without a doubt, many 
fine programs have been broadcast because of public television.
  But it is no longer 1967. The choices of consumers are no longer 
limited to the three networks, and we no longer need the CPB.
  Television has added a fourth network, and hundreds of independent 
stations have sprouted up throughout the country. More importantly, the 
popularity of cable television has given consumers literally, in some 
cases, hundreds of choices. From CNN to ESPN to the Home Shopping Club, 
consumers have adequate choices today without a Federal subsidy.
  In fact, most Americans can even choose among public television 
stations, as 58 percent receive more than one public station.
  Despite the wide spectrum of programming now available, Congress 
continues to give more and more money to the CPB. We now appropriate 
more than 5 times the amount dedicated to public broadcasting 20 years 
ago. Even with such exponential growth, Federal funding for the CPB 
still accounts for only about 15 percent of the total funding for 
public broadcasting, and the fact of the matter is that even without 
any Federal funding, the Corporation would still have a budget of more 
than $1.5 billion.
  In the years since 1967, the CPB has become increasingly less 
dependent upon Government funds. Through grants from foundations, 
corporate sponsors, and individual donations, the CPB has built a 
financial base strong enough to survive and, indeed, thrive without 
Federal funding. For example, the Children's Television Workshop which 
produces the most visible PBS program, Sesame Street, has $58 million 
invested in stocks and bonds, enough to keep even Big Bird's feeder 
full for many years.
  In short, eliminating Federal funding will not force the cancellation 
of any programming and will not dissolve the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. What it will do is save the American taxpayers more than 
a quarter of a billion dollars. With so much diversity, we no longer 
need the CPB, and with our growing budget deficit, we can no longer 
afford it.
  I hope my colleagues will vote for fiscal responsibility and will 
vote for my amendment to rescind Federal funding for the Corporation 
for Public Broadcasting.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and urge Members to support the 
bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
  I do want to say, however, that unless there are some substantial 
changes in Public Broadcasting and its relationship to the working 
people of America, my vote and my position might be very different next 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the great dangers in America today, and 
something that frightens me and many other Americans very much is the 
growing concentration of ownership in the mass media. Fewer and fewer 
and larger and larger corporations increasingly control what we see on 
television, what we hear on the radio, and what we read in the 
newspapers and magazines.
  The noted journalist and author Ben Bagdikian has written in his book 
``The Media Monopoly'' that by the turn of the century a handful of 
huge multinational corporations will not only control what we see and 
hear in America but in fact will be controlling what much of the world 
sees, hears, and reads. That is a very dangerous trend.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not an accident that the Rush Limbaughs, the Pat 
Buchanans, and the G. Gordon Liddys dominate commercial radio talk 
shows. Their views reflect the interests of the corporations which own 
those radio networks. It is also not an accident that on commercial 
radio and television there is very little serious discussion about the 
enormous problems facing the working people and the poor of this 
Nation.
  The average working family in America is in trouble. They are under 
stress. They are hurting. But that reality is not reflected in the 
corporately controlled media.
  Yes, we do have round-the-clock analysis of the O.J. Simpson case and 
the Menendez brothers saga and the Bobbitt family adventures and the 
Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan adventure. Yes, we have in-depth 
analyses of why the Houston Rockets were able to defeat the New York 
Knickerbockers and why the Washington Redskins did not do so well this 
last session. Yes, the airwaves are filled with violence and blood and 
30-second commercials which are having an extremely negative impact on 
the cognitive abilities of the young kids of America.

  But somehow, just somehow there is virtually no programming which 
explains to the American people why the standard of living of American 
workers has gone from 1st place in the world 20 years ago to 13th place 
today. Somehow we do not have programming which deals with that. 
Somehow there is very little discussion or portrayal on television 
about the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America.
  I guess we do not have time on TV for that or about the fact that the 
wealthiest 1 percent of our population owns more wealth than the bottom 
90 percent, or about how multinational corporations are moving to the 
Third World and are hiring workers at 15 to 20 cents an hour while they 
are throwing American workers out on the street. I guess that is just 
not interesting enough to put on our TV airways.
  Should we be surprised that General Electric's NBC or the 
corporations that own the other networks do not focus very much on 
these issues? Well, I am not surprised, and I think the average 
American is not surprised.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason that Public Broadcasting was established and 
why taxpayers are contributing to Public Television and Radio is that 
it is supposed to offer an alternative point of view to that offered by 
the corporately owned networks. It is supposed to give a voice to those 
who have no voice. It is supposed to be able to deal with controversy 
without being afraid of offending corporate sponsors. That is the 
reason that it exists.

                              {time}  2110

  It is supposed to take on the entrenched special interests because it 
is funded by the ordinary people of this country, the people who are 
not wealthy, the people who are not powerful, the people who do not own 
ABC, CBS, or NBC. In other words, radical thought that it may be, 
public television is supposed to represent the interests of the public.
  I know that is a radical thought, but that is the way it is supposed 
to be.
  Sadly, despite what its original mandate was, despite the fact that 
there is some excellent programming on public television, some very 
fine children's programming on public television, despite all of that, 
very few people can argue that public television has fulfilled its 
original mandate. In fact, year after year it appears that public 
television is more and more coming to resemble commercial television. 
Mr. Chairman, I do not object that there are three regularly scheduled 
business shows on PBS. I do not object that there are three regularly 
scheduled shows--Wall Street Week, the Nightly Business Report, and 
Adam Smith's Money World. I have no problem with those programs. I do 
have a problem, however, that there is not one regularly scheduled 
program on the PBS which focuses on the needs and the problems of the 
working people of America. If there are three regularly scheduled 
business shows, why is there not at least one, just one, regularly 
scheduled show reflecting the interests of working people and organized 
labor?
  I do not object that three weekly public affairs shows on the PBS 
stations are hosted by individuals who have been associated with the 
National Review, a leading right-wing magazine: William Buckley's 
Firing Line, John McLaughlin's McLaughlin Group, and McLaughlin's One 
on One. I do not object to these shows. But I do object that there is 
not one weekly PBS show which is hosted by a journalist from a labor or 
a progressive point of view.
  Our side also has articulate, well-informed journalists and 
commentators who are capable of presenting interesting and informative 
television, and that point of view has a right to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting is at a crossroads. If it wants to resemble commercial 
television, Mr. Crane has a point. If it wants to resemble commercial 
television, if it wants to go out and hunt for more and more corporate 
money, then maybe we should say once and for all that it should become 
a private entity which competes in the marketplace with the corporate 
media. Mr. Crane does have a point. But I do not think that is what it 
should be. It seems to me that in a time when more and more of the 
media is controlled by big money, it is imperative that we really do 
have a public broadcasting system which deals with the real problems 
facing the working people of America.
  Tonight I will oppose Mr. Crane's amendment. I hope PBS changes, or 
next year I will not.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as an unblushing socialist, I understand my colleague's 
commitment to the concept of Government ownership and/or control of the 
means of production and distribution. And for that reason I have 
respect for his argument from his perspective.
  However, I would argue that we are not in that kind of an economic 
situation. I would deny further that labor has not had an opportunity 
to be heard through the media. We have had radio stations in Chicago 
that were initially founded by the labor unions, controlled by the 
labor unions. That opportunity always exists, and it exists today and 
it is not something that requires Government intervention to resolve 
that kind of problem.
  Censorship, I would say ``no'' to the gentleman about. In effect, 
what he is calling for is Government censorship of program content.
  Free enterprise is our answer to these problems and free enterprise 
provides a free field with no favors. And anyone who wants to join in 
the game is able to join in the game.
  In addition to that, I would remind the gentleman that 22 cents of 
every dollar right now to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting comes 
from individual donations, not from the corporate giants. And the 
number of private subscribers and the total amount of donations has 
risen very rapidly in the last few years.
  Sesame Street, I might remind the gentleman also, grosses more from 
merchandising than does the National Hockey League. And that is one of 
those children's programs very widely watched and very popular.
  So I think the gentleman has made an impassioned plea, but I think 
the gentleman is off base in terms of the approach to dealing with the 
problem before us today. That is not, as I think is implied in his 
remarks, calling for a major increase in the Government component of 
this Corporation for Public Broadcasting, because only 15 percent of 
that is now Government. The rest is all outside of Government, in the 
hands of a variety of people. And to be sure, some of them may be 
corporations.
  But the fact is we do not need this in a climate when we have 
literally hundreds and hundreds of channel outlets. At the time this 
was founded, with only three networks, there was a case that could be 
made for an alternative voice. But I think that has long since passed. 
For that reason, I would ask Members to support our amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening to this debate, and I do not know what 
planet some of my colleagues are living on, sometimes, when I hear them 
talking about the bias of the media in different areas.
  The news media, from a conservative point of view, is way over on the 
left. We are always complaining about this. I will acknowledge that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle may indeed think that the media 
does not reflect their point of view either. But that is the whole 
point: In a free enterprise system people can listen to what they want 
to listen to, and they can turn off the dial. But if you have a 
socialist approach, which I know that my colleague really appreciates, 
the socialist approach believes it will be inherently fairer, but the 
fact is people are forced to pay for programming that they do not 
support. Whether they listen to it or not, they are going to pay for 
it.
  The fact is the free enterprise system today provides us with more 
alternatives. We have video disks, we have videotapes, we have 
satellites, we have radio, we have FM, we have AM, we have tapes to 
listen to when we go in our car. We have got newspapers, we have got 
magazines, we have information and entertainment coming out of our 
ears. There is absolutely no reason why, when we have other needs, for 
us to be taxing money away from our people to subsidize entertainment 
and information.
  I agree totally with my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Crane] that the 
time is past, if there ever was a need, that this need now can be 
handled totally by the private sector. And neither one of us should 
then complain, because we can say if we do not support what is on the 
air, we just turn the channel, as compared to the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting and other socialist approaches when you have to pay 
for what you disagree with.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding this time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make some very simple points. Notwithstanding 
the fact that we have had a cable revolution in this country over the 
last 20 years, we should all be cognizant of the fact that 40 percent 
of all Americans do not subscribe to cable. Most of them, because they 
cannot afford cable.
  Sixty percent of all Americans who come from families of $15,000 
income or less do not subscribe to cable.
  As the 1980's introduced an era where the chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission said that a television set was nothing more 
than a toaster with pictures, we saw more and more of the commercial 
broadcasters do away with their children's television programming. From 
a peak of 11 hours a day in 1980 to a low of 2 hours per week in 1993, 
we saw the commercial broadcasters walk away from children's 
television.
  On children's television, on an average, on public broadcasting, an 
average day, there are 6 to 10 hours of children's television 
programming. For the 60 percent of the children of the families with 
incomes under $15,000 a year, that is their only access to quality 
broadcasting. They do not have cable. It is unrealistic to expect that 
their families can afford all of these wonderful discretionary video 
opportunities that are out there in the marketplace, as wonderful as 
they may be for middle-class Americans, they are not affordable for 
working-class and poor America.

                              {time}  2120

  Public broadcasting is the only alternative for those children. It is 
the only way that working class, and blue collar, and poor families can 
have access to quality programming on a daily basis. Let us not confuse 
this issue at all. The reason public broadcasting is there is to ensure 
that all Americans have access to quality programming, not just those 
who can afford to pay for it, which is what the cable revolution is all 
about.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me say in response to what we have heard that the Lyons Group, 
which produces Barney and Friends, makes an estimated $50 million just 
from licensing Barney products, yet has received some $2.5 million from 
public broadcasting to produce episodes of the show.
  PBS continues to subsidize Sesame Street to the tune of $6 million 
annually. The Children's Television Workshop, which produces the 
program, nets about $100 million a year in related product sales, with 
$40 million alone coming from Sesame Street Magazine's 4.5 million 
readers.
  ``This money-machine feature of public television is a far cry from 
the original assumption that a public system was needed to give access 
to programming with no commercial appeal,'' said Laurence Jarvik, 
director of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.
  I think it is important to recognize that we are not talking about 
eliminating public broadcasting networks. It is not going to be 
eliminated; a far cry from that. It is so commercially viable, is my 
point, that we no longer need its existence, and the public 
contribution is down to only 15 percent of the total. They are not 
going to fold up and go home. They are making out like gangbusters, and 
they will continue to produce, and they will continue to direct their 
programming toward that audience which has guaranteed them such an 
enormous success.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think we are not talking on the same wave length, 
and the point I would reiterate before closing out is the one my 
colleague from California made, and that is:

       Why, when you have a viable entity in a competitive market 
     must you involuntarily force American overburdened taxpayers 
     to pay for it?

  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure there was any other program that I heard 
more from in the mail, from colleagues, than public broadcasting. They 
want more money. They did not want even to go back to 96.5 percent of 
current services because it was advanced funded. It is just not 
realistic, I do not think, for us to take out of the bill the remaining 
amount of money we have got in here, which is 96.5 percent of what was 
funded last year. I just think that this is a program that is very much 
supported all over the country, and I have to oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand the yeas and nays, and I 
understand that the vote will be put off until the next amendment is 
completed.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Crane] will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].


                     amendment offered by mr. grams

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Grams: Page 49, line 11, strike 
     ``$954,686,000'' and insert ``$939,766,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Grams] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, all of us have heard a lot of jokes about 
lawyers and Congress, but there is one joke being played on the 
American taxpayer that is not so funny.
  Buried deep within this Labor/HHS appropriations bill is $15 million 
in grants for law schools to establish or expand legal clinic programs.
  That is right taxpayers: the Federal Government is now in the 
business of subsidizing the education and training of future lawyers. 
And with your tax dollars.
  The amendment I am offering today would put an end to this practice 
by striking the $15 million set aside for this program.
  According to the committee report, the purpose of the clinical 
experience program is to provide law students with hands-on experience 
in delivering legal services for low-income Americans. But while this 
goal has some merit, there is no reason why we need this program or 
additional tax dollars to accomplish it.
  First, we already have programs in place to address the legal needs 
of the poor. In fact, just yesterday, this body approved the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill which included $415 million for the 
Legal Services Corporation--ironically, an increase of $15 million from 
last year. Eliminating the funding for the law school clinical 
experience program will not leave low-income Americans without legal 
representation.
  Second, law schools should be able to fund clinical programs on their 
own. With many private law schools charging annual tuitions of $20,000 
or more, does it make sense to bill the American taxpayer another $15 
million for this program?
  I do not think so--and neither did the Clinton administration which 
eliminated funding for this program in its budget proposal.
  Finally, the American taxpayer simply cannot afford this program. We 
are currently facing a huge budget deficit and a $4.7 trillion national 
debt.
  A majority of this body argued in March that our Nation's fiscal 
crisis is so bad we cannot afford to provide a $500 per child tax 
credit to working middle-class American families. How then can we turn 
around and give to law schools enough Federal dollars to provide tax 
relief for up to 30,000 families with children? My colleagues, if the 
choice is between lawyers or families, I will choose families first.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to 
cut the $15 million for the law school clinical experience program. 
This is one legal bill the American taxpayer can no longer afford.
  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, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] without 
knowing it made an argument for this program. He said that yesterday we 
voted $415 million for Legal Services. This is $15 million to 
supplement what was done yesterday.
  Law schools will pay for much more than this $15 million to help 
supplement Legal Services. They serve the same people that the $415 
million serves. It is to help poor people get some legal services.
  I have been to these law schools, including the one at Hamlin in the 
gentleman's area. It is a poverty law center just like the Gillis Long 
Poverty Center at Loyola in Louisiana. I have been down there, too. 
They do great work. Poor people come in. They may have a contract. They 
do not know what it means. Somebody is trying to sell them some health 
insurance. They do not know what it means. They need some place to go. 
They cannot go to a law firm and pay $200 before they will even let 
them sit down in a chair. They need some help. A lot of this has to do 
with contracts for apartments or for their living conditions, or they 
may get a bill that is not even their bill. They need legal help. This 
is for legal help to poor people.
  Mr. Chairman, law schools furnish this, and they pay a lot more money 
than what the Federal Government puts into it. This is a cheap way to 
get an additional supplement to Legal Services. If we were to fund 
Legal Services at the amount that they were funded at back in 1981, 
they would be $800 million now instead of $415 million. We have been 
running behind every year on the amount of legal services for the 
amount of people that can be served with the amount of money that we 
have in the Legal Services Corporation fund.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, these students are the greatest 
recruiting source we have for Legal Services. In Legal Services we only 
pay about $25,000 a year, and they will take 2 years out of their life 
to serve in the Legal Services Corporation and at a fraction of what 
they can make if they go to a Minneapolis law firm or one of those New 
York law firms. But they will take 2 years out of their life because 
they have some experience in this program.
  That is the greatest recruiter that we have. In fact, it is about the 
only recruiter we have. This would be a very bad mistake, and I know 
that some other programs were recommended for deletion by the 
administration, too, because they wanted more money for some of their 
programs, including impact aid and Perkins capital contributions. State 
student incentives grades.

                              {time}  2130

  We did not accept all the cuts that they put in there, and that is no 
excuse for this one. We just should not accept this amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a little time to answer some of 
the questions that my colleagues raised. As the gentleman mentioned, 
this money is to be used to help fund legal services for the poor. But 
as we mentioned earlier, yesterday this body approved a Commerce, 
Justice and State appropriations bill, $415 million, to provide this 
type of legal services. As we noted, this is a $15 million increase 
over last year's budget.
  This money mainly goes to law schools. It does not go to law 
students. it helps to fund clinical services programs to help give them 
extra training. He called it a recruitment tool. Most of this is done 
by third-year law students, who have probably already made up their 
mind as to whether they are going to go into legal services or not. 
Whether this is a recruitment tool or not, I think would be very 
subjective.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Barca].
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, overall I would like to 
congratulate you on a very difficult bill and I think a very sensible 
bill that I intend to vote for. We need some key cutbacks at a time 
when we also add more investments for employment and training and 
vocational education. But this is an area that President Clinton had 
suggested cutting.
  Now, why can he suggest cutting this? Because the Congressional 
Budget Office in their review of this program stated this was meant to 
be a temporary program, not a permanent program.
  Now, the problem that I have is that in this same budget we are 
cutting special education by $188 million, which is a mandate, which is 
a key human need. While the author of this amendment does not agree to 
transfer part of this money to that, which I certainly would prefer, I 
just believe that as a matter of priority, we should follow the CBO, 
follow President Clinton's lead, and I do not believe this is nearly 
the priority that many of the other areas we have cutback are.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point 
out it is not correct to say this is an increase. This is the same 
amount of money that was in last year's bill. The gentleman talks about 
$20,000. That may be so at Harvard, but it is not the private law 
school in Des Moines, IA, which is $12,000, and most State universities 
are $8,000. The gentleman is talking about Harvard, not this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I 
think it is important for us to understand that this program has been 
put into existence by our subcommittee and really provides the 
secretary an opportunity to provide grants to accredited law schools 
for clinical programs in which qualified attorneys provide legal 
services to poor people.
  The gentleman who is the proponent of the amendment has admitted that 
this program is for low income or poor people, but indicates in his 
statement that he feels that they are already being served by the legal 
services programs.
  The fact is that there are still an awful lot of poor people, a lot 
of low income people, who are unable to get services even through the 
legal services programs. So at the same time that law students are 
provided the type of training they ought to be given in a law school, 
and that is to be able to learn how to interview people, how to 
interview clients, how to produce and provide services, while they are 
doing this, they are also providing services to very low income people.
  These clinics also have become a prime source for recruiting 
attorneys who are willing to work for below average salaries for legal 
services field offices. I think this is another point that ought not to 
be lost in terms of this legislation.
  This 1994 funding will provide an estimated 23 grants, serving 
approximately 2,910 students. That is 2,910 students who will be given 
a little better education at the law school by virtue of being provided 
this type of clinical training. I think it makes sense. I hope that we 
will vote down the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this is all based on 
priorities. I think if this is such an important program to the 
students or to the poor who need these services, that the law school 
would build these priorities into their curriculum and fund it through 
their own curriculum, rather than through the Federal Government.
  We, as a Congress, have to set our priorities. We are $4.7 trillion 
in debt. If a law school is carrying any kind of a debt like this, they 
would end up going bankrupt. We cannot afford to fund these types of 
low priorities when we are facing, as the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
[Mr. Barca], said earlier, larger priorities in education that we 
should be addressing.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is suggesting is we 
do not need to fund a program that will produce more lawyers for our 
society. Is that right?
  Mr. GRAMS. They are already going to be there.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I seem to remember when I was young that the legal 
profession actually encouraged their people to volunteer to help the 
less fortunate. Do you think that this $25 million could be perhaps 
made up by having bar associations, which are, after all, one of the 
richest elements in the communities throughout the United States of 
America, focus a little bit more on community service, rather than 
putting money in their pockets for doing what they should be doing 
voluntarily?
  Mr. GRAMS. I should mention this money goes directly to the schools 
and not to the students providing the services. It is like a class 
exercise, a clinical service. If this is such an important priority of 
the classes that these students need, the college should work this into 
their curriculum and not look to the Federal Government to spend money 
on this type of priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would encourage the gentleman from Minneapolis, if I may have his 
attention, the gentleman obviously has not been to one of the three law 
schools in Minneapolis that have this program or he would not say some 
of the things he said. Those three law schools, all of them, I have 
been to Hamline, I have not been to the other two, they put in more 
money than the Federal Government is putting in. This is just an 
encouragement to them. It pays part of the salary of the person to run 
the law school clinic. They have to also have attorneys to help, they 
have to supervise those students, they have to have a place for them to 
do it. So this is furnishing legal services for the poor.
  Now, I have heard all of the same arguments about Legal Services 
Corporation. I heard them for 10 years. Some people are just against 
legal services for the poor, period. That is it. If you are against 
legal services, you should have moved to cut $15 million yesterday out 
of the Legal Services Corporation. If you cut $15 million out of that, 
it would not have affected as many people as this will.
  A lot of these people being served by the law schools that I am 
talking about are seeking to establish their right to Social Security. 
Lots of them are. They get ready to retire, they have been minimum 
income people, they find our two or three employers did not turn in the 
reports that they should have. They have got to have help.
  Social Security does not do that for them. Members of Congress do not 
either. They refer them to Legal Services Corporation to help them. 
This is to help poor people.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, just for the moment, sir, when you referred 
to the poor, I as a third year law student was part of the clinical 
program that received these kinds of funds. That program, though, sir, 
was not going out to service the poor, it was going to serve criminals 
who are in Westville Institution of Corrections.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. You are absolutely wrong. This is not permitted 
under this program. You cannot do criminal legal work because the 
Constitution already provides for that. So we do not permit this money 
to be used for that purpose. If they did that, it is because the law 
school had a separate fund. You are surely wrong about that. This is 
only for those people who could be served or are eligible to be served 
by the Legal Services Corporation.

                              {time}  2140

  That is the only people that can be served out of this money.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  2157

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred thirteen Members have answered to their 
name, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
  The Chair would indicate that on the proceedings to follow, each vote 
shall be restricted to 5 minutes, and their Chair will try to hold 
Members to that 5 minutes.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 232, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               AYES--194

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     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
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Carr
     Chapman
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Hilliard
     Michel
     Moran
     Pombo
     Ridge
     Schumer
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2204

  Mr. BALLENGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  An amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]; an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker]; and an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote.


                     amendment offered by mr. mica

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ``noes'' 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:


                   bilingual and immigrant education

       Page 45, line 21, strike ``$247,572,000'' and insert 
     ``272,572,000,'' and, line 22, strike ``$50,000,000' and 
     insert ``$75,000,000.''


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 35, 
noes 393, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                                AYES--35

     Baker (CA)
     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Calvert
     Canady
     de la Garza
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hutto
     Johnson (CT)
     Kim
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     McCollum
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schenk
     Shaw
     Stearns
     Thurman

                               NOES--393

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chapman
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Hilliard
     Michel
     Pombo
     Ridge
     Schumer
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2213

  Ms. DUNN, and Messrs, GREENWOOD, DICKEY, and LINDER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PASTOR, GUTIERREZ, AND BECERRA changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. BAKER of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Baker] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``noes'' prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baker of California:
       On page 52, line 19, strike ``$114,996,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$115,996,000''.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Baker] has demanded 
a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 319, 
noes 109, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               AYES--319

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--109

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fazio
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Obey
     Olver
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Swift
     Synar
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Chapman
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Hilliard
     Michel
     Pombo
     Ridge
     Schumer
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  2220

  Messrs. BAESLER, NADLER, and UNDERWOOD, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. 
HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. STUDDS, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. 
ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2220


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Crane

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for a recorded vote on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ``noes'' prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crane:
       Page 56, line 11, strike ``$20,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$292,640,000''.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane], has demanded a 
recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 42, 
noes 384, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                                AYES--42

     Archer
     Armey
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Canady
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Kingston
     Laughlin
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     Paxon
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stump
     Walker
     Zimmer

                               NOES--384

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Chapman
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Hilliard
     Michel
     Owens
     Pombo
     Ridge
     Schumer
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten

                              {time}  2227

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the section that has 
just been read?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 49, line 8 after ``title VI'', insert; including Part 
     C,''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen the amendment, and I have no objection to 
it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section?


                    amendment offered by mr. hefley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 56, line 11, strike $20,100,000 and insert 
     ``$21,100,000''.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I am willing to accept the 
amendment and take it to conference.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase the recission 
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1 million.
  This is roughly what the Pacifica Radio Network receives yearly.
  Taxpayer-subsidized Pacifica has shown a consistent pattern of hate-
programming that I don't believe any member can justify paying for with 
our tax dollars.
  Some will say I only cite quotes from a single program as evidence of 
Pacifica's hate-programming.
  I wish the hate-programming that this network spews was confined to a 
single broadcast which occurred 2 years ago. It's not.
  New programs that are just as divisive and racist have taken the 
place of past programs. Here are some quotes from a January 5, 1994 
broadcast of ``Family Tree'':

       * * * organized Jewry has targeted the Black population. 
     Black progress seems to be one of its major sort of targets. 
     (Jewry) seems bent on trying to thwart Black progress.

  Here's another:

       The Jew was an integral part of the whole apparatus of 
     slavery. (Jews) had a higher per capita slave ownership than 
     other white people in this country.
       * * * All two or three hundred million Africans who died in 
     slave trade died because Jewish * * * scholars invented the 
     Hamidic myth.

  From a May 25, 1994 broadcast of ``Freedom Now'':

       Christianity was used as a justification to enslave 
     Africans . . . , giving birth to racist regimes all over the 
     world.

  How can anyone who hears this say that hate-programming is no longer 
a part of Pacifica's broadcasts?
  Next, opponents of this amendment will assert that the Pacifica 
station apologized for hateful comments made by Dr. Leonard Jeffries to 
a caller during a broadcast.
  What about an apology for comments about how real Jews are black and 
that white Jews are ``hypocrites'' for claiming to be Jewish?
  How about an apology for the statement: ``The white man is Satan 
himself.''
  How about an apology for calls on Pacifica where the caller said, 
``The Jews haven't seen anything yet. What is going to happen to them 
is going to make what Hitler did seem like a party.''
  How about an apology for the statement that a recent measles epidemic 
was a ``genocidal plot'' by whites against the black community?
  My question remains: Why are we subsidizing Pacifica to broadcast 
this stuff?
  A member of CPB's own board, Victor Gold, regularly monitors Pacifica 
nationwide and calls Pacifica's hate-programming consistent and 
persistent. These ongoing broadcasts prove it.
  Regarding the commentaries by convicted cop-killer Abu-Jamal, 
National Public Radio itself pulled the commentaries at the last minute 
from their broadcast.
  According to NPR managing editor Bruce Drake, NPR had serious 
misgivings about the appropriateness of the commentaries, citing that 
because National Public Radio had not provided for ``contrasting points 
of view'' as required by the 1992 authorization, the commentaries were 
pulled.
  If the commentaries are unfit for NPR, why are they appropriate for 
taxpayer-subsidized Pacifica radio network?


                               Conclusion

  It is a fact that the Pacifica network, which receives Federal funds 
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, has broadcast hate-
programming in the past.
  It is a fact that Pacifica is still broadcasting hate-programming.
  Pacifica will continue this programming whether taxpayers help pay 
for it or not.
  CPB Board Member Mr. Gold wonders why the Federal Government is 
subsidizing Pacifica's sustained campaign of hate-programming. I wonder 
too.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it 
     by the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
     180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     and for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management 
     Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses 
     necessary for the Service to carry out the functions vested 
     in it by the Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 
     U.S.C. chapter 71), $31,078,000.

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,200,000.

        National Commission on Libraries and Information Science


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the National Commission on 
     Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of 
     July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended by Public Law 
     102-95), $901,000.

                     National Council on Disability


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Council on 
     Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973, as amended, $1,643,000.

                     National Labor Relations Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations 
     Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
     Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
     167), and other laws, $173,388,000: Provided, That no part of 
     this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist 
     in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection 
     with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders 
     concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers 
     as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29 
     U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the 
     Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said 
     definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation 
     of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained 
     or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 per 
     centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for 
     farming purposes.

                        National Mediation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including 
     emergency boards appointed by the President, $8,119,000.

            Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $7,595,000.

                  Physician Payment Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 1845(a) of the 
     Social Security Act, $4,176,000 to be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund.

               Prospective Payment Assessment Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out section 1886(e) of the 
     Social Security Act, $4,667,000 to be transferred to this 
     appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

                       Railroad Retirement Board


                     dual benefits payments account

       For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account, 
     authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act 
     of 1974, $261,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming 
     available in fiscal year 1995 pursuant to section 
     224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount, 
     not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall 
     be available proportional to the amount by which the product 
     of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds 
     $261,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein 
     shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the 
     first day of each month in the fiscal year.


          federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts

       For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for 
     the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for 
     interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $300,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1996, which shall be the 
     maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417 
     of Public Law 98-76.


                      limitation on administration

       For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board, 
     $73,881,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement 
     accounts: Provided, That $200,000 of the foregoing amount 
     shall be available only to the extent necessary to process 
     workloads not anticipated in the budget estimates and after 
     maximum absorption of the costs of such workloads within the 
     remainder of the existing limitation has been achieved.


   limitation on railroad unemployment insurance administration fund

       For further expenses necessary for the Railroad Retirement 
     Board, for administration of the Railroad Unemployment 
     Insurance Act, not less than $17,031,000 shall be apportioned 
     for fiscal year 1995 from moneys credited to the railroad 
     unemployment insurance administration fund.


                  special management improvement fund

       To effect management improvements, including the reduction 
     of backlogs, accuracy of taxation accounting, and debt 
     collection, $1,640,000, to be derived from the railroad 
     retirement accounts and railroad unemployment insurance 
     account: Provided, That these funds shall supplement, not 
     supplant, existing resources devoted to such operations and 
     improvements.


             limitation on the office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized 
     by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more 
     than $6,682,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement 
     accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account.

                    United States Institute of Peace


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of 
     Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace 
     Act, $10,912,000.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be used to provide a loan, guarantee of a loan, a 
     grant, the salary of or any remuneration whatever to any 
     individual applying for admission, attending, employed by, 
     teaching at, or doing research at an institution of higher 
     education who has engaged in conduct on or after August 1, 
     1969, which involves the use of (or the assistance to 
     others in the use of) force or the threat of force or the 
     seizure of property under the control of an institution of 
     higher education, to require or prevent the availability 
     of certain curricula, or to prevent the faculty, 
     administrative officials, or students in such institution 
     from engaging in their duties or pursuing their studies at 
     such institution.
       Sec. 502. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended 
     balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and 
     for the same periods of time, for which they were originally 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 503. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 504. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized 
     executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or 
     propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or 
     use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, 
     television, or film presentation designed to support or 
     defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in 
     presentation to the Congress itself.
       (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, 
     related to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 505. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are each 
     authorized to make available not to exceed $15,000 from funds 
     available for salaries and expenses under titles I and III, 
     respectively, for official reception and representation 
     expenses; the Director of the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service is authorized to make available for 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $2,500 from the funds available for ``Salaries and expenses, 
     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service''; and the 
     Chairman of the National Mediation Board is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds available for 
     ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation Board''.
       Sec. 506. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles for the 
     hypodermic injection of any illegal drug unless the Surgeon 
     General of the United States determines that such programs 
     are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not 
     encourage the use of illegal drugs, except that such funds 
     may be used for such purposes in furtherance of 
     demonstrations or studies authorized in the ADAMHA 
     Reorganization Act (Public Law 102-321).
       Sec. 507. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
       Sec. 508. When issuing statements, press releases, requests 
     for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part 
     with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds, 
     including but not limited to State and local governments and 
     recipients of Federal research grants, shall clearly state 
     (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or 
     project which will be financed with Federal money, (2) the 
     dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program, 
     and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of 
     the project or program that will be financed by 
     nongovernmental sources.
       Sec. 509. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made 
     known to the Federal entity or official to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary 
     to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the 
     result of an act of rape or incest.
       Sec. 510. No funds appropriated herein shall be used to 
     implement any regulation promulgated under section 481(b)(6) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, prior to 
     July 1, 1995.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be obligated in violation of 
     existing Federal law or regulation already prohibiting such 
     benefit or assistance.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 65, line 16, 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 to this section of the 
bill?
  The Chair hears none.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  2230

  Accordingly, the Committee rose and the Speaker pro tempore [Mrs. 
Unsoeld] 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 Departments 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.

                          ____________________