[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENT 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 pro tempore (Mr. Darden). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1034


                     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 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 on Tuesday, June 
28, 1994, the bill had been read through page 65, line 16, and open for 
amendment from page 57, line 1 through page 65, line 16.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 28, all debate on 
the bill and amendments thereto will close in 1 hour.
  Are there any further amendments?


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 64, strike lines 9 
     through 14 and insert the following:
       Sec. 507. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance, 
     or entering into any contract with, any entity using funds 
     made available in this Act, the head of each Federal agency, 
     to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such 
     entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection 
     (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is the Buy American amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, all the 
gentleman is doing is restating the provisions the gentleman already 
has in the bill but in the same manner that it is in other bills. If 
that is the case, I have no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the ranking member on the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. 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.


                    amendment offered by ms. waters

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters: Page 65, delete Section 
     510 (lines 9-12).

  Ms WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would delete a delay in the 
so-called 85-15 rule, which is designed to keep abusive proprietary 
schools from wasting scarce Federal student loan dollars.
  There has been a lot of misinformation about the 85-15 rule. Many 
people claim that quality schools will close if we comply with the 
Department of Education timetable for implementing 85-15. This is 
false.
  Since 85-15 became law nearly 2 years ago, both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations have held extensive public comment periods--to solicit 
the views of those affected--and to prepare schools for implementation. 
Thus, all schools will have had nearly 2 years to be sure that 15 
percent of their revenues came from non-Federal student aid sources.
  Let me underscore this point. There has been extensive discussion on 
scoring funding for participating schools, however, the fundamental 
point of the 85-15 rule remains the same--no school which relies on 
title IV student loans for more than 85 percent of its revenue should 
continue to qualify for loans.
  There has been some discussion that private contracting funds would 
not be counted toward a school's 15-percent revenue requirement. This 
is also false. Any funds from a private business which enrolls students 
in the regular training program of any school counts toward the 
school's 15 percent.

  Mr. Chairman--people ask why cannot we just delay this for 1 year. 
First of all, we cannot afford delay. The New York Times has documented 
that up to one-fifth of the $20 billion in Federal student loan funds 
is hemorrhaging from the system each year because of abuse and fraud. 
The 85-15 rule would root out much of this abuse.
  The delay proposed in this bill is the latest attempt to thwart 
reform. The fact is, the special interests representing bad proprietary 
institutions have always opposed the 85-15 rule. They have fought this 
rule every step of the way. The lobbying campaign to delay the 85-15 
rule is merely a continuation of the misleading and heavy-handed 
tactics employed to stop our efforts.
  The 85-15 has been used for 40 years to stop abuse of veterans under 
the GI bill. If it is good enough to protect veterans, why is 85-15 not 
good enough to stop scam artists from preying on low-income 
individuals?
  There is a scandal brewing in America today. It is the scandal of 
unscrupulous private, post-secondary schools enlisting poor people into 
their schools, with no intention of training or educating them--filling 
out their student loan forms--and leaving the students with no 
education and no ability to pay back their loans. Students default on 
their loans--setting up a vicious cycle for the students.

                              {time}  1040

  Once a student defaults on a loan, they disqualify for public housing 
assistance, their future wages are garnisheed, their credit rating is 
shot, they cannot get earned income tax credit.
  This system abuses poor people and costs the Federal Government 
billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, schools are being sued around the United States for 
these abusive practices. Schools are robbing the Federal Treasury and 
saddling unsuspecting students with debt. Schools are preying on low-
income and minority individuals.
  My amendment is supported by those who see firsthand the abuse in our 
communities. The Waters-Roukema amendment is supported by the National 
Consumer Law Center, by Consumers' Union, and the National Association 
of Consumer Agency Administrators. In addition, the amendment is 
supported by the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, 
as well as the New York Times.
  Delay will do nothing to stop the abuse. If we delay now, it will be 
longer than a year before the Education Department can implement the 
85-15 rule. The language in this bill now prohibits the use of any 
funds to implement 85-15 before July 1, 1995.
  We beat them on the rulemaking, and they came back into the Committee 
on Appropriations at the last minute. Anybody should suspect those who 
come at the last minute to try and thwart the efforts of a rule that 
has been worked on, that has been made such as this one.
  That means the Department will not be able to collect the data which 
will be used to determine the applicability of 85-15 until July of next 
year. Final implementation will be some period of time after that.
  We cannot continue to wait, Mr. Chairman. We have waited long enough. 
The 85-15 rule was passed in 1992. If we delay now, the soonest 
implementation will be 4 years after the date it was passed.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Waters amendment to keep 85-15 in 
law.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, and I 
would like to point out, to start out, that the education of many 
people in this country, hundreds of thousands of them, hangs in the 
balance with the vote we are about to cast. They are counting on us to 
cast a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  With the overwhelming support of the full Committee on Appropriations 
last week, I attached this provision that the gentlewoman from 
California is now attempting to strike.
  First of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Smith], for working with me on this issue. I offered this 
amendment in subcommittee and full committee, and he has shown nothing 
but fairness each step of the way in the legislative process.
  During the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, this 
floor amendment was adopted without any prior authorization, no 
hearings were held at all on this issue, which requires at least 15 
percent of the trade school's revenue to come from sources other than 
title IV funds. I agree with this concept, because its intent was good, 
but the effect it is now having on the students and schools is bad.
  This final regulation is much more restrictive than it was originally 
anticipated.
  On the national level it is estimated that about 50 to 60 percent of 
the proprietary institutions serving over 800,000 students annually 
will have a real hard time in meeting or will not be able to meet this 
new definition. These are students that I would classify as your 
nontraditional students. They fall somewhere in between the high school 
graduate and the person who can afford to go to college, people who are 
trying to learn a special trade or skill in a private trade school that 
are oftentimes single parents, from low-income neighborhoods, that are 
just trying to advance themselves in the work force.
  I do not think there has ever been an issue this controversial this 
year that has received such bipartisan support. I have a letter signed 
and dated June 9 from the Hispanic Caucus signed by every member of the 
caucus to Secretary Riley that supports postponing this rule. I have a 
letter dated June 10 from 20 Committee on Education and Labor members 
to Chairman Smith requesting Chairman Smith's help in delaying 
implementation of the rule as well. Another letter is dated June 13 
from the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], to the 
chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], saying because of the 
potential for serious dislocation in these communities, the Committee 
on Appropriations may be presented with this proposal to delay, and 
such an approach would provide the community time to prepare for 
enforcement and allow for a more rational implementation of this 
regulation. I also have a letter dated June 16 from 103 Members of 
Congress, including the chairman of the Black Caucus, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], to Secretary Riley that supports this delay.
  Finally, I have a letter dated June 17 from 20 members of the 
Committee on Education and Labor to the chairman, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], requesting their assistance in this matter; 20 of 
28 Democrats, 10 of 15 Republicans on the committee. I would say that 
that is strong bipartisan support.
  Whatever the merits of 85-15, the process of bringing in the 
regulation is what is at issue, retroactivity and the definitions for 
revenue.
  The Department of Education has had over 21 months to develop 
definitions of revenue and other relevant pieces to implement the 85-15 
section. During that period, several of the factors chosen by the 
Department to determine compliance have changed several times. This is 
not a simple equation.

  And remember, the Congress at the subcommittee level or full 
committee level has never had a hearing on this amendment and how it 
would affect the schools and students that would be affected by this 
rule.
  If you go back and look at the debate on the House floor, it takes up 
less than one page of the Congressional Record, including the printing 
of the amendment. I just do not think that anyone could have 
anticipated ramifications of this provision.
  The education community was given the minimum statutory time of 30 
days to respond to the notice of proposed rulemaking. The final 
regulation was only published this spring in late April, and becomes 
effective this Friday. The regulation has a lookback component, a 
perspective, which requires postsecondary institutions covered under 
the rule to meet the regulation for their last fiscal year completed 
after October of 1993. That is retroactive. That is something the 
schools and students could not have anticipated.
  Not only has the Department allowed no time to comply with the 
regulations, the Department has used definitions of revenue which 
ignore its own assumptions in the refund regulation which assumes the 
first dollar into an institution is a private dollar.
  Another thing we must consider is if many of these students are 
forced out of school, their loans under this rule will be forgiven. We 
in turn are going to have to pick up and cover those loans to the tune 
of over $1.3 billion, and we all know that we cannot afford that.
  I am asking Members--I am appealing to their compassion and concern 
for the students who would be affected by this vote today--to vote 
``no'' on this amendment. People out there that have a dream that they 
are pursuing, many times holding down a job at night with a young 
child, are working--had to pursue that dream.
  Vote ``no'' today to preserve that American dream.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, I want to say I commend the gentlewoman from California 
for pursuing this issue. It is an important issue to take on, and there 
is a lot of merit in it.
  As a matter of fact, when we took it up in subcommittee, I thought at 
first that I was going to be wholeheartedly on her side. I do not care 
if it is 20 percent or it is 10 percent, any school that is getting 
this money that is not training somebody for a job is one school too 
many.
  We need the money for those schools that are training people for 
jobs.
  However, by the time we got to the full committee, 22 of the 24 
members of the authorizing committee said, ``Give us this amendment and 
delay this new rule so we can have an opportunity to work on this some 
more.''
  The regulations had just come out, and they wanted to change them. 
And so we worked with the authorizing committees, and so at that point 
the full committee went along with the authorizing committee, and we 
put this amendment in the bill, because we cooperate with the 
authorizing committees.
  I want to make it clear, however, that I think that there is no 
excuse for coming on the floor again next year with the same kind of an 
amendment. One year ought to be plenty of time to work this out. Some 
way or another you have got to get rid of those schools that are 
getting money that are not training kids for jobs.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. I think it is important to clarify something that was 
just said, not by you, Mr. Chairman, but by the gentleman from Texas, 
who indicated that he had a letter from Secretary Riley, and I do not 
know if he left the impression that that was a letter of support. The 
Department of Education does not take any position.
  As a matter of fact, their letter indicates, ``With respect to the 
regulations we promulgated on April 29, 1994, to implement the 85-15 
rule,'' they say, ``we believe these regulations are fair and 
reasonable and that they faithfully carry out the law.'' So the 
Department of Education has no position, and the Secretary does not 
support eliminating the 85-15 rule.
  I wanted to make that clear.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Anyway, under all the circumstances, I support the 
provision that is in the bill that does delay the implementation of 
this rule so we can work with the authorizing committee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  It is difficult for me to do so, because I support the 85-15 concept; 
85-15 was designed to eliminate the Federal student aid mills, which 
are robbing taxpayers and shortchanging students. But here is what has 
happened: The Department has taken almost 2 years to issue its 
regulations.

                              {time}  1050

  There has been great anticipation of them. They finally issued them 
on April 29. They defined revenue in those regulations in a very 
unexpected way, and then applied that regulation retroactively. Many 
good schools will be kicked out of the title IV student aid programs as 
a result. For instance, schools which provide offsite training to 
employees of large businesses will not be able to include these 
programs in their base revenue unless the training that they provide 
offsite is exactly the same as the training they provide at the school. 
That would effectively prohibit trade schools from customizing offsite 
training programs to employer needs. That does not, to me, make any 
sense that these revenues would be excluded.
  In addition, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, we have $30 million in the 
bill for State Postsecondary Review Programs [SPREE], and that is 
designed to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and define schools that 
are not providing real training to people which ought to be excluded 
from the title IV program.
  So, Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances, I think that the 
provision in the bill that Mr. Bonilla offered as an amendment in the 
full committee that would delay implementation of 85-15 is reasonable. 
I therefore urge the Members to reject the Waters amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mr. Chairman, let me put this in perspective for a moment and tell 
you what we are talking about. We are talking about young people coming 
out of high schools desperate to find a job, who walk into one of these 
trade schools and sign a contract to be trained to become a 
cosmetologist, a beautician, a computer operator, you name, it, and as 
a result of signing that contract, they are also in the process of 
applying for Federal assistance. We are talking about scholarships paid 
for by Federal taxpayers for these schools. Do you know what they 
charge some of these kids? $8,000 to $12,000 a year--$8,000 to $12,000. 
And these young people get enrolled in courses and find out they are 
not worth much at all. They may finish them and find out there is no 
job at the end of it. And what is left? You are left with a student who 
has a financial obligation, no job, and the taxpayers holding the bag. 
That is what this is all about.
  And if you think Ms. Waters and Mrs. Roukema are making this up, the 
inspector general for the Office of Education has told us point blank 
that as long as these schools rely on Federal funding, they will kite 
the tuition fees as high as they possibly can and we taxpayers will pay 
for training that does not lead to a job. This is disgraceful.
  That we would lose $4 billion a year that should be invested in good 
education for our young people and instead go to trade schools that are 
ripping them off and ripping us off as taxpayers. The inspector general 
says you can find community colleges in many of these same areas that 
charge a fraction of the cost and give better training.
  But, no, the scam is the trade schools know where the money is. By 
capitalizing all this Federal money, they are exploiting the kids and 
the taxpayers.
  Make no mistake, there are good trade schools, there are good 
business colleges. I am sure you are going to hear about them. But they 
canmot only survive, they are going to prosper because they are 
successful, good institutions. They should be in the front lines 
supporting the Waters amendment to get the people who are ripping off 
the kids and ripping off the taxpayers out of the trade school 
business.
  I want to tell you many people are going to argue that a lot of kids 
from disadvantaged circumstances have no other place to turn but these 
trade schools. Well, I do not agree with that premise. But I do not 
think we are doing a favor to these kids from disadvantaged communities 
to put them in a school, saddle them with an obligation and dash their 
hopes again about any future, because they are going to be ripped off 
by this process.
  Think about it: What we are saying is, if you are running a trade 
school and more than 85 percent of your funds are coming from this one 
program, frankly we are going to cut you off. We are not saying that 
they cannot have funds coming in from other Federal programs or other 
State programs, but that if they are just relying on this student 
assistance program we think they are taking advantage of the kids and 
taking advantage of the taxpayers.
  I think that this is a critically important amendment. You will hear 
debate through this week, next week, and beyond about saving the 
taxpayers money. We are talking about $4 billion in waste, fraud and 
abuse.
  Support the Waters-Roukema amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak rapidly because to 
get all this said in 5 minutes will be difficult. But I think we need 
the facts now. We have a lot of rhetoric going on here. We have a lot 
of talk about what took place in years past, but nothing about the 
leadership that we have had with Chairman Ford to do something about 
this issue.
  So I am going to try to very quickly point this out.
  The committee was positively correct in delaying for a year the 
implementation of this recently published regulation, published on 
April 29, 1994, as a matter of fact.
  The 85-15 rule was adopted on the House floor. I amended the 
gentlewoman's amendment in order to do that as part of the 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992.
  The rule simply requires proprietary institutions to have at least 15 
percent of its revenues from sources that are not derived from funds 
provided under this title.
  Although this sounds very simple, if you follow the regulatory 
process you know that it is anything but simple. After months of 
negotiations, and drafts and redrafts of the regulations, the final 
regulations were published on April 29, 1994, with a July 1, 1994 
effective date. Unfortunately, the Department of Education's 
application of the effective date has created serious problems for the 
many quality proprietary institutions across the country. These 
regulations with the stated effective date of July 1, 1994, are being 
applied by the Department to the period beginning July 1, 1993, to June 
30, 1994. Some people say that is not retroactive; I do not know how 
you read it any other way. If retroactivity means extending in scope or 
effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed in the past, then 
regulations effective as of July 1, 1994, applied to a period of time 
prior to that date are clearly retroactive.
  Some have said that the proprietary institutions have known for a 
long time what the regulatory requirements would be with respect to 85-
15. That is not true at all.
  As recently as a brief period between proposed regulations and final 
regulations, February 10, 1994, to April 29, 1994, these particular 
regulations underwent significant change and for my colleagues who 
believe the calculation is a simple one I want to point out that it 
took 11 paragraphs of small print in the Federal Register to explain 
what goes into the numerator versus the denominator for purposes of 
performing the 85-15 calculation. That cannot be simple.
  Here is one example of the problem schools are facing: Schools which 
provide training to a business at the location of the business and not 
the school cannot count income from training programs as revenue for 
purposes of 85-15. This provision has seriously impacted schools which 
provide such training and thought the revenue counted toward the 15 
percent of non-Federal revenue. Considering that the statute does not 
define revenue at all, schools should not be accused of being 
unreasonable for not being prepared to deduct income earned from 
educational training programs from the revenue calculations. Who would 
have thought that income from educational training programs offered to 
businesses would not be counted as revenue merely because of where the 
training occurred?
  Another problem I have with the effective date of the 85-15 
regulation is the potentially devastating impact on the schools and the 
students we are all talking about. By September 30, 1994, schools must 
inform the department of their compliance with the 85-15 rule. If a 
school is not in compliance, the school is liable for all title IV 
funds disbursed to its students since July 1, 1994, and it loses its 
eligibility for the title IV programs. If the school is forced to 
close, students will be 3 months into their programs and they will be 
without a school to attend.
  Does that make sense if you are trying to help students? If the 
school is unable to repay the funds, the Government will be out the 
funds since the students will not be responsible for these funds. Why 
do we want to create such a situation when it could be easily avoided?
  Let me point out things that have been done: I would be standing here 
with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] if we were talking 
about 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, but we are talking about 1994. We are not 
talking about past history. Yes, we set up a program just as we did in 
many other programs where we threw out too much money without much 
control, and we were taken advantage of.

                              {time}  1100

  But, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the Chairman realized this, and we 
have been working on it. In 1986, for instance, the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 made three major changes to 
get at this issue. In 1986 the Higher Education Act Amendments made 
four major changes to get at this issue. In the Higher Education Act we 
also came up with three more ways to prevent this from happening. 
Delayed disbursement was one of those things that took place. The 
fortunate thing about the delayed disbursement is that we have 
eliminated 700 schools by doing this, and the people who are out in 
front are the proprietary schools, who are good schools, helping us to 
do that. We passed all sorts of things.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Ford of Michigan and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Goodling was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GOODLING. In 1989 we passed legislation in the Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act requiring students to 
have a high school diploma or equivalency certificate to be eligible 
for title IV aid. In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989, Mr. 
Chairman, we passed one, two, three, four, five, six, six measures, to 
get at this problem so that we could save the proprietary schools that 
are good schools that we need, positively need, if we are going to be 
competitive in this world.
  In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Mr. Chairman, again we 
passed four more things that would require these schools to be good 
schools and would not allow the schools to take advantage of students. 
In the Higher Education Act of 1992, we will not know exactly how much 
more improvement we have brought about by those amendments, because we 
disburse money, and then they go through the training, and we see what 
is going to happen. But again we passed three, six, seven, eight more 
specific things to make sure that we are getting the best proprietary 
schools.
  Let me just tell my colleagues what happened already. Between 1989 
and 1992 there has been a 20-percent decrease in the number of 
proprietary schools. Why? Because of the things we passed to make sure 
that the bad ones were pushed out, and, as I said, 700 have already 
gone by the wayside.
  In 1989, Mr. Chairman, proprietary school students accounted for 32.7 
percent of Stafford loans and 64.5 percent of SLS loans. By 1992 they 
dropped to 17.6 percent of Stafford and 27.7 of SLS respectively, 
almost a two-thirds drop in the loans going to these schools. In 1989, 
the loans to proprietary school students accounted for 27 percent of 
the total dollar value of Stafford loans, and 59 percent of SLS loans. 
In 1992, they only accounted for 13 percent of Stafford loans. We have 
gone from 27 percent already down to 13 percent and from 59 percent to 
23 percent in relationship to SLS loans.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues can see what is happening. Everything 
that our committee did in order to bring about a change in this whole 
operation so that students do not suffer and the taxpayers do not 
suffer is working. The number of proprietary school borrowers of SLS 
loans have been declining each year since 1989 when the number of 
borrowers was at a high of 415,000. It is now down to 158,000. The 
comparable dollars borrowed was $1.2 billion in 1989. We are now down 
to $500 million in this particular year. The number of proprietary 
school borrowers of Stafford loans has also been declining each year 
since 1989 when the number of borrowers were 960,000, and now we are 
down to 546,000. The comparable dollars borrowed are $2.6 billion, down 
to $1.5 billion.
  Everything that has been put into effect is working to save the 
students, to give them the best education and to make very, very sure 
that taxpayers are not caught holding the bag.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to also take a moment, and in the same manner that the chairman of 
this committee has complimented her for bringing this matter to our 
attention, stressing the fact that this is a very serious matter, I 
want to concur in that respect.
  However, Mr. Chairman, at this time I support the committee and the 
amendment which we adopted in the full committee which was sponsored by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. I think it is important for the 
House to understand that at the subcommittee level and the full 
committee level we had extensive dialog and debate on this issue. When 
we left the full committee, when we left the subcommittee, we did so 
with the understanding that in the interim period between the 
subcommittee meeting and the full committee meeting that I would 
consult with members of the Committee on Education and Labor, and in 
particular the chairman of that committee, with reference to how they 
felt about this particular amendment. In talking with the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford] and also the ranking majority member, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], Mr. Chairman, both of them were 
emphatic in the fact that they supported the delay of the 
implementation of this regulation as was being supported and sponsored 
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  One of the most persuasive issues or points that came to fore was the 
fact that we had in our possession at the full committee level a letter 
from the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford]. I would like to refer to 
that letter because I think the committee was strongly persuaded in its 
action at the full committee level in adopting the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] by this language in Chairman 
Ford's letter. He said to us:

       On its face the 8515 rule is well intentioned and a 
     seemingly simple attempt to ensure that proprietary school 
     programs are sound enough to attract students who are willing 
     to expend their own resources, as well as those of the 
     Federal Government. However the authors of the amendment 
     could not have foreseen the level of complexity surrounding 
     this issue, which is due to a number of variable factors such 
     as student demographics and income levels, local economies 
     and particular institutional programs. Because of this 
     complexity, the 8515 rule appears likely to force the closure 
     of schools that have successfully trained and placed large 
     percentages of their enrollees and may eliminate vital job 
     training resources from low income communities. These issues 
     only now are being brought to light because of the absence of 
     any hearings on the issue before the rule was adopted.

  He then went on to say that we are now faced with serious questions 
as to the prudence of enforcing the 8515 rule on the basis of fiscal 
year 1993 as the Department of Education proposes.
  I think that the letter of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] was 
very persuasive in terms of our committee wanting to follow the 
dictates of the authorizing committee. All the amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] does is to delay for 1 year the 
implementation of this rule. It provides an opportunity in the interim 
period for the authorizing committees to look into this very 
complicated and very serious matter. There is no question but that at 
the time that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] imposed this 
amendment, that there was a serious problem. There are good proprietary 
schools, and there are bad ones. All of us have seen them in our 
congressional districts. But that is not the point here. The point here 
today is the simple matter of delaying for 1 year the implementation of 
this regulation imposed by the Department of Education.
  I think that the amendment we have adopted in the full Appropriations 
Committee is a good amendment. I think that the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] is thoughtful, it is incisive, 
it makes sense, and I support that amendment. I would urge the defeat 
of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I have been an educator since 1969. I have 
seen this growing scandal since that time as president of a university 
and as the chairman of a national association of 373 universities. 
Congress made a fundamental mistake when it permitted a group of 
schools to access Federal student loan funds that might have many 
qualified schools, but also has many unqualified schools in their 
midst, and that is the proprietary schools of the country.
  There is no doubt that some proprietary schools do fine training. 
Many of their students do learn something and secure a job. That is not 
the question. The question here is postponing for 1 more year a 
sensible regulation that requires these schools to have at least 15 
percent of their revenue from other than Federal loan funds. Those who 
want to continue procrastination in this area will stand accused of 
billions of dollars in defaulted loans being added to the national 
debt. When students learn nothing and cannot get a job to repay the 
loan, they default.
  Now, if there is something wrong with the regulation, do not postpone 
it for a year. Support the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] amendment and rewrite it 
in the conference with the Senate. But we need action. We do not need 
more procrastination.
  In my humble opinion as an educator who has watched with great upset 
this trend, those who vote against the amendment are simply adding to 
the national deficit, and we should regard that as gross 
irresponsibility.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred to his 
career before Congress. He and I became friends long before I met him 
here on the floor of the House.
  I have been the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor 
since 1977, and the gentleman called upon me numerous times as a very 
effective lobbyist for the type of institution he was employed by.
  Now he is here and he is talking about another type of institution. 
Never did I ever hear from the gentleman any concern about the mistakes 
we were making. Just ``We need more money.''
  There are institutions like yours, sir, that will be caught by these 
silly regulations, if they are permitted to go forward in the form they 
are in now. It is not just proprietary schools.
  Just 3 weeks ago the House voted overwhelmingly to delay the impact 
of this on historically black colleges because we realized the majority 
of them would have been adversely impacted and they had no opportunity 
to prepare for it. We delayed that for 2 years.
  This is not a 2-year delay. This is a delay until the end of this 
appropriations year. You will notice before this debate is over, the 
overwhelming majority of the members of the committee that writes this 
legislation and who wrote all of the integrity provisions that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] referred to, believed that 
what we did is working.
  We have no problem with 85-15 if it was intelligently applied. But 
the way these regulations would apply it makes absolutely no sense. As 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] said, if you need 11 
pages of fine print to explain the components of the denominator in 
trying to come up with a formula for what is 85 and what is 15, there 
is something wrong, because everybody who rushed to judgment out here 
and voted for the gentlewoman's amendment thought they understood what 
85-15 was.
  You have got to get at least 15 percent of your money from some 
source other than the Federal Government. Not so by the regulation. 
That is the problem. Not so by the regulation. And that is why the 
Department of Education is working with us to go back to the drawing 
board. We will put 85-15 in effect before I leave here, but we will put 
it in effect in a sensible way, so it does not throw the baby out with 
the bath water.
  Mr. Chairman, in preparation for the 1992 reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, the Education and Labor Committee 
reviewed and debated virtually every aspect of the act with the 
objective of improving the quality and integrity of Federal higher 
education programs. As a result, the committee reported out a bill that 
recommended substantial increases in the level of scrutiny over these 
programs and rigorous fiscal integrity provisions to protect American 
taxpayer dollars. The Higher Education Act reauthorization adopted by 
the 102d Congress includes new programs that are now enabling the 
Department of Education to eliminate the problem schools and weed out 
the unscrupulous actors who have sought to gain at the expense of 
American taxpayers and students.
  During the floor debate of the 1992 reauthorization, this body also 
adopted an amendment now known as the 85-15 rule, which states that 
proprietary institutions with more than 85 percent of their revenues 
from title IV of the Higher Education Act are ineligible for title IV 
funds. The 85-15 rule is a well-intentioned and seemingly simple 
attempt to ensure that proprietary schools are sound enough to attract 
students willing to spend their own funds to attend. However, the rule 
is not simple, and, despite its good intentions, will not have the 
desired effect of eliminating inferior institutions while retaining 
only those that are sound and worthy of Federal support.
  Because the 85-15 rule was offered on the floor, the authorizing 
committee had no opportunity to review its effects or implications. Had 
the issue been properly raised before the Education and Labor 
Committee's consideration of the Higher Education Act reauthorization, 
the committee would have summoned witnesses and consulted the 
Department of Education, which would have allowed it to assess the 
impact of the 85-15 rule. The committee would then have advised the 
Congress as to how this rule would affect schools in Members' 
districts, described the characteristics and relative successes of the 
schools likely to be affected by this rule, and presented the Congress 
with an analysis of how this rule would affect the students attending 
these institutions. However, because the amendment was offered on the 
floor, thereby preempting the Education and Labor Committee's analysis 
and review, the Congress did not have the benefit of all the 
information relevant to the effects of the 85-15 rule.

  Some of that information is now becoming available, and early reports 
indicate that serious problems may result from the Education 
Department's proposed imminent implementation of this rule. For 
example, it appears as if all of the proprietary schools in Puerto Rico 
will be closed. Many schools in economically distressed areas that are 
now training hard-to-serve populations and placing them in steady jobs 
with good futures will be closed. Other schools with unacceptably low 
placement rates will be completely unaffected by this rule. On the 
other hand, some schools that are presently providing highly valued 
services to companies on a contractual basis will be closed since those 
contracts are to be excluded from the Department's calculation of 
revenues. Since the authorizing committee did not have a chance to 
build a record on this issue among others, the Department of Education 
had little guidance as to whether to include these funds in the 
definition of revenues.
  There are other problematic issues relating to the enforcement of 
this rule. For example, schools that become ineligible in the coming 
year will be required to return all title IV, HEA funds expended after 
July 1. But because a school will begin awarding Federal aid to 
students before they can be certain as to the percentage of non-Federal 
funds, some of those schools will not know whether they are in 
compliance until they have spent the Federal money. Schools will be 
forced to make high-stakes wagers on whether they will qualify, since 
decisions will have to be made after Federal aid has been spent on 
their programs.
  A reasonable delay of the enforcement of this rule will give schools 
an opportunity to prepare and make appropriate changes in their 
programs to comply with the rule. This does not mean that bad schools 
get a reprieve from meeting Federal standards. The 1992 reauthorization 
is now eliminating institutions that do not meet Federal fiscal 
integrity standards and will continue to do so as many of the 
regulations implemented pursuant to the 1992 reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act take effect. However, a delay, such as that 
recommended by the Appropriations Committee, may be a prudent way to 
avoid closing good schools and would prevent the unnecessary disruption 
and dislocation in the communities these institutions serve.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, 
who has a very good memory, will recall that I importuned him, as I did 
the 1970 White House Conference on Youth, that we should be collecting 
student loans through our income tax system. I regret that Congress has 
not acted earlier on that proposal.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. But the gentleman acknowledges we have acted.
  Mr. HORN. I acknowledge you acted. We acted a decade after we should 
have.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. We finally have an administration that is 
willing to use the Treasury Department to collect the loans.
  Mr. HORN. As I recall the Reagan administration arranged for the loan 
payments of those who had defaulted to be collected against any refund 
due to the individual from the Internal Revenue Service. Since 1970, I 
have advocated that all individual loans owed to the Federal Government 
be collected by IRS based on an ability to pay. By the way, not one 
institution of the American Association of State Colleges and 
Universities would fail to qualify under the 85-15 rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I include as part of my remarks, the relevant concerns 
on this subject expressed by the American Association of State Colleges 
and Universities [AASCU].

   AASCU Resolution of 1975: Proposed Legislation and Regulations on 
                             Accreditation

       Whereas, the U.S. Office of Education is considering 
     legislation and regulations which (1) would broaden the 
     language of the Educational Amendment of 1972 to make private 
     and proprietary postsecondary vocational institutions 
     eligible for student assistance funds by way of State 
     approval and (2) revise existing regulations to require that 
     accrediting agencies agree to provide monitoring services in 
     areas other than the academic quality of postsecondary 
     institutions; and
       Whereas, the proposed legislation raises the specter of 
     repetition of the poor performance of some state level 
     agencies with the G.I. Bill in the post World War II era; and
       Whereas, AASCU believes that education and the public 
     interest are best served when the determination of 
     eligibility for Federal funding involves the appropriate and 
     mutually reinforcing role of Federal government, state 
     government, and voluntary, non-government accreditation and 
     when the role of voluntary, non-governmental accreditation is 
     properly recognized as being that of evaluating and promoting 
     educational quality;* * *

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I note in particular the reference to some of 
the awards made during the Second World War. Congress changed the 
ground rules for GI bill awards made to Korean veterans.

AASCU Resolution of 1979: IV. Public Funds for Private and Proprietary 
                              Institutions

       Today, over 40 states provide some form of aid to the 
     private sector. State student aid (sometimes limited to 
     ``independent'' colleges) is most common, but an increasing 
     number of states also have institutional aid, on a per 
     student or per degree awarded basis. Some now have ``tuition 
     offset'' or ``tuition equalization'' programs which are 
     intended to reduce tuition to make it possible for more 
     students to attend private colleges, and some also include 
     proprietary school students in their state student aid 
     programs.
       AASCU believes the state's first priority should be to 
     insure the quality of public higher education. While we 
     strongly support the American concept of pluralism in higher 
     education, we stand by the position that no state aid to the 
     private or proprietary sector should be at the expense of 
     public college students, either in terms of reduced 
     appropriations for the public sector or increased tuition and 
     student charges at the state colleges and universities.

                     AASCU Resolution of 1994-1995

       Support radical legislative and regulatory remedies to the 
     morass of fraud, waste and abuse the besets student aid 
     especially in the for-profit sector.

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, the National Consumer Law Center, Inc. has 
made an excellent statement answering the most common arguments against 
the 85-15 rule. I ask that the statement be included at this point in 
my remarks.

                            National Consumer Law Center Inc.,

                                                   Washington, DC.

      Answers to the Most Common Arguments Against the 85-15 Rule

       Will most trade schools, including both good and bad 
     schools, be forced to close if the 85-15 regulation becomes 
     effective July 1, 1994?
       No! Most good trade school are able to attract non-Title IV 
     revenue. The biggest impact of 85-15 will be on shoddy Title 
     IV mills which exclusively solicit low-income students 
     eligible for the maximum federal loans and Pell grants. If 
     the school provides meaningful training for decent paying 
     jobs for which there are openings, students will spread the 
     word, and others will enroll, and pay or have their families 
     pay toward their tuition.
       Trade schools say that minorities and poor people will be 
     hurt by the Department of Education's 85-15 regulation. Is 
     that so?
       No. To the contrary, the 85-15 Rule will help poor and 
     minority students by protecting them from shoddy programs at 
     schools set up primarily to receive federal Title IV aid. It 
     will shield them from the consequences of loan default which 
     will most certainly follow from inadequate education or 
     training including: being barred from future educational 
     opportunities (which require grants or loans); having their 
     Earned Income Tax Credits or income tax refunds seized to 
     satisfy defaulted loans; being unable to get a car loan, 
     mortgage, or subsidized housing due to a bad credit report.
       Schools say that the 85-15 regulation operates 
     retroactively. Is that so?
       Absolutely not. The effective date of the law was October 
     1, 1992. It has not yet been implemented. Under the 
     Department's regulation, no revenue from before October 2, 
     1992 would be counted. The trade schools also argue that the 
     definition of revenue adopted in the final rule is different 
     from the proposed rule in that the final rule only allows 
     counting of revenue generated by Title IV-eligible programs. 
     But most schools have only Title IV-eligible programs so 
     counting only that revenue would be the same whether one 
     applied the proposed or final regulation. Consequently, the 
     Title IV revenue limitation would have no effect on most 
     schools.
       What's the harm of a one year delay in the 85-15 
     regulation?
       Scarce Title IV dollars will be lost to unscrupulous 
     schools and low-income students will be harmed. They will 
     have incurred loan liability for inadequate training and 
     suffer the many adverse consequences of loan default.
       Is the 85/15 regulation beyond the statutory authority?
       No. The regulation closely tracks the statute and 
     reasonably defines the formula by which compliance with the 
     rule is determined.
       Weren't trade schools part of the process that negotiated 
     the regulations with the Department?
       Yes. The industry participated in an extensive negotiating 
     process to develop the regulations, along with colleges and 
     student and consumer groups, from January through September 
     1993.
       Trade schools claim that the 85/15 regulation prevents them 
     from counting as part of their total revenue funds obtained 
     through training contracts with companies to train their 
     employees. Is that so?
       No. The revenue can clearly be counted so long as the 
     school's program is eligible for Title IV aid.
       Is there any precedent for the 85/15 Rule in other federal 
     programs?
       Yes. Training programs funded through the GI Bill for 
     veterans contain a similar 85/15 limitation, also meant to 
     curb abuses perpetrated by trade schools set up primarily to 
     garner federal aid.
       Is cash from students or their families the only way to 
     satisfy the 15% requirement of the 85/15 Rule?
       No. Other forms of state, local and federal government 
     dollars, such as Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) funds, 
     federal Perkins Act funds and state grant monies, may also be 
     used to meet the 15%.
       Is the Department's definition of revenue in the 85/15 
     regulation unfair to trade schools?
       No. The definition is the result of compromise through the 
     negotiated rulemaking process required by Congress. Just as 
     trade schools believe the final regulation is too harsh, 
     consumer advocates believe that it is too loose since it 
     allows schools to count as revenue certain monies from non-
     training activities.

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, the inspector general of the U.S. Department 
of Education, the Honorable James B. Thomas, Jr. has appropriately 
expressed his ``concern about H.R. 4606 * * * which would delay the 
effective date of the 85-15 rule.'' He is correctly concerned about the 
fraud, waste, and abuse which will occur if we do not support the 
Waters-Roukena amendment.

                                      Office of Inspector General,


                                 U.S. Department of Education,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 1994.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and Humanities, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pell: I am writing to express my concern about 
     H.R. 4606, a bill approved this week by the House 
     Appropriations Committee, which would delay the effective 
     date of the ``85/15'' rule. That rule was enacted as part of 
     the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1088, 
     and became law on July 23, 1992. It requires that proprietary 
     trade schools derive at least 15 percent of their revenues 
     from non-Title IV sources. In my view, this is an important 
     anti-fraud, waste and abuse provision that should not be 
     delayed.
       The Office of Inspector General has done extensive work on 
     the student financial assistance programs under Title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act for many years, and we have 
     identified the proprietary trade school section as a major 
     contributor to the fraud, waste and abuse in the programs. 
     One such abuse is that such schools set tuition prices that 
     bear little or no relation to the quality of the training, 
     the prospect for employment in the field of the training and 
     the prospect for a salary that will allow students to pay 
     their federally insured loans and support themselves. 
     Instead, our observations reflect that the tuition price is 
     often set based upon the maximum federal student financial 
     assistance that is available, leading in many cases to 
     inflated prices that the federal taxpayer and student are 
     being asked to bear. Our studies have documented instances 
     where community colleges and other public institutions offer 
     training in the same field sufficient to allow students to 
     gain entry-level jobs for a fraction of the price charged by 
     proprietary trade schools.
       Before the 85/15 rule, there was no provision of law to 
     ensure that tuition prices were reasonable. On the contrary, 
     the availability of Title IV money actually interfered with 
     free market forces that would otherwise control prices, 
     because no one was required to pay his own money for the 
     training or find non-Title IV sources (e.g., private, state 
     or other federal program sources). By ensuring that a modest 
     amount of such schools' revenue come from non-Title IV 
     sources, the 85-15 rule will re-introduce a measure of 
     free market control and force prices to reasonable levels 
     relative to the value of the training offered, without 
     direct federal price controls.
       Because I believe this very valuable purpose is served by 
     the 85-15 rule, I am not convinced that it should be delayed 
     based on arguments by the proprietary trade schools that some 
     percentage of such schools will close if the rule takes 
     effect on schedule. First, as I have previously testified 
     before the Senate Appropriations Committee, the acronym ``SFA 
     Programs'' stands for ``Student'' Financial Assistance 
     Programs and not ``School'' Financial Assistance Programs. We 
     must be concerned first and foremost about the students who 
     are victimized by inflated tuition prices for training for 
     generally low-wage jobs, and end up defaulting on their 
     student loans. Second, we have not seen data supporting the 
     statistics for potential school closures cited by the 
     proprietary trade schools. Third, we do not know whether 
     schools that maintain they cannot comply with the 85-15 rule 
     have made any serious efforts to do so in the two years since 
     the law became effective. Finally, based upon this office's 
     extensive experience auditing and investigating proprietary 
     trade schools in the Title IV programs, we believe it is 
     likely that most schools that cannot meet the 15-percent rule 
     have other serious programmatic problems such as high default 
     rates, late refunds and administrative capability problems. I 
     do not believe that ``good'' schools--those providing 
     valuable training for reasonable prices--will fall victim to 
     the 85-15 rule.
       I urge you to reject any attempt to delay or otherwise 
     weaken the 85-15 rule.
           Sincerely,
                                              James B. Thomas, Jr.

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waters 
amendment. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] has done a good job, 
as has the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Does the amendment of the gentlewoman from California have some good 
merit? Yes, it does. Have there been fly-by-night schools? Yes, there 
have been. The committee and other sources have been working diligently 
to eliminate those schools.
  Since 1989, over 20 percent of those fly-by-night schools have been 
closed. Can we do it better? I think even the chairman would agree, 
yes, we can. All we are asking for is to wait until the end of this 
year when the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] retires, to resolve 
the situation. The formula, the means in which to calculate this, is so 
monumental, that we are going to close a lot of good schools.
  I do not have the primary schools in my district. They are down in 
South Bay. But I have been to 11 of those that are performing very, 
very well. What are those schools? A couple of them are beautician 
schools and cosmetology schools. I wanted to tell you, they are very 
effective.
  By law, they are required to spend extra time in service at the 
school for practical application. And who do they help? They help the 
very, very poor, because they practice on someone that cannot afford to 
get a haircut. The gentlewoman would know this. I would invite the 
gentlewoman to come to San Diego, and I would be happy to take her down 
there.
  This amendment is ill-advised. Congress could not have foreseen the 
devastating impact of provisions on students attending private career 
colleges.
  Mr. Chairman, I envision education as if you take a look at the 
number of children who start college, it is a very low percentage. If 
you take a look at the number that finish college, that is a low 
number. If you take a look at those that drop out, that do not finish a 
college education with a skill that they can use in later life, it is a 
much higher percentage than those that finish college. So we need to 
educate and provide basic education for schools. Without some of these 
schools, that will not happen.
  We need schools and trade schools for women. This fills that. There 
is very little of those in existence today. The department regulation 
is applied retroactively and includes language which prohibits 
institutions from counting all viable revenue in the formula itself. It 
is monumental. We are going to close a great majority of our good 
schools. That is going to equate to 1.2 million children that will not 
have vocational education training.
  That is why I oppose the amendment. If the current regulation is 
implemented, over 50 percent of these quality proprietary institutions 
of higher education in the Nation will be forced to close their doors.
  I take a look at what we need to do in education. I feel that the 
vocational education, the training, the things that we need to proceed 
with, are much more important than some of the things we are doing even 
for higher education.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to say that certainly I would 
accept your invitation to come to San Diego to see poverty, but I 
really do not have to go very far. I represent a district that probably 
has a lot more poverty than the area that you are suggesting I visit.
  Does it not strike you as strange that the so-called liberal lady 
from California is up here fighting, fighting to keep resources, as you 
would have described them, out of a district of poor people? I think I 
have a reputation for trying to get everything that I can get for poor 
people. When the liberal lady from California stands up and says no, I 
do not want it in my district, you better know something is wrong with 
it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know the 
gentlewoman fights for poor people, and I support that. But I also see 
other liberals on the committee that are opposing her amendment, and 
for good reason. If the gentlewoman could run a business and see how 
you make it run, and write paychecks to keep it from closing, that is 
what we are talking about here. We are talking about closing businesses 
that provide a valuable education source to many thousands of students.
  I would have the gentlewoman come to my district. It is not 
exclusively poor. But I would also like her to look at the good that 
these schools are doing. I say that sincerely to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Waters amendment. Now, why would I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment? 
We come from similar kinds of backgrounds and districts. I have taught 
school and worked in impoverished communities for 42 years. I have seen 
and served on education committees for the last 14 years. So why would 
I not support the Waters amendment? I wanted to tell you why.
  The issue here is certainly not the 85-15. That is not the issue. If 
you listen to the impassioned remarks, you would feel that that is the 
issue.

                              {time}  1120

  That is not the issue. The issue here is one which the Committee on 
Appropriations had to face. It is one which the subcommittee from the 
Committee on Education and Labor and the entire full committee had to 
face.
  No. 1, there is a problem. There has been one. It is not as much as 
it was, but it is much less, as we heard the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] talk about. So that is not the issue. Do 
not be waivered by what we hear based on emotion.
  No. 1, the fact is 85-15, the concept, is a meritorious concept. What 
we are arguing here today is the delay in this should be held. Why 
should we delay the implementation?
  No. 1, it was suddenly put into effect. It was written and the 
regulations were released on April 29. Now the Department of Education 
and the supporters of this amendment would say to us that it could be 
implemented without confusion, quickly, and it is going to hurt a lot 
of people.
  I come from a district where there are women with small children. 
There are people who need jobs, who have been through a hurricane, who 
have been through four major riots. They have been through all kinds of 
devastating occurrences. But I can stand here and say to Members as an 
educator, we cannot do a quick fix to this problem. We need to go back 
to what the subcommittee or the Committee on Education and Labor has 
already come up with. It is called the Post Secondary Education Review 
Committee. They are the experts in this.
  They are talking to industry throughout this country. We are speaking 
to people who come from neighborhoods like mine and from the 
gentlewoman. I want to help the same people that she does. I want to 
help the same people that the Committee on Education and Labor does. 
Look at this, give it a chance because we understand that most schools, 
like the ones that this amendment will affect, serve individuals who 
need help most in going up the education ladder.
  Historically, these schools earn about 8 percent of their income from 
nonfinancial aid sources. Historically that is the case. But would it 
not make more sense to study these schools, to give the Committee on 
Education and Labor a chance to study these schools' income and 
patterns and compare their schools' performance in areas such as 
graduation and placement rates? All of these schools are not bad. All 
of these schools are not ripping off the students. Those that are left 
may not ever, the community college may not ever accept some of the 
students that go to some of the schools that are doing a good job in 
our neighborhoods.
  So this amendment would be much better, also, the gentlewoman has 
compared it to the GI bill. But it is not just like the GI bill because 
the GI bill had a waiver in it, which would give the administrator a 
chance to waive these requirements of this subsection in whole or part 
if the administrator determines it to be in the interest of the 
eligible student and the Federal Government.
  We are talking about putting all the emphasis on these schools. I 
want Members to think before they vote about these students who are 
also impacted negatively by this quick jump-start movement by the 
Department of Education. Vote against the Waters amendment, because it 
does not give us a chance to study this for the good of all concerned.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I urge support of the Waters-Roukema amendment. As a cosponsor of 
that amendment, I want to say here that our colleague from California, 
[Ms. Waters]. deserves a lot of credit for what she is doing here. She 
does represent poor areas, but she understands that the kids are the 
victims here. They are not getting an education, and they and the 
taxpayers are being saddled with the cost. That is why I rise in proud 
support of our amendment.
  I also like this legislation. I will probably vote for the bill in 
the end. But we are making a very, very serious error on this issue. I 
am astonished that the Committee on Appropriations went along with 
this. I am deeply concerned, as a Republican, about this and the fact 
that taxpayer accountability is going totally out the window. It is a 
giant step backward. In other words, waste, fraud, and abuse are 
winning right here if we do not adopt this amendment.
  We have heard more rhetoric on this floor about eliminating waste, 
fraud, and abuse and being accountable to the taxpayers. If Members 
really mean it, they have to vote for the Waters amendment.
  Now, I would like to separate some of the fact from the fiction that 
has been stated here today. I was one of the Members that fought, even 
before 1992, to get reform legislation into the law. After 2 or 3 years 
of active study on this subject, where everybody knew it was a scandal, 
we finally got it into the Higher Education Act of 1992. So we are 
talking about 2 years when all interested, effected parties knew this 
was coming along. We saw at that time that the default rate had grown 
to close to $4 billion a year. That was an absolute scandal. So we were 
forced to do something about it.
  But now here we are, 2 years later, asking for yet more time. We have 
had 5 years that we have been working on it prior to the reform bill. 
Now they want more time.
  The inspector general's report that was alluded to, and I hope it is 
put into the Record, and I will urge that it should be in the Record, 
because it tells the whole story there.
  Let us understand, for the colleagues that do not know what we are 
talking about, what 85-15 rule is all about. First of all, we are not 
talking about all the vocational schools. We are talking about the 
proprietary schools, and what proprietary schools means is for-profit 
schools. It is not all the for-profit schools. It is only those that 
apply under the 85-15, which means that 85 percent of their funds are 
taxpayer money. So we ought to be keeping a close eye on this.
  The rule change that the gentlewoman offered in the original 
legislation 2 years ago was a very modest change, and it was designed 
to separate the wheat from the chaff; in other words, to separate the 
scam schools from the genuine trade schools; or the diploma mills from 
the real schools that were doing their job; the solid citizens from the 
bad actors. That is all we are talking about here, those bad actors 
that have become diploma mills. They are scam schools and we all know 
it.
  Over the past few years we have seen the evidence, overwhelming 
evidence of the abuses in these schools. And I think we can definitely 
summarize it by saying, these schools that are left--because many, as 
has already been documented, are already out of buisness--but the 
schools that are left are literally on the dole in the purest sense of 
the word. They are on the dole with 85 percent of their funds coming 
from taxpayers. They provide no worthwhile training, that is evident. 
They leave students with little or nothing to show except that they now 
have the bill. No job skills. No education. Only serious debt, and the 
taxpayer is being sent the bill.
  That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about anything 
else.
  Now, the other fiction here is that somehow we are springing 
something on these schools at the last minute. That is not true. They 
have had 2 years to prepare for this. And, indeed, in the past year 
they have been actively involved, invited in by the Department of 
Education to work on the rulemaking. And if they did not do their jobs 
over this past year, then I do not think the taxpayer should be told, 
sorry, folks, you have to wait yet another year so it will be 3 years 
from the time the reform was put in. I think this is a disgrace. I 
think voting against the Waters amendment literally, quite literally 
tells these schools, you can continue on the dole and the taxpayers 
will continue to pick up the bill.
  I am afraid that, I have the feeling here that they are going to use 
this time to escape the reforms that we put into law. They are going to 
find another loophole. I am afraid that is the agenda here, a not so 
hidden an agenda. Vote ``yes.'' Cut the waste, fraud, and abuse. Save 
the taxpayers.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I see no other reason for further delays, but that we 
should demand accountability now. It was well thought out. If they did 
not do their job over the past year during the rulemaking process, they 
that is their problem.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waters 
amendment, not because I want to delay action on rooting out waste and 
fraud in student aid programs, but because I fervently want to get it 
right.
  I commend and I am grateful to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] for all her outstanding work on this issue. We agree that this 
is a critical issue that we have to face head on.
  I was part of those hearings with the Committee on Education and 
Labor where we saw fraudulent schools lure kids off the street and get 
them into these programs, but we cannot condemn all the schools just 
because of the truly, truly fraudulent schools that are not educating. 
We all know that there are groups that are doing the right thing with 
those same numerical numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I want us to get this situation right. It is far from 
clear to me what the impact will be of the 85-15 rule. There are those 
who warn that it will result in the closure of numerous quality job 
training programs, leaving students with nowhere to turn and the 
Federal Government liable for student loan debts. Others believe that 
85-15 is the only way to target schools which exist solely to rip off 
the student aid system.
  The fact is that no one can tell us with reasonable certainty what 
the impact of 85-15 will be. Therefore, that is why I support the delay 
in its implementation so that the Education Department can take a more 
careful look at its effects and make changes in the rules that are 
consistent with the authorizing legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is not another member of this body who feels more 
strongly about the importance of eliminating waste and fraud in student 
aid. In 1992 I worked very closely with the chairman, the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Ford ] and other Members on the Committee on 
Education and Labor on this issue, and sponsored the legislation which 
established a State post-secondary review program, SPREE, the Federal-
State partnership, designed to improve the quality and accountability 
of Federal student aid programs.
  The integrity provisions to which I refer are beginning to work. 
States are putting in place a system where they can look at a whole 
school, not just numbers, but evaluate the whole school and get rid of 
those schools that are not doing a job, that are ripping off the system 
with our taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, 85-15 may not be and is not, until we 
have more specifics, the best way to root out these schools, to get rid 
of those bad programs. That is why we want in place a State integrity 
program to really look at the whole school. That is going to get to 
work by triggers. They are going to make them identify these schools.
  This limited rule, in my judgment, Mr. Chairman is not nearly equal 
to the task of addressing a problem that wastes $4 billion per year.
  My core concern is that the problems caused by 85-15 could undermine 
support for the larger task of establishing a comprehensive system of 
overseeing the use of Federal student aid. If we cannot predict the 
impact of this rule on schools and students, we should take the time to 
find out, to get it right.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Waters amendment, so 
the Education Department and the authorizing committee, as agreed to by 
our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford], and he is 
committed to getting this in place by the end of the year, can get this 
right, so we can truly get rid of those schools that are ripping off 
our kids, ripping off the taxpayers.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be very, very careful with what we 
may think we may be doing today by approving this amendment. The fact 
of the matter is that there is not a single person here in this House 
who does not recognize the fact that there is a serious problem with 
many of these schools. That is why all of us together have gone out to 
try to do something about this problem.
  However, Mr. Speaker, as has been said by so many speakers today, 
this particular problem deals with the fact that this regulation as 
imposed now runs the risk of closing down so many schools that it would 
create a problem throughout this Nation; so many good schools that it 
would create a problem throughout this Nation.
  Before I came to this House, I spent 15\1/2\ years in the New York 
State Assembly, and many of those years were spent as chairman of its 
Education Committee. As chairman of that committee, I spent a lot of 
time going after these schools, and in fact, being involved in closing 
down many of them.
  However, it was never our intent to close down the good schools. It 
was certainly not our intent to create a situation that there may be in 
New York State, in California, in places like Puerto Rico, which 
Members will hear about later, where you would probably close down 
every single school, and students who attend these schools for the most 
part are people who have been failed by the regular school system, 
people who are trying to get a second shot at an education. Please take 
into consideration this kind of information you have heard today when 
Members take this vote.
  I never thought that I would rise on this floor in opposition to 
anything the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] says. Our voting 
records are identical. She is correct, and I stand with her. However, 
the regulations being imposed, based on her genuine desire, are not 
correct and they must be stopped. They must be stopped now.
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  (Mr. FORD of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say very 
briefly, if we look at what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] gave, he gave a pretty complete list of integrity provisions.
  I am surprised to see the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] 
saying that she talked and talked and nobody did anything, because we 
let her introduce a good many of those resolutions, those amendments, 
including on the floor. When I mentioned a little while ago the relief 
we had to give to the historically black colleges, it was to one of the 
gentlewoman's amendments.
  When I referred to the gentlewoman, I meant the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], not the gentlewoman from Los Angeles [Ms. 
Waters]. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] was willingly 
given credit for passing a number of the integrity provisions that we 
worked out.
  When Members see the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] out here on the same side of an 
issue, there has to be a reason. The reason is that we both have 
invested too many years of our lives trying to take care of the 
integrity of these programs, but trying to do it in a sensible way.
  Mr. Chairman, I can assure this House that we have already been 
negotiating with the administration. They took over a job that was 
started by their predecessors. They ran too fast and did a pretty poor 
job with it.
  Do not be fooled by this ``They have had ever since 1992 to get ready 
for it.'' The regulations were only published in late April, to be 
effectively July 1. There has been very little time.
  As soon as we saw, we realized there was a problem, but we have not 
been able to turn it around. If Members give us this delay, we promise 
on our committee that we will work with the department, and if 
necessary, we will bring in a piece of separate legislation, not to 
repeal 85-15, we do not have any objection to 85-15, but to do what 
people thought they were voting for with 85-15, not what the 
regulations would have us do.
  Our quarrel, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] says, is 
not with the 85-15. That fight is over a long time ago. Our quarrel is 
with the regulations that were written to implement 85-15. They go much 
further than I am sure anybody who voted for 85-15 intended.
  I am sure Members thought that if the school got at least 15 percent 
of its money from a source other than the Federal Government, it would 
qualify. Not so. Under the regulations, if they are training students 
for General Motors or IT&T or somebody else, that money does not help 
because it does not come out of the students' pockets. That is crazy.
  The General Motors Institute, which primarily trains people for 
promotion and employment with General Motors, takes students in and it 
is eligible for Title IV programs. That would say that the money that 
they spend on training their own employees and upgrading their 
employees does not count against the Federal contribution. That is not 
what people who voted for 85-15 thought they were voting for.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman to withhold. There 
are only 3 remaining minutes for the entire debate on this bill and on 
this amendment.
  The Chair is going to exercise the Chair's discretion to divide the 
last 3 minutes, since proponents of the amendment do not get 
opportunities under the current rule.
  The gentleman from Minnesota will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes, 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] will be recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes, of the 3 remaining minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from California, who fights as hard to make 
educational opportunities available to deserving students as any member 
of the House. I believe, however, that this amendment may inadvertently 
hurt both disadvantaged students, as well as the schools that serve 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know of the abuses of federal student aid that 
have been committed in the past: some fly-by-night proprietary schools 
which participate in the Pell Grant Program have become Pell mills, 
preying on low-income individuals to enroll them as students, take 
their money, and abandon them before offering sufficient training or 
job placement. However, since the Department of Education began closer 
monitoring of proprietary schools and implementing stiffer regulations 
regarding title IV funds, many of these schools have been forced to 
shut down. I am confident that with the Department's commitment and 
vigilance, we will continue to be able close the doors of schools that 
rip off students.
  The 85-15 rule was one of several legislative means established to 
help curtail the activities of unscrupulous trade schools. Certainly, 
we would agree that no school should draw all of its revenue from title 
IV programs. An unintended side effect of implementing the 85-15 rule 
at this time, however, is that many of those legitimate institutions 
serving lower income students may be irreparably harmed. Although this 
rule was passed with the Higher Education Act reauthorization in 1992, 
it took until late April of this year for the Department to publish 
final regulations for 85-15. It is therefore only fair to allow schools 
time to comply prospectively, rather than force schools to take drastic 
action in the short run to comply with the new regulations.
  The low-income students we are trying to help will likely to be the 
very ones hurt if this rule is applied retroactively. Given that poor 
students are more dependent on student aid than others, schools will be 
forced to make admissions decisions based upon who has the ability to 
pay for tuition. This redlining of poor students and poor communities 
is almost inevitable unless we allow schools additional time to come 
into compliance with this rule.
  Mr. Chairman, over 75 percent of the jobs of the future will require 
some kind of training or education beyond high school; and even those 
with jobs now may need to be retrained, because many districts such as 
mine will face significant job losses if we cannot convert our defense-
based industries to civilian applications. Proprietary schools will 
play a key role in helping to meet these goals. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to keep the best interests of students in mind, and vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I am deeply 
concerned that this amendment will negatively impact the ability of 
many low-income students to pursue a quality education. When the 
Congress passed the Higher Education Act amendments 2 years ago, I 
supported many of the integrity issues to weed-out unscrupulous 
proprietary schools. But the current 85-15 regulation, applied in a 
retroactive manner, is unfair, and unworkable to many of the good 
schools that provide a sound education to it's students.
  Some have suggested that the 85-15 provision is 2 years old, and that 
schools should have adapted to this rule. But let me say that this 
provision went through negotiated rulemaking, which, by definition, is 
a negotiation process. There have been several different drafts of the 
85-15 rule, and the department should not retroactively apply this 
rule. I believe it is fair to give these schools 1 year to meet these 
new requirements, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1140

  Mr. TORRES. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the provisions in H.R. 4606, the 1995 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education appropriations legislation 
which delay the implementation of the 85-15 regulations as they relate 
to proprietary schools.
  This delay is necessary so that the schools affected by these 
regulations will have time to carefully study what is expected of them 
in order that they can implement the regulations in an effective 
manner.
  The amendment requiring that proprietary schools (private career 
schools) receive 15 percent of their income from non-Federal student 
aid sources was enacted in the higher education amendments of 1992.
  In early 1994, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published setting 
forth what could be considered as revenue for the 15 percent. On April 
19, 1994, the final regulations were published. The final regulations 
did not reflect any of the versions of the proposed formulas. 
Therefore, schools have only had since April 29, 1994, to examine how 
to calculate their revenue. The effective date of the regulations is 
July 1, 1994. It is very difficult for schools to meet this deadline 
date of July 1. Schools need time to make the necessary changes in 
their operational procedures in order to comply with these regulations. 
If these schools are forced to comply with this deadline, there will be 
many devastating consequences:
  It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of all proprietary schools 
will fold under the new 85-15 rule as written. Other estimates range 
from 30 to 70 percent. However, using 30 percent, we are talking about 
600,000 students each year with no way to complete their education. The 
social cost of this would be immense. A 1-year delay will help many of 
these schools.

  In Missouri alone it will make 8,000 to 9,000 students ineligible 
overnight. In St. Louis alone almost 3,000 students will become 
ineligible. As applied, it will destroy the private degree programs 
offered by private career schools because a student in the second year 
of an associate or baccalaureate degree will loose his or her 
eligibility and have to drop out of the program. A 1-year delay will 
allow institutions to bring their organization into compliance with the 
Secretary's definition of revenue.
  Let me cite for you some other examples of why this delay is needed 
for some proprietary schools in St. Louis. The Sanford-Brown School in 
St. Louis trains the majority of all 3-year registered nurses in the 
State of Missouri. Their completion rate for students exceeds 85 
percent and their placement rate is over 90 percent--at hospitals such 
as Barnes and Washington University. Most of the students at Sanford-
Brown have chosen not to attend a traditional school for reasons of 
cost, distance from home, and the alternative of successful training 
for a specific occupation.

  The Missouri School for Doctors Assistants, also in St. Louis, is 
another example of a good school serving the community and students who 
would be impacted adversely. In this case, a disproportionate number of 
students are minorities, displaced homemakers, and single parents. Yet 
they complete diploma and associate degree programs at a rate over 80 
percent and are placed in skilled medical jobs at a rate of nearly 100 
percent.
  In regard to another matter pertaining to the 85-15 rule, the 
authorizing committee never fully debated this issue. There is now 
legislation introduced by Representative Patsy Mink which addresses the 
formula and will provide the authorizing committee with an opportunity 
to fully examine this provision.
  If 85-15 is put in place right now, we are telling students they have 
no choice, and we are taking away the most fragile and important part 
of their lives--hope and the fulfillment of their dreams.
  I urge you to support the language contained in the bill addressing 
the delay of the 85-15 rule.
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not opposition to the principle of 
85-15. No one wants to see that abrogated in any way.
  What we are objecting to are the regulations. Here is a school who 
has written to me from Pittsburgh, Sawyer School. What happens in the 
regulations is that there is a definition of revenue which excludes the 
revenue that goes to this school which it has acquired in a joint 
venture with AT&T, the Communications Works of America, and the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers under which some 400 
persons are going to be trained by the Sawyer School. By some quirk of 
the definition they have ruled that the revenues that are to be 
obtained by this contract for retraining of 400 workers for new jobs, 
because the industry is closing down, will not qualify as revenue for 
this particular school.
  So this school that has an outstanding record, acknowledged by the 
fact that it has this contract, is going to be shut down on July 1 
unless this delay is put into effect.
  I urge Members to vote down the Waters amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] is recognized 
for the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, an earlier speaker referenced these for-
profit trade schools as businesses. They are not businesses. They are 
parasites if they cannot obtain at least 15 percent of their funds from 
sources other than title IV student financial aid.
  If we had a farmer that could not obtain at least 15 percent from the 
sale of his product and instead drew more than 85 percent of his income 
from Government subsidies, we would not call him a farmer, we would 
call him a failure. If we had a hospital that could not get at least 15 
percent of their revenue from private pay patients and not strictly 
from Government payments we would wonder about the health of that 
hospital and the quality of its services. If we had law firms that were 
getting no more than 15 percent of all of their income from sources 
other than the Government, we would wonder whether they were ripping 
the Government off. If we had defense contractors that had no other 
line of work except Government contracts and some of them do not, we 
must acknowledge that they are in dire straits. Likewise, we should no 
longer prop up these for-profit trade schools if they rely on Federal 
Government moneys for more than 85 percent of their annual budget.
  We have an inability to get rid of anything around here. It is 
evidenced today by the debate on this amendment as we are now being 
asked to delay the implementation of the 85-15 policy. Just a few weeks 
ago after deciding to downsize the Federal work force by 10 percent, we 
reversed our decision and exempted one of the largest departments from 
that work force reduction. We are now hearing talk about undoing the B-
2 bomber decision of a few years back. We now hear talk about delaying 
the military base closing process. Delaying 85-15 would reverse a 
budget saving decision made as part of the 1992 Higher Education Act. 
Let's stick with that cost-saving decision. These for-profit trade 
schools have had 2 years to get ready. If they are not ready by now, it 
is time to cut them off. We can go a long way toward ending waste, 
fraud and abuse in our student financial aid programs by voting for the 
Waters amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  (Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California's attempt this morning 
is directed toward prohibiting abusive trade schools from continuing to 
receive Federal dollars.
  I agree with the goals of the gentlewoman, but in this situation, the 
new rules of the Department of Education will do more harm than good.
  On April 29 of this year, the Secretary of Education published a 
number of new regulations crafted by the Department which will have a 
negative impact on some good vocational schools.
  The topic of this amendment, 85-15, is just one of many such 
regulations. I rise here this evening to draw Members' attention to 
these regulations, because, together, they pose some very real problems 
for the very people this amendment is attempting to protect: Working 
folks who want to learn a trade and improve their lives.
  Consider the effects of the Secretary's new regulations on the 
trucking industry. I use the example of the trucking industry because I 
have owned a trucking company for over 30 years, and I see firsthand 
the need of quality training schools for the industry.
  In 1987, this Congress determined that all truck drivers were 
required to be commercially licensed. This regulation went into effect 
in 1992 nationally.
  The effect of this legislation has been to sharply reduce the number 
of bad, incompetent drivers on the road, and I do not dispute the 
intent of such licensing. However, there is a tremendous shortage of 
well-qualified, well-trained drivers.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard from many company owners that they have 
more freight than drivers to move it. The industry needs more drivers, 
and it needs more quality vocational schools to train these drivers.
  The 85-15 provision, along with several other regulations promulgated 
on April 29, will devastate these driver training schools. And, in most 
cases, legitimate schools.
  Another example of one such April 29 regulation, a simple definition 
of an academic year.
  The Secretary has newly defined an academic year according to weeks 
of instructional time that are comprised of at least 5 days of 
regularly scheduled instruction.
  This single provision would completely prohibit vocational schools 
that train students on a part-time or weekend basis from serving and 
training many working, tax-paying contributors.
  Consider this definition of academic year as it applies to one very 
legitimate driver training school in my district, a school with a 
placement rate year in and year out of 97 percent, a school where 
students, on average, see their yearly income double after graduation.
  The students that attend this school are not predominantly recent 
high school graduates. They are, on average, 32 years of age, and in 
search of a career to better themselves. The students are heads of 
family whose average income when they enter this school is $250 per 
week. These prospective students support a family on $13,000 each year, 
a number well below the defined poverty line for a family. In order to 
continue to earn this meager income and support their families, these 
students must continue to work, in most cases full-time, while they 
attend the training school on weekends.
  Consider now that the school must implement the Secretary's new 
definition of academic year to the school curriculum. The result is 
that the school must discontinue its program of weekend-only classes or 
4-days-a-week part-time classes in order to be in compliance with the 
Secretary's new regulation. The student is forced with a choice: Do I 
continue school and quit my job--which means the student is no longer 
earning an income and he will be in greater need of financial 
assistance from the Federal Government--or do I quit training for a 
better career so that I can feed my family?
  A very difficult question, Mr. Chairman, and meanwhile the economy is 
in need of more well-trained drivers.
  The Secretary of Education has promulgated many regulations that will 
challenge the continued existence of many legitimate vocational 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has gone too far. He was given a charge 
to deal with those schools that prey on its students, but in fact these 
new regulations will prey on the students.
  Oppose the Waters amendment. Not only should this rule be postponed 
but others should also be postponed.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
both the Waters and Gordon amendments. Although both these amendments 
seek to eliminate the abuse of Federal funds by ineffective or 
fraudulent career schools, they would also severely harm upstanding 
trade schools which are providing valuable opportunities for people to 
acquire skills necessary to make them productive members of the 
American economy.
  The overwhelming bipartisan opposition of Education and Labor members 
to the Waters amendment demonstrates the severe negative impact this 
amendment would have. The Waters amendment will force 50 percent of the 
quality proprietary institutions of higher education to close. Mr. 
Chairman, the Appropriations Committee has corrected a potentially 
devastating error by the Federal Government. Passing the Waters 
amendment and allowing this error to proceed would be one of the most 
tragic actions this body would take.
  This amendment is offered on the presumption that we would be letting 
schools off the hook in complying with the 85-15 regulation. This 
presumption is totally incorrect. Instead, we are taking action to 
correct a retroactive injustice. I was one of 103 Members to write 
Secretary Riley to stress in the strongest terms that this was not our 
intent when we passed the higher education amendments of 1992.
  To make these regulations retroactive is simply unfair. The 
Appropriations Committee's one year postponement of this regulation 
gives career schools the ability to make a good faith effort to comply 
with the law and re-establishes Congress' original intent.
  We heard the frustration of the American people in passing a 
retroactive tax in the President's tax bill last August. The action by 
the Appropriations Committee on this issue ensures we do not make 
similar mistake, but instead provides ample notification of new 
Government regulations. I applaud the action of the Appropriations 
Committee, and the efforts of Chairman Ford, Congressman Bill Goodling 
and the other members of the Education and Labor Committee in 
addressing this issue.
  Regarding the Gordon amendment, I want to commend the efforts of my 
colleague, Mr. Gordon, to pass legislation that would eradicate abuses 
of our education grant and loan programs. He is to be commended for his 
efforts. I am concerned, however, with the criteria Mr. Gordon is using 
for loan and grant eligibility. By using the student loan default rate 
to determine loan status, schools are at the mercy of the financial 
standing of their students. I believe it is ill-conceived to use this 
standard. This standard creates a disincentive for a school to serve 
low-income individuals. We are penalizing those most in need. Instead I 
believe we must move in the direction advocated by Congressman Rob 
Andrews. His legislation would base a school's eligibility for student 
loan and grant assistance on the school's effectiveness in placing 
students in jobs related to their educational training. This proposal 
would properly reflect the effectiveness of a career school.
  In addition, I am concerned that this amendment restricts the choices 
of low-income individuals. If a student receives a Pell Grant, they 
should be able to attend any accredited school.
  Again, I believe the intention of Mr. Gordon is admirable, but we 
need to pursue this goal by using a different approach. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Waters and Gordon amendments, and 
support the Education Quality Index Act introduced by Congressman Rob 
Andrews.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to urge his 
colleagues to oppose the Waters amendment. The Waters amendment would 
delete the provision contained in this appropriations bill that delays 
the implementation of the 85-15 rule until July 1, 1995. As you know, 
the Department of Education recently issued regulations to implement 
the 1992 Higher Education Act. The 85-15 regulations were set to go 
into effect on July 1, 1994, and therefore would apply to the previous 
year's revenues. It is patently unfair to expect proprietary 
institutions to comply with an extremely complex formula that is 
applied retroactively.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an excellent proprietary institution in the 
First Congressional District of Nebraska, the Lincoln School of 
Commerce. The school has been in existence for 110 years, has a 92-
percent placement rate for graduates, and has had a default rate of 18 
percent. This year, the college's default rate is expected to decrease 
to 14 percent. As one example, in order to prepare for the 
implementation of the 85-15 rule, the college decided to give students 
who purchased their books with cash a 10-percent discount. This move 
was made in order to provide an incentive for students to use cash and 
not their student loans to pay for books, thereby decreasing the 
percentage of funds coming into the institution from the Federal 
Government. The college implemented this program last fall. However, 
under the formula issued by the Department of Education on April 29, 
books are not considered part of the education program. So even though 
the Lincoln School of Commerce tried to comply in advance with these 
regulations, their efforts were in vain. Right now, they are within the 
85-15 percentage division, but they are right on the edge.
  Of course, the original intent of this provision in the 1992 Higher 
Education Act was to regulate those proprietary institutions that were 
abusing their students and the student loan system. Lincoln School of 
Commerce, for example, is clearly not one of those schools. In fact, 
generally, proprietary institutions in Nebraska are doing an excellent 
job and a majority of these schools will be adversely impacted by the 
retroactive application of these rules.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to defeat the Waters 
amendment.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Waters 
amendment.
  I believe that the 85-15 rule, while perhaps well-intentioned, is a 
bad approach. In an effort to try and weed out bad schools, it says 
that if a proprietary school has more than 85 percent of its revenues 
from Federal student aid, that school loses its eligibility for student 
aid.
  So, for the sole reason of having a great majority of students who 
are eligible for Federal student aid and who make use of that student 
aid, a school would lose its eligibility for Federal student aid and be 
forced to close its doors.
  In some low-income areas, students will lose their only avenue for 
the job training they need to find good jobs. These same areas are the 
ones that have high utilization of Federal student aid and schools 
located in these areas will be judged as bad schools simply because of 
their location.
  The 85-15 rule doesn't look at anything else: It doesn't consider 
student loan default rates, it doesn't take into account the job 
placement rates of these schools, it simply says if you have 85 percent 
of your revenue from Federal student loans, you close and your students 
are out in the street.
  I say to my colleagues: Please pick your own cliche to describe the 
85-15 rule--throwing the baby out with the bath water, biting off your 
nose to spite your face, burning down the house to fix the leak.
  I think the 85-15 rule is just plain wrong. I think there are better 
ways to judge the quality of a school.
  To make the 85-15 rule worse: It's retroactive. Schools will be 
judged on the just completed school year. They won't have any time to 
adjust their revenue or their mix of students. So on July 1, 30 to 75 
percent of all career schools in the United States will be forced to 
close. That includes at least 12 in Pennsylvania, leaving 2,600 
students in the lurch.
  When those schools close, we are looking at a budgetary mess. 
Students will either default on their loans or need their loans 
forgiven, State tuition recovery funds will be depleted, dislocated 
workers will lose their training opportunities and end up relying more 
on unemployment or worse, welfare. Faculty and staff of the schools 
will be unemployed and in the same boat.
  Finally, I believe the 85-15 rule is inconsistent with the goals of 
the school-to-work act, which this Congress has already approved, and 
the Reemployment Act, which the House has yet to consider. Those goals 
are training and educating students and workers in the skills they will 
need to obtain jobs in today's workplace.
  The 85-15 rule could close many proprietary schools, some of the very 
same institutions that we will need to provide training under school-
to-work and the Reemployment Act. High school graduates and dislocated 
workers will lose a prime source of job training.
  The Appropriations Committee has not voted to repeal the 85-15 rule. 
What the committee has done is to delay the implementation of the 85-15 
rule for 1 year. That year will give these schools a fair chance to 
come into compliance.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Waters amendment and 
support the Appropriations Committee so students and workers can 
continue to get the job training they need.
  The following schools in Pennsylvania will be forced to close on July 
1 because of the 85-15 Institutional Eligibility Rule developed by 
USDE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Percent       
                 School                     No.   ----------------------
                                         students  Completion  Placement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Career Training...............       300         70         90 
Delaware County Inst. of Training......       140         81         72 
South Hills Business School............       330         85         93 
Gateway Tech...........................       150         70         80 
Pittsburgh Beauty Academy: Charlerol,                                   
 Greensburg, New Kensington, and                                        
 Pittsburgh............................       600         72        100 
PA Business Institute..................       700         80         95 
York Tech. Institute...................       130         80         75 
Craft Institute........................       272         68         56 
Randy Rick Beauty Academy..............        85         74         90 
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................     2,622                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment to eliminate the provision of this bill which prohibits the 
use of funds to implement the so-called 85-15 rule prior to July 1, 
1995, and urge our colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  The provision in the bill merely seeks to delay the implementation of 
these regulations for 1 year. Without such a delay, the regulations 
will be applied retroactively and will undoubtedly force many 
institutions to close.
  At a time when many of this administration's initiatives center on 
meaningful employment--school-to-work, the Reemployment Act, and 
welfare reform--this seems particularly short-sighted since such 
postsecondary career schools will be the most useful in helping us 
reach our employment goals. In simple fairness, a year's postponement 
would give these institutions an opportunity to comply with these very 
complex regulations.
  In my congressional district of Puerto Rico, the impact of the 85-15 
rule will be nothing short of catastrophic. There are 65 proprietary 
institutions with 60 branches for a total of 125 proprietary 
educational units dispersed around the island. These institutions serve 
more than 40 municipalities, most of which depend on them exclusively 
for vocational and technical education and training. Under the final 
85-15 regulations, it is anticipated that almost all--not 4 or 5 
schools, not half of them--but almost all of these institutions in 
Puerto Rico will be forced to close on July 1.
  These institutions serve 75,000 students who will not have any other 
alternative to further their education in order to find employment. 
Unlike the mainland, there is no community college system in Puerto 
Rico with the capacity to absorb and serve these students. Total 
Federal financial aid received is almost 90 percent. Thus, it will be 
impossible for the Puerto Rican career schools to meet the 85-15 rule 
in the year which began on July 1, 1993, and ends on June 30, 1994.
  The proprietary sector in Puerto Rico currently employees around 
5,000 people and the payroll is estimated at $71 million. In addition, 
this sector is a solid contributor to the island's economy, paying 
about $3 million in income taxes. Therefore, the forced closing of 
these institutions would have a substantial impact on the chronic 
unemployment situation and already difficult economic conditions in 
Puerto Rico.
  Despite a limited number of abuses in a few institutions which, of 
course, should be firmly dealt with, postsecondary proprietary 
institutions play a vital role in this Nation's higher education 
system. I urge you to defeat this amendment and thus allow proprietary 
schools sufficient time to comply with the regulations and at the same 
time ensure that our students have the opportunity to pursue their 
educational and employment goals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 365, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                                AYES--63

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Costello
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Lambert
     Lipinski
     Long
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Matsui
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Poshard
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Schenk
     Stark
     Synar
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Zimmer

                               NOES--365

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentley
     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
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cantwell
     Chapman
     Hilliard
     Lancaster
     Machtley
     Pombo
     Sarpalius
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Smith (MI)
     Valentine

                              {time}  1204

  Messrs. ARMEY, ACKERMAN, GILCHREST, SHAYS, BOEHLERT, BARLOW, and 
ARCHER, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, and Mr. DICKEY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BEILENSON, GONZALEZ, BACHUS of Alabama, STARK, TORRICELLI, 
ANDREWS of Maine, and SYNAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to, and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Oberstar) 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 directed him to 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-
called Porter amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment?
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
Santorum amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, we are about to embark on a series of votes, 
and I am trying to find out, for the convenience of the membership, 
whether it would be the intention of the Chair to compress them to 5-
minute votes after the initial 15.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a recorded vote is ordered, there would 
be a 15-minute vote. It is the Chair's intention to have a 15-minute 
vote on the first amendment and a 5-minute vote on the subsequent 
amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. All subsequent votes, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There have been only two requested.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all subsequent 
votes be also 5-minute votes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are only two.
  Mr. McDADE. There are only two?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only two.
  Mr. McDADE. Should any occur, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that further votes will be 5-minutes votes, including a recommital----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot rule on the gentleman's 
unanimous-consent request because only two have been requested.
  Mr. McDADE. I am simply asking that we put any record votes that 
might be requested that might be ordered after----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman understand there could be 
a motion to recommit?
  Mr. McDADE. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. And that it may be debatable, and there 
would be a 15-minute vote on it.
  Mr. McDADE. If it is not debatable, will it be a 5-minute vote, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has said that there will be a 15-
minute vote on any first vote requested, a 5-minute vote on a second 
vote, if ordered on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole. 
And then there would be intervening business. Should there be a motion 
to recommit, on that there would be a 15-minute vote.
  And then if on final passage a recorded vote is ordered following a 
recorded vote on recommittal, the Chair would direct a 5-minute vote on 
it.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request and 
rely on the discretion of the Chair.

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, in deference to what I believe to be the 
intentions of the gentleman who spoke earlier, this gentleman would not 
be averse to having both votes placed at 5 minutes each and have the 
Chair make further determinations beyond that one.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will inform the gentleman from 
Maryland that the first vote must be a 15-minute vote.
  Mr. MFUME. Does not a unanimous-consent request, if adopted, 
supersede that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not entertain such a request. 
It would not be fair to Members who have left the Chamber in 
anticipation of the first vote being a 15-minute vote.
  Mr. MFUME. Further continuing with my inquiry, Mr. Speaker, the Chair 
may not want to entertain it; however, the Chair must entertain a 
unanimous-consent request, and it must be ruled out of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair need not recognize a Member making 
a unanimous-consent request of that nature.
  Mr. MFUME. Then we are operating under new rules, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has proposed a 
parliamentary inquiry. The Chair has in the past denied recognition for 
such a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. PORTER. In what order will the two amendments be voted on?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] first, since they come first in 
the bill, followed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the first amendments 
on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises Members that if a recorded 
vote is ordered on the second amendments, it will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211, 
noes 217, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               AYES--211

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

                               NOES--217

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Chapman
     Machtley
     Pombo
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Valentine

                              {time}  1231

  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 
for 1 minute, to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] for purposes of clarification, which may in 
fact make unnecessary a recorded vote on the Santorum amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, yesterday while in the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union with the bill under consideration that 
we had brought to the floor today, there was an amendment passed by 
voice that was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Santorum].
  I have asked for a separate vote on that, but will be prepared to 
withdraw that if, for purposes of clarification in a brief colloquy, I 
could get some basic understanding with respect to the intent of the 
gentleman and the intent and, indeed, the purpose of the amendment. As 
you know, it was a transferring of $32 million in the administrative 
account at the Social Security Administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I will make just one point, and then will gladly yield 
to the distinguished maker of the amendment.
  Since 1983, the number of Social Security employees has dropped 
approximately 20 percent, while workloads in recent years have grown 70 
percent. Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
overall productivity at the Social Security Administration has 
increased by 18 percent over the last 5 years. What we have are good 
people who are doing a good job.
  I wanted to make sure it was not the intent of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania in this amendment, which was adopted by voice, to preclude 
in any way the ability of that agency to reward low-level employees, or 
others, with small bonuses based on the merit of their work, given the 
increased workload that they have been forced to labor under.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not preclude the 
Social Security Administration from issuing bonuses. This amendment is 
directed at the last round of bonuses, which were the highest amount 
ever given by the Social Security Administration, $32 million, a lot of 
them given to the high paid executives in outrageous figures, shortly 
after they came to this Congress and asked for $200 million to clear up 
the backlog in the disability area. They took $32 million of it and 
gave it out in bonuses.
  We are taking administrative money and putting it back in the 
disability account to clear up that backlog. It does not preclude 
future bonuses for low level employees.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman I share the 
outrage of any employee getting the type of bonuses reported in the 
paper, over $9,000, while hurting good, hard-working people whom may 
get a $70 or $100 bonus.
  May I ask the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Smith, if that is your 
understanding also, that the Social Security Administration is not 
prohibited as a result of this amendment from doing what they have done 
to reward hard-working employees who are faced with an overwhelming 
workload?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentleman that the 
amendment does not in any way change any rules or laws at the Social 
Security Administration. What it did was take out of the $5 billion 
administrative account, $32 million, and move it over to where they are 
processing disability claims, where it is badly needed, and that is all 
that it does. It does nothing else whatever. It makes no change in the 
rules on bonuses.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I thank the maker 
of the amendment, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum].
  Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied with the explanation by the maker of the 
amendment and the chairman of the committee that my concerns have been 
met.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the remaining 
amendments on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


                 limitation on administrative expenses

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1240


              motion to recommit offered by mr. lightfoot

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oberstar). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. In its present form, yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lightfoot moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4606, back 
     to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report back the same to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendments:
       On page 8, line 4, strike ``$30,411,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$30,097,500'';
       On page 8, line 8, strike ``$66,388,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$65,174,000'';
       On page 9, line 9, strike ``$242,860,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$240,325,000'';
       On page 13, line 6, strike ``$312,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$304,643,000'';
       On page 15, line 19, strike ``$197,519,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$196,063,000'';
       On page 16, line 23, strike ``$296,761,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$293,931,000'';
       On page 17, line 1, strike ``$54,102,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$53,014,000'';
       On page 17, line 9, strike ``$156,002,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$149,730,000'';
       On page 20, line 17, strike ``$3,008,225,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$3,064,725,000'';
       On page 40, line 3, strike ``$4,408,775,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$4,405,732,000'';
       On page 52, line 26, strike ``$359,358,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$352,683,000'';
       On page 53, line 4, strike ``$58,325,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$57,447,500''.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was objection.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House, with the help of 53 
courageous Democrats, passed the first down payment on meaningful 
health care access and coverage for hundreds of thousands of people in 
urban and rural areas throughout the country. It voted $100 million for 
community health centers, $26 million for rural health outreach 
programs and grants and reduced the Government bureaucracy.
  With the strong arm of the leadership of this body and of the 
President, his Cabinet, a number of Members turned their backs on their 
conscience. The House voted to reject an amendment that only passed 
yesterday evening just a few moments ago.
  It became all too clear that there are those who want health care 
reform today and those that would prefer to wait and to have it only 
their way or none at all.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is quite simple. It asks the House 
to begin real health care reform that this House began yesterday but 
was stymied. The motion to recommit cuts the original $100 million to 
$50 million. It goes to community health centers. And the $26 million 
for rural health outreach grants is down to $13 million. We hope that 
this will make it palatable enough to those who switch their vote to 
come back and vote for real health care. This recommittal begins health 
care reform right now. Again, we waited 2 years for action on the 
national initiative. Still congressional committees are struggling with 
the reform strategies. Only two out of the five committees have cleared 
reform bills as of today. Another, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, is hopelessly deadlocked, Mr. Speaker.
  This motion will bring health care to an additional 424,000 Americans 
and support an additional 63 new community health centers. In other 
words, it will provide access to health care for the first time to 
nearly a half a million people.
  We can bring health care to these people today, not next year but we 
can do it today. We can start it right now. We do not have to wait for 
the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and Education 
and Labor. We do not have to wait for the President, the First Lady to 
decide what their bottom line finally is going to be. We can act today, 
as we did yesterday.
  I ask my colleagues to vote their conscience, as they did yesterday. 
Do they want to help people or do they want to help bureaucrats? It is 
that simple.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying. 
This is the same kind of vote where what we are doing is cutting money 
out of the bureaucracies in order to give it to community health care 
centers. But in the case of the gentleman's motion, it is about half 
the cost that we had in yesterday's motion. In other words, instead of 
$100 million, he is going to $50 million so that means that there is 
only $50 million in cuts in bureaucracy that is involved in the 
gentleman's motion; is that correct?
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
correct.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
will have the same effect. It will allow us to get some community 
health care center help that we do not now have.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, that is also correct. I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  Again, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it boils down to voting for 
what we know is right. We can vote for health care today. We can do it 
now, and we can go forth out of here, I think, in a bipartisan effort 
showing people that we are interested in the health care issue and 
interested in results that we all can live with, that we are more 
interested in people, in helping people than we are in empowering 
bureaucrats, the bottom line, that is what this boils down to. Again, I 
would ask for support on this motion to recommit. Vote for people 
instead of bureaucrats.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion.
  Let me make it clear, nobody is against more community health 
centers. If we had been against them, we would not have put another $19 
million into the bill for new community health centers. We put extra 
money in for community health centers. But, there also needs to be 
money to cut down on fraud and abuse in the student aid program. There 
are also some other things in here that are needed. We would like a 
bigger increase for health centers, but it is going to come in the 
health care bill. More people will have insurance so they can pay their 
way when they go to the community health center. We do not have to take 
it out of the important items that are currently in this bill. We can 
wait and do that in the health care bill.
  This is really the identical vote that we had a minute ago except 
every increase and every reduction is cut in half. We do half the 
damage we did a minute ago, but we still do the same kind of damage.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the 
National Association of Community Health Centers has not supported the 
Porter amendment. I urge Members to vote no.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. This is the same vote we had a while ago except it 
just does half the amount of damage, but it still does the same kind of 
damage. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, late last night the committee adopted an 
amendment by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] to reduce the 
appropriation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1 million.
  In the Congressional Record, it states that this money was aimed at 
Radio Pacifica. Is it correct that under no circumstances can a cut be 
specified on any appropriation?
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. All it did was reduce the account by $1 million 
out of $272 million. We accepted it in the interest of time and so on.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 224, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                               AYES--206

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

                               NOES--224

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chapman
     Machtley
     Reynolds
     Schumer

                              {time}  1304

  Mr. DEAL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oberstar). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members this is a 5-
minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339, 
noes 89, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               AYES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     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
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--89

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas (WY)
     Walker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Chapman
     Clyburn
     Farr
     Machtley
     Reynolds
     Schumer

                              {time}  1314

  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, HASTERT, and BAKER of California changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________