[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8318-H8359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that all remarks 
should be addressed to the Chair and to the Chair only.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it may seem incongruous in these days of 
90-degree weather and high humidity to be talking about home heating 
assistance, but in northern Minnesota, although the glacier retreated, 
it makes a return attempt every fall, and lasts well into April and 
sometimes May. Last year we had wind chill temperatures of 77 below 
zero, midwinter. I visited a home in Duluth where the Energy Assistance 
Program was conducting weatherization for an 84-year-old widow with one 
leg amputated. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mill in 
Duluth and left her a modest little pension. Her total income is about 
$480 a month. Half of it was going to pay the energy bill. The Energy 
Assistance Program weatherized the home and helped her buy a new 
furnace so she could stay in her home and not have to go to a nursing 
home.
  In the city of Duluth alone, 3,746 households last year received 
primary heating assistance.
 Look at the record of this program in Duluth, alone: 374 households 
received primary heating assistance; their average income was $9,208 a 
year. Furnaces were replaced in 

[[Page H 8319]]
107 of more households, making it possible for the homeowners to remain 
in their homes, rather than seek public assistance in the form of 
welfare or be committed to a nursing home. Heating system repairs were 
made in an additional 560 households. Of the total number of households 
receiving LIHEAP assistance, 926 have children under the age of 6 and 
the average household income is $11,400.

  Senior citizens account for 712 of the total households served; their 
average income is $8,286. There are AFDC families assisted under this 
program, they have an average household income of $7,631.
  The point I want to drive home is that this program is preeminently 
designed for and targeted to the poorest families, the neediest among 
us. Cutting these funds, altogether, as this heartless Republican 
majority proposes to do, will reduce these people the most among us to 
a condition of abject dependency, cause each of them needless anguish 
and anxiety, emotional, as well as physical stress, and simply shift 
the cost from the weatherization program to welfare or Medicaid and 
Medicare. Cutting off these funds will not make the problem go away; it 
will only worsen the condition.
  But, I want my colleagues to hear the beneficiaries of the Energy 
Assistance Program tell the story in their own words, as expressed in 
letters to the Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency, which serves a 
seven-county area of northeastern Minnesota, which is geographically 
about the size of New England, excluding Maine:

       I've been a widow since 1989 and as time goes on, I find it 
     very difficult to adjust to all the changes. I live on a 
     fixed income and with costs of living always rising, I don't 
     even dare to think of the future. I thank the Lord and ask 
     him to bless all the people that makes the Fuel Assistance 
     Program possible.
       Thank you so much for the fuel assistance. If it weren't 
     for this program, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in my 
     own house.
       I thank God for the very existence for your agency. Never 
     in my wildest dreams did I, as a former middle class American 
     worker, believe that I could be reduced to poverty level in 3 
     years. I've always been proud of myself as a self-employed 
     carpenter, but now have no work to be proud of.
       I am a diabetic, and if it weren't for the Energy 
     Assistance Program, I'm certain I would have a tough decision 
     to make in deciding between insulin or fuel oil.

  I do not know what these previous speakers are talking about on the 
other side of the aisle, but if you cut home heating assistance, you 
are making people choose between life or death, and that is not right.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during my campaign for the U.S. 
Congress last year I met a man who lived in my district. His name was 
Dave Exley, and he was a painter, and I got talking to Dave. I was 
interested in talking to him. I had an uncle, Joe Ditta, who raised a 
family of seven as a painter. I got to talking to him about his 
business and what it was like, and he got out something and gave it to 
me that I will never forget. It was a paint stirrer, and he told me 
that he had been using that same stirring stick to stir the paint for 5 
years.
  Each time he would use it, he would wipe it carefully off, and he 
said he was saving himself about 5 cents a day by using that paint 
stirring stick over and over and over again, and he showed it to me, 
and he said something to me that I will never forget.
  He said, every time you think about spending money or raising taxes, 
I want you to remember me because I am trying to feed my wife and my 
two sons, and I have trouble making ends meet. At the end of the month 
I have trouble making sure I have got enough money to pay the mortgage 
and to pay the electric bill.
  That is a lot of what this debate is about. We are taking money out 
of the hands of a lot of hard working Americans, and we are spending it 
the way we see fit, on programs that we think are good, and I think 
this committee has worked very hard to analyze these programs and come 
up with what they think are some difficult decisions, but nonetheless 
are the appropriate decisions that need to be made in order to get us 
toward a balanced budget.
  We cannot keep spending money over and over again because we think it 
is the right thing to do. We have to have some real good hard objective 
measures. We have to make the difficult decisions because if we do not, 
let us face it, there will be no money for anything. We will be 
bankrupt.
  That is what has propelled us, the freshmen Republicans, into this 
body and led to the Republican majority this year, and why we are 
seriously changing the spending priorities of our Nation. The public 
knows that if we do not make a change there will be no money for 
anybody, and I think of Dave Exley, the painter, every time I am asked 
to vote on a spending decision, and, yes, the decisions are hard, but 
we are ready to make the hard decisions, and I think this bill is a 
good bill, it is a tough bill, it makes some tough decisions.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the 
gentleman knows, I am for a balanced budget, I am trying to make some 
of these tough choices to balance the budget for our children's sake 
and future generations. The gentleman is from a great part of the 
United States where the climate is between 70 and 95 degrees all year. 
I am from South Bend, IN, where the weather can be 50 degrees below 
zero.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Dave Exley takes care of that stirring stick 
so his paint will be well mixed, and it will give a good coat. How much 
more, Mr. Chairman, should we take care of our little children so that 
when they grow they can paint America successful, they can paint 
America with more opportunity?
  Now, I see the Chairman of our committee standing up here, or sitting 
here, he is going to stand pretty soon, and he is going to show that 
little red chart over there. And he is going to go bankrupt as a 
businessman if he uses that chart, because that chart relates to this 
chart. How many children are we serving in America that we promised in 
1965 to serve under Lyndon Johnson, concurred in by Richard Nixon, 
followed on by President Ford and endorsed by President Carter, and 
then said to be by Ronald Reagan one of the programs that works, and 
what did we do? We retreated. We retreated, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's little red chart over there is serving 
less children. Less children in America who are eligible for Head Start 
are being served today, Mr. Chairman, and that red chart will not 
change those statistics, and as that happens, we are losing children in 
America, and we cannot afford to do that.
  This Head Start budget that you talk about drops 48,000 children 
through the cracks. This budget alone, 48,000 children. I do not know 
whether your painter thinks that is a good investment. He cares about 
that stirring stick because it saves him a nickel a day, and he is 
smart. Would that every American would do that, America would be a more 
successful Nation. But would that every Member of this Congress, ladies 
and gentlemen, would understand that those little children, 3 and 4 
years of age are America's stirring sticks. They are America's future. 
They will paint America as a successful, competitive community. They 
will paint America the kind of land of opportunity of which your 
Speaker speaks. but opportunity does not just happen for some kids, for 
any children.
  The best solution, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, is two loving, 
caring nurturing parents. Would that every child had that. And the 
economic opportunities that all of us can provide our children, God 
bless them as God has blessed us. But ladies and gentlemen, cutting 
Head Start makes no economic sense. It makes no common sense, and it 
makes no human sense.
  That is why we ought to reject this bill, because notwithstanding the 
Chairman's little red chart, we are serving less children who are 
eligible to be helped and who America has promised to help in Head 
Start. Let us not have a false start once again. Let us reject this 
bill. Let us save those little stirring sticks that we call our 
children, our future.

[[Page H 8320]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is a defining moment for this Congress. With this 
bill we declare our priorities as a nation.
  Should we invest our money in our children and in our future as a 
nation, or give the money in a tax break to the wealthiest Americans?
  The cut to Head Start is only one example of the misguided choices 
Republicans have made in this bill.
  There is a good reason why Head Start is America's best loved program 
for children. Head Start isn't perfect. But it is a place where 
children get the education, nutrition, health checkups, and skills they 
need to learn and succeed in school.
  In 1993 and 1994, we reached a high point of serving 40 percent of 
eligible Head Start kids. At the high point, 6 out of every 10 needy 
preschoolers couldn't go to Head Start because we didn't have the room.
  Despite these shortages, the Republican bill cuts Head Start by 
50,000 children in 1996--allowing us to serve only 36 percent of 
eligible children, the same percentage served in 1991.
  Under this bill, 50,000 fewer children will go to Head Start in 1996 
than could in 1995.
  That's 50,000 children who are more likely to be high school 
dropouts, juvenile delinquents, or teenage parents.
  Fifty thousand children who are more likely to be on welfare--taking 
from society rather than contributing to it.
  Head Start helps children like Guy, who began Head Start in southern 
Maryland unable to learn and far behind his peers.
  Guy's mother and stepfather were overwhelmed and unable to help their 
son.
  That's when Head Start sprang into action. Guy's mom was given 
medical cards so Guy and his sister could go to the doctor for 
immunizations and to the dentist for checkups.
  Head Start got Guy an appointment at Children's Hospital, where his 
learning disability was diagnosed and addressed.
  Head Start found parenting classes for Guy's parents to help them 
help Guy.
  As Guy's behavior improved, his mom was able to go back to school at 
Charles County Community College.
  Because Guy was in Head Start, his mom could attend school 5 days a 
week, and graduated from the secretarial program. She is now working 
for a small business and supporting her family.
  In September, Guy will start kindergarten. Thanks to Head Start, he 
is doing well and is ready to learn.
  In 1990, Frank Doyle, the CEO of General Electric called on Congress 
to fully fund Head Start. He spoke on behalf of TRW, Goodyear, Eli 
Lilly, AT&T, Mobil, and many other businesses who know that getting 
children ready to learn is the key to future economic success.
  But this bill goes in the other direction. This bill isn't a Head 
Start--it's a false start. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would again remind Members that they are to 
address the Chair and only the Chair in their remarks from the floor.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my good friend from Illinois for yielding 
time to me, and I will try to be brief.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments: First of all, about the gentleman 
that preceded me, I want to say how much I appreciated his performance. 
It was a preformance. The gentleman always makes a magnificent speech 
and gives a great performance. Sometimes he is a little short on the 
facts, as this time, but it was a good performance.
  That being said, yesterday the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking 
minority member of the committee, and I had a dialog back and forth, 
and we discussed one of us winning versus the other, and I said at the 
time I hoped I won on this bill.
  I want to rephrase that. Because I had an opportunity to reflect on 
my comment. I do not know whether he will win or whether I will win, 
but I hope that America wins, and I hope that America's children win, 
and I think they will with this bill, contrary to the statements of the 
gentleman from Maryland, who went before me. Because we are beginning 
to understand that simply by sitting down and writing a check on a bank 
account where somebody else puts the money in is not the answer to our 
problems. It is certainly not the answer to educating and nourishing 
the youngsters of America.
  The fact is that I do have a red chart, and what it illustrates quite 
clearly is that in 1989 the Head Start funding was $1.2 billion. It 
rose in 1990 to $1.5 billion and went on up, up, up, until now, just a 
few short years later, 1995, it is virtually three times the size that 
it was in 1989. As Everett Dirksen said, a billion dollars here and a 
billion dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking about real 
money; $3.5 billion is what we will spend this year on just the Head 
Start Program.
  Now, as we know from additional debate on this floor in the last few 
days, this is just one program. There are 240 separate education 
programs for the youngsters of America run by the Federal Government, 
spread over some 11 departments, 15 agencies, and other offices.

                              {time}  1115

  This is only one of those programs currently funded at $3.5 billion. 
To hear the hue and cry of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and 
other people who have said, oh, my goodness, the heartless, heartless 
majority in Congress today, the Republicans, have cut the program. We 
have cut it all the way back by $3.4 billion.
  Now, I have to question the premise the world is coming apart and our 
children are going to grow up illiterate because of this cut. It is 
simply not so or, as the song says, ``It ain't necessarily so.'' In 
fact, there is some great question, some significant doubt as to 
whether or not this program works at all.
  Mr. Edward Zeigler, the Yale professor who founded Head Start, the 
man that started the program, is quoted in the Washington Post of 
February 19, 1993, ``Until the program has reached a certain minimum 
level of quality they should not put one more kid in it''.
  That was 1993. And in 1993 we spent $2.7 billion.
  In 1996, we propose to spend $3.4 billion.
  Now, if the gentleman really seriously was concerned about the 
children of America he would remember that the children in Head Start 
are not the only children in America. All of the children of America, 
roughly 100 million, are the future of America, and their prosperity, 
their education, their nourishment is important to the future of 
America. The more we take money out of the pockets of the parents who 
are trying to raise and educate them, the more we take that money away 
from them, send it to the bureaucrats in Washington, put it in a 
program that does not work, the more we stifle the opportunity for 
those children to become the real future of America.
  This cut is meaningless, and for these people to say the world is 
coming to an end when all we are doing is trimming back a measly 2.9 
percent, $.1 billion out of $3.5 billion, then it seems to me this is 
much ado about nothing. We are speaking about how many angels can dance 
on the head of a pin.
  Many of my colleagues do not care about rolling back the cost of 
Government. They do not care about getting the budget under control. 
What they say is, in effect, we will not balance the budget. We will 
not be concerned about the escalating interest on the
 debt. We will not be concerned with the fact that interest alone will 
exceed the cost of the national defense of this country within 2 years. 
We will not be concerned with the fact that nearly $20,000 is piled on 
every man, woman, and child in America to pay off the debt. We will 
just wear blinders and keep spending money and writing checks because, 
after all, the good old American taxpayers will pay the bill.

  It is time to say no. It is time to make a trim. It is time to make 
the cuts. It is time to pass this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, listening to all this, I would think I was born in 
Jamaica where the motto is ``No problem, No problem.''
  You are taking 150,000 student loans away from kids under the Perkins 
Loan Program. You are cutting drug-free schools by 50 percent. You are 
eliminating 1 million kids out of chapter 1. You are cutting 55,000 
kids out of Head Start.
  Eight hundred people died in this country 2 weeks ago and you are 
saying, no problem, we are going to eliminate the program for them.

[[Page H 8321]]

  You are cutting MediGap counseling so seniors do not get chiseled by 
insurance companies on phony MediGap policies. You are cutting that 
promise to help them by 50 percent. Yet you have got guts enough to 
talk about spending. Before your President Ronald Reagan took over and 
you swallowed his line of malarkey, we never had a deficit larger than 
$65 billion.
  We followed your advice, passed those budgets, deficits are now over 
$200 billion. Thanks a lot for your fiscal discipline. Ha, ha, ha.
  You are talking about spending, cutting spending. You are going to 
keep the F-22. You are going to keep the B-2.
  Just one of those B-2 bombers--and you are buying a heck of a lot 
more than the Pentagon wants--just one of them will fund the tuition 
for every student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. 
Where in God's name are your priorities?
  Then you talk about Head Start. That chart talks about the dollars. 
As Members know, we have had a bipartisan recognition that Head Start 
needed a quality improvement. We need to improve the quality of 
teachers. We need to improve the quality of services. And so that is 
where the money has gone, to try to improve quality.
  As a result, under your budget, the number of kids who are going to 
be enrolled in Head Start next year is going to drop from 752,000 to 
704,000. Maybe you do not care about those kids who are going to be 
dropped off the program. We do. Forget your phoney numbers game. Look 
at the people behind those numbers.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] an eminent member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to say is 
that I am a proud supporter of Head Start and proud to support the 190-
percent increase in this program in the last 5 years. The program is 
working very well in many parts of this country, and the sourpuss look 
on the faces of our opponents this morning is because we are telling 
the truth, we are exposing the hypocrisy of those who are trying to say 
that we are not concerned about this program and are not interested in 
preserving it.
  I would like to turn attention now to another aspect of this portion 
of the bill. That is rural health. I am also most proud of the overall 
funding for rural health care.
  According to the National Rural Health Association, it would like to 
have $1.4 billion worth of funding in this bill. With the leadership of 
our chairman and the hard work by the Rural Health Care Coalition this 
bill has $1.33 billion or 95 percent of that request. We got 95 percent 
of what we wanted. In anyone's book that is a tremendous success rate.
  In this budgetary time, I consider that a big success. However, some 
think this is not enough. I do. Of the 24 programs deemed important to 
rural health care, we increased the most vital components, community 
and migrant health care centers, and health care for the homeless 
cluster.
  We provide last year's funding levels minus the rescission bill, for 
12 other line items, including health service corps, rural health 
outreach grants, family medicine, physicians assistants, allied health, 
area health education centers, health education training centers, and 
many of the nursing programs that are so vital to rural areas that have 
no health care provider whatsoever.
  My colleagues, we have worked very hard in subcommittees to secure 
adequate funding for rural health care. The Rural Health Care Coalition 
should be able to hold its head high and declare a job well done.
  While I understand that an amendment will be offered to increase 
funding even more, regardless of the outcome of the Gunderson-Poshard 
amendment, I hope all members that support rural health care will 
support this bill in the end. This bill is a good bill for rural 
America in helping to meet their needs and not penalizing them for 
living in the heartland of this great country.
  I call attention to all Members who represent rural areas in America; 
this is a good bill for rural health care. Please vote for the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not about who is for 
balancing the budget and who is not for balancing the budget.
  Many of us Democrats are going to make the right choices and vote to 
cut the B-2 bomber and not to kick children out of the Head Start 
Program.
  Now, let us talk about Head Start for a minute. Here is a program 
that President Reagan talked about how much money do we put in to 
increase funding on Head Start. President Bush talked about how much 
money do we put in here to increase our education for low-income 
children. Now in this Congress we have Republicans talking about how 
many children are we going to kick out of the program.
  Here is the chart. We currently have 752,000 children enrolled. After 
this bill passes, and I hope it does not, 48,000 children are going to 
be kicked out of this program.
  Now, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
[Mr. Livingston] quotes the Washington Post and Washington charts. How 
does this program work in Michigan City, IN? We have 80 children 
waiting to get into this program in Michigan City, IN. We have a 
waiting list of eligible children. Yet you are going to tell us who to 
kick off.
  Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you go back to Michigan 
City, IN, and you point out who gets kicked out of this program.
  Whoever votes for this bill, my colleagues, you decide how many, 5, 
10, 12 children, in your programs do not get to enroll and get kicked 
out of maybe the most successful Government program ever put together.
  We have got to make some tough decisions around here on our spending 
priorities.
  The chairman of the committee said it does not make any difference 
how many angels dance on the pin of a needle. There are our angels 
dancing right there. Do not kick those children off of Head Start. 
Defeat this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the chairman how much 
time is remaining on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really a very, very hard 
message to listen to the Republican arguments for cutting Head Start. 
It is one of the few programs, Federal programs, which has succeeded 
over the years. But now to cut it is a dangerous thing, because what we 
are doing on one hand is giving a big tax cut to the rich and we are 
cutting off at the pass these poor children who need Head Start.
  It has been shown by a bipartisan commission that Head Start does 
improve the lives of these children. It improves the educational 
outlook of these children. So you are going to cut funding for the 
little ones who cannot speak for themselves, these little ones, 3- and 
4-year-old preschool children and not open up to even younger.
  If you are going to restore the kinds of things in America that we 
need to restore, you should be restoring the lives of these young 
children. Study after study has shown that it works and it works well.
  Since 1965, nearly 14 million children have participated in the 
program. So why are they saying it should be cut? To pay for the tax 
cuts for the rich. It currently serves fewer than half the poor 
children who are eligible. You have heard the arguments. It is well 
documented that this program worked. So then Head Start helps children 
in both urban and rural areas.

                              {time}  1130

  Does it work? You bet. There are thousands of success stories.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very 
poor family and started out in Head Start at the age of 4. She still 
remembers her Head Start teacher that led 

[[Page H 8322]]
her on to grade school with more success. She was on the Dean's List at 
Fordham. She was president of the Law Association, and today she is a 
law clerk for the U.S. State district judge in Miami.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great Federal program, one of the few where we 
can see documented success. We must continue to help this Nation's 
children, and we cannot use what we call fiscal conservatism only for 
the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this wrong-headed bill. 
This bill is nothing more than an attack on little children. Somewhere 
along the line the Republican leadership seemed to forget a few basic 
facts: They forgot that children are our future, and they forgot that 
we need to invest in our children.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, the Republican majority was 
falling all over itself to give a big tax cut to rich people.
  But today, this bills cuts funding for Head Start--cuts funding for 
little 3- and 4-year-old pre-school children who live in America's 
poorest families.
  Mr. Chairman, I tried to restore Head Start funding in the House 
Budget Committee, and I was told that ``everybody has to suffer a 
little pain.'' This bill puts the hurt of budget cuts on little 
children. I say, shame on you.
  The American people support Head Start--for good reason.
  Study after study, evaluation after evaluation has shown that Head 
Start works and works well. Head Start gets toddlers ready for school. 
Children who participate in Head Start enter school better prepared to 
learn, with improved health and with better self-esteem. According to 
the Bipartisan Advisory Committee on Head Start quality and expansion, 
``The evidence is clear that Head Start produces immediate gains for 
children and families.''
  Head Start gives the American taxpayer good value for the dollar: 
Grantees have to contribute 20 percent of the cost of the program.
  Since 1965, nearly 14 million children, most of them 3- and 4-year-
olds, have participated in the program. By law, virtually all of them 
are from families with incomes below the poverty level.
  The Republicans say Head Start should be cut. Why? To pay for tax 
cuts for the rich? Head Start currently serves fewer than half the poor 
children who are eligible. If anything, we should increase funding for 
this program.
  President Clinton wanted to increase Head Start by $537 million. This 
bill cuts Head Start by $137 million. I'm surprised this bill doesn't 
change the name from ``Head Start'' to ``Fall Behind.''
  Mr. Chairman, Head Start helps children in urban areas and rural 
areas, it helps the truly needy and poor; and it helps the tiniest and 
most vulnerable in our society.
  Does Head Start work? You bet. There are thousands of success 
stories--like Winnie Jordan of Miami. She came from a very poor family 
and started out in Head Start at the age of 4.
  She still remembers her teacher, Ms. Whitelow. The boost that Winnie 
Jordan got in Head Start helped her succeed in grade school, and 
success led to success.
  She was a dean's list student at Florida State University; she was 
president of the Black Law Students Association at the University of 
Miami Law School. And today, she is law clerk for U.S. District Judge 
Wilkie Ferguson, Jr.
  Head Start is a great Federal program. It is what the Federal 
Government should be doing to help this Nation's children and to help 
the most vulnerable in our society to learn and to succeed.
  This bill has many terrible provisions. But, in my view, it should be 
defeated soundly because it ignores the needs of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my very grave concerns about the more 
than $21 million in cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program. These cuts 
are consistent with the mean-spirited attacks that the Republicans are 
making on elderly Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, 
Senior Volunteers, the GOP's attacks on the elderly continue.
  The Senior Volunteer Program's small budget is perhaps one of the 
best investments in all of the Federal budget. For every dollar we 
spend coordinating this program we get back many many more dollars 
worth of services in return.
  These harmful cuts to the Senior Volunteers Program will have a 
devastating affect on the 23,000 foster grandparents who last year 
cared for more than 80,000 disabled kids; the 12,000 senior companions 
who, last year, helped 36,000 frail elderly people to continue to live 
in their own homes; and the more than 400,000 seniors who participated 
in volunteer programs last year.
  These mean-spirited cuts aren't necessary to balance the budget, and 
they won't. What they will do is make it harder for a lot of older 
Americans to do a lot of good in our communities.
  Shame on the Republicans for picking on senior citizens and 
volunteers. Shame on the GOP for robbing the elderly of opportunities 
to live meaningful and committed lives just to finance huge tax breaks 
for the wealthy. Shame on them for producing this very bad bill. Let's 
defeat this bill and give senior volunteers a chance.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this bill is loaded with legislative 
riders that have no place in an appropriations bill, and I hope further 
changes will be made today.
  But first, I want to acknowledge Chairman Porter for his efforts. He 
was given an allocation that was significantly lower than the fiscal 
year 1995 allocation, and he did his best to craft an acceptable bill. 
He also opposed the many riders attached in the full committee. I am 
strongly supportive of the 6-percent increase in funding for the 
National Institutes of Health, the increased funding for breast cancer 
research, and breast and cervical cancer screening, increased funding 
for the Ryan White CARE Act, the funding for the Violence Against Women 
Act programs in the bill, and the preservation of the DOD AIDS research 
program.
  Unfortunately, the full committee attached a number of legislative 
riders in the full committee. I will be offering an amendment later 
today with Congresswoman Lowey and Congressman Kolbe to strike the 
Istook language in the bill allowing States to decide whether to fund 
Medicaid abortions in the cases of rape and incest. This is not an 
issue about States' rights. States can choose to participate in the 
Medicaid Program; however, once that choice is made, they are required 
to comply with all Federal statutory and regulatory requirements, 
including funding abortions in the cases of rape and incest. Every 
Federal court that has considered this issue has held that State 
Medicaid plans must cover all abortions for which Federal funds are 
provided by the Hyde amendment.
  Abortions as a result of rape and incest are rare--and they are 
tragic. The vast majority of Americans support Medicaid funding for 
abortions that are the result of these violent, brutal crimes against 
women. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe 
amendment.
  Another amendment added in committee makes an unprecedented intrusion 
into the development of curriculum requirements and the accreditation 
process for medical schools. An amendment will be offered by 
Congressman Ganske and Congresswoman Johnson to strike this language in 
the bill, and I will be speaking in favor of their effort as well.
  There is also troubling language in the bill that restricts the 
enforcement of title IX in college athletics even before a fall report 
is submitted. Congresswoman Mink will be offering an amendment to 
strike this language, and I urge support for her amendment.
  Several additional amendments attempt to legislate on this bill, and 
I am opposed to these efforts as well. The entire appropriations 
process has been circumvented in the last several bills, and I am 
outraged at the efforts to bypass the appropriate, deliberative 
legislative process in this House.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for amendments to remove the riders 
before they consider final passage.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start.
  How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head 
Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how 
dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress?
  I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a 
teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I 
graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer 
Service.
  Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an 
early childhood development program. It is a program for children of 
working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early 
childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have 
the money to do it. 

[[Page H 8323]]
Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that 
never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They 
would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to 
being a dropout.
  Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from California, nobody 
is attacking the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program is being 
reduced by about 3 percent for a very good reason. The reduction is 
made only because in the testimony before our subcommittee, and before 
the authorizing committee, it is very, very clear that there is money 
that is being misspent in the program and not providing the kids with 
the services that the program is designed to provide.
  We are all fans of the Head Start Program. We are strong supporters 
of the Head Start Program, but we are not for wasting Government money, 
taxpayer money, on programs that do not work for the kids. That is the 
only reason that any cut is made in the program. We are supporters of 
Head Start.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, there has been a recent 
proposal for a federally funded research study on the cost 
effectiveness of applying case management services to substance abuse 
treatment.
  The research would study, in a practical and applied manner, the use 
of care management techniques to reduce the cost of treatment and 
incidents of relapse for those patients suffering from addictive 
diseases.
  Case management techniques have proven to be cost effective in 
treating other chronic diseases and since substance abuse is a 
progressive, chronic, and potentially fatal disease, these techniques 
should be equally successful in treating substance abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I am both pleased and appreciative that the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has agreed to support this effort, which 
would address a critical need in this country, and I thank the 
gentleman for the opportunity to raise this issue and would invite the 
gentleman's comment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the 
gentleman from Missouri for his thoughtful points on an issue we both 
agree on. Addiction is a chronic disease that affects 10 percent of 
American adults and 3 percent of adolescents.
  The economic costs associated with alcohol and other drug problems 
are truly staggering; over $165 billion in 1990 alone. This research 
study would help to advance both the private and public sectors' 
understanding of what mix of services is necessary in order to cost 
effectively treat substance abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, substance abuse is not a disease that we can continue 
to take lightly if we are ever to control the spiraling health care 
costs associated with it. I look forward to working with the gentleman 
from Missouri further to address this issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, in the history of this Chamber there have 
undoubtedly been some unbelievably hypocritical statements made from 
this well, but I do not think there are any more hypocritical 
statements ever made than those coming to the microphone professing to 
care about children, while supporting a bill that makes the mean-
spirited, targeted cuts at programs essential for kids that this 
budget, this appropriations bill represents.
  Take for example the Healthy Start Program a program geared at 
reducing infant mortality. This country of ours ranks 20th in the world 
for infant mortality, and in different places in the country, places 
like the Native American reservations in North Dakota, we even rank 
behind the countries of Bulgaria, Cuba, and Jamaica, for God's sake, 
with infant mortality.
  Mr. Chairman, we have reduced infant mortality with Healthy Start by 
programs that have allowed little fellows like E.J. Chantell, to 
survive when he otherwise would not have made it. He came into this 
world with water on his brain and serious stomach disorders, but with 
Healthy Start, and his fighting spirit, E.J. is alive. He is going to 
make it.
  In fact we have taken 4 percent off of our infant mortality rates in 
the reservations in just 4 years. Why in the world would someone come 
to a mike professing to care about kids, while arguing for a program 
that cuts Healthy Start by 50 percent? Tomorrow's E.J. might die 
because of this cut, and no more hypocritical statement would be made 
to say that you are for kids while you take away the very programs that 
let them live.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, in my view, there is a gap in the debate we 
are engaged in. The mantra is that we must cut, cut drastically for the 
long term, for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a new generation, Congress, and they are alive 
today. They are our young; they are our kids. They have a right to hope 
and fulfill their dreams for themselves. They are the little ones of 
America today. Today, Mr. Chairman.
  We need to balance our budget, but the Republican budget priorities, 
tax breaks for the most fortunate of our country, who are not even 
asking for them, by the way, coupled with increased defense spending on 
the one hand and massive cuts in critical health and education programs 
on the other, shows just how little this majority really cares about 
the children of today.
  Healthy Start is a small program with a big payoff. It began 4 years 
ago as a demonstration project, providing funds to 15 communities with 
the highest rates of infant mortality in the country.
  Every industrial society measures itself by infant mortality rates. 
It operates on the premise that we should plant a seed, which is 
nurtured by local communities, with input from health care providers, 
so that we can solve this terrible problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a sad commentary on the priorities of 
this Congress, and this country, to increase defense spending, provide 
corporate subsidies that total over $100 billion, and insist on 
hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts while denying our tiniest 
citizens a chance at a healthy start. It is wrong-headed, it is wrong 
for the future of our Nation, and I think that it is shameful that the 
Congress would be doing this.
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out, first of all, in response to the 
previous speaker's comments, that, of course, we are talking about an 
appropriations bill here that does not in any way affect the Tax Code 
or tax policy and certainly does not grant any kind of tax breaks to 
American citizens or businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, proceeding under my own time now, I would like to 
direct the attention of our Democratic colleagues to one section of the 
bill. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, point out that this particular 
appropriation bill, despite the very real budgetary constraints that we 
have been discussing here on the House floor this morning, provides 
level funding for three of the titles of the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, 
and an additional $23 million increase over 1995 for title I of the 
Ryan White Care Act, which provides assistance to American citizens. 
This increased funding for title I, which I fought for in both the 
subcommittee and full committee markup of the bill, is to address the 
funding pressures resulting from additional cities becoming eligible to 
join the program in 1996. This is the so-called hold-harmless funding 
that is intended to address the growing AIDS epidemic in our major 
metropolitan centers in America.
  At least 7, and perhaps as many as 10, new cities will be eligible 
for this funding in 1996. Many of those cities, in fact, are located in 
California, where we have borne the brunt of the AIDS epidemic, and 
again this bill is intended to provide funding for those 

[[Page H 8324]]
communities that are struggling to cope with the AIDS crisis.
  I think we are all aware and, again we have attempted to reflect this 
in the priorities set out in the bill, that the impact of the HIV 
epidemic continues to grow in America, both in the numbers of people 
infected as well as the geographic areas of the country that are 
impacted. The people affected are often medically underserved, with 
substantial access problems to quality health care. Demographic changes 
in the epidemic, for example, the increasing proportions of women, 
youth, and minorities contracting the HIV virus, require changes in our 
planning and in our thinking. They also require changes in the 
organization and delivery of care in health services.
  It is estimated that 800,000 to 1.2 million individuals have HIV in 
the United States. Large numbers of people are still not receiving 
care. Others receive insufficient or inappropriate care or are being 
served in inappropriate care or are being served in inappropriate or 
high-cost settings.
  The committee has maintained funding for Ryan White programs in 
recognition of the extent of unmet need in serving this population. We 
have increased funding again for those larger metropolitan areas where 
the HIV epidemic continues to grow.
  I want to salute my colleagues on the subcommittee and the full 
committee for finding the funds to increase the Ryan White AIDS funding 
overall, again within the very difficult fiscal constraints of this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in the Republican Labor-
HHS-Education bill, that targets the national senior service corps' 
volunteer program, is a display of blatant arrogance toward the value 
and experience of our country's older Americans.
  As we place emphasis in ensuring that all people become productive 
and contributing members of our society, we must not forget those who 
have already contributed greatly to our Nation and will continue to do 
so, if we do not deny them the opportunity.
  Recent figures indicate that there are 13,000 senior volunteers and 
the numbers are growing.
  The retired and senior volunteer program helps hospitals nurture and 
care for children afflicted with a serious illness.
  In the foster grandparent program, the forgotten child benefits from 
the guidance and love of a senior.
  The senior companion program provides frail adults with assistance in 
daily activities helping them remain independent and in their 
communities.
  These programs allow seniors to play a role where their expertise, 
time, and attention fill many voids that the rest of our society 
neglects.
  It is a disgrace that Republicans will help destroy the spirit of 
senior volunteerism with these cuts.
  Instead of praising senior volunteers as a model of citizenship, 
Republicans are dismissing their contributions and treating them as if 
they have nothing to offer.
  Republicans are wrong.
  Seniors most certainly have much to offer.
  Those of us who highly value the worthwhile contributions of our 
seniors have yet another reason to vote against the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in 
the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care 
research.
  As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and 
that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested 
in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very 
hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our 
coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to 
establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very 
hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement 
differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health 
transition grant program.
  I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. 
Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the 
letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out 
on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I 
said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot 
stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health 
at the Federal level.
  We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age 
and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one 
more barrier by removing the rural health research component.
  So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I 
certainly urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Brown].
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, behind me are pictures of three 
of my constituents who are participants in senior volunteer programs in 
Orlando, FL. The first, largest, and best in the State of Florida.
  These successful programs, such as the Foster-Grandparents and RSVP 
programs, will be cut by $21 million in this shameful bill. Not only do 
these programs provide opportunities to older people of all backgrounds 
and income levels to contribute to our communities, they also allow 
seniors to make a difference in the lives of so many of our children by 
providing the structure and guidance that would otherwise be missing 
from these children's lives. This prevention program is often the only 
thing preventing these kids from a life of crime.
  Mr. Chairman, these programs work. It is disgraceful and downright 
shameful to cut these programs which provide so much to our 
communities, to be cut.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill. Shame, shame, shame.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues would think that 
Green Thumb would be a garden club or an environmental group. But if 
they know someone whose life has been changed through Green Thumb, they 
know that it is a unique employment training program for low-income 
seniors.
  In fact, this chart shows the typical participant. There is a Green 
Thumb program in my hometown of Petaluma, CA, and one woman in my 
county whose life has been changed by Green Thumb is Lynn Gibbs. Lynn 
Gibbs is a 62-year-old graduate. A few years back, Lynn lost her 
successful business and was left living on an income below the poverty 
level. Thanks to Green Thumb and the training and job placement 
assistance program, Lynn is now working at a local boys' and girls' 
club.
  I will bet that almost every one of my colleagues knows someone who 
has worked hard, played by the rules, but who found they needed a 
helping hand in their older years.
  Last year, Green Thumb placed more than 19,000 seniors in jobs and 
community service projects.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow on with 
the comments by my friend, the gentlewoman from California, on the 
Green Thumb program.
  This is a senior community service employment program. It is a major, 
critical part of the Older Americans Act that we have supported here 
for many years. This program is very critical to the quality of life 
for our senior citizens.
  We talked about children. They are important. We want to take care of 
our children. They are our future. But we cannot forget our seniors.
  This is a means-tested program. This is people over 55 with incomes 
lower than 125 percent of the poverty level. We have got to take care 
of these people because it is quality of life. It allows them to 
participate in our communities.

[[Page H 8325]]

  This budget that we are setting in front of us, this appropriations 
bill, cuts this program by $60 million under what was budgeted, $42 
million over what was in last year's.
  As a result of this bill, 14,000 seniors will lose their jobs. Ladies 
and gentlemen, we owe it to our children to protect their future. We 
owe it to our seniors for their efforts for paying them back for the 
sacrifices they have made in our behalf.
  Vote against this appropriations bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague on the subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute 
about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill 
this morning.
  We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully 
funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are 
supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start 
Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are 
increasing funding for the National Institute of Health.
  Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle 
ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need 
to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill.
  They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this 
bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda 
machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care 
about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan 
White or the National Institutes of Health.
  So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today 
of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and 
supporting and increasing funding for these programs.
  What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase 
for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant 
health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at 
the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to 
give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to 
cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the 
National Institutes of Health to support some of these other 
boondoggles in the program?
  If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical.
  The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very 
closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, 
``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not 
have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing 
the best we can.
  I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand 
up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for 
the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute.
  The fact remains you are cutting $9.5 billion out of education, 
health and job programs. It is true that a few programs managed to 
escape your ax. Big deal. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, this bill is cutting back on all the 
programs that benefit families. I am not sure the family values new 
majority understand the dire consequences of their actions. One of the 
most onerous cutbacks is on a program that was designed to ensure that 
seniors receive adequate nutrition. Enabling them to live independently 
and not be an economic burden on their families or society.
  The Senior Nutrition Program is the major reason that seniors can 
live independently in the community rather than in $34,000 per year 
nursing facilities. Another program that is being eliminated is the 
Ombudsman Program which protects vulnerable seniors in nursing homes. 
It has been shown that most nursing home operators are caring 
professionals who provide significant support to frail elderly 
patients.
  But ``20/20'' recently graphically demonstrated instances of real 
physical abuse of elderly patients in nursing homes.
  Without the independent Ombudsman Programs, those abuses will 
continue and will, I believe, grow in number and in severity.
  In addition, the bill proposes slashing the budget of the three 
senior volunteer programs--Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and 
the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program [RSVP].
  These programs were developed at the grass-roots level, tried in many 
places and then presented to the Federal Government as an idea whose 
time had come.
  Since these programs were first funded, they have shown time and 
again that the small investment by the Federal Government reaps 
significant rewards, such as the cooperative agreement between the 
Senior Companion Program and the Visiting Nurses Association. By 
providing a visiting nurse to visit only 1 day a week, in support of 
the daily visit by the Senior Companion, the patient is ensured that he 
or she can live independently.
  I remember a volunteer from my own district who organized his fellow 
retirees into a community street patrol. They provide mature eyes and 
ears for the public safety service and allow police officers to respond 
quickly and provide greater community safety.
  These stories are not unique to the 31st District of California, they 
are repeated in every congressional district.
  I urge Members to oppose these cuts, vote ``no'' on this bill, and 
protect the economic benefits of these programs.
  Send a message that this is truly a family friendly Congress--not one 
that is ready to destroy the elderly, the children, and the family.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas wanted to know what he would 
have us to do on this side. We would have you to balance your priority. 
The gentleman from Texas, we will say, we will have you to have a sense 
of compassion. We also would have you to recognize that is not 
ineffective, nonessential to make sure that senior citizens have heat 
in the winter and have air-conditioning in the summer.
  It is not ineffective, no longer needed, that those almost 500 people 
who died in Chicago, the majority of them senior citizens, the majority 
of them low-income, had no air-conditioning. That was life and death. 
So we are talking about priorities.
  This bill, more than any other bill, makes the distinction between 
the policies of the minority and the cruel extreme policies of the 
majority. You will go to a balanced budget at the cost of anything, 
regardless of whether people live or die.
  You raise the issue about children, and yet you depress the 
opportunity for them to learn, to live, and to be healthy. You claim 
that you are about family values and yet you deny the opportunity, even 
want to deny the opportunity of family planning. This is, indeed, lack 
of consistency and borders on hypocrisy.
  So what we would have you to do is to understand there are 
consequences to your actions. You cannot ignore the pain and distress 
that you cause millions of people if you pursue this policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this unthinkable 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates the differences between 
the policies of the minority and the extreme policies of the majority.
  Over the past several days, cuts have been made in programs which 
have benefited Americans for many, many years. But now we are debating 
the most unconscionable cut of all--elimination of a program which 
serves thousands of senior citizens across America.
  Next week, as we begin the August recess of the House, we will come 
face to face with our constituents.
  As much as I enjoy visiting in my congressional district, I am not 
looking forward to having to explain why there is less money for low-
income housing programs: Why there is less money to combat 
homelessness; why there is less money for construction of VA 
facilities; why there will be no more drug elimination 

[[Page H 8326]]
grants; why there is no summer youth employment program; and why there 
is no Goals 2000 Education Program.
  But just how do you explain to people that the House of 
Representatives has eliminated a program so critical to the health and 
well-being of so many people. LIHEAP is a program which provides 
assistance to thousands of senior citizens across our Nation to help 
them pay for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.
  This is certainly an appropriate time for us to vote on this program.
  Think about it. Weather people have been telling us that this past 
July has hosted a record number of days over 90 degrees. And the 
hardest hit--those most affected by the heat--are our senior citizens.
  How can we in good conscience tell those thousands of senior citizens 
that they will just have to ``make do.''
  ``Stay cool the best way you can.''
  Tell that to the families of the more than 500 people in Chicago who 
died as a result of the heat. And most of these people were senior 
citizens.
  They were someone's parents--someone's grandparents. That's an 
unsettling thought.
  I wonder just how well we would do if the air-conditioning in this 
Chamber--and our offices--was cut off for just 1 day during this 
sweltering heat.
  Where is our compassion?
  I cannot--in good conscience--vote to eliminate this program which 
serves so many. I ask for your compassion as well.
  Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2127.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this bill is such a crime 
against senior citizens, there should be an assault weapons ban 
included to protect them.
  It says it will cut your Social Security and cost-of-living increase; 
we will ask you to pay $5,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses for 
Medicare, take away your fuel assistance program, take food out of your 
mouths, take away protections to protect seniors against elder abuse, 
and restrict your jobs. It forces seniors to choose between heating, 
eating, lifesaving medicines, providing for fuel assistance, and 
cooling bills. Make no mistake about it. This bill makes tough choices 
even tougher.
  What are the Republicans thinking about when they end the fuel 
assistance? This heat wave has already killed over 700 Americans, most 
of them senior citizens, and many, many more will die as the actions 
are taken on this bill today.
  There are 12 million people that count on the Congregate Meals and 
the Meals on Wheels program; 150,000 seniors will be cut off from their 
only source of daily food. It abolishes the program that protects our 
seniors from fraud and nursing home abuses and, finally, it restricts 
opportunities for older workers who still want to work.
  Have the Republicans gone to Washington and forgotten about their 
parents and grandparents? What is happening to the conscience of this 
party? The Grand Old Party has sunk to a low of coming to this House 
floor trying to cut the budget of America in order to protect the tax 
cut for the wealthiest people in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for our senior citizens that build this 
country up, not knock them down for the sake of our pockets today.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think this is the most difficult bill 
I have debated in 15 years. Going to war was easy compared to this.
  I come here with the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter] because I think he was given the most impossible and most 
unfair task that any subcommittee Chair should ever be asked to do. I 
do not blame him, because he was given a 602(b) allocation cutting $10 
billion from last year, and I got to talk to my own party.
  Our macro priority of balancing the budget is absolutely right, but 
the micro priority that cuts $10 billion in human investment is 
absolutely wrong and we will pay for that for future generations in 
this country.
  We all want to break down the barriers to trade for a global economy. 
We all want to pass the tax incentives to modernize and equip business 
for high technology, and we somehow suggest that in that process there 
is no time, there is no effort, and there are no resources to train and 
to educate a skilled force to be able to compete in that high 
technology global economy.
  One cannot cut 63 percent from child training programs and expect 
those kids to get off the street and to give up crime and drugs and to 
go to work. One cannot cut 33 percent from the adult job training 
programs in 1 year and expect that we are going to transition rural 
America, where I come from, where we are losing farm jobs, or the inner 
city, where some of you come from, where we are losing industrial jobs, 
and expect us to put those people back to work. Because we do not like 
the delivery systems of the past does not give us the right to deny 
that the problems exist, and that is the problem with the bill in front 
of us, and it is the price that our party will pay, which I personally 
regret, but worse than that, that our Nation will pay, that every one 
of us as a citizen must be totally disturbed by.
  We are debating the section on health care. I do not know what some 
of you know about health care, but I've got to tell you, we are 
struggling to keep the hospital open in my hometown, and we are 
struggling in western Wisconsin to give people an access to emergency 
lifesaving care, and this bill guts, totally guts, trauma care. Zero 
money.
  Now, when you close down our hospitals and you eliminate our 
emergency health care, that is not a problem in some of America's 
beautiful suburbs, but I got to tell you, that is life and death in 
rural Wisconsin. It is not just the State offices of rural health being 
eliminated. Probably some of them should not have been continued. It is 
not just eliminating the Office of Rural Health or a 43-percent cut in 
transition grants. It is the basic bottom line. We have got to find 
some different priorities or, trust me, we will pay a lot more in the 
future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] on his 
commendation of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the other 
statements that he made about priorities.
  It is not necessary for us to have had to do what the gentleman has 
had to do in bringing the bill before us today. There was an 
alternative budget that was out, but I want to speak just briefly to 
the area of rural health, something that is a minor portion of this 
bill but is a major portion to my district, appropriations for rural 
health.
  I want to just say I am confused, because it seems to me that the 
committee report states that big government is better and small 
government is not preferable, and I talk specifically about the Office 
of Rural Health, and I would like to submit for the Record what I have 
received from the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State 
Grange in support of the good work done by the Federal office.
  These folks do not talk about some distant bureaucratic wasteful 
Federal office. They talk about a friendly face, an advocate in 
Government which rolls up its sleeves and provides support and advice 
and administers small but vital programs. It helps them communicate 
with other rural programs across the country. These are the kinds of 
things that are working in our Government and should not be left out.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk briefly about something which is a very 
minor portion of this bill but which is of huge importance to my 
district and my State--appropriations for rural health.
  I do want to thank my Texas colleague, Mr. Bonilla, for his good work 
in promoting a number of rural health programs in this bill and I also 
want to thank Chairman Porter and the committee for recognizing the 
importance of programs such as the National Health Service Corps and 
outreach grants.
  I do have to day, however, that I am confused by one decision the 
committee made and confused by the committee report language which 
explained that decision.
  The committee report stated:


[[Page H 8327]]

       The [Federal Office of Rural Health Policy's] size and 
     location at HRSA limit its impact on Federal health 
     reimbursement policies and other concerns of rural areas.

  What I am unclear about is whether the committee is suggesting that 
small government can not be effective, that big government is 
preferable?
  It's true that the office is tiny, especially in government 
standards. It employs only 15 people out of a total of 60,000 HHS. The 
funding is tiny as well. Very few Federal offices can operate 
effectively with less than $10 million. But the Office represents the 
best concentration of expertise on rural health in the Federal 
Government. Even with their David status, they have taken on the 
Goliath of HHS and frequently been victorious. The Office has been 
instrumental in raising the awareness that a one-size-fits-all approach 
does not work in rural America. For example, they have helped to win 
victories on hospital reimbursements and small laboratory regulation.
  Or, is the committee arguing that the Federal Office should be 
enlarged and raised in the Department structure?
  As one who was around when the bipartisan Rural Health Coalition 
first called for the creation of this office, I can tell you that it 
was intentionally established outside of Department headquarters to 
ensure that it would serve as a quasi-independent office to look out 
for the concerns of rural health. It functions as a broker, not a 
bureaucracy. In fact, you might say it was intended to be a thorn in 
the side of Federal bureaucracy.
  Today, the Office is the Federal voice bringing attention to 
obstacles in the path of rural telemedicine and rural managed care. It 
is also the Government's only official rural voice in the debate over 
restructuring Medicaid and Medicare. We would be happy for it to be 
bigger or higher if the committee wishes to finance such stature, but 
absent that, let's make sure we support its current role rather than 
eliminating it, as this bill does.
  I would like to submit for the record letters I have received from 
the Texas Rural Health Association and the Texas State Grange in 
support of the good work done by the Federal Office. These folks do not 
talk about some distant, bureaucratic, wasteful Federal office. They 
talk about a friendly face and advocate in the Government which rolls 
up its sleeves, provides support and advice, administers small but 
vital programs, helps them communicate with other rural programs across 
the country, and assists them in avoiding mistakes and duplication. In 
these days when so few people speak of positive experiences with the 
Federal Government, why would we want to eliminate one of the bright 
lights that exists?
  Like my constituents, I certainly hope that before this appropriation 
bill is signed into law, funding for these valuable services will be 
restored.
                                           Texas State Grange,

                                   San Antonio, TX, July 31, 1995.
     Hon. Charles W. Stenholm,
     17th Congressional District of Texas.
       Dear Representative Stenholm: The Texas State Grange is 
     very concerned with the cuts/elimination of funding for the 
     rural health care programs contained in the FY'96 
     appropriation bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
     Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. If passed, 
     this bill will eliminate the following essential rural health 
     care programs:
       Federal Office of Rural Health, State offices of rural 
     health, rural health research, telemedicine, new rural health 
     grants, trauma care, and essential access community 
     hospitals.
       The Federal Office of Rural Health is the only office that 
     provides a voice for rural health care in Washington, D.C. It 
     is also a crucial link in the federal-state-local health care 
     provider chain. This office needs to be maintained, not 
     eliminated.
       While we understand that when originally authorized, 
     funding for the State Offices of Rural Health was to be 
     eventually phased out, not all states have made an investment 
     in their State Offices of Rural Health. Ten to fifteen of the 
     offices predict they will close if funding is eliminated now.
       Rural residents comprise approximately 22% of our 
     population. In addition, farmers have the highest percentage 
     of injuries and/or deaths per industry. Eliminating funds for 
     trauma care (and EACH is shortsighted) and as more rural 
     hospitals are forced to close, funds for telemedicine become 
     a necessity for those communities.
       The Texas State Grange recognizes and appreciates the 104th 
     Congress' attempts to be fiscally-minded in its 
     appropriations. However, zeroing out funds for essential 
     services to rural health care programs is not a ``fair 
     share'' cut.
       We ask that if floor amendments are brought up dealing with 
     reinstating funds for rural health care programs, you will 
     vote ``yes''! Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Archie D. Knight.
                                                                    ____

                               Texas Rural Health Association,

                                       Austin, TX, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Charles Stenholm,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Room 1211,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Stenholm: The House will be voting this 
     week to eliminate the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy 
     (ORHP). As President of the Texas Rural Health Association, I 
     implore you not to let this happen. The Office of Rural 
     Health Policy is a voice for rural health in America. Jeff 
     Humans and his very concerned and committed staff monitor 
     what is happening to the health of rural Americans and advise 
     the Secretary of HHS as to trends and needs. This Office 
     helps coordinate and guide what would otherwise be totally 
     fragmented and potentially duplicative rural efforts of other 
     Federal agencies.
       ORHP Programs like the Rural Health Outreach Grant Program 
     (RHOG) help promote the development of community coalitions 
     to improve the delivery of health care by maximizing 
     available resources. In Mount Pleasant, Texas, RHOG funds 
     were employed to open a high risk prenatal clinic. In East 
     Texas, RHOG funds are being used to develop a network of lay 
     health advocates through area minority churches and housing 
     projects to assist with health outreach and education.
       The telemedicine grant program helps bring specialty care 
     to rural Americans, lessens provider professional isolation, 
     and enables patients to stay in their communities. The ORHP 
     Rural Research Centers provide a very important glimpse into 
     rural health care delivery systems--helping us determine what 
     works, under what circumstances, and where--this is real 
     world research.
       Through the State Offices of Rural Health, the Center for 
     Rural Health Initiatives here in Texas, the ORHP helps link 
     health providers and communities, provides technical 
     assistance, and is a continuing source of local support.
       In sum, the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy 
     represents rural Americans, it hears rural voices. We cannot 
     afford to lose it!
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gail R. Bellamy,
                                                        President.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have been running ads about 
how they are helping the children in the next generation by reducing 
the deficit. That is very nice but they are making sure that the kids 
pay for it by cutting programs that help those same kids and provide 
them with an education.
  Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an 
unwelcome choice. They either reduce the services that Federal funds 
paid for or they raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way, 
it is the people least able to help themselves, children or older 
homeowners with fixed incomes who are being required to pay the bills.
  This bill cuts funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1 
billion, that is 17 percent. My state, New York, will lose $123 
million, and 100,000 New York students will be affected.
  This program has the strongest support of any Federal education 
program from our own school districts, whether they are urban, rural, 
liberal, or conservative. They tell us how important the program is. 
The program cuts funding for safe and drug free schools. It will cost 
New York $59 million at the same time that we hear about students 
shooting other students and selling drugs in schools.
  It is time that we had some rationale about what we are doing and 
pass a sensible bill. This bill needs to be defeated.
  Republicans have been running ads about how they are helping children 
and the next generation by reducing the deficit. That's very nice, but 
they are making sure that the kids pay for it by cutting programs that 
help kids and that provide them with an education.
  Elementary and secondary education cuts force communities to make an 
unwelcome choice: either reduce the services that Federal funds paid 
for, or raise property taxes to keep them going. Either way, it is the 
people least able to help themselves--children or older homeowners with 
fixed incomes--who are being required to pay the bills.
  The bill would cut funding for title I compensatory education by $1.1 
billion, 17 percent. New York will lose $103 million, and 100,000 New 
York students will be affected. Title I pays for remedial education. It 
has the strongest support of any Federal education program from our own 
school districts--liberal and conservative, rural and urban. They tell 
us how important they think the program is.
  It cuts funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs by 59 
percent, $286 million nationwide, $59 million in New York. Does this 
make sense when we hear almost daily about students shooting other 
students, or students selling drugs in schools?

[[Page H 8328]]

  It cuts funding for children at risk--52-percent cut in Healthy 
Start, HHS program to reduce infant mortality; $137 million in Head 
Start, cutting 60,000 children out of Nancy Reagan's favorite program 
for children; cut of 20 percent in programs for homeless children.
  It cuts funding for education reform--$250 million in funding for 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program for teacher improvement; 
total elimination of funding for Goals 2000, to improve and upgrade 
school curricula. Cost to NY: $18.8 million for Eisenhower, $27 million 
for Goals. Goals was the product of the bipartisan effort by governors, 
blessed by the Bush Administration, to respond to the ``Nation at 
Risk'' report which said that our education system was weak enough and 
inconsistent enough that it threatened our economic future.
  So, maybe today's kids will be paying less in Federal taxes--but 
they'll be living in a third-rate economy that was too cheap to give 
them the good education that all children need and deserve.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the real story of this bill is that it is 
punishing those in the dawn of life, our children, and those in the 
twilight of life, our senior citizens.
  In the case of the elderly, if this bill passes in its present form, 
our Nation better get out the ambulances. At a time when our aging 
population is growing so rapidly, this bill hits 16 key programs for 
the elderly that are a lifeline for our seniors. It eliminates programs 
like the elderly abuse program at a time when elderly abuse has gone up 
94 percent over the last 5 years. These are seniors that are being 
physically abused. They are being exploited. They are in a position 
where they cannot defend themselves and, yet, this Congress eliminates 
that program.
  The same is true of the long-term care ombudsman program, a program 
that provides an early warning signal to seniors that are being abused 
in long-term care.
  Let us not do this. We have supported those programs in the past on a 
bipartisan basis. Let us keep them strong for our Nation's seniors.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what the 
Republicans and what the chairman of this committee is trying to lay 
before the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. H.R. 2127 is an assault on our Nation's most 
vulnerable.
  Mr. Chairman, historically, the Labor-HHS-Education bill has been a 
testament to our commitment to the things which have held our Nation 
together: good health, education, and jobs.
  But this bill is a disgrace. In one giant sweep we manage to cut the 
funding for programs that alleviate the misery this Nation experiences 
from lack of economic opportunity and poor health.
  If this bill is passed, we will turn our backs on poor mothers, 
babies and young people.


                             healthy start

  Healthy Start cuts will deepen the infant mortality crisis in the 
United States.
  The bill will cut Healthy Start by $55 million in 1996 and eliminate 
funding after 1996.
  The United States--the wealthiest and most industrialized country in 
the world--has an infant mortality rate that is worse than many third 
world countries.
  Babies born in the United States are less likely to reach their first 
birthday than babies born in 22 other industrialized countries.
  In my district alone, the infant mortality rate is over 17 percent. 
In other urban areas across the United States, the infant mortality 
rate is over 20 percent.
  These cuts will be devastating to the public hospital in my 
congressional district that is struggling to reduce the number of low-
birthweight babies.


                   Low-Income home energy assistance

  Abolishing funding for LIHEAP will worsen the devastating effects of 
this summer's heat wave.
  According to the public health officials, over 700 people have died 
from the heat wave this summer. Of these, 550 were in Chicago which has 
had temperatures as high as 103 degrees and average temperatures of 96 
degrees. Are we going to turn our backs on the hundreds that could die 
as a result of eliminating LIHEAP?
  The National Weather Service predicts that this heatwave will 
continue unabated. Are we going to turn our backs on the 6 million 
families who will suffer if LIHEAP is eliminated?


                        summer youth employment

  This bill cancels appropriations for summer jobs for young people. 
The President rightfully requested $958 million for this program.
  In Memphis, over 30,000 young people have benefited from this program 
since 1984.
  In 1995, Memphis received $2.3 million and employed 1,600 kids who 
worked in summer jobs as a result of this program.
  Summer jobs give our neediest young people a vital income and keeps 
them productive when school is out.


                               conclusion

  Abolishing Healthy Start, summer jobs, and energy assistance will 
result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.
  In South Carolina, a jury sentenced Susan Smith to life imprisonment 
for killing two innocent children.
  What will the sentence be for Republicans who are cutting programs 
that will cost the lives of thousands?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to balance the budget for our 
children. I agree. I voted for a balanced budget amendment this year 
and in years past. I voted for the Stenholm amendment to balance the 
budget in 7 years.
  But those who stand on this floor and say we are balancing the budget 
do not tell the truth. We are taking $9 billion from children that my 
constituents do not believe are pork, from seniors that my constituents 
do not think is waste, from rural health that my constituents do not 
believe is fraud, and from people who need energy assistance to keep 
warm and cool in distress, and people do not believe that is abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, we are taking that $9 billion and we are giving it not 
to balance the budget, not to bring down the deficit, not to save our 
children from debt, but we are taking that money and we are shifting it 
over here to the wealthiest Americans among us so that they can have a 
tax cut.
  We are not saving any money. We are not reducing the deficit by these 
cuts. In point of fact, we have been on a downhill slide on domestic 
spending like education and like health care.
  Reject this bill. It is bad for America, it is bad for the future, it 
is bad for our children, and it does not make sense.
                              {time}  1215

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us in Congress have our priorities. We are rural 
or city. We are putting education or health or national defense or 
agriculture at the top of our list. Every one of us are here crying for 
a balanced budget, provided we do so on someone else's priorities.
  The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Wisconsin said earlier 
it is the B-2 bomber that is the problem. We are for balancing the 
budget provided we do it on the B-2 bomber or national defense or 
elsewhere.
  Let me say that you cannot balance the budget on someone else's 
priorities. Everyone has to contribute to this process. I voted against 
the B-2 bomber, consistently. I am voting against tax cuts now until 
the budget is into balance. We cannot do it without everybody giving 
something to the process. Those who say balance it on someone else's 
priorities are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
  If I may say to the gentleman on the other side and some on my side 
as well, the funding under this section of the bill is not going down. 
It is going from $181 to $198.2 billion. It is going up substantially. 
The cut in the discretionary portion is 3.5 percent and in services 
probably a good deal less than 3 percent.
  Should it make a contribution? Yes. Is this the way to move toward a 
balanced budget? Yes. I believe that we have done a very responsible 
job in handling this section of the bill. I think the hyperbole on the 
other side is, frankly, just that, hyperbole.

[[Page H 8329]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time for general debate on title II has expired.
  Are there any amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment numbered 95, offered by Mr. Moran: Page 30, line 
     13, insert before the period the following: ``: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $7,500,000 shall be available for carrying out the activities 
     of the Office of Alternative Medicine under section 404E of 
     the Public Health Service Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of yesterday, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] will be recognized for 10 minutes in support of 
the amendment, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] wish to claim the time 
as the opponent?
  Mr. PORTER. We have no objection to the amendment, so if there is a 
Member opposed, they should claim the time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I know of no one who objects to the 
amendment. I would like to explain it, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply earmarks an additional 
$1.9 million within the Office of the Director of NIH for the Office of 
Alternative Medicine. It does not increase the budget. In fact, as I 
say, this is unallocated money, but I think it is terribly important 
that we put a little bit more money into the Office of Alternative 
Medicine.
  You know, 80 percent of the world's medicine is considered 
alternative medicine. It is amazing, the fact that 80 percent of the 
rest of the world uses different therapies than the conventional 
therapies that we use in the United States and that, in fact, 50 
percent of the American people who are faced with a very serious 
illness like cancer try alternative medicines. In fact, they pay out of 
pocket about $10 billion. As much as they pay out of pocket for 
hospital care, they are paying out of pocket, uninsured, for 
alternative approaches to traditional medicine.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I came across this issue because of a personal 
experience in our family. My child had a malignant brain tumor and had 
maybe a 10- to 20-percent chance of living up to the age of 5, we were 
told, and so it was recommended to take the
 traditional approach, which is surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. 
Essentially cut, poison, and burn.

  The surgery was not able to get all of the tumor and so we gave her 
chemotherapy. We soon realized, the debilitating effect that 
chemotherapy was having on her. She is only a 3-year-old, but it 
generally has an adverse impact on anyone taking chemotherapy. We also 
put off the radiation.
  A story was written about our situation, and we got thousands of 
letters from all over the world, primarily from the United States. We 
got boxes of them. I do not have the time to read them. My wife has 
been reading most of them. It is amazing the common experiences that 
are shared and the fact that the majority of people have tried 
alternative approaches and yet they do not have anywhere to go to 
determine the efficacy of these different approaches, because there are 
no random clinical professional trials done on most of these 
approaches.
  We are trying something that we found out about from hundreds of 
people who have had success with powdered shark cartilage. People wince 
when we mention it. We do not have anywhere to go to determine whether, 
and under what conditions, it is likely to be effective, but the 
reality is, it seems to be working with our daughter in combination 
with high doses of vitamin C and other nutrients.
  I only mention the personal experience because our experience is 
being shared by thousands of families, if not millions across the 
country. We need some professional analysis. We need random trials that 
are done in a professional, scrupulous manner.
  We have a new director at the Office of Alternative Medicine with the 
right kind of background in clinical trials. He was at Walter Reed. He 
is an extremely competent physician. He is going to direct this office, 
but we need to give him at least the minimal amount of resources to 
determine whether some of these alternative therapies work.
  They will be done in collaboration with what the other National 
Institutes of Health are doing, and so I would urge that this small 
amount of increase to the Office of Alternative Medicine, which would 
bring it up to $7.5 million out of billions we put into the total 
budget for the National Institutes of Health, be approved by this body 
and that we make some progress in giving the kind of professional 
analysis we have the ability to provide, to so many American families 
who are desperately in need of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time 
to me. The issue is, you know, will we transfer a small amount of 
funds, $1.9 million, to the Office of Alternative Medicine. The 
director's office from which we would transfer this receives $3.5 
million more than the President asked for. The Office of Alternative 
Medicine is receiving the same small amount of funds it got last year.
  We are in kind of a catch-22. People say to me, well, Congressman, 
your idea is here, the ideas expressed by Mr. Moran are not clinically 
and scientifically proven, but we are not funding the Office of 
Alternative Medicine so we can conduct those scientific and clinical 
tests.
  You know, the problem is many of these potential cures are nonpro- 
prietary. They are not going to be billion dollar drugs. Many of them 
are natural substances. Many of them have long been in use in other 
countries. They cannot be patented in the United States under current 
law. They are orphans.
  So unless the Office of Alternative Medicine has the budget to 
research these substances, to do clinical tests, we are not going to 
move forward.
  This is preventive medicine. It can save tremendous amounts of money. 
You can look at folic acid for heart attack prevention. A lot of 
documentation in other countries, some in this country, but no 
clinically scientifically proven tests, so doctors are prescribing 
other things that perhaps are not even as effective.
  Degylcyrrhizinated licorice, tough word to say, for stomach problems, 
as opposed to tagamet and other proprietary drugs, not a lot enthusiasm 
out there for something that you can buy for $15 a month when you can 
prescribe something for $100 or $200 a month.
  If we are going to save money, if we are going to have a healthier 
populous, we need to begin looking at some of these alternatives, and 
this small amount of money transferred over to the already existing 
Office of Alternative Medicine, doing nothing to impact the director's 
budget which will still exceed the President's request, would move this 
country forward tremendously, and it would meet the goals of all of us 
who want to see that Americans have the widest range of choices 
available to them when they or their loved ones have health problems.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since it is such an important topic, I am going to make 
a few more remarks, and I appreciate the fact that the chairman is not 
opposed to this amendment. In fact, he would probably like me to speed 
this up as rapidly as possible and get on to more controversial 
amendments.

                              {time}  1230

  I think it is important to recognize that with a $1 trillion health 
budget, 70 percent of the illnesses that we come down with are 
preventable, if we had a better concept of how to keep ourselves 
healthy, and that is largely what this is all about. It is determining 
how we can bring about the healthiest population possible and not 
rejecting things because they are not taught in traditional schools of 
medicine, even though they have been used efficaciously throughout the 
globe.
  So I would appreciate greater attention being given to what I think 
is an area at NIH that holds tremendous 

[[Page H 8330]]
promise, that does not cost a lot of money. The rewards are going to be 
far more than what they cost for investing in the Office of Alternative 
Medicine.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member who wishes to be recognized in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is acceptable on both 
sides of the aisle.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            education reform

       For carrying out activities authorized by titles II and III 
     of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, $95,000,000, which 
     shall become available on July 1, 1996, and remain available 
     through September 30, 1997.

                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, $6,014,499,000, which shall become 
     available on July 1, 1996 and shall remain available through 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That up to $3,500,000 of these 
     funds shall be available to the Secretary on October 1, 1995 
     to obtain updated local-educational-agency-level census 
     poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, 
     That no funds shall be reserved under section 1003(a) of said 
     Act.

                               impact aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $645,000,000, 
     of which $550,000,000 shall be for basic support payments 
     under section 8003(b), $40,000,000 shall be for payments for 
     children with disabilities under section 8003(d), 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for 
     payments under section 8003(f), and $5,000,000 shall be for 
     construction under section 8007: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 8003(a)(2), 
     children described in section 8003(a)(1)(D) shall have a 
     weight of zero for the purpose of computing basic support 
     payments under section 8003(b) and construction payments 
     under section 8007: Provided further, That no payments shall 
     be made under section 8003(d) or 8003(g) for children 
     described in section 8003(a)(1)(D): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided shall be used for payments under 
     section 8003(e).

                      school improvement programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles II, IV-A-1, V-A, VI, and X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act; $842,000,000, of which $723,000,000 
     shall become available on July 1, 1996, and remain available 
     through September 30, 1997.

                   bilingual and immigrant education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     bilingual and immigrant education activities authorized by 
     title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
     $103,000,000: Provided, That State educational agencies may 
     use all, or any part of, their part C allocation for 
     competitive grants to local educational agencies: Provided 
     further, That the Department of Education should only support 
     instructional programs which ensure that students completely 
     master English in a timely fashion (a period of three to five 
     years) while meeting rigorous achievement standards in the 
     academic content areas: Provided further, That no funds shall 
     be available for subpart 3 of part A.

                           special education

       For carrying out parts B, C, D, F, and H of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act, $3,092,491,000, of which 
     $3,000,000,000 shall become available for obligation on July 
     1, 1996, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     1997.

            rehabilitation services and disability research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance 
     for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller 
     National Center Act, as amended, $2,455,760,000.

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

       For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $4,000,000.


               national technical institute for the deaf

       For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under 
     titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 
     U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $39,737,000: Provided, That from the 
     amount available, the Institute may at its discretion use 
     funds for the endowment program as authorized under section 
     207.


                          gallaudet university

       For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model 
     Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of 
     Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education 
     of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), 
     $72,028,000: Provided, That from the amount available, the 
     University may at its discretion use funds for the endowment 
     program as authorized under section 207.

                     vocational and adult education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
     Act, the Adult Education Act, and the National Literacy Act 
     of 1991, $1,057,919,000, of which $1,055,000,000 shall become 
     available on July 1, 1996 and shall remain available through 
     September 30, 1997: Provided, That of the amounts made 
     available under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act, $1,000,000 shall be for national 
     programs under title IV without regard to section 451.

                      student financial assistance

       For carrying out subparts 1 and 3 of part A, part C, and 
     part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $6,916,915,000, which shall remain available through 
     September 30, 1997.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 1996-1997 shall be $2,440: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, as 
     amended, if the Secretary determines, prior to publication of 
     the payment schedule for award year 1996-1997, that the 
     $5,697,000,000 included within this appropriation for Pell 
     Grant awards for award year 1996-1997, and any funds 
     available from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation for Pell 
     Grant awards, are insufficient to satisfy fully all such 
     awards for which students are eligible, as calculated under 
     section 401(b) of the Act, the amount paid for each such 
     award shall be reduced by either a fixed or variable 
     percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as determined in 
     accordance with a schedule of reductions established by the 
     Secretary for this purpose: Provided further, That no Pell 
     grant shall be awarded to any student during award year 1996-
     1997 if the amount of that grant as determined under section 
     401(b) of the Act is less than $600.

             federal family education loan program account

       For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed 
     student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended, $30,066,000.

                            higher education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     parts A and B of title III, without regard to section 
     360(a)(1)(B)(ii), chapter 1 of subpart 2 of part A of title 
     IV, subpart 2 of part E of title V, parts A and B of title 
     VI, title VII, part D of title IX, and part A and subpart 1 
     of part B of title X of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, and the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act 
     of 1961; $757,700,000, of which $16,712,000 for interest 
     subsidies under title VII of the Higher Education Act, as 
     amended, shall remain available until expended.

                           howard university

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $170,366,000.

                   higher education facilities loans

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

         college housing and academic facilities loans program

       For administrative expenses to carry out the existing 
     direct loan program of college housing and academic 
     facilities loans entered into pursuant to title VII, part C, 
     of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $700,000.

                         college housing loans

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

 historically black college and university capital financing, program 
                                account

       The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724 
     of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act shall not 
     exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such bonds shall 
     not exceed zero.
       For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically 
     Black College and University Capital Financing Program 
     entered into pursuant to title VII, part B of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended, $166,000.

            education research, statistics, and improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act; 
     the National Education Statistics Act; part A of title III, 
     parts A and B and section 10601 of 

[[Page H 8331]]
     title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $255,107,000: Provided, That $3,000,000 shall be for 
     section 10601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: 
     Provided further, That $25,000,000 shall be for section 3136 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (K-12 
     technology learning challenge): Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated in this paragraph may be obligated 
     or expended for the Goals 2000 Community Partnerships 
     Program.

                               libraries

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     titles I and III of the Library Services and Construction 
     Act, $101,227,000.

                        Departmental Management

                         program administration

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two 
     passenger motor vehicles, $327,319,000.

                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as 
     authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education 
     Organization Act, $53,951,000.

                    office of the inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, $28,154,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for 
     the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or 
     for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the 
     purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to 
     carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or 
     school system.
       Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
     used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation 
     of any student to a school other than the school which is 
     nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring 
     special education, to the school offering such special 
     education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an 
     indirect requirement of transportation of students includes 
     the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving 
     the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the 
     pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any 
     combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering. 
     The prohibition described in this section does not include 
     the establishment of magnet schools.
       Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer 
     and meditation in the public schools.
       Sec. 304. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     made available for opportunity to learn standards or 
     strategies.
       Sec. 305. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     available for section 458 of the Higher Education Act shall 
     not exceed $320,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, of which 
     $160,000,000 shall be available for the payment of 
     administrative cost allowances to guaranty agencies. The 
     Department of Education shall, within 30 days of enactment, 
     develop a plan for the payment of administrative cost 
     allowances which shall be submitted to the Chairs of the 
     House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and 
     the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 
     Notwithstanding section 458 of the Higher Education Act, the 
     Secretary may not use funds available under that section for 
     subsequent fiscal years for administrative expenses of the 
     William D. Ford Direct Loan Program during fiscal year 1996, 
     nor may the Secretary require the return of guaranty agency 
     reserve funds during fiscal year 1996.
       No funds available to the Secretary may be used for (1) 
     marketing, advertising or promotion of the William D. Ford 
     Direct Loan Program, or for the hiring of advertising 
     agencies or other third parties to provide advertising 
     services, or (2) payment of administrative fees relating to 
     the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program to institutions of 
     higher education.
       None of the funds provided by this Act may be used to hire 
     staff at the Department of Education if such hiring would 
     increase on-board employment at the Department as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       None of the funds provided by this Act may be used to 
     conduct an evaluation of the William D. Ford Direct Loan 
     Program except as administered by the Advisory Committee on 
     Student Financial Assistance.
       None of the funds provided by this Act may be used by the 
     Department of Education to implement new Individual 
     Procurement Agreements (IPAs).
       Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to carry out sections 727, 932, and 
     1002 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, section 621(b) of 
     Public Law 101-589, the President's Advisory Commission on 
     Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans, and the 
     President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges 
     and Universities.
       Sec. 307. Section 444(b)(1)(E) of the General Education 
     Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(E)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(E) State and local officials or authorities to whom such 
     information is specifically--
       ``(i) required to be reported or disclosed pursuant to 
     State statute adopted before November 19, 1974;
       ``(ii) allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to 
     State statute adopted before November 19, 1974, if the 
     allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice 
     system and such system's ability to effectively serve the 
     student whose records are released, or
       ``(iii) allowed to be reported or disclosed pursuant to 
     State statute adopted after November 19, 1974, if--
       ``(I) the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns the 
     juvenile justice system and such system's ability to 
     effectively serve, prior to adjudication, the student whose 
     records are released; and
       ``(II) the officials and authorities to whom such 
     information is disclosed certify in writing to the 
     educational agency or institution that the information will 
     not be disclosed to any other party except as provided under 
     State law without the prior written consent of the parent of 
     the student;''.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of 
     Education after December 31, 1995, to enforce title IX of the 
     Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) with 
     respect to gender equity in intercollegiate athletic 
     programs, except when it is made known to the Office that the 
     Department has issued updated policy guidance to institutions 
     of higher education which includes objective criteria 
     clarifying how such institutions can demonstrate a history 
     and continuing practice of program expansion for members of 
     the underrepresented sex and full and effective accommodation 
     of the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] will be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let us agree that if money, both 
Federal, State, and local were the problem, we should have already 
solved our education problems. Between 1960 and 1990, inflation 
adjusted spending for education rose from $50 billion to almost $190 
billion and per pupil spending, again adjusted for inflation, increased 
from $1,454 in 1960 to $4,622 in 1990; an increase of over 300 percent 
in real terms. However, student scores on their SAT's and National 
Assessment of Educational Progress declined. Between 1976 and 1994, 
Federal funding for elementary, secondary, and vocational education 
rose from $4.6 billion to $14.8 billion, again, an increase of over 300 
percent.
  As in other titles, the bill sets clear priorities while providing 
significant contributions to our goal of eliminating the Federal 
deficit by 2000.
  Total discretionary funding for the Department of Education declines 
by $4.5 billion from the fiscal year 1995 originally enacted levels and 
$3.7 billion from the post-rescission levels.
  The bill places a high priority on student assistance. The maximum 
Pell grant is increased by $100 to $2,440, the largest increase ever 
provided to raise the grants to the highest levels in history, Federal 
Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants, Federal Work-Study and 
TRIO programs are all held at last year's levels.
  The Committee recommendation maintains the $6 billion available for 
Perkins loans. While ending the Federal contribution, prudent 
management by the schools plus their continued contribution to this 
high priority program will allow the balance available for loans to 
students to increase.
  The bill eliminates over 90 mostly small, duplicative programs in the 
Department of Education.
  The mark terminates many of over 50 planning, dissemination, 
technical assistance, and research programs in education, including 
Goals 2000.
  The Goals 2000 program initiated by the Bush administration was a 
voluntary effort by States to develop and implement goals and 
standards. The current program is simply another Federal grant-in-aid 
program which, while having few formal requirements, will see a 
proliferation of informal rules and specifications as it is implemented 
down through the multi-layered bureaucracy of the Washington office and 
the regional offices.
  While this program has no specific, written substantive requirements, 
there are many connections between Goals 2000 and funding for other 
programs. Not so subtle pressures will 

[[Page H 8332]]
surely arise to address issues such as opportunity to learn, gender 
equity and other issues that are part of the administration's national 
educational policy.
  This account funds National Opportunity to Learn Standards and School 
Financial Equity programs. The administration would impose these social 
experiments on localities with little evaluation and where evaluation 
exists, it indicates that there is little relationship between spending 
and learning outcomes. According to Dr. Dianne Ravitch ``... No one 
knows what such standards are, so it seems premature to expect States 
to establish them.''
  School-to-Work and tech-prep activities are funded at $190 million in 
anticipation of their inclusion in larger block grants. These programs 
are slated to be consolidated into a block grant by the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee and this funding level was decided 
upon in anticipation action by the authorization committee.
  Title I funding for Education for the Disadvantaged is reduced by 
$1.14 billion, or 17.9 percent based on evaluations indicating little 
impact and the fact that the broad distribution of funds, to even the 
wealthiest school districts in America, diffuses the effectiveness of 
this program.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe very strongly that this 
money should be targeted only to the schools most in need, those in the 
inner cities and rural areas that have a high percentage of at risk 
children, and not be sent to school districts all over the country, 
including those in the most wealthy areas, as it is today. The program 
is extremely poorly targeted.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the final report of the National 
Assessment of the chapter I program, the program ``* * * Does not 
appear to be helping close the learning gap.'' Recently enacted reforms 
make some changes, but their impact on performance is unclear.
  There is little targeting in the program, 90 percent of the local 
school districts receive funding from this program, including many of 
the most wealthy school districts in the country. Those districts that 
do not participate are generally not those that are rich, but those 
that are so small as to not meet the minimum number of poor school aged 
children.
  Four hundred eighty-nine million dollars of fiscal year 1994 funding 
for Education for the Disadvantaged went to the 100 richest counties in 
America--with per capita personal income ranging from $24,000 to 
$49,000. While these counties surely contain disadvantaged children, 
with this level of income, these localities can provide more of the 
support for disadvantaged education themselves.
  Impact Aid, which reimburses local schools for the costs of educating 
military dependents, is reduced by 11 percent to $645 million. Funding 
is targeted only to students whose parents live and work on Federal 
installations. Funding for military ``b'' students is provided for in 
the Defense bill.
  Library service grants and inter-library cooperation 
programs are supported at approximately last year's level while funds 
are terminated for smaller, categorical library programs.
  The bill amends authorizing statutes to limit the administrative 
costs of the Direct Student Loan Program and to prevent implementation 
of opportunity to learn standards.
  Opportunity to learn standards focus on inputs rather than results. 
They divert attention to issues such as amounts spent per pupil, class 
size, years of schooling of the teacher, numbers of computers, and 
allow justification of failure rather than the focus on results.
  This title represents the clearest example of priority setting by the 
committee, of elimination of duplicative and redundant programs and of 
reform of programs and administration.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in the first section of our debate we discussed what 
this bill was doing to cripple our workers and worker programs. In the 
second section we talked about what it was doing to savage programs 
that support the most vulnerable people in this society. Now we are 
turning to a discussion of how this bill is, pure and simple, an attack 
on education.
  This bill is the anti-education appropriation act of 1995, pure and 
simple. It cuts 18 percent out of what we appropriated just last year 
for Federal education programs. That means almost one out of every 5 
dollars that was there a year ago will not be there this year.
  It takes almost $2.5 billion away from local school districts, and 
that is most assuredly going to result in lower quality and higher 
property taxes. And it does it all to provide a $20,000 tax cut for 
people making $350,000 a year.
  I would suggest there are an awfully lot of people in society who 
make that amount of money, who recognize that if they have to choose 
between getting a $20,000 tax cut at that bracket, and seeing to it 
that the basic education structure of this country is sound, they will 
opt for education, because they know they cannot in the end disconnect 
from society. You cannot achieve success by working up the opportunity 
ladder yourselves, and then pull it on up so that someone else cannot 
use that ladder as well.
  The answer from the Republican side of the aisle seems to be, Well, 
our education programs do not work, so let's give up and give some rich 
guy a tax cut. Well, I do not think that is an especially effective way 
to go about it.
  I have one last simple thought: For as long as I have been in this 
House, support for education has been a bipartisan proposition. But 
whether back home in Wisconsin, when I served in the legislature, or 
here in the Congress, support for education has always been bipartisan. 
Look at some of the programs that are named after distinguished 
Republican leaders in the area of education: Stafford, Javitz, 
Goldwater, Eisenhower. Has this party really moved even beyond them? 
Are they no longer acceptable? I simply do not believe it.
  It just seems to me that the most fundamental purpose of any society 
is to see to it that its children are made top priority, that they 
receive decent opportunity, decent education. That is what this bill 
walks away from. That is why this bill ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] be allowed to control my time and yield time from 
this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get back to basics on this and why we are doing 
this. These are tough choices we are making. It is not easy to have to 
establish priorities in our spending. But that is exactly what we are 
doing. So let us remember what we are doing. We are balancing the 
budget, the most important single thing we can do for the generation 
today and for future generations.
  Let me just show you what numbers amount to. The budget of 
approximately $176 billion means we are overspending right now $670 for 
every man, woman, and child in this country. We are overspending. We 
are going into debt. I have a family with two children. That is $2,700 
worth of debt we are going into this year. We have a debt for every 
man, woman, and child in this country of over $18,000 per person. We 
are going to build it and get it larger and larger, and spend more and 
more on interest.
  So our goal is to balance this budget, start that glide path to a 
balanced budget. The other side just wants to spend, spend, spend, and 
we know how to spend in Washington. We have had lots of experience in 
spending for the past 25 years. We have to get some sense and fiscal 
sanity to what we are doing here.
  We keep hearing the rhetoric: We are cutting this. We heard it 
earlier this year: We cut the school lunch program. We increased it by 
4.5 percent. They say we are cutting Medicare. We are increasing 
Medicare spending from $4,800 for every man and woman in Medicare, to 
$6,700, in 7 years, in the Medicare Program. We are increasing 
spending. So the most important thing we can do is to balance this 
budget and get on that glide path. It is important to every American.
  Let me show why. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. 

[[Page H 8333]]
  Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board appeared before us 
on two different occasions, discussing what would it mean if we 
balanced the budget. He uses the word remarkable, what is going to 
happen over the next years. Some of the thoughts he is talking about is 
children will have a higher standard of living than their parents if we 
can get this budget under control and stop wasting money on interest of 
the national debt. There will be improvement in the purchasing power of 
their incomes. There will be a rise in productivity.
  Our competitiveness in the world is important in this issue. There 
would be a reduction in inflation. There is a strengthening of the 
financial markets, actual rates of long-term economic growth. That 
means jobs.
  There would be a significant drop in long-term interest rates. He 
says it will be around 2 percent; that is, for someone having a $75,000 
mortgage on their home, that is about $100 a month less they are going 
to have to spend on that mortgage. That is money in someone's pocket.
  We have to get this deficit under control. That is what we are 
talking about here today. We can say I wish we had more money here or 
there. Maybe we could have changed it a little bit. These are tough 
choices. We are trying to balance what we have to work with. We have to 
live within our budget.
  I have to live within my personal budget. Every American has to live 
within a personal budget. Only the Federal budget has this credit card 
that has no spending limit; you just spend, spend, spend. That is not 
right. It is wrong. Balancing the budget is the best thing we will do 
for every single American today and for the future generations.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this title of the bill is education. 
Americans believe strongly in education, and everybody on this floor 
wants to balance the budget. As a matter of fact, unlike the gentleman 
who just spoke, I voted to reduce the deficit by $500 billion in 1993. 
The gentleman did not.
  Whether conservative or liberal, all Americans believe in the 
American opportunity society. My parents wanted me to have a better 
life than they had. That is what I want for my three daughters, and, 
yes, for my granddaughter. The United States is a great Nation because 
we give people that opportunity, the opportunity to make a better life 
for themselves and their children. Education is the doorway through 
which American access that opportunity.
  But this appropriation bill is an all-out assault on the American 
opportunity society. The words opportunity society are meaningless if 
you do not have the education you need to compete in today's global 
marketplace. The word opportunity is meaningless if you cannot make a 
living wage and your kids cannot get a good education in school.
  Why are the Republicans waging this attack? The reason is not so they 
can bring that deficit down, I tell my friend, but so that we can take 
that money and shift it over to a tax cut for the wealthiest folks in 
America.
                              {time}  1245

  That is what we are doing. We are not taking that money that they 
gentleman just talked about to bring down that $670 figure, what we are 
doing is taking that money and shifting it over here for a tax cut: a 
$245 billion tax cut.
  Nobody likes paying taxes, but I do not talk to any constituents who 
believe that it is not important to see that our kids are educated, and 
that is what that title is about.
  Mr. Chairman, what does this attack mean for local schools? Let me 
talk about a school in my district, Carrollton Elementary School in 
Prince George's County.
  At Carrollton, parents attend workshops to learn what their children 
are learning in the classroom to help their kids at home. We know if 
parents are not doing the job, nothing we do is going to suffice. The 
budget cuts in this bill would end those parent workshops.
  Carrollton needs reading and writing materials to reach the new 
higher educational standards the State of Maryland has set, 
appropriately, so we can compete in the world markets. The school board 
has approved them and the contract has been signed, but these budget 
cuts will cancel that program.
  Mr. Chairman, at Carrollton more than 100 third- and fourth-grade 
students are struggling to learn to read. Some kids have a tough time. 
These cuts mean the teacher who works to help those kids catch up with 
their classmates will lose their job.
  This is real. This is not some chart so that we can shift money to 
the wealthiest in America, not bring down the deficit, I tell the 
gentleman from Florida. It is to give that $245 billion cut, that seems 
so important, at the expense of these kids.
  The American people know that cutting support for kids at Carrollton 
and across the country is bad educational and economic policy. That is 
why the polls show, I tell my colleagues, over 90 percent of the voters 
in America believe we must invest more, not less, in improving 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is shortsighted. I am going to mention this 
again, but I want to mention it now, do not take my word for it. Let me 
quote from a statement made by Secretary Terrel Bell, who served as the 
Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan. It was not a Democratic 
administration, you understand; Ronald Reagan. Let me read to my 
colleagues what he says on July 13, 1995:
  ``The drastic and unwarranted education cuts made in congress by the 
House Appropriations Subcommittee,'' the bill we are considering, 
``must be restored or we will undercut community efforts to better 
educate our children.''
  He closes with this: ``The American people support educational 
excellence, not political extremism.''
  That is what he refers to this bill as. That, Mr. Chairman, was 
Secretary Terrel Bell, the Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. Chairman, let us reject this political extremism that is masked 
as deficit reduction, when it shifts from our kids to the wealthiest 
Americans our resources to improve this country.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman 
of the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to put to rest, once and for all, 
this phony business that has been going on in this House for many 
weeks, in fact several months, where people keep trying to say that we 
are taking from the poor and giving to the rich through a tax program.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about the tax program. Is a 
$500 credit for home care for the rich? Darn right, it is not. It is 
for the most needy people around here.
  Is a $500 credit for long-term care insurance for the rich? One of 
the most important things for senior citizens is that long-term care. 
That is not for the rich.
  Is a $2,000 IRA for the parent who stays at home for the rich? No, 
that is not for the rich.
  Is the $500 for an adoption? We talk about pro-choice/pro-life all 
the time. Is that for the rich? No, it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a sucker for a while, thinking that the $500 
credit for every child was for the rich. Then I got off my high horse 
and did a little study, and I discovered that, as a matter of fact, 31 
percent of that goes to families with incomes of $18,000 and less; 65 
percent of it goes to families with incomes of $50,000 and less.
  Yes, then they say, but what about capital gains? In my district, 
every farmer and every fruit grower that I have is not rich by a long 
sight, but they sure are at the point where they should be retiring and 
they would love to retire.
  If they retire, Mr. Chairman, they have to sell what it is they have 
in order to take care of themselves in their golden years, or we have 
to send money out to do that. But if they sell, between us and the 
State, we take 60 percent of everything that they have.
  So I think we ought to put that nonsense to rest.
  If this were a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, I would be here screaming 


[[Page H 8334]]
for billions more for education and billions more for training. I would 
be screaming for what Terrel Bell said, which we had better emphasize.
  He talked about quality education, and I have been here saying over 
and over again for 20 years, just do not pour $40 billion into chapter 
1. Do not just pour $20 billion into Head Start, if that is all you are 
going to do. Pour it in to get quality. We do not
 have any studies to really tell us that we have done a remarkable job 
in helping the people that we wanted to try to help with that $60 
billion of expenditure.

  Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the one thing I wanted to do with 
a slight reduction in both of those areas is finally get a message out 
there that they have to clean up their act and they have to provide 
quality in every one of those programs, all over this Nation. Access is 
not acceptable. Access will not serve us well in the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can do the very best we can with 
what we have, because if we do not, since it is not a perfect world, we 
are then faced with a deficit that does this to the very young people 
we are trying to train, the very young people we are trying to educate.
  We are saying to them, after you get all your training and all your 
education, we will take 80 percent of everything you make in tax 
dollars. Why get up in the morning and go to work if that is what we 
are going to do?
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we can develop a program where we are talking 
about quality education, quality training. I hope we will be in a 
position sometime to put more money into those programs, and we will do 
some of that today, after we are ensured that it is quality that we are 
talking about.
  Again, access is no longer acceptable, Mr. Chairman. It has to be 
access to quality, because we are failing the very young people we are 
trying to help because we are not giving them an opportunity to get a 
piece of the American dream because they do not have, in many 
instances, a quality program.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that the 
statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is one of 
the finer statements I have ever heard on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, just sending money without worrying about quality is 
what has been wrong with this place. It is why the American taxpayer is 
reacting. They want to see people served and they want to see them 
served well.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked at this for years, very, 
very effectively. Finally, the gentleman is in a position to really 
impact that process, and I commend the gentleman for his good work.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I rise 
today to express my disgust with this bill. This is the bill where 
Republicans rewrite the world in their own image--where they create 
their own brave new world, if you will. They will weed out the poor, 
the needy and the weak to provide subsidies to corporate interests and 
tax cuts to the wealthy. And the middle class will foot the bill. A 
world where capital is more important than labor.
  Let me tell how this image will play out in New Jersey. According to 
the Children's Defense Fund, this image will mean 3,850 children will 
lose Head Start services, 54,200 New Jersey students will lose access 
to remedial education through title I and 42,200 babies, preschoolers 
and pregnant women in New Jersey will lose infant formula and other WIC 
supplements. This is the new America Republicans have created for your 
children and grandchildren.
  The new America will have $4.5 billion less in funding for education, 
less funding to keep schools safe and drug free and less funding for 
young people struggling to earn a bachelors degree. The new America 
will provide less assistance for dislocated workers, like the 2000 
individuals working at MOTBY, in my district, unemployed due to recent 
base closings. It will have fewer resources for job training and it 
will have no funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance which 
serves 51,000 needy seniors in New Jersey.
  And yet Republicans can find the resources to fund Agriculture 
subsidies for wealthy farmers and to fund B-2 bombers that the Defense 
Department didn't even want?
  I have a clear image of this brave new world which Republicans seek. 
It has nothing to do with balancing the budget and it has nothing to do 
with making a better America for the working poor, our children, our 
young people or our seniors. Clearly it is designed to be a world where 
the rich and privileged will be free to prosper without the nagging and 
nettlesome problem of caring for their less fortunate brothers and 
sisters.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong opposition to 
the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, because it will result in very real 
damage to very real students and teachers in real schools in 
communities throughout this country.
   Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, the education policy in this 
bill is based on two somewhat conflicting assumptions. First, that 
because the national contribution to education funding is so small that 
it does not matter and will not be missed; second, that the national 
role in education is too large and too intrusive and needs to be scaled 
back.
   Mr. Chairman, these assumptions are both wrong. These assumptions 
dishonor decades of bipartisan cooperation over education policy as a 
shared priority.
   Mr. Chairman, this bill will seriously erode the long-standing role 
that we play on the national level to ensure that educational 
opportunities are available to those who have been denied them. Laws 
like the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] were 
enacted 20 years ago because over 1 million disabled children were 
excluded entirely from public schools. Those 1 million disabled 
children now have a chance to realize their full potential and 
contribute to American society because of what Congress did then.
   Mr. Chairman, ask the parents of Caitlin Cody, who live in my 
community. Caitlin is a bright 8-year-old with spina bifida who joins 
her classmates every day in her neighborhood public school to discover 
the joys of learning. They will tell you that in the absence of the 
Federal role in education, Caitlin's future would not be as promising 
as it is.
   Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts IDEA. It cuts funding which will 
severely curtail professional development, research, and outreach 
activities which are crucial for improving services to children with 
disabilities.
  This bill also cuts chapter 1 by $1.2 billion. With this cut, over 1 
million disadvantaged children across this country will be denied a 
chance to succeed. In Flint, MI, which is struggling right now to 
regain its economic footing, over 2,800 students will lose vital 
academic help. These students will lose the guidance of 47 teachers and 
109 teaching aids.
  Who are these children and who are their
   teachers? Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues the story of one 
chapter 1 student. Shelly is a real person who lives right now in my 
district. She is not a composite; a real individual person.

  Shelly entered middle school in the seventh grade last fall. Shelly 
came to school every day, because there she could get a meal. Then her 
teachers discovered that Shelly lived with her mother and younger 
brother right in my neighborhood, wherever they could find a place to 
stay at night. They had been evicted from their apartment and stayed in 
a shelter or with friends.
  When Shelly moved to Michigan, she was identified as a chapter 1 
student. Shelly's teacher recognized that she needed the stability of a 
regular classroom and instead of pulling her away from her peers, she 
provided Shelly with reading support services in her science and social 
studies classes.
  As the year progressed, because of this program, Shelly's life 
improved and her teacher made connections to mentors and helped find a 
place for her to live because this teacher believed in Shelly's 
potential.
  Shelly entered middle school as a homeless child. She finished the 
year as an honor student.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not take opportunities away from the 
Caitlin's and the Shelly's to finance a tax cut for the very, very 
rich.

[[Page H 8335]]

  Vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I especially commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my chairman, for his outstanding statement 
a few moments ago in which he gave a clear rebuttal for the mindless 
political rhetoric, that we hear over and over again, in which the 
opponents of this bill recite like a mantra the phrase ``tax breaks for 
the wealthiest in our society.''
  Mr. Chairman, are the wealthiest in our society like that couple in 
my district that makes $25,000 a year with two children who are going 
to find, with the $500 per child tax credit, that their Federal tax 
liability will be eliminated altogether? Or like my wealthy friends, 
the grandmother and the grandfather who have worked for 30 years on a 
farm in northwest Arkansas and as they reach retirement age and want to 
move in town, to get close to quality health care, discover they cannot 
afford to sell their farm because of exorbitant capital gains tax 
rates?
  Mr. Chairman, yes, these are the wealthy friends that we want to help 
in our society.
  My colleague says that, yes, 90 percent of the American people 
support higher investment in education. I believe that. I believe my 
constituents do. But they want to invest it where it will work and it 
will work when we invest that money locally, not when we invest it in 
more Federal spending on education.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans last November rejected the ``government-
knows-best'' philosophy that has held sway for far too long.
  Goals 2000, which we defund in this appropriation bill, is a 
manifestation of that very failed philosophy. What Goals 2000 does is 
lay the groundwork for all future Federal experimentation with 
education, which takes control away from parents and local school 
districts where it belongs.
  It increases the Federal role by imposing a congressional formula for 
reform on any State, school district, or local school that wishes to 
receive funding under the act.
                              {time}  1300

  Only 40 percent of the money appropriated for Goals 2000 ever reaches 
the schools. The other 60 percent constitutes the bureaucratic skim 
that is being used at each level to create the new framework for the 
educational system.
  The American people did not buy into the misguided idea of national 
health boards in the last Congress, and they do not want national 
school boards. If the past 30 years have taught us anything, it is that 
national solutions do not solve local problems.
  It is amazing to me my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can 
stand and defend the status quo. The past three decades, American 
taxpayers have been pouring money into the public school system with 
almost no encouraging signs that this money is buying better education 
for our children.
  Who knows best what children need but their parents and people who 
are in contact with them every day? This appropriation bill begins to 
put the focus back upon the local schools, empowering parents to 
control the education of their children.
  There were originally six national goals that were developed in 1989, 
hand in hand with the States, but they now have been increased to 
eight. The two additional goals differ from the States' original 
intentions, leading us even further away from the direction that 
education in this country should be taking, which is back to the 
parents.
  We can, in defunding Goals 2000, as we do in this appropriations 
bill, we can take a decisive first step in returning education to the 
State and to the local school boards and empowering parents to 
participate and to control the education of their children.
  I urge support of this Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer], a distinguished member of the authorizing committee.
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to join 
with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but with some regret, to 
oppose the passage of this bill.
  The work that we do today, the work that has preceded us over the 
last decade really emphasizes a singular important message, and that is 
that today's graduates have got to be prepared to enter a world of 
profound and constant change. The people of this Nation are moving more 
rapidly across and within this Nation than we have for 100 years, and 
all of today's children simply must be able to graduate equipped with 
skills that are not just technologically adaptable to a variety of 
different employment situations across the United States, but which 
also will make them intellectually flexible.
  Now, our colleagues have suggested that somehow this is not a 
national problem. The truth of the matter is that education has always 
been a local function and a State responsibility, but today, my 
colleagues, it is an overarching national concern. Education from the 
national level is not a matter of federalizing education at all. It is 
not even a matter of directing education, but it is recognizing that if 
we are to be successful, we must connect education all across this 
country, 50 million students, 2.5 million faculty, 15,000 school 
districts in diverse communities all across this country, as diverse as 
Missoula, MT, or Meridian, MS, or all of the metropolitan areas of this 
Nation. The children have got to be equipped to be competitive and to 
contribute to this Nation's capacity.
  Education is, indeed, a national priority, nowhere more so than in 
recognizing that the expectations that we have for these children have 
vastly outstripped the ability of some schools to keep pace. We have 
got to elevate the expectations of our schools, of our teachers and our 
children, and in that sense what we do here today or ought to be doing 
here today is to provide the connective tissue, the ability to improve 
and elevate a curriculum, not to be forced upon local schools, not to 
be adopted, but to be adapted throughout this country to local need. We 
have got to recognize that in a 30-year career, a teacher who began 
with certification that may have been perfectly sufficient in 1960 is 
no longer suitable to the kind of change that has been undertaken in 
this world and in this Nation in the 30 intervening years.
  We need to have the capacity to share that improved curriculum, that 
improved professional development all across this country. I have to 
tell you I do not think that anybody ever said it better than Allen 
Wertzel, vice chairman of Circuit City, who agreed that growing 
businesses need students to graduate with higher skills. He said, 
``High academic expectations in schools is probably the single most 
important component of education reform.''
  Drawing this Nation together in that capacity is our single highest 
priority.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Education Research Statistics and 
Improvement account within the Department of Education there is an 
interest among a number of House Members to provide funding of about 
$300,000 within the total provided to not less than two institutions to 
support programs utilizing innovative technologies and practices for 
the professional development and training of teachers in music 
education. Is it correct to say that the House report accompanying the 
Labor-HHS fiscal year 1996 bill speaks favorably, but with less 
specificity, to music education and its impact on learning?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLEMENT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We 
attempted to economize on verbiage where we could in preparing the 
committee report.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, the bill will shortly be considered by the 
other body. If, during that consideration, the other body includes more 
specific language regarding music education, could I have the 
chairman's assurance that the House conferees would carefully consider 
the generic direction 

[[Page H 8336]]
for these funds in light of my favorable recommendation to accept the 
more specific allocations of funds for music education programs?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from 
Tennessee that the House conferees will keep your recommendation in 
mind when we address this issue in conference.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support on 
this issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Well, we hear the Republicans say they want to balance the budget and 
that is why we are cutting so dramatically into education programs.
  Well, do we want to balance the budget?
  We are cutting about $450 million out of two programs very important 
to our children: Safe and Drug Free Schools, which makes sure we try to 
protect our children as they go to school so they do not have to worry 
about drug dealers on the corner trying to sell them drugs or the gang 
violence they may encounter on the way to school; Special Education, 
$174 million is being cut out of that program for our kids who are 
disabled, who need a little bit of extra attention so they can succeed 
with their peers.
  On the other hand, we put $500 million extra into the defense budget 
which was not even requested by the Department of Defense for new 
spending on barracks and other pork that the Pentagon, as I said, never 
requested, and all of it targeted to 26 of the 31 States represented by 
the people who sit on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Cut in education: $1.2 billion in our title I program that helps kids 
that are behind in their reading and in their sciences learning. What 
is not cut? Well, we see on the Senate side the Armed Services wants to 
spend $1.3 billion for an amphibious assault ship that the Navy says is 
does not even want. Cut in education: $55 million for a school-to-work 
program which helps our kids have abilities once they get out of 
school. What is not cut? Well, $42 million, that is the amount the 
Committee on Appropriations preserved in taxpayer subsidies for tobacco 
growers.
  We are talking about balancing the budget? At the same time that we 
hear that we must cut the $4 billion out of education to balance a $5 
trillion debt and an annual deficit of about $200 billion, we find that 
the Defense Department got $8 billion more than it even asked for, and 
we find that the Republicans are trying to spend about $300 billion on 
tax cuts over 7 years.
  That is not the way to go. We do not need to cut $4 billion out of 
education when it is so dramatic and so needed.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the unconscionable 
cuts in this bill for the Safe and Drug Free School zones.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman form 
California [Mr. Miller], one of the ranking members of the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities, former chairman of the 
Children's Task Force.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me and for adding to my resume here.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, these cuts in education are 
deep, and they are serious, and they are real, and they are going to 
have an impact in each and every one of our districts.
  Because let us understand something, they are not cutting this money 
to give it back to the schools at the local level. They are cutting 
this money to provide for a tax cut, the overwhelming benefit of which 
goes to people earning in excess of $200,000 a year. So they are 
gathering up money from poor schools, from poor children, from 
handicapped children, from all of the school districts in the country 
and transferring that to the wealthiest people in the country. That is 
simply not fair, and it does not make sense.
  Let us understand that these Federal dollars are what allows these 
school districts to engage in teacher training, to provide inservice 
training for teachers, to move toward 21st century technologies for 
many of our school districts that have no ability to do that. They do 
not have the financial capability of doing that.
  These Federal dollars are what allows school districts to take care 
of the neediest, the poorest children in our society, because they do 
not have the capability of doing it without these dollars.
  Let us understand something. We hear time and time again about the 
inability of the local school board and the local school district. Let 
me explain to you that many of those school districts are bringing you 
today the abysmal education that America's children are reaching. And 
why? Because they do not do these activities without Federal help. They 
were not educating the poorest children in this country without Federal 
help. They were not educating handicapped children without Federal 
help. They were not providing teacher training without Federal help, 
and it is very likely they will not again if the Federal Government 
does not help them out.
  So understand the Federal Government is a catalyst for education 
programs. Goals 2000 is a catalyst to make the States, and to help 
them, finance world-class standards for our children so that our 
children can compete with the children of any country in the world in 
the future.
  Today they cannot. They cannot compete in math. They cannot compete 
in language skills. They cannot compete in critical thinking. It is a 
national disgrace, and these few Federal dollars, very, very important 
to meeting those goals, because in fact in my own district and many 
other districts, without these moneys, those efforts will go by the 
wayside and we will continue to see children graduated who cannot read 
their diploma. We will continue to see children passed on to the next 
grade who cannot read at grade level.
  This is that opportunity. But this is the opportunity that the 
Republican budget cuts would deny our school districts. This is a 
disinvestment, a disinvestment in the children of this Nation, in the 
education of this Nation and their ability to participate in the world 
economy of the future.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy 
with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the great fiscal pressure under which the 
chairman put together his appropriations bill. I applaud his efforts to 
make this a fair bill, not only for the taxpayers of the country but 
also by addressing the out-of-control spending that is costing our 
children their future earnings.
  With that in mind, I would like to address the level of the general 
strengthening institutions program, title III(A) of the Education Act. 
I am concerned that the current funding level of the program will not 
allow the Federal Government to fully fund continuing multiyear grants. 
Under the administration's request, the title III grants will be phased 
out over 2 years, with public community colleges cut out of the system 
immediately.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. As the gentleman knows, I offered an amendment 
during the full committee to partially restore the necessary funding to 
the title III program. But due to the tight constraints that we are 
working under, we were unable to find adequate funding for the program.
  I ask the subcommittee chairman if the other body does find a way to 
more fully fund the title III section A program, if there is a way to 
consent to the other body's funding level?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 8337]]

  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the level of funding in 
our bill would perhaps create financial difficulties for many of the 
institutions that have relied on this funding in the past and I will 
work with the members of the conference in the other body to achieve a 
higher level of funding of transition funding for this program than was 
possible in this bill.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his efforts 
on behalf of community colleges of the Nation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here in absolute dismay at this bill that we 
are being asked to vote on today, which decimates the funding for 
education throughout the country. This debate is basically a debate of 
the disavowal of the majority of our national promise that we would 
care, defend, and protect our Nation's children.
  Under this camouflage of budget rhetoric, the majority party has 
appropriated an appropriations bill that cuts $3.9 billion from our 
education programs and dismantles a 30-year record of increasing 
support for our children.
  I feel betrayed because I always believed the discussions with 
respect to our national priority, always put our children on the top. 
In discussing our care and compassion for children in this country, we 
always pledged our full support to their education.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that there are vast differences in our 
country, rural, urban America, rich and poor, but we have always said 
that the National Government has a responsibility to make sure that no 
matter what the circumstances of poverty or whatever the location is in 
geography, that the children would be protected and that the assurance 
of equal educational opportunity was a solemn pledge and contract that 
we made for our children.
  This appropriation bill denies that. It takes money away from 
children in the poorest of circumstances, children who come from middle 
America, who have disabilities, who have difficulties, who come from 
troubled circumstances, who have handicaps, who have deficiencies in 
learning. The smallest of our children all over the country are going 
to be hurt by this budget. I ask this House to vote it down..
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor 1\1/2\ hours ago talking 
about how this bill is devastating and cutting Head Start children out 
of the program when even President Reagan, President Bush, talked about 
how much do we increase this bipartisan program that is working. Where 
in Michigan City, IN, 80 children are waiting to get into the program, 
this bill is going to say to these children, not only can you not get 
in, we do not have room for you; we are going to cut more children out 
of Head Start. That is what this bill says.
  This bill is like a Shakespearean comedy of errors. It is tragically 
almost funny. We debated drug-free schools the last few years and I 
have joined with my colleagues on the Republican side, many of whom I 
have the utmost respect for, and the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. 
Castle and I, Mr. Barrett and I proposed amendments to restore Dare and 
drug-free school money. This year, we are cutting drug-free school 
money by over 50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not that Democrats want the status quo and 
Republicans want to balance the budget. I voted for a balanced budget 
amendment. I led the efforts to cut a space station that is $80 billion 
over budget. I will vote to cut 20 B-2 bombers that the Pentagon 
doesn't even want out of the budget. Let us make up our minds what is 
important around here.
  A recent survey done by the Columbia University Institute asked our 
schoolchildren, What is the biggest problem you face in school today? 
Is it an algebra equation? They did not say that. Was it a biology 
test? No. Was it a gun in a school? No. By a 2-to-1 margin, children in 
America today said, we are afraid of drugs in our schools, 2 to 1.
  So what are we doing about it? We cut the drug-free school money by 
over 50 percent. What does that tell you about our priorities? I want 
to move toward a balanced budget. I want to make some of the tough cuts 
to move there, but we should do that in a fair and evenhanded manner.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems sometimes around here that if you have got a 
lobbyist working for you, you are going to do real well. You are going 
to maintain the B-2 bomber. You are going to maintain a space station. 
You are going to maintain hydrogen programs. But if you are a child, if 
you are in a Head Start program, if you are in a drug-free school 
program, you are on your own. Good luck.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not what the priorities of America should be 
about today.
  Doris Kerns Goodwin has got a wonderful book and I will have to 
continue my review of that wonderful book later.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], an excellent member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I think what we need to do is have the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] go talk to the members of the 
subcommittee of the Labor-HHS Committee on Appropriations because what 
happened one night was that Head Start was made available to have funds 
restored to the tune of $161 million. Every member of the subcommittee 
who were Democrats voted against Head Start, $161 million.
  Those of us who voted for both of those issues said we wanted to put 
children first. We wanted Head Start to come first, and those members 
on that subcommittee could have taken the argument of the gentleman 
from Indiana and said, we want to honor Head Start.
  Who did they honor? We honored lawyers in the NLRB, $26 million. The 
offer was made to your colleagues, let us give this to Head Start 
because we are listening to what you are saying that it is important--
--
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. As the gentleman knows, I am not a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I did not vote on that particular 
appropriations bill as it was going through at 1 or 2 o'clock in the 
morning. But certainly we have the ability on the floor today to try to 
correct the bill that is kicking 48,000 children off of Head Start, and 
I know the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] would love to support 
those children.
  We do not want to go to places like Michigan City, IN, where 880 
children are waiting to get on Head Start, where I only have 35 percent 
of my eligible children enrolled, and tell the children there, which 
ones are going to get kicked off, I ask the gentleman?
  Mr. Chairman, I would not want to be going into Head Start programs 
around this country saying, you, you, and you are out of Head Start. 
That is not the direction this country should be going in.
  Mr. DICKEY. Reclaiming my time, all I am trying to say, for the sake 
of the people who might be listening to this conversation, is that your 
talking should be to them, not to us. If we had been successful on our 
end of the table late that one night for Head Start, we would have $161 
million restored.
  Not one of your colleagues voted in favor of that because they wanted 
to honor things like lawyers, and they wanted to honor the NLRB that is 
going out here and causing destruction in our economy and walking over 
people who are trying to keep jobs in place so that we can have taxes 
so we can have more money for education.
  All I am saying is it does not seem proper. It is not right that we 
get to the point where we start talking about you all over there, or 
you all over there, when we are all trying to help Head Start.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. DICKEY. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I would just like to engage the gentleman, the Republican 


[[Page H 8338]]
gentleman from Arkansas, in a colloquy. He and I worked together on 
many issues. This should not be a partisan issue. We have always agreed 
in this body to support Head Start and increase funding on Head Start, 
whether it was in committee or on the floor.
  Now, for the first time, we are kicking children off. How can we work 
together to restore that cut, increase Head Start?
  Mr. DICKEY. I think what we ought to do is we ought to look from the 
standpoint of trying to help the children, rather than trying to make a 
political statement. What is unfortunate about this is that $161 
million could have been restored to Head Start and it was not because 
there were other programs that were preferred over this.
  Now, if your colleagues could talk it over and we could talk it over, 
then we would not have this partisanship. The partisanship occurred. 
All five Democrats voted against Head Start in both of those instances, 
and there are two standing right here that will also try to make this a 
partisan issue and say that we somehow are at fault for not bringing 
Head Start in in the proper funding.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] is my friend and 
we work closely together on some things, but so that everybody on the 
floor knows what we are talking about, has sought to cut justice for 
workers.
  We will pursue it further.
  Mr. DICKEY. I will be happy to.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly demonstrates our Nation's commitment 
to education and to our youth, mostly words but not real resources. 
Where a Nation invests its resources indicates its priorities. 
Education should be our Nation's priority.
  This bill is blindness march toward a balanced budget, without 
consideration of the merits of the programs proposed to be cut or 
eliminated.
  But worse, this bill ignores the pain it will cause to the many 
children, youth, and elderly of America. This is a shame.
  The Labor-HHS bill is an obstruction to education.
  Half of the cuts in the bill--some $4.5 billion--comes from 
education.
  Fifty thousand disadvantaged children who need a little help in the 
beginning of our lives--at the onset of their education--will not get 
that help. Head start is cut by $137 million. Healthy Start is cut by 
52 percent.
  Thousands of needy school children, in my congressional districts 
during their most important educational and formative years, will be 
without vital support. Title I is cut by $1.1 billion. Drug-free 
schools is cut by 59 percent. The Goals 2000 Program is eliminated, 
and, vocational education is cut by 27 percent.
  And, thousands of those school children, willing to work, who have 
found hoe in a mountain of hopelessness, will not be able to work. The 
School-to-Work Program is cut by 22 percent. And, worse, the Summer 
Jobs program is terminated.
  The privilege of an education belongs to all in America. Many have 
toiled long and hard to achieve that aim.
  The Labor-HHS appropriations bill, with the stroke of a pen, takes 
that privilege away.
  The deep and irresponsible cuts in education are made worse by other 
cuts in this bill.
  In fact, more than 170 programs are eliminated by the kind of slicing 
and carving undertaken in this bill, like nothing we have ever seen 
before in the history of this Nation.
  Even the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] is 
eliminated.
  This bill says to young people in America, ``You have no future'' and 
to seniors, ``You have no past.''
  Mr. Chairman. I am at a loss.
  Critical programs are being cut--programs that have served our 
citizens well--and, the savings will go to increasing the wealth of the 
wealthy.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues tell us that this bill and others puts 
us on the glide to a balanced budget.
  To balance, however, means to steady. Steadiness promotes stability. 
Stability promotes security. And, security is what every American 
seeks.
  This bill gives us neither steadiness, nor stability, nor security. 
It is not good for this Nation. It should give us shame.
  Vote ``No'' on this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], a member of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] for yielding this time to me.
  This morning in the Committee on the Budget we had the opportunity to 
have what I thought would be a good dialog and debate about much of 
what has been going on here on the floor today, a discussion and a 
debate about what our policy agenda is on both sides of the aisle as 
the President and as the majority here in the House both strive to 
reach for a balanced budget. But then it became very, very clear that 
the two sides are playing with a different set of rules. The Republican 
plan scored under this Congressional Budget Office does within 7 years 
get to a balanced budget. The President's plan scored under the same 
rules, however, enables the president to have $200 billion more per 
year to spend.
  So, as we are talking about how are we going to achieve and what 
policies are we going to implement to achieve a balanced budget, we are 
finding that one side is playing with one hand tied behind their back. 
One side actually gets to a balanced budget, the other side can 
continue going around the country and can continue going around to 
special interest groups promising a whole set of programs and 
priorities and spending that really does not exist and that totals out 
to about $200 billion.
  We also find that the other side is really trying to perpetuate a 
program and a philosophy that over many years we know does not work, 
and this book here, ``Reviving the American Dream,'' written by Alice 
Rivlin, who is the head of the Office of Management and Budget, 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, she highlights the 
failed policies that in many cases we are finding are being debated in 
this bill. Here is what she said about education, and remember this 
person works for the President:

       Improving education will take bottom-up reform, 
     Presidential speeches and photo opportunities, national 
     testing and assessment, federally funded experimental 
     schools. Even new grants spent in accordance with Federal 
     guidelines can make only marginal contributions in fixing the 
     schools. The popular Federal Head Start Program demonstrates 
     that preschool education helps children from poor families 
     cope better in school. The negative legacy of Head Start, 
     however, is that States and communities have come to believe 
     that the responsibilities for preschool education lie with 
     Washington, not with them. Change would come more rapidly if 
     concerned citizens, parents, and educators worked to improve 
     their own preschools instead of lobbying Washington to 
     allocate more funds for Head Start.

   Mr. Chairman, she goes on to say that top-down management by the 
Federal Government is unlikely to bring about needed change in 
education, skilled training, and other areas where reform is essential. 
She also goes on to state that when these programs and responsibility 
for these programs are moved from the Federal Government to the State 
government, we will see more action, more effectiveness, and better 
results.
  This is coming from the administration.
  All of what we are seeing here debated from the other side is a 
continuation of pushing policies and programs that we have had for too 
long and that we know do not work. Let us embrace the future, let us 
move to a balanced budget, and let us move to move decisionmaking where 
it is most appropriate.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, vigorous 
opposition to this bill and title III, and I rise today to protest the 

[[Page H 8339]]
shortsighted cuts included in this mean-spirited bill. In an effort to 
frantically balance the budget on the backs of poor and middle income 
families, Republicans have completely lost sight of those important, 
cost-effective programs which work well.
  One such program is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. 
This program is not welfare. Each State participates in this program. 
It reaches more than 5.8 million people nationwide. Last year, the 
average benefit for the 452,000 recipients in my home State of North 
Carolina was $91. Seventy-nine percent of these recipients have an 
average income of less than $8,000. In many cases this was the safety 
net that kept the poor and elderly from being cold or freezing to 
death.
  Who are these people, you might ask. In North Carolina, almost 64,000 
households have recipients over the age of 60. Almost 60,000 households 
have recipients who are children under the age of six. And over 36,000 
households have recipients who are disabled. How can we expect these 
people, whose annual income is less than the poverty level, to survive 
these vicious cuts?
  These cuts border on being criminal, Mr. Chairman. If they're not 
criminal, they're certainly irresponsible. We should not penalize these 
people because they are poor. Yet that is exactly what we are going to 
do by passing this mean-spirited bill.
  In this body, we have a tendency to get caught up in arguing over 
numbers and lose sight of the people whose lives depend upon these 
programs. This program is a success. Let's not let the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program become another victim in the Republican 
numbers game. This program will not break the Government but it will 
break the little comfort and will of the 452,000 recipients in my State 
who depend on this program.
  I urge every Member of this House to reject this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Philadelphia, PA [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote against this shortsighted, hard-hearted Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. As chairman of the Congressional Urban Caucus, I 
tell you that this bill is the most antiurban, Government act since 
President Ford told New York City to drop dead. It is antifamily. 
Antichild. Antisenior. Antieducation.
  Our constituents sent us to Congress to make choices on their behalf. 
Sometimes they are tough choices. But the choices made in this bill are 
nothing but harsh, mean, and cruel. The education title demonstrates 
this vividly.
  Last week, this Congress protected Gallo Wine's welfare program--
giving them tax dollars to market their wine to the French.
  But today, we vote to send our kids to school to fend for their 
lives--on their own--against guns and drugs. The French get Gallo wine, 
while our children risk their lives in schoolyards. Bad choice.
  Time and time again, this Congress spares the space station from 
extinction. But today, we'll cut vocational skills programs for youths 
who will never make it to college. We'll build shelter in space, but 
leave our young people little or no job opportunity at home. Bad 
choice.
  This Congress spends billions to build B-2 bombers that we don't 
need. The cold war is over. Yet today, we'll vote to cut Head Start. 
Thus, we're making fat-cat defense contractors fatter, while Head Start 
turns into a no start. Bad choice.
  This is a lesson in poor choices. Wrong choices. The best thing--the 
only thing--we can do is throw this bill out and try again. Again, I 
urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``no'' against this 
legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson], one of the whips on the Democratic side who 
has done such extraordinary work internationally.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. The 
education cuts in it are devastating for the country and for my State.
  In one school district where 60 percent of the students beginning 
school do not speak English, these cuts mean that 6,000 students will 
not understand what is being taught.
  Bilingual education programs teach students like Elisa, who started 
the 2d grade not able to speak one word of English. Last year Elisa 
walked across the stage as the valedictorian of her 1,200 member 
graduating class.
  Impact aid funds provide a kindergarten for Gallup-McKinley County 
School District. The cuts contained in this bill mean 300 children will 
not go to kindergarten.
  Clovis municipal school system will lose a school counselor who works 
with children who are at risk of drug and alcohol abuse.
  The Belen School District has over 1,700 children who need reading 
and math help. With cuts to chapter 1 funding, the school district will 
have to choose which lucky 400 students out of 1,700 will get the help 
they need.
  Mr. Speaker I cannot go back to my district and look into the faces 
of children and explain to them that I voted to eliminate their chance 
to go to college, stay away from drugs and violence, and improve their 
reading and math skills.
  Vote against this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a shame that this 
debate constantly veers away from the true issue for which we are here 
in Congress and here today. We are currently facing one of the most 
important moral and economic challenges of our time, to balance the 
Federal budget. For too long the Federal Government has lived beyond 
its means, and our problem in getting this budget into balance is 
spending. We have got to cut the spending side. President Reagan said 
the problem we had was not that we are taxed too little, we spend too 
much. We must cut spending and control the spending in order to balance 
our budget.
  Mr. Chairman, due to this gluttonous behavior here is what we are 
facing today. The national debt is almost $5 trillion. What are the 
practical implications of this? In just 2 years the Federal Government 
will pay more for interest on the debt than we pay for national 
defense. Think about that. What does that say of our national 
priorities?
  If we had adopted the President's budget proposal, the amount U.S. 
taxpayers will pay in taxes over the next 11 years for interest would 
have equaled the entire debt we have today. This is a kind of out-of-
control spending, without regard to consequences. That spending must be 
under control now.
  The Democrats cannot believe that we are only going to spend $60 
billion, over $60 billion in this program. We are spending over $60 
billion in this one appropriation bill for the discretionary programs 
alone. ``Why would Republicans want to make cuts in Federal spending,'' 
the frustrated minority keeps asking. Here is the answer:
  Next year we are going to spend $235 billion for interest on the 
national debt. That is four times what we are spending on this bill, 
four times more then we are going to spend on interest on the national 
debt, and we keep wanting to increase it.
  Someone said, ``What is our priority of spending?'' A Member on the 
other side was asking, ``What is our priority of spending? Where do we 
rate priorities?'' Well, if we just want to keep spending, spending, 
spending, our priority must be more interest on the national debt. We 
are overspending this year by $670 for every man, woman, and child in 
the United States, and that just adds to our national debt, and that 
increases our interest that we are going to pay.
  Now I am a big supporter of education. I am a former college 
professor. My son just graduated from college. My daughter is just 
getting ready to start graduate school, getting a master's in social 
work, by the way. So I feel very strongly about the need for education, 
but education is primarily a local, State, and family matter. Ninety-
five percent of the money for elementary and secondary education comes 
from the State and local government, not the Federal Government. 
Unfortunately for the 5 percent of money the Federal Government 
provides, we get all the bureaucracy, all the regulations that are 
imposed in our local schools.
  In 1950 the average family sent 5 percent of their wages to 
Washington. Today, with a bloated Federal Government, we are sending 24 
percent of our 

[[Page H 8340]]
money to the Federal Government. We are not spending 24 percent of our 
incomes for Federal Government. We cannot continue doing it. What will 
be the best thing we can do for our children today is to not continue 
to fund these duplicative wasteful programs and the huge bureaucracy in 
the Department of Education. Let us prioritize our spending.
  Before the Democrats stand up again and rant and rave about 
Republicans, just stop and think for a moment that we are going to 
spend four times as much in interest for the national debt than we are 
going to spend for the Department of Labor, the Department of HHS, the 
Department of Education. That's the disgrace that we must stop.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons to vote against this Labor-HHS 
bill, but this education title is just an abomination. It cuts $3.7 
billion from last year's education budget, a 14-percent decrease, and 
it is $5.2 billion less than the Clinton administration requests for an 
investment in our children.
  The sad thing is to hear our colleagues come to this floor and say we 
have to cut the education of our children to balance the budget. I ask 
my colleagues, ``Don't you know by now you're never going to be able to 
balance the budget unless we invest in our children, unless we give 
them personal opportunity, unless we give them the earning power, the 
education to achieve the earning power to contribute to the 
competitiveness of our country?'' So balancing the budget is tied to 
investing in our children. Any family can tell us that.
  Their protestations about balancing the budget ring hollow in light 
of the fact that they are cutting education for children in order to 
give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. They tried trickle down 
once. It didn't work then, and it will not work now. Vote ``no'' on 
this bad bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

                              {time}  1345

  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for his kindness and his leadership.
  First, Mr. Chairman, we begin to eliminate good health for our 
children, and then we go on and put the nail in the coffin by taking 
away the dollars for their education.
  What we are doing today with the Labor-HHS bill is simply saying that 
we are taking $266 million from the safe and drug-free schools program, 
we are taking some $174 million from our special education program, 
$325 million from our vocational and adult education program and $701 
million from student financial assistance.
  Let me talk about special education, and that is special. It is for 
our special children, not our children that we have given up on. It is 
the child that needs an extra helping hand, the child that can be a 
successful contributor to this society and yet today we find that this 
legislation is undermining that child's opportunity to get an 
education.
  And what about vocational and adult training for dislocated workers, 
opportunities for them to start anew?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill for our future. It is one that nails 
the coffin shut on the lives of Americans. I oppose the major cuts in 
this legislation in vital health and education services, that Americans 
need and deserve.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss a few key points on 
higher education that are contained in this bill.
  First let me say this. In a perfect world, a world without these 
enormous deficits as far as the eye can see, it would be nice for us to 
consider providing additional support to our Nation's college students. 
They hold the future of the Nation in their hands, and they deserve our 
support, all that we are able and can afford to give.
  However, this is not a perfect world. Given our current fiscal 
environment we have one overriding issue we must focus on over and over 
above all others, and that is reducing the Federal deficit. Given this 
priority, this is a bill that does the best it can for higher 
education. This is a bill that does a number of important things for 
higher education, such as providing the highest maximum Pell grant in 
the history of the program. It saves important campus-based programs 
such as work study and SEOG. It restricts the Department of Education's 
ability to spend wastefully on its gold-plated direct loan program by 
eliminating its ability to spend on lavish trips for bureaucrats and 
campaign ads for the President.
  These key items as well as other key education reforms that my 
subcommittee is considering provide important supporting to higher 
education. Because of the fiscal realities we are facing, the time is 
now to bring much-needed focus to Federal higher education programs.
  This bill does what it needs to do. It puts us on a path toward a 
balanced budget while at the same time supporting key higher education 
programs for young Americans.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I bring today to the floor this shirt which 
says ``shame.'' It was given out yesterday by people in the labor 
movement, but it is just as good to illustrate what we are doing to the 
children of America today, for shame.
  S is for selling out the children of America, selling them out by 
eliminating the safe and drug-free schools program, by a 27-percent cut 
in vocational and adult training, $1.2 billion cut from title I, the 
Goals 2000 education standards eliminated, 50-percent cut in bilingual 
education.
  H is for Head Start, which will lose more than $137 million when we 
sacrifice our future.
  A is for the aged, which will have to choose between food and heat 
when we destroy their low-income home energy assistance program.
  M is for mean spirited, which is what these attacks on the most 
vulnerable in our society are.
  E is for enough, enough of taking from working people, the aged, our 
children, to pay for the Republican tax cuts for the rich, these same 
people who gained the most from the trickle-down years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for this institution, and it is a sad 
day for America. It has been said that we should be judged by how we 
treat those who are least able to defend themselves. By that standard, 
our Republican friends should feel nothing but shame for what they are 
about to do.
  This is the worst bill I have seen in my 7 years in Congress, and it 
should be soundly defeated. Shame on all of us if we pass this bill. 
Shame on what we are doing to the children of America, to the working 
people of America and to the elderly of America, all to pay for a tax 
cut for the rich. Shame.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], my colleague from the subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I think those who oppose this bill should 
be ashamed of themselves for working off of a fallacy and a myth in 
this country that somehow throwing money at an educational problem is 
going to solve it.
  I do not need a lecture from anyone in this Chamber about what it is 
like to grow up in a low-income neighborhood. I did such a thing. I 
went to a high school that had a 50-percent dropout rate where, when I 
started high school in south San Antonio, all of the teachers quit 
because of the mess that the school board was involved in at the time.
  And you know what made a difference in me finishing school? It was 
not a government program. It was the fact that my parents cared enough 
to get involved in my education, to show up at the after-school 
projects and some of the events that we held in the evenings to promote 
education. It was not because someone threw a bunch of money at us and 
suddenly decided that they were going to help me graduate. 

[[Page H 8341]]

  The problem with education in this country is that the parental 
responsibility is broken down in neighborhoods. We need to work at a 
grass-roots level, at a civic level like I do, trying to talk to 
parents at schools, trying to organize efforts and support efforts in 
our local neighborhoods to get parents to be involved in a person's 
education.
  We only have to look right here in our own backyard, in Washington, 
DC, where we spend over $9,000 per capita for each student to put them 
through the D.C. school system. What good has that done? They have a 
terrible success rate.
  It is unfortunate that that has occurred, but it is because adults in 
this country have not taken the responsibility upon themselves to get 
involved and be responsible for their child's education. It is not 
going to matter what we do up here with Federal programs.
  There are some that work. We are supporting Head Start. The 190-
percent increase over 5 years, we are for that because it is a program 
that works. We are going to help the TRIO program because that works as 
well. We are fully funding that this year. We are funding bilingual 
education programs to the point where they can be administered in a 
transitional way and not allow students to exist on a bilingual program 
forever and they never learn to adapt to the English-speaking society 
that we have and succeed.
  We are also supporting the greatest increase, to refer to this chart, 
the greatest increase in history, the greatest increase that is allowed 
by law in Pell grants, because this is a program that has helped kids 
as well that want to go to college.
  So we are trying to preserve the good programs that work in this 
country, but do not stand up here and give me a lecture and give us 
lectures about what it takes to help people in low-income 
neighborhoods. We understand that very well on this side of the aisle, 
and we want to continue to support these good programs. Do not stand up 
and give us a lecture about what it is like to grow up in a low-income 
neighborhood. We understand that very well. So do not act like you 
understand it any better than we do.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Understanding it is not enough, I say to my friend, the gentleman 
from Texas, you need to act on your understanding, not just talk about 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, all taxes are local. The Federal money came 
from the local level. We pay our income taxes and send them to 
Washington.
  We need our money back for education. The States and the cities are 
not going to be able to take care of the education problems.
  Let me just tell you about two schools in my district. Public school 
208 in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, is one of them. Nearly 70 percent of 
all the children are from low-income families. Most of them are working 
poor. The school is overcrowded, filled to 120 percent capacity, with 
an average class size of 30. About one-third of the students test below 
what the State considers minimum competency in math and reading. If 
this bill passes next year, the title I tutoring of 270 of these 
children will no longer be there.
  Prospect High School is another school in my district. It is 68 
percent of students from low-income families. The building is almost 70 
years old, in shocking disrepair. Many of the classrooms do not even 
have blackboards. There are not even enough chairs in the cafeteria to 
seat all the students, so some of them must stand up and eat or they 
eat propped up against the wall. Extracurricular activities are 
nonexistent. If this bill passes next year, these students will not 
have title I programs they need, 1,000 students will miss out on title 
I programs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], the distinguished successor of Silvio Conte, 
who would have opposed this bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I heard this bill described today as a 
careful consideration of priorities and elimination of useless Federal 
programs. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not consider education goals for the 
year 2000 as useless, nor dropout prevention useless, nor education for 
homeless children useless, nor a Teacher Corps useless, nor workplace 
literacy useless, and I deplore the cuts in student financial aid and 
Head Start for affording 8,000 students and cuts in safe and drug-free 
schools.
  And as for priorities, Mr. Chairman, the start-up cost for the B-2 
bombers, the 20 new B-2 bombers which are unneeded and were not even 
asked for by the Pentagon, they would pay for all the costs of all 
those cuts in all these education programs that we are talking about 
today.
  The Republican priorities here are simply wrong. We should kill this 
turkey. As the gentleman from Wisconsin had said, we should kill this 
turkey of a bill.
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Maryland for yielding me this time. I serve on the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities and am proud to serve there.
  Like my colleague from Texas himself, I remember where I come from, 
and I remember in 1965 was the first time we received public Federal 
education funds at the school that I went to, at Jeff Davis High School 
in northside Houston. We did not have audiovisual equipment until we 
got that funding.
  Nowadays it pays for much more than hardware. It pays for teachers 
and better education. That is why I wanted to serve on the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities. I represent a district that the 
median income is $20,000, compared to my Republican colleagues which is 
double that and more.
  If we are going to increase that level of funding for our families, 
then we have got to do it with better education. This bill today, 
cutting it is wrong. The difference between the Democrats who are 
opposed to this bill and the Republicans is that we remember where we 
come from and we know what we have to do to provide a better quality of 
life for the future of the United States, and that is provide more 
education funding.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I sat back in my office and I am watching the rhetoric 
on both sides, and I think there are some things that we can actually 
work to help some of these things. We have got an amendment, for 
example, that is coming up that is going to provide $6 million in 
outlays, in which we are going to be able to plus-up the Eisenhower 
grants. We talk about we want teachers to be better and our students to 
be better. I understand you all are going to accept the amendment, 
which is great. This is the kind of thing we need to fight toward, to 
work together.
  I also feel eventually I would like to take education and would like 
to move most of it to the States. We get a very low percentage of the 
tax dollars back down to the classroom. A lot of it is eaten up with 
the in-between in the bureaucracy. I think it is better off down there. 
But in the meantime, what we need to take a look at is, while we are 
doing this, education is front loaded. It is forward funded. And unless 
we provide some transportation or some in-between time to do that, we 
are going to actually damage some of the things that we need to do.
  We are going to provide the money for Eisenhower grants. We are going 
to provide the money to help impact aid for B's and B's. We are going 
to take some of the money, over $100 million, and put back into other 
programs, in job training for students. These are the kinds of things 
that I would hope my colleagues would focus on.
  Yes, I think in some places we have probably gone a little too far. 
Let us work together and bring it back in line. Let us work at it, 
instead of just firing rockets at each other all day long.

[[Page H 8342]]

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in a great debate of priorities on this 
floor and it is a necessary debate. We have been told by the other side 
that we are establishing priorities with this appropriation, that this 
is the basic purpose here--we want to create the glide path to a 
balanced budget.
  Nothing could be truer and it is abundantly clear that the priorities 
of the other side do not include children, the priorities of the other 
side do not include programs which will help our young people take 
advantage of economic opportunities, become more competitive in the 
world market, in short, become educated. The priorities of the other 
side do not include education, planning for it, using it as a basis to 
expand opportunity for the most vulnerable in our society.
  The other side has made the comparison to doing our own family budget 
and that we must get our own Nation in order in the way we get our own 
home in order. Well based on what the other side has come up with, we 
have a family budget which has invested in burglar alarms at the 
expense of school books, a family budget which has invested in military 
toys instead of computers and a family budget which guarantees that 
your rich uncle will be getting more in the future than your retired 
grandmother.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], a senior Member of our body and a member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to be up front in telling the American people 
what this bill does to the education of the Nation's children. We need 
to tell parents how this bill threatens the quality of their children's 
education, their school safety, and their future career opportunities. 
And, while we are doing this, let's be mindful that everyday parents 
across-the-country are telling their children to study hard, get a good 
education, and you will be a success.
  Parents need to know that the Republicans on the committee voted 
against amendment after amendment to even partially restore funding to 
critical education programs. Even as we meet here today, the 
Republicans have said that these cuts are meaningless.
  Well, I do not think that the parents of the 1 million children that 
will be denied title-I assisted learning in reading and math will find 
the over $1 billion cut in title-I meaningless. I do not think that 
parents who are concerned about drugs and crime in their community's 
schools will find the $266 million cut in safe and drug free schools 
meaningless.
  Mr. Chairman, our children should not be forced to pay for a tax cut 
for the wealthy. Let's not deny our children their chance to achieve 
the American dream. For the children's sake, I ask my colleagues to 
vote against H.R. 2127.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for the fine job that he had done and for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, to my colleagues that have been about watching this 
debate over the last several days and to people whom I am sure have 
been watching it, probably wondering why all of this rancorous debate, 
why all of this strife. A lot of people might call it partisan 
bickering, yelling at one another. But what is really going on here I 
think we all understand is a very serious debate about what the 
appropriate role of the Federal Government here in Washington is today.
  Now, last November the American people, I think, made a big decision. 
They sent this town a very serious message, that they want government 
in Washington to be smaller, less costly, and less intrusive into their 
lives.
  While they said that, they sent a new Congress here to change the way 
Washington does its business. Probably our largest priority is to 
actually put forward, and we are going to pass, a plan that will 
actually balance the Federal budget here in Washington. As we do that, 
we are going to reinvent government here in Washington and reinvent the 
role of government here in Washington.
  I am surprised as I listen to some of the debate from my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, that they think that compassion ends at 
the outer edges of the beltway in Washington, that our States and local 
communities, that parents do not really care about what happens to 
their children's future.
  Well, they do.
  Another point I would make is that as we redesign this Government and 
shrink this Government, what we are going to do is save the future for 
our children and theirs. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who have designed these 240 Federal education programs, what good 
it really does for our children and theirs if we are going to have 
these programs, but we are going to let them pay for them over the next 
40, 50, 60 years, because all it is doing is adding to the national 
debt?
  How fair is that? The fact is I think we can go a lot further moving 
these programs back.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, in a brief colloquy if I may.
  Chairman Porter, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to talk 
with me about my concerns over the 40-percent cut made in the budget of 
the American Printing House for the Blind. As you know, the American 
Printing House is located in my district, in Louisville, KY, and 
carries out the mandate of the 1879 Act of Congress to promote the 
education of the blind.
  Over these many years, the American Printing House has produced and 
distributed special educational materials to legally blind students 
enrolled in pre-college programs. In fact, I understand that the Hadley 
School for the Blind in your district utilizes American Printing House 
materials.
  Mr. Chairman, the 1995 budget last year provided $107 per youngster 
for a total of $6.6 million in the budget. The cut in this bill would 
have a very detrimental effect on the ability of the American Printing 
House to carry out its vital mission. If the cut proposed becomes 
final, legally blind students in every State will have less access to 
the educational aides that are produced only at the Printing House for 
the Blind.
  Mr. Chairman, I know you share my concern for these young people. 
When the House goes to conference with the other body, I would be most 
grateful for any held you can give to restore the necessary funding for 
the American Printing House for the Blind.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WARD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very well acquainted with the work of 
the American Printing House for the Blind, both through the Hadley 
School and through my work on the subcommittee. I do share the 
gentleman from Kentucky's interest in providing for the educational 
needs obviously of blind people. In conference I will do all I can to 
increase the amount of funding for the American Printing House.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, on behalf of 
all those people at the American Printing House for the Blind, for his 
assistance.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to speak very briefly about three 
areas of concern that I have. I think, first of all, it is probably not 
the end of the world that we are making some cuts in education. I think 
we can probably live with some of that. But there are areas about which 
I am concerned.

[[Page H 8343]]

  I believe the goals panel, the national goals panel is a very, very 
important step we should reinstate. I am talking about $3 million or 
some relatively small amount of money. But those goals are not 
standards, they are not telling anybody how to do anything, they are 
goals that we need to reach by the year 2000 and I do not think we are 
doing it.
  I would hope at some point as this goes through the Senate and goes 
through conference, we will look at the safe and drug-free schools, and 
hopefully we can restore that money, because I think that program has 
worked so significantly well.
  Also, if there is anything left over, I think that the chapter 1 
program has by and large worked effectively in the United States of 
America. I realize that we have to make the cuts, and I realize we are 
going to have to make a lot of tough decisions, but I also believe 
these are programs we should look at.
  So I would urge all of us as we continue this to take a look at those 
particular programs.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we started this debate talking about opportunity, and 
that all of us on this floor, I believe, are for an opportunity 
society, and that, generally speaking, our constituents believe that 
opportunity's door is through the schoolhouse.
  The schoolhouse door is the door that has given most Americans the 
opportunity to better themselves, prepare themselves for the workplace, 
prepare themselves to be responsible, participating citizens. Yes, 
taxpaying citizens of our country who wanted to participate in making 
America great, they have done so.
  We have then talked about, however, the deficit, and how the deficit 
is of great concern to all of us. I want to tell again my friends that 
I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I voted for the Stenholm 
amendment, which would balance the budget in 7 years. I did not vote, 
however, for a large tax cut in the face of large deficits. It clearly 
does not make sense, because we need to get the deficit down first.
  The only reason I continue to suggest that we need to make these 
draconian cuts in education, in shortchanging the children of America, 
is because of the necessity of the Republican side to get to some 
numbers caused by their very significant tax cut of $245 billion.
  Now, someone said oh, yes, but that is distributed evenly throughout 
middle American the middle class, and the rich were not getting rich, 
and it was unfair of us to say we were taking $9 billion from children 
and putting that $9 billion, just a portion of the $245 billion, over 
here for a tax cut for the wealthy.
  My friends, here is the distribution: Here is the distribution of the 
tax cut. On the far right you have the bottom 20 percent, then the 
second 20 percent, the third, the fourth, and the top 20 percent. But 
then, my friends, you have the top 1 percent, and the tax cut they get.
  Now, I suggest if somebody says this is factually incorrect, I am 
sure they will correct me. But I am sure that I will not be corrected, 
because this is the accurate depiction of what your tax cut will result 
in and that is the distribution.
                              {time}  1415

  Twenty thousand dollars that everybody in the top 1 percent will get 
is being taken from Head Start children, chapter 1 children, student 
loan children, energy assistance, from this bill.
  Now, an additional argument that was made was, it all ought not to be 
in Washington. We agree with that. As a matter of fact, we agree very 
much that it ought to be local people, local school systems, local 
parents, local teachers that become engaged in how to make the 
education of our children better and more effective.
  That is why only 2 percent, only 2 percent of the money in this bill 
for education is kept in Washington; 98 percent, out to students, goes 
out to State school systems and local school systems. Hear me now, 98 
percent. That is not a bureaucracy in Washington being made fat. That 
is Washington trying to make sure that, as a nation, these are not just 
Maryland students and California students and Maine students and 
Florida students. These are Americans who will participate in the 
future in making America great. That is why we who represent all of the 
American people direct ourselves to this program.
  It is $3.8 billion cut in education in this bill, again, I suggest to 
you, made necessary not by budget deficit reduction but by the $245 
billion in the tax cut. You have to get it from somewhere, and the kids 
are here, and that is where you are getting it.
  Now, title I, 1 million students are being cut out. Safe and drug-
free schools, 60 percent is being cut. I frankly do not have any of my 
constituents come up to me and say, hey, we have accomplished our 
objective. We have safe schools, no violence in them, no drugs in them; 
we do not need to make the effort anymore. They do not believe that. We 
still have a very virulent cancer on our community, and it is drugs and 
violence in our schools. We need to help.
  We are not the sole answer, but we need to help our local school 
systems, Goals 2000. The former Governor of Delaware rose and said this 
is a good program. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] came up 
and said, the macroobjective of bringing the deficit down is excellent. 
I disagree with that. But the micromethod you have undertaken on your 
side of the aisle, he said, Republicans, you are wrong. That was Mr. 
Gunderson from Wisconsin, not the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer.
  Under the Reagan-Bush 12 years, we quadrupled the budget. Let me say 
to my Republican friends again, not one red cent was spent in America 
from 1981 to 1993 that Ronald Reagan and George Bush did not sign off 
on. They could have stopped any and all funding in its tracks. They did 
not do that. They chose to endorse the priorities that were sent to 
them.
  This President, by the way, is not going to do that, because he is 
right. These priorities stink and he is going to veto this bill. I am 
going to support his veto and applaud him in effort. I guarantee you in 
my opinion the American public are going to support him, too.
  Why? Because over 90 percent of them think, yes, balancing the 
deficit is important, but saying to a child, you will not be able to 
compete, you will not be able to have a job, you will not be able to 
support your family, you will not be able to compete in global economy 
but, by the way, you will owe less debt, you think that makes any sense 
to them? They will not have a job. They will not care what debt they 
owe.
  Vote against this cruel cut in education for our children.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again. Once more, my 
Democratic colleagues and myself are needing to stand up against the 
majority's assaults on poor women, children and the elderly.
  Poor women on Medicaid who will be denied good health care for them 
and their children. The legislation even undercuts the very successful 
healthy short program that give poor children early preventive health 
care.
  The Head Start program gives millions of American children the 
opportunity to start their adolescent and academic development on the 
right foot. The Republicans are choosing to reduce funding for this 
program. I can envision it now * * * little by little, they will try to 
dwindle this program into obscurity as well. We will not stand for 
this.
  And our poor seniors. What will come of them during this so-called 
revolution? We have already seen a glimpse of what the majority wishes 
to do to the Medicare program * * * and now, they want not to reduce 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, but to 
eliminate it!
  Houston, a city that experiences extreme temperatures and a high heat 
index, needs a program like LIHEAP. I spoke today with the Houston 
Harris County Area Agency on Aging about the effects on our seniors if 
this program is eliminated. The outlook is not good.
  In our most recent Houston heat wave, the city's multi-purpose and 
senior centers increased their hours of operation for the emergency 
placement of elderly citizens at alternative sites--they needed a 
cooler place to stay * * * not only for their health, but for their 
safety. This can often be a life or death situation. Swiftly 
eliminating a program of such importance is irresponsible legislating.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation which effectively 
disregards this Nation's commitment to life, liberty, and equality for 
all.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to these unwise and 
unwarranted cuts to the future of our country. By cutting funds to 

[[Page H 8344]]
student aid programs we are dulling the edge of our Nation's future 
competitiveness.
  This bill decimates the Perkins Loan Program for our neediest 
students. In my district 682 students at Macomb Community College alone 
may be forced to leave school.
  This bill takes seed money away from the Michigan Competitive 
Scholarship Program, which provides college assistance to disadvantaged 
students who show unusual academic promise. Isn't academic promise what 
we're trying to encourage?
  And 250,000 currently-eligible students will be denied a Pell Grant. 
This is not progress, this is moving backwards.
  Finally, for our youngest kids, Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is 
reduced by more than 50 percent, cutting $9.2 million from my state's 
DARE and school-based anti-drug efforts.
  Why is this happening? Because Republicans have put a priority on tax 
cuts for very wealthy families that just don't need it. These 
priorities are backwards and just plain wrong.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate on title III has expired.
  Are there amendments to title III?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will take just a moment because the gentleman was 
unable to yield to me. I had yielded to a Member on his side as part of 
our debate.
  I say that sounds wonderful, but with the cuts in this section of the 
bill, in education, they amount to exactly three-quarters of 1 percent 
of the money spent in education in our country this year, three-
quarters of 1 percent is what these cuts amount to. The sky is not 
falling. The sky is not falling.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 45, line 7, strike 
     ``$1,057,919,000.'' and insert ``$1,062,788,000, of which 
     $4,869,000 shall be for the National Institute for Literacy; 
     and''.
       Page 49, line 1, strike ``$255,107,000'' and insert 
     ``$250,238,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be recognized for 
10 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today I am offering an amendment to support the continued funding of 
the National Institute for Literacy. In my mind, there is no more 
effective solution to many of the social ills facing today's society 
than ensuring that we have a literate society. Unfortunately, in the 
United States of America we do not. A large percentage of our people 
have an eighth grade literacy ability.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment 
to restore funding for the National Institute for Literacy. We have 
done a great deal of work over the last 5 years. It has been in the 
best tradition of the bipartisan effort that we have enjoyed for many 
years on our committee. Adult literacy problems remain in the forefront 
of America's educational and productive economic needs throughout the 
country. The National Institute for Literacy has been instrumental in 
forwarding its goals.
  I have to add that, even with this amendment, the bill will continue 
to force programs that invest in our people to fight for the same pot 
of insufficient funds, but this amendment reflects a return to the kind 
of bipartisan support for adult education and literacy that has been so 
important to our work together.
  Funding from OERI to the National Institute for Literacy extends this 
bipartisan commitment to education research. However, given the cuts in 
education research and the increase in number of programs that would 
come out of the OERI line item, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to clarify if it is his intention in any way to affect the 
current distribution of funding levels between the education and the 
research centers and the clearinghouses within the overall OERI budget, 
or is it simply a positive step toward ensuring the availability of all 
times of educational research.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for 
the amendment. He has always been in the forefront in our fight to 
improve the literacy of this country.
  It is fitting that we are standing here today since we stood together 
on this floor in 1991, and the gentleman is correct about the intention 
of my amendment. I have no intention of affecting the current structure 
of funding for the lab, center, and clearinghouses within OERI.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, his leadership in this arena, commend him 
for his support for this and research activities. I urge my colleagues 
to fight against illiteracy and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] wish to 
be recognized in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not make a big thing of this because I understand that it is 
just a small item, but I did nonetheless want Members to understand 
that, while everyone would like to restore funds for the institute for 
literacy, it does come at a cost. I do not think that cost is 
advisable.
  The amendment, as I understand it, obtains the funding for the 
gentleman's purposes by reducing the increase in the education research 
account by $5 million so there would be $15 million above last year 
left in the education research account.
  The problem with that is that, while it sounds like that account is 
being healthily enhanced, the problem is that, in fact, this bill is 
cutting some 70 education programs, which the gentleman from Illinois, 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, has described as being 
duplicative. We have said about 115 times on this side of the aisle 
that we agree with the elimination of many of those programs in the 
interest of consolidation and in the interest of rationalizing 
administrative structures and delivering more service for dollars 
spent. And because of the deficit squeeze.
  But the problem with the elimination of those 70 programs is that we 
have been told by the committee that because those programs represent 
about $200 million in previous expenditures, some of those people 
interested in those programs have been told, well, you can try to 
apply, you can try to be funded in some way out of education research.
  If you are cutting out $200 million and telling folks to go apply at 
door B but door B is only increased by $20 million, then you have got a 
very small percentage chance of actually getting an answer when you 
knock on that door.
  So while I am certainly not going to strenuously insist on my point, 
and I am not even going to push this to a rollcall, I assure the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, I take this time mainly to explain the 
fact that there is a cost to this amendment.
  I am dubious about the value of the trade-off. I recognize the 
intention of the gentleman, but I wanted to indicate that, if this were 
pushed to a rollcall, I for one would vote ``no'' because I think that, 
while we can have great arguments about the Federal role in education, 
it seems to me there can be no argument about the necessity for the 
Federal Government to try to stimulate research which can help us find 
answers to many questions which have so far being unanswerable.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise to make a couple of observations. The chairman of the 
committee just a few seconds ago--he would not yield to me--said, look, 
we are just cutting a little bit of money and the sky is not falling. 
Well, apparently the gentleman from Pennsylvania believes the sky is 
falling as it relates to the literacy council. 

[[Page H 8345]]

  Other colleagues on his side of the aisle said, we ought to send the 
money out of Washington. We ought to let the local people make the 
decision. We ought to have local application. We ought to have local 
people working on that.
  Is it not ironic that the first amendment offered is to add $5 
million, and do you know where that $5 million goes? Here in 
Washington, not out to the States, not out to local school systems, not 
out to local literacy councils, here in Washington.
  So, my friends, I say to you, we have had a lot of rhetoric about the 
awful Democrats that centralizing money in Washington, and the first 
amendment offered by the Republican chairman of the committee, of the 
authorizing committee, offers an amendment to restore totally $5 
million which, if divided, obviously, into 50 states, means $100,000 a 
State. But it does not go to the States. It stays right here in 
Washington,
  I find it a little bit ironic. I am not against it, by the way. I 
want to tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whom I have a great 
deal of respect and with whom, as he knows, I agree on his comments in 
the earlier part of our debate where we need to make sure that programs 
work effectively. He and I agree on that, whether it is chapter 1, Head 
Start or any other program. I am not just spending these resources and 
not making sure they work. But the fact of the matter is, this money, 
as the distinguished ranking member knows, stays right here in 
Washington with all those Washington bureaucrats. I am shocked that 
this amendment would be offered.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to make several points. First off, there is a 23.5-percent 
increase in the bill at the present time for OERI.
  Second, I want to take issue, great issue with whether the money 
stays in Washington, DC. We have a lot of literacy programs. We need a 
combination, we need somebody to be a clearinghouse. We need somebody 
to make sure that the local and the State government efforts are 
coordinated. That is exactly where this money is going, my dear man 
from Maryland, the money is going for the development of technical 
assistance and information that is provided to State and local 
programs. They need that kind of assistance. We give them that kind of 
assistance, and OERI still has a 17-percent increase in this budget.
  I cannot think of a better way to spend money, if you really are 
interested in tackling the illiteracy problem that exists in the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the gentleman's answer was 
that the local governments needed to have this information coordinated 
and sent back to them on literacy.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. What I said was that the $5 
million was for work done here in Washington to coordinate that 
information, to send it back to the locals. But the money that the 
gentleman's amendment is adding back in is going to  be  spent  here  
in Washington. I believe I am correct on that. If I am 
not, I stand to be corrected, but staff seems to believe 
that is the case.
  The gentleman, in his answer to me, simply said that we sent it back, 
that we sent that information back. That is correct. He said they need 
it; they need that kind of coordination from Washington. I appreciate 
his observation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will look on page 1079 of 
the hearings, part 5, you will find absolutely no question this is a 
Washington-based activity.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for calling my attention to the specific page and am pleased to hear 
that I was correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that there 
has been a misstatement about adding $5 million. This is squeezing of 
$5 million out of other programs that are already in OERI. OERI's 
budget was increased by 17 percent, but at the same time, they were 
forced to assume responsibility for a number of other programs that 
were defunded.
  Mr. Chairman, if we add up the money taken away from those other 
programs, like the desegregation centers, the technical assistance 
centers, we will find what is taken away from them is far greater than 
the increase that OERI received. Assuming that this colloquy had some 
meaning, the colloquy protects the labs, the centers, and one other 
item that was mentioned there as being protected. Only those 3 items 
are protected. All of the other entities that are included in OERI will 
have to suffer as a result.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a squeezing, because of the fact that we start 
out with the wrong amount for OERI to begin with, because we have the 
wrong amount for the Department of Education totally. The problem is, 
back to the B-2 bombers, back to the F-22s, back to all the wastes that 
exist in other parts of the budget. We are forcing the other education 
programs to eat each other, and that is not proper.
  We should not be laboring under the illusion, thinking that $5 
million is being added here and that is going to take care of the 
literacy program and none of the other programs in OERI will be hurt. 
Many vital programs in OERI have already been eliminated and they must 
make up for that and assume those responsibilities with the existing 
money that they have.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not allow them to do that. It only 
places a greater burden on what is left in OERI, including the funding 
of five institutes that have to be started up and they are part of the 
existing OERI structure that has been approved.
  All of that is being put under the hammer in terms of $5 million 
being taken away.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, of course the money does not come from the existing 
programs; it comes from the increase. There is still a 17-percent 
increase for all of those programs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to 
make one point.
  Mr. Chairman, there is $20 million increase in the budget for this 
operation. There is a potential increase in responsibilities of $200 
million. Sounds to me like that is about 10 cents on the dollar. Far 
from having increased ability to do the research they need, they are 
going to be squeezed incredibly. I think Members need to understand 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments?


                amendment no. 129 offered by mr. hastert

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastert: Page 54, line 14, strike 
     ``objective criteria'' and insert ``specific criteria''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a 
Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] take the time in 
opposition?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] in bringing to my attention 
a possible unintended consequence of the current title IX language 
included in H.R. 2127.

[[Page H 8346]]

  As one who has pointed out the unintended consequences of title IX, 
in general, I certainly do not want to create any possible problems. I 
commend the strong commitment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut to 
the promotion of women's athletics and to title IX in general. We agree 
that women's opportunities must continue to grow.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to discuss the concern that she has 
with the current language in H.R. 2127.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the current language reads 
that the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education must 
have updated policy guidance, including objective criteria clarifying 
how colleges and universities can demonstrate, first, a history and 
continuing practice of program expansion; and, second, full and 
effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the 
underrepresented sex.
  I believe the word ``objective'' can, ironically, be a subjective 
standard. It is my fear that parties who oppose title IX, or schools 
that simply do not wish to comply, could take the policy guidance 
developed, by OCR, to court over whether or not the criteria developed 
are truly objective.
  If such a court case was pending, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely 
possible that funding for OCR's enforcement of all civil rights laws 
would be in jeopardy. This is absolutely ludicrous and far from the 
gentleman's intent and far from anyone's intent in proposing the 
language in the bill.
  My concern is alleviated by the substitute amendment we offer today, 
which replaces objective criteria with specific criteria. This language 
still ensures OCR must provide more guidance to schools by December 31, 
1995. However, it is hard to argue in court that criteria are not 
specific. Therefore, I do not believe the same threat of a loss of 
funds for civil rights enforcement due to court cases exists with this 
language.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I further emphasize 
the intent of this language is to make sure that OCR issues clear 
guidance to make the second and third prongs of the opportunities test 
of title IX usable for colleges and universities. Current guidance is 
simply not working. We definitely do not want to eliminate funding for 
the enforcement of important civil rights laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last week I filed an amendment which would have struck 
all of the language with reference to title IX, because I felt that it 
would do egregious harm to the enforcement of the program and to all 
the wonderful things that title IX has achieved over the years since 
1972.
  I want to acknowledge the willingness of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hastert] to modify the language of the provision in the 
appropriations bill and to address our very grave concerns about the 
use of the word ``objective'' and how it could completely modify the 
enforcement potential of title IX with respect to athletic programs.
  In taking the lead, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson], has shown great leadership. The gentlewoman's concern 
was brought to my attention at one of our meetings. I shared that 
concern, and we have been working together to try to work our 
modification of the language.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the inclusion of any 
language whatsoever. I appreciate the modification that it makes is 
less onerous to the department and less difficult to deal with. 
However, my general feeling is that this language is not necessary, 
should not be included as legislation in an appropriations bill, and 
certainly, from the majority point of view, where it has been expressed 
on so many occasions that we ought not to be micromanaging the 
executive branch, this is a clear indication of micromanagement in an 
area where I do not feel this type of instruction is either useful or 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to a letter which was sent to two 
of our colleagues on that side of the aisle. It is a letter from the 
U.S. Department of Education in June 1995. We had public hearings on 
this issue and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] came and 
testified and provided us with a clear view of the concerns that the 
gentleman was raising with respect to the intercollegiate athletic 
programs.
  The Department of Education pointed out that, notwithstanding the 
views that are out there in the public, the Department of Education's 
guidelines clearly point out that the three areas of concern that have 
been expressed in the hearings are in the alternative that is 
repeatedly expressed at the hearings, and that these three guidances 
that have been elaborated in part of the policy documents of the 
Department, are expressed in alternatives. It is not a situation where 
all three of these guidelines need to be complied with.
  The first has to do with substantial, proportionate enrollment. That 
is an alternative.
  The second alternative is the establishment of history and continuing 
practice of program expansion for members of the underrepresented sex. 
That is an alternative way in which the universities' programs could 
meet the requirements of title IX.
  The third alternative is whether full and effective accommodation of 
the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been 
accommodated by the universities' programs. That is another 
alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hearing clearly put forth the 
Department's understanding as to how they apply these guidance criteria 
and that in no case does the department take the point of view that all 
three criteria need to be met.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Department has recently stated that 
they are in the process of trying to meet these concerns that are out 
there in the various universities, and that they are in the process of 
putting forth new guidance with respect to these three guidance 
positions.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department has more than adequately stated their 
position and clarified the problem. This provision in the 
appropriations bill is totally unnecessary. I would have hoped that the 
provision would have been stricken, together with all of the other 
legislative language that had been included in the global amendment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the other day, but it was not, 
so the problem still persists.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding and I 
want to commend her and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] 
for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, as a young man, 32 years ago, I was fortunate enough to 
receive an athletic scholarship to the University of Iowa. Quite 
frankly, had I not received that scholarship, I am not so sure that I 
would have been able to continue my education at that time.
  I went through the University of Iowa, played football, and I do not 
recall at that time if there were any women at that university who were 
on athletic scholarships.
  Mr. Chairman, title IX, instituted 20 years ago, has helped literally 
tens of thousands of women and young women in this country get an 
education who normally would not have had a chance to get an education.

                              {time}  1445

  The opportunity that an athletic scholarship provided me in terms of 
my education is now available, the door is now open to literally tens 
of thousands of young women. It has been a tremendous success, and I 
would hope that we would not in this Congress or in this legislation or 
in this amendment roll back the door, roll back the opportunities that 
are available to young women.
  I want for my daughter the same opportunities that my son will have, 
and title IX has provided that for literally countless numbers of young 
women today in America.
  Even though title IX has been in force for over 20 years now, women 
athletes still have far fewer opportunities to play in intercollegiate 
sports than male athletes. While women are over half the undergraduates 
in our colleges 

[[Page H 8347]]
and universities, female athletes are limited to just one-third of all 
varsity slots.
  I might also point out at this point, Mr. Chairman, that men's 
athletic opportunities have not suffered overall as a result of title 
IX. Men's participation in intercollegiate sports has increased since 
the passage of title IX. In fact, for every new dollar spent on women's 
sports, two new dollars have been spent on men's sports. So let us not 
turn back the clock. Let us keep the door open. Let us make sure that 
these young women coming out of high school today who would normally 
not have had a chance to get an education and live a dream that many of 
them seek, have that opportunity, and I encourage my colleagues to be 
supportive of this program.
  I want to associate myself at this time with the remarks of the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would like to associate myself and address myself to the gentleman, 
the minority whip. You know, the purpose of this thing, I absolutely 
support women's athletics. As a matter of fact, my spouse is a women's 
athletic coach, and I think it has been great, the growth that title IX 
has brought forward in the last few years.
  The problem is in my district and in districts across this country, 
many schools, when confronted, because the law has not been clearly 
laid out for them, especially in two of the three prongs, they have 
decided, many schools have decided, not to expand women's sports but to 
instead cut back men's sports to meet the proportionality rule. That 
certainly was never the intent of the law.
  What we are asking in this is for them to set up a more definite, 
specific language so they can meet those last two wordings of those 
tests.
  I think that is certainly something that we can work together on, 
that I am completely dedicated to and, as a matter of fact, one of the 
things that has happened across this country, in the gentleman's State 
of Michigan, my State, Iowa, your alma mater State, we have lost 
literally hundreds of minor men's sports teams because of this type of 
cutback, swimming programs, gymnastic programs, wrestling programs, 
those types of sports. Those participants have lost the opportunity to 
participate.
  We are hoping that we can clarify that language and make it easier 
for everybody to have an opportunity to compete.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say 
that as one who probably would not be here today if I had not had the 
opportunity to participate in a very competitive women's sports 
program, I am pleased that we are all united on the value of title IX. 
We would not have the women in basketball, women excelling at the 
Olympics, women tennis players of the excellence and caliber, women 
drivers, women excelling in all of the sports, without title IX, and I 
commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], for their commitment to title IX 
and making sure it works well for women throughout America in the 
course of our discussions about this amendment.
  It is very important that the Federal Government be able to work with 
institutions so that competitive sports is a strong, healthy part of 
the lives of all Americans, and I believe it is critical that together 
we assure that not only are these regulations completed on time but 
they are completed in a way that the universities and colleges of 
America can comply with them readily, and we can all assure that 
progress is made toward equal opportunity for sports, to participate in 
competitive sports in the decades ahead for all of our kids.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his work on this important 
issue.
  Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 1 minute, 
to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and in support of title IX.
  I would just like to say that I have very athletic children. In fact, 
my youngest son is an Honorable Mention All-American college football 
player. I know how important that experience was to him. He also has a 
brother that is an athlete and a sister that is an athlete. It was 
equally important for them to have athletic experience. It gave them a 
grounding that we cannot overlook, and it taught all of them, boys and 
girls alike in my family, teamwork, taught them individual 
competitiveness, and it taught them self-assurance and self-respect.
  We must, must support title IX, and we cannot ever take away from 
that program. As a matter of fact, I do not suggest that we cut men's 
sports. I suggest we expand our contribution to all sports.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. I want everyone to understand this is not a debate about 
title IX. This is a debate about some kind of clarity and equity in the 
enforcement of title IX.
  We have held hearings on this issue in front of our subcommittee in 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities as recently as 
July. I received a personal letter from Norma Cantu, the assistant 
secretary, where she said:

       I agree OCR should take steps to clarify our existing 
     standards and to ensure that colleges and universities fully 
     understand what steps are required to comply with title IX.

  I have to tell you this right here is just part of the communication 
between the University of Wisconsin and the Office of Civil Rights on 
this issue, and it is clear that the Office of Civil Rights has decided 
you meet standard 1 or you do not qualify, and if you do not accept 
standard 1, initially, we are going to require additional remedial 
corrections by you; it is absolutely absurd. Either this office 
clarifies and corrects this, or next year we are going to have to 
prohibit any funding for this particular activity, and I hope none of 
us arrives at that point in the process.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute
  Mr. Chairman, the whole purpose of putting this, as I regret in doing 
it because it stemmed out of a letter written to the Office of Civil 
Rights on June 30 with 134 signatures asking for clarification. We have 
never received that clarification.
  It is not out intent to stop or to limit any activity, athletic 
activity, but we want to clarify that for schools who are 
participating.
  I think this language takes that action, and I ask for a positive 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hastert 
amendment. In my district in east-central Illinois, I represent 
Illinois State University which has been wrestling with the gender 
equity issue for the last half year. In the last 6 months, the 
university has seen lawsuits raised for fraud, the canceling of its 
men's wrestling and soccer programs, and student athletic scholarships 
canceled. We have a policy at the Department of Education that is in 
desperate need of clarification and review.
  In May of this year, the Postsecondary Education, Training and 
Lifelong Learning Subcommittee held hearings in which it was abundantly 
clear that universities nationwide had no idea if they were in 
compliance with gender unity or not. In some cases, even after schools 
had been OK'd by the Department of Education for title 9 compliance 
they later found in court that they were not in compliance at all.
  Back at Illinois State University, the men's wrestling and soccer 
teams have been eliminated in the name of gender equity while women's 
soccer has been added. I am happy to see that many young women have 
gained new opportunities in sports at ISU, but I am also disappointed 
that many young men have lost opportunities as well, especially when 
they had been recruited to the university to participate in those 
programs. In 1974, when Congress first enacted gender equity its intent 
was clear: Expand athletic opportunities for female athletes. The 
authors of this legislation never intended to eliminate opportunities 
for men. Nevertheless, in the middle of their spring semester many 
young men were told that their 

[[Page H 8348]]
team was going to be eliminated and that if they wanted to play soccer 
or wrestle they would have to do it somewhere else. These students had 
invested time and hard work, and were very disappointed, so 
disappointed that these young athletes now have an attorney.
  We have heard that the gender equity regulations are under review, 
but promises are no longer good enough. This inconsistent and confusing 
regulation is another example of the Federal Government micromanaging 
the local lives of Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Hastert 
amendment which will require the Department to clarify their 
regulations by December 31, 1995.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by Representative Hastert that modifies a provision 
in H.R. 2127 that would require the Department of Education's Office of 
Civil Rights [OCR] to clarify its enforcement policy of title IX of the 
Educational Amendments Act of 1972.
  Colleges and universities across Nebraska have asked that the 
Department clear up the confusion that's been created because OCR has 
failed to clarify two of the three tests that ensure women and men have 
equal athletic opportunities.
  While we all want to ensure that all students have equal 
opportunities to participate in and have athletic programs, the 
Department has continued to apply only one of three tests that are 
supposed to be used to help schools decide if they're meeting this 
requirement. Because of the Department's actions, there now exists a 
quota system in college athletics.
  The other two tests have become meaningless because schools have no 
objectionable standard in which to gage full compliance with title IX.
  The Hastert modifying amendment simply requires that that the 
Department issue specific standards on these two tests by the end of 
this year, so that colleges and universities will finally be able to 
evaluate their programs based on solid standards, instead of the 
current quota system.
  Mr. Chairman, current title IX enforcement is threatening viable 
athletic programs that have benefited men and women. In Nebraska, our 
outstanding football program has provided a valuable source of income 
to the athletic department which has in turn helped the University's 
other athletic programs. It would be unfortunate that what has taken 
years to develop and has become the pride of Nebraska, could be 
threatened because the Department has failed to fully clarify title 
IX's opportunities tests.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment to H.R. 2127.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. THORNTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my appreciation to the 
distinguished colleagues on both sides of the aisle who truly believe 
that education is important. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
will be bringing forward an amendment to accent education.
  This is an important occasion because we are addressing problems that 
will affect the future of the United States well into the next century.
  We are concerned because our Nation has deep problems. We are 
wrestling with the problems of poverty, because we have had an 
imbalance in our budget.
  But we are also wrestling, I submit, with a larger poverty, a poverty 
of vision and of self-assurance that would teach us that we have the 
resources in this Nation to enter the next century as the greatest 
Nation on Earth economically, the mightiest militarily, and the 
strongest in pursuit of democratic ideals. But we are too poor, we are 
told and I am here today to say that I am tired of people saying that 
this country is too poor to meet its obligations to our young people 
for an education, we are too poor, to meet our commitment to our 
veterans, we are too poor, we are told, to continue to live up to the 
trust of Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation does have financial problems. We have great 
financial problems. I have been told that every person in this country 
owes $18,000 in debt. That is a terrible amount of debt. It is terrible 
to think that we are that deeply in debt.
  But let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman, this is not the worst 
debt this country has ever had. At the end of World War II, after the 
Great Depression and after fighting Germany and the Axis powers and 
Japan to a victory, this Nation owed 120 percent of its gross national 
product in debt, head over heels in debt. We owed $260 billion and our 
total income, for everyone, was only $212 billion. By contrast, in the 
1970's, we had pulled our debt down to 23 percent of our gross national 
product. By wise investments and increased productivity we reduced our 
debt down to 23 percent of our gross national product in the 1970's. 
Then we went on a spree of spending more and cutting revenues, creating 
huge deficits with the result that our debt is nearly 70 percent of our 
gross national product. This is bad, but not as bad as the 120 percent 
at the end of World War II.
  These percentages of financial poverty are not as important as the 
poverty of courage, the poverty of vision. At the end of World War II 
our Nation was head over heels in debt, worse than at any point in its 
history, but we did not say, ``We are too poor to meet our obligations 
to our servicemen, we are too poor to educate our young people.'' No, 
sir, we did not say that.
  One of the last things President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed 
before he died at Warm Springs was that when they return from conflict, 
we should establish a GI bill to provide an education for every 
serviceman and servicewoman in this country. Mr. Chairman, we are not 
too poor to educate our children. We were not then, and we are not now.
  Just a few years later, another great President, Dwight David 
Eisenhower, proposed to a country which was still head over heels in 
debt, that we are not too poor to build an interstate system that 
stretches from Maine to California, from Florida to Washington, and we 
built the infrastructure of this country so we could have a thriving 
economy which has made us the mightiest Nation on Earth.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that today, as we address the 
problems of the future, we are making the excuse we are just too poor, 
we just cannot afford it, we just cannot afford to educate our 
children, to keep our commitment to our elderly, we cannot keep our
 commitment to our veterans, because, you see, we are broke, we are 
broke. We owe $18,000 per person.

                              {time}  1500

  But where in that accounting of debt are our assets? How much is it 
worth to be an American citizen? Mr. Chairman, please tell me why 
people from Central America and the Caribbean and East Europe are 
battering the doors of this country down to move here? Do you believe 
they want to come in and help us carry that $18,000 of debt; that they 
just want to be a part of this bankrupt country? No. sir.
  They know what every American citizen knows, that we are the richest 
and most powerful Nation on the face of the earth and that what we have 
is much greater than what we owe. We have an obligation to invest our 
money wisely.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Thornton] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Williams, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Thornton 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, the point is, that every businessman 
worth his salt has debts far greater than $18,000, but will wisely make 
investments for future returns. Everyone knows that poverty is not a 
thing to be proud of, nor ashamed of, but to be gotten rid of as 
quickly as conveniently possible, and as my grandad told me, if you are 
head over heels in debt, you cannot spend your way out of debt, but you 
cannot starve you way out of debt. The only way to get out of debt is 
to work your way out of debt, and the way you do that is by investing 
in the future, in the education and training of our young people.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THORNTON. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, along with the attention that I think we owe the 
gentleman in the well is also our attention to his 

[[Page H 8349]]
statements about the poverty of courage and boldness and grandness in 
America today.
  Let me extend that just one additional step. Not only were those who 
came before us in Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's time and the 
citizens who served with them, not only did they have great courage, 
even in the face of debt, but they understood something that this 
particular Congress appears not to understand, and that is, investments 
in education will, in fact, in the near term, reduce the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, a former Speaker of this House asked for a review of a 
cost-benefit analysis of the cost of the GI bill and the benefits 
returned to the Treasury. When the results came back, they were 
astonishing. The GI bill has now paid off the entire capital cost of 
World War II several times. Had we not spent that education money in 
the 1940's, the debt would be much higher than it is today.
  One of the reasons that debt continues to rise under Republican 
Presidential leadership is because they do not understand the necessity 
of investment. Businesspeople understand it. Certainly the Japanese 
have understood it. America not only lacks, it seems to me, in its 
leadership the power of courage today, but we misunderstand the 
necessity of investments, such as continued and increased national 
investments in education.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every family in 
America understands the importance of educating our children, and, Mr. 
Chairman, I come before you today urging support of the Lowey amendment 
and to urge that we recapture the self-assurance, courage, and vision 
which guided us after World War II to invest in the future. An 
investment in education reduces our deficit, and secures our future.
                 amendment no. 30 offered by mrs. lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked as amendment 
No. 30.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mrs. Lowey: On page 45 line 15, 
     strike ``and 3'' and insert ``3 and 4'' and on page 45 line 
     17, strike $6,916,915,000 and insert $6,920,915,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the bill's cuts in student aid. 
Unfortunately, these cuts only foreshadow the $10 billion in student 
aid cuts which will be made this fall in the reconciliation bill. This 
bill alone cuts the Perkins loan program, one of the oldest and most 
important Federal student aid programs in this country.
  Three-quarters of a million students across America depend upon the 
Perkins program. In my State of New York alone, Perkins provided low 
interest loans to nearly 60,000 deserving students.
  As you can see on this chart, over 88 percent of undergraduate 
students who benefit from Perkins loans come from families with incomes 
under $50,000. These are kids from hard-working, middle-class families 
who are feeling squeezed, squeezed in whatever they do in their life. 
These families need more, not less, help to send their kids to college.
  The bill completely eliminates another program, State student 
incentive grants. Over 200,000 students depend upon these grants. The 
modest $63 million which the Federal Government spends on the program
 drives over $650 million in State funds, a huge return on the Federal 
dollar.

  The elimination of SSIG will not be made up by other sources of 
student aid. Where will these 200,000 students turn for help?
  Let me tell my colleagues about two students who depend on Federal 
student aid. Sebastian Tuccitto of the Bronx attends St. John's 
University in my district. Sebastian is in his junior year studying 
accounting. Unfortunately, like so many other families in this country 
struggling to get by, Sebastian's parents cannot contribute much to his 
education. His father is a carpenter who was injured on the job and his 
mom works at a supermarket. Neither of his parents went to college, and 
let me say, school is anything but fun and games for this young man who 
works several jobs struggling to get that education. He works at least 
20 hours a week while he attends school and he still gets a 3.1 GPA.
  Does this Congress really want to make it more difficult for young 
men like this to go to college?
  Or Denise Fiacco who will be a senior at a State school where she 
will major in chemistry and math. Like Sebastian, Denise is on her own. 
Her parents are not able to help with her tuition so Denise works to 
earn money for school which supplements her student aid. She even had 
to drop out of school for a year in order to earn money for college.
  Is this Congress willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that they 
cannot be part of the American dream? Are we today in the United States 
of America, the most prosperous Nation in the world, going to tell 
these young people that we are not going to invest so they can get the 
skills so they can earn their way in this great country our ours so 
they can compete in the global marketplace?
  A college degree today is simply a matter of economic survival. 
Again, my colleagues, look at this chart. Look at the fact. A person 
with a college degree earns close to twice as much as someone with only 
a high school education earns. The more a person learns, the more a 
person earns.
  Are we willing to tell Denise and Sebastian that we do not care about 
their future today? I certainly am not.
  I cannot find any way, my colleagues, to defend these cuts. We are 
going to hear a lot of excuses, but there is no way to defend these 
cuts. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's 
future, our students. Let us give each and every student the same 
chance at the American dream that our own children have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be recognized 
in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill contains the largest single year increase in 
Pell grants ever and raises the maximum grant to the highest level in 
history, $2,440. This is the program that provides access to the most 
financially needy students in America who would otherwise not be able 
to afford to go to college.
  The bill fully funds the supplemental educational opportunity grants 
at the President's request and at the 1995 level. The bill fully funds 
the work study program at the President's request at the 1995 level. 
The bill fully funds the TRIO program at the President's request at the 
1995 level. That is over $7 billion in student assistance and it is all 
grant assistance, not loans that have to be repaid.
  As the gentlewoman from New York notes, we have reductions in funding 
for two programs which together previously represented less than 3 
percent of Federal student financial assistance in this bill. The 
Perkins loan program is a revolving loan program that already has $6 
billion in assets in it. I might note that the President himself 
proposed terminating capital contributions for this program last year 
as we have done in this bill.
  The Perkins funds are funds that are controlled and matched by over 
2,000 participating schools. Loans are made by the schools and when 
they come into repayment, new loans are made.
  Our bill in no way affects the $6 billion in those revolving loan 
funds.
  It is true, however, that we are not adding new capital to the 
program. In this budget environment, we simply cannot be increasing the 
program. But the funding that is already out there is going to stay 
there. Now loans will be made.
  Earlier, the gentleman from Wisconsin suggested that hundreds of 
thousands of students are not going to get loans because we are not 
adding $158 million in new capital to the Perkins 

[[Page H 8350]]
program. That contention is simply wrong. Every kid that would be 
served by Perkins if we put that $158 million in new capital in the 
program will qualify for a direct student loan or a Federal family 
education loan. This decision on Perkins will not prevent a single 
student anywhere from getting a Federal loan, period.
  Now, we have some who have suggested that if we do
   not add capital to this program, it will wither and die over time. 
This is also misleading, Mr. Chairman. Students pay 5 percent interest 
on Perkins loans, which means that they repay more than they are 
loaned. So the program actually grows over time. In addition, schools 
must match at least one-third of the Federal contribution. They tell us 
that this is a very high priority program for them.

  Well, if the schools continue making their contribution to the 
program in addition to the $6 billion they already have in their 
revolving funds, the program will continue to grow.
  The only way Perkins will shrink in the absence of Federal capital 
contributions is if schools do a poor job of collecting loans, if they 
permit defaults in excess of 5 percent plus their contributions to the 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place, but the 
Perkins program is going to remain strong. It is going to continue to 
grow despite this small, reasonable contribution to deficit reduction.
  I want to address the issue of the State student incentive grant 
program for which the Federal contribution is terminated in this bill. 
Just like Perkins, this is a program that President Clinton proposed to 
terminate last year and he still proposes terminating it.
  This program was created in 1972 as a temporary incentive program to 
encourage States to establish their own need-based grant programs. It 
was not intended to be a permanent subsidy to the States. In 1972, only 
26 States had need-based grant programs. Today, all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia have these programs.
  As the National Performance Review indicated, the program has 
achieved its purpose and should now be terminated. In addition, today 
46 States overmatch the SSIG requirement; 42 States award need-based 
aid other than SSIG and 33 States award non-need-based grants; 23 
States make grants to part-time students and 21 States make grants to 
graduate students. Clearly, the Federal responsibility and role have 
disappeared.
  According to the Department of Education, the Federal contribution to 
SSIGs represents only 2.5 percent of grants awarded by States. The 
members of our subcommittee felt, I think rightly, that at a
 time when we have to reduce spending in this bill by 13 percent 
overall, 9 percent in this cycle, it is certainly fair to ask the 
States to accept a reduction in Federal subsidies of their grant 
programs of only one-fifth of that amount.

  Some critics have suggested that some states may discontinue their 
grant programs if the SSIG funding is terminated. I cannot imagine a 
more irresponsible response to this bill. All of the States have had 24 
years of Federal assistance to get their systems up and running and to 
become self-sufficient. If the States cannot become self-sufficient in 
24 years, they have either grossly mismanaged their education funds or 
they have abused the Federal assistance by treating it as a permanent 
operating subsidy rather than as start-up assistance, as it was 
intended.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, this bill and the student loan entitlements will make 
available to students $35 billion in student financial assistance in 
1996. These reasonable reductions and strong support for student aid 
proposed in this bill will not adversely affect students, and they 
should be adopted.
  The sky is not falling.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Perkins Loan Program began in 1958 in 
response to the Russian Sputnik program. It was part of the National 
Defense Education Act. I would not be here in Congress today if it were 
not for that National Defense Education Act. That is what enabled me to 
get a college education.
  This Congress, a long time ago, decided to give people like me the 
opportunity to work their way up the opportunity ladder, and I am very 
grateful for it. About one-third of the Members of this Congress have 
been beneficiaries of the very same program which we are suggesting now 
that we will not fund for the first time since 1958. I ask my 
colleagues to not pull the ladder of opportunity up after they have 
climbed it before they let others do the same thing. Give them the same 
opportunity that we have had.
  The Republican majority says, ``Oh, don't worry, don't worry. This 
isn't much of a cut.'' Tell that to the 150,000 students who are not 
going to get Perkins loans. Tell that to them. Go ahead. And keep in 
mind the second step is going to come in September when the 
reconciliation bill comes to this House, and in that bill the Congress 
is going to be cutting $10 billion additional money out of student aid. 
That is estimated to increase the cost to student borrowers on average 
by 20 percent. If my colleagues think increasing the cost to student 
borrowers by 20 percent is opening the door of opportunity, I think 
they need a new dictionary.
  I just cannot believe that we are about to do this. You talk about a 
$10 billion reduction, they talk about the elimination of the Perkins 
loan program, as though it is nothing at all. Well, if it is not real 
savings, then how are we going to be able to use that $10 billion for 
the purpose you intend, which is again to provide those tax cuts for 
people making more than $100,000 a year. It is a bad mistake.
  Defeat this bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, Lu Ann Nye and her daughter are the kind of folks that 
are going to be impacted by what is happening here today. She is a 
courageous woman who had the courage to leave welfare, and go back to 
Austin Community College, and get a degree to support her daughter. Our 
Republican friends came after the daughter and her friends when they 
began cutting school lunch earlier in the year. Now they come after the 
big brothers, and the big sisters, and the older students, like Lu Ann, 
and cut into their Federal study financial assistance, and when they 
cut, it is not just dollars that they are cutting, but the hopes, and 
the aspirations, and the dreams of a generation of people, up to, as 
the chairman said, the ranking member said, 150,000 young people on the 
Perkins loan program.
  How extraordinary it is that this House is headed by a Speaker who is 
a sometime professor of history at a time that we are ending an 
historic Federal commitment to education.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference in philosophy, 
and I think, if debate boils down, I think we ought to point out the 
differences in philosophy.
  This side of the aisle are saying that we are cutting education. On 
our side we think that they will fail to see the solution to a very 
simple problem, that there is too much bureaucracy that eats up the 
dollars that we send back to the Federal Government, and, by the time 
we send it back to the States, we only get about 23 cents out of every 
dollar back down into the classroom.
  The second misnomer is it is not their money. Every time that my 
colleagues take and give a dollar out, they have got to first take it 
away from somebody. They are taking it away from the very people that 
they try to give it back to, and they give it out, and only 23 cents on 
the dollar. I say to my colleagues they sure could not run a business 
like that.
  So, if my colleagues want to increase the amount of spending on 
education, we need to send it back to the States. We also need to limit 
the size of State government so that that bureaucracy does not eat up 
the money for the very thing that we are trying to do.
  Let me give my colleagues a classic example. I have got a school in 
Scripps 

[[Page H 8351]]
Ranch. That school has got fiber optics into it. It was a partnership 
between the city and State. We have got computers in every classroom. I 
have got boys and girls in vocational education swinging hammers. They 
are building modular units. And guess what? They are selling those 
units, and then they reinvest the money in high-tech education 
equipment within that school. Those that are college-bound in 
architecture, design, and computerization are also encouraged, and they 
have actually redesigned the whole school, and guess what, in the 
summertime the partnership of labor and private enterprise are higher 
in those same kids.
  Now think of the advantage that these kids have over someone that 
does not have that program. It is on a local level.
  And then they chastise us and say we do not care about kids because 
we are cutting money from the summers jobs program. The summer jobs 
program has probably taught less than 5 percent of the kids how to work 
and how to get a job. The place to teach kids on how to survive in the 
future is in education, is at the site, either vocational or those that 
go for college bound, and we need to take those kinds of moneys and 
invest them in those programs.
  We double our knowledge every year now, not 30 years like we used to, 
Mr. Chairman, and, if we do not have the facilities for the kids to 
learn, then they have a legitimate gripe that the difference between 
those that have money and those on a low-income will increase 
disproportionately, and that is what we need to do.
  If my colleagues really want to take a look at how to kill education, 
keep the Federal bureaucracy going. We have got to eliminate the power 
of Members in this body to send home dollars so that they can get 
reelected over and over, and take that power away and give it back to 
the people, and that is the difference of opinion.
  We are not killing education. We are giving the power of the people 
and the States the power to control their own destiny and take the 
money and the power away from Washington, DC. That is the total 
difference.
  Now the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said
   that, if it had not been for the National Defense Education Act, he 
would not be here. Many of us wish in that case that it had never 
existed. Mr. Chairman, I am joking. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] is a good friend.

  But in the grant that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] 
worked hard on, those are good grants out of the Federal Government.
  Education is financed by 95 percent in the States. We only fund about 
5 percent, and we are destroying it? No, what we are doing is saying we 
need to turn that 5 percent, get most of it back into the classroom, 
eliminate the bureaucracy in Washington, limit the bureaucracy in the 
States, and get more of the money down into the classroom. That is not 
a concept that should be beyond the Members over here, but yet they 
want to hang on to the power, the power to get reelected.
  And I look at the Pell grants, and the history and look at the number 
of dollars that have been taken from the GI bill. We did not have the 
bureaucracy we had when the GI bill was stated. Most of it went 
directly down to those people that loaned it, and, Mr. Chairman, when 
my colleagues think about cutting education they should take a look and 
mention the school lunch. The school lunch program is set to feed those 
kids that need it, 185 percent below poverty level, and the gentleman 
from Texas fails to see that solution also. Why should the Government, 
why should they have the power to send dollars to feed my daughters? 
They do not need the money, but yet they want the exclusive right to 
control all the dollars.
  That is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and that is the difference between the 
philosophies. Let us take care of the people that really need it, and 
let us take the power away from the Federal Government. I am trying to 
take my own power away, and my colleagues', and treat that power and 
get it to the kids and to the families. That is the difference of 
opinion. We are not cutting education. My colleagues are stopping 
education from growing because of the big-government Clinton politics 
that their side supports.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, beginning with Thomas Jefferson and 
throughout the ensuing two centuries this Nation has followed a grand 
and productive tradition of the local, State, and Federal education 
partnership. Today with shame the U.S. House of Representatives sounds 
an unprecedented retreat on that centuries-old commitment to America's 
students, and this amendment describes why.
  Three years ago this Congress passed, and President Bush thankfully 
signed, the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, of which I was the 
sponsor. Today with shame the House of Representatives reneges on that 
commitment.
  Perkins student loans are particularly valuable to middle-income 
college students and their families, and with shame this House is about 
to vote to cut 157,000 middle-income students off of that assistance. I 
say to my colleague, those aren't bureaucrats, Mr. Conningham. Those 
are middle-income students, American citizens. Today the House changes 
in the Pell grant program will deny 220,000 middle-income students a 
Pell grant. Those aren't bureaucrats. Those are your kids.
  AmeriCorps accepts middle-income people, as it should, and they can 
earn $9,000 in college stipends. Shamefully that program was eliminated 
by the Republican majority law week.
  These efforts of the new majority in this House aimed at America's 
middle-income struggling parents and students are shameful, and they 
are unnecessary, and they are imprudent, and they are unwise, and 
worse, my colleagues, they will end up increasing the Federal deficit 
in just the next decade. That is the shame.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us will impose severe cuts on 
educational assistance, and it will deny millions of Americans the 
chance to go to college, and this is an opportunity that is 
increasingly elusive for middle-income Americans, and I would like to 
illustrate the effect of these cuts by introducing my colleagues to a 
young lady. Her name is Jenifer. She is from Hockum, WA. She is one of 
eight children, the first in her family to go to college. Jenifer lives 
on her own. She supports herself, and indeed she helps her family with 
their expenses. Her father is a logger, and he makes about $28,000 a 
year. She has to pay a tuition of about $11,600 a year. She commutes 60 
miles a day to school. She works 30 hours a week in her hometown, and 
she works an additional 15 to 20 hours at her college, and when she 
graduates she wants to become a teacher. Jenifer currently receives 
Federal financial assistance in the form of Pell grants, Perkins loans, 
State student senate grants, all of which are reduced or eliminated 
under this legislation. Under this bill she would most likely loose her 
SSIG grant and her Pell grant, and the amount of her Perkins loan would 
either be reduced, at best, or eliminated. This adds up for her 
education to an additional $2,000 to $3,000 in added costs, and I ask 
my Republican colleagues where is she going to get this money? She 
cannot possibly work any longer. She already commutes 60 miles a day to 
school, but I tell my colleagues what I think is likely to happen.
                              {time}  1530

  She very well might be forced to drop out and to compromise her 
chance for a college education. She represents exactly the type of 
young person we should support, but instead this legislation is taking 
away that support.
  We must continue to support higher education through these programs. 
We must continue to provide people a chance to achieve the American 
dream. Let us not take that dream away by passing this legislation. Let 
us reinforce and reinvent the future of this country.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished Chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H 8352]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day or two on this 
bill. Every time I walk into the Chamber I hear some of the most 
incredible stuff imaginable. The world is truly coming to an end, 
according to the other side. We are reneging on our commitments, 
whether you are talking about violence against women, which has nothing 
to do with this section of the bill but I know is a primary source of 
concern for the gentlewoman from New York who spoke earlier on that.
  We are spending more on this bill than has ever been spent on that 
program. Speaking of spending more than ever--$278 billion--is what 
this bill would spend--$278 billion on health, education, labor issues, 
and workfare issues--$270 billion--more than we spent on defense of the 
Nation.
  Now, $7 billion of that would be spent directly on education 
assistance for people who do not have any money, $7 billion. As I said 
earlier, you remember Everett Dirksen's comment that a billion dollars 
here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon you are speaking of 
real money, $7 billion is a lot of money. Not only is it a lot of 
money, but the fact is it breaks down into some 240 separate programs, 
each with its
 own constituency, each with its own bureaucracy, each overlapping, 
each spending money unnecessarily.

  I heard the gentleman who preceded me say unnecessary cuts. I would 
say there is unnecessary spending because we are spending money on 
bureaucracies that compete with each other to shovel out money. But 
whose money is it? The money belongs to the American taxpayer. As long 
as these people can stand there and say how much they are doing for 
people in America, using money from the American taxpayer, as long as 
they can write the checks, as long as they can pass out the credit 
card, they are happy. They do not want to streamline Government. They 
do not want to cut back. They do not want to make it more efficient. 
And then they have the gall, the audacity, the effrontery to stand in 
this well and say how badly we are cutting.
  Let me show you how we are cutting. Here is a good example. We have 
heard Pell grants talked about for the last several minutes. This bill 
supports student assistance by providing the largest maximum Pell grant 
award in history, $2,440 per student. Now, that is the largest amount 
ever in the history of the Pell grant system, $2,440 per student.
  So are we cutting back? Oh my goodness, we are giving more money to 
the students than ever before. In the work study program it is fully 
funded at last year's level, $617 million. The program provides grants 
to 3,700 schools to provide work study opportunities for 713,000 
students who receive $1,092 per year.
  The Federal supplemental education opportunities grants program 
provides $583 million, and the Trio program provides $463 million, 
which benefits minority and disadvantaged students. They are both 
preserved at last year's spending levels. Let me repeat that for those 
that missed it, last year's spending levels.
  There is $6 billion left in the Perkins loan program, which we heard 
so much about. If schools manage their portfolios, do not permit 
defaults and continue their current contributions, that account could 
actually grow so not a single student will go without aid as a result 
of these actions.
  Now they say the sky is falling, the world is coming to an end, but 
not a single student will go without aid as a result of these actions. 
I urge the adoption of this bill.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has passed some awful 
legislation, but this bill is worse than I ever thought possible.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill signals the beginning of the end of the 
Federal Government having any responsibility whatsoever, in helping 
middle income and low income students get a college education.
  Mr. Chairman, I know first hand the importance of education, because, 
27 years ago, I was a single, working mother receiving no child 
support.
  I was forced to go on welfare, even though I was working, in order to 
give my three small children the health care, child care, and food they 
needed.
  Fortunately, I had advantages that many mothers on welfare do not. 
You see, I had an education. I had some college and I had good job 
skills.
  But, just because I made it off welfare, I will never, not for 1 
minute, think that so can others with fewer advantages--those with less 
education, or no education at all. That is why, for the life of me, I 
cannot understand why some Members who used student aid, the G.I. bill, 
as a ladder to make a better life for themselves now want to pull that 
ladder up behind them.
  This righteous attitude of ``I did it, so why can't you'' has no 
place in this body. It has no place because it leads to elitist and 
dangerous policy like the drastic cuts in student loans we are 
considering today.
  These cuts make it clear that the Gingrich Republicans would rather 
invest in a tax break for the fat cats, then student loans for low and 
middle income families.
  Mr friends, I could go on and on about the other faults of this bill, 
but they are much too numerous to mention.
  But, one thing is for sure. This bill will go down in history as a 
declaration of war on our children, our working families, and seniors.
  I urge all Americans who care about the education of their children 
to tell their Representatives to oppose this bill.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time just to make two observations. One I 
made yesterday when the gentleman from Ohio offered his amendment where 
I indicated that he was buying 40 minutes of time, but he was not 
buying any education or any training.
  I have to say the same is true, of course, in this amendment, where 
we are buying 40 minutes of time or how much ever time it is but only 
buying $600,000 worth of outlays in money.
  The second observation I want to make, two or three speakers ago made 
the statement that we are cutting out the Perkins loan, and I want to 
make very sure that nobody goes home with that thought in mind, 
because, of course, the $6 billion in the revolving fund is still 
there. The encouragement is to make sure that you collect it so it can 
revolve so more students can use it.
  So we are not cutting out the Perkins loan, as a matter of fact. What 
we are doing is allowing the $6 billion in the revolving fund to 
continue. I wanted to make those two observations to bring a little 
reality to the debate.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Green].
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me the 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the value of a college education is unquestioned in our 
society yet the Republican majority has decided that a college 
education should only be granted to those with enough cash to pay up 
front. By reducing the funding available to the Federal student loan 
program, 5 million undergraduate students will see increased costs for 
their college education. Again, the Republicans are asking a generation 
of Americans who did not run up our debt to pay the cost of reducing 
the deficit.
  The message is simple. If your parents are wealthy, you can expect 
the finest education anywhere in the world. However, if you are from a 
working class family you can expect to work harder, make less, and have 
no hope of a college education unless you can manage to work full-time 
while you go to school just to pay the interest on your college debt.
  This is the most profound attack on the American dream in over 20 
years. By eliminating the opportunity of a college education, the 
Republicans are sentencing millions of young Americans to the McJob 
market: low pay, no benefits, no potential for growth.
  In essence, the cuts in higher education equal an attack on the 
standard of living for every American. A less 

[[Page H 8353]]
educated society demands less in the terms of salary and cheap labor 
results in mega-profits. We are no longer in the era of sending jobs 
overseas for cheap labor, the Republicans are attempting to grow their 
own cheap labor right here in the United States by ensuring that the 
children of the well-off get educated and the children off the middle 
class and working class become the cheap labor force of the future.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in 1935 Thomas Wolfe said, America, it is a 
fabulous country. It is the only country where miracles not only happen 
but they happen all the time.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I have lived an American miracle. I began my 
adult life as a mother at 18, mother of two by 21, and my husband and I 
struggled with the problems that ordinary people all over this country 
are facing. We know first hand what it is like to be in a job market 
without any real skills, to go without health insurance, to have a 
table full of bills that add up to more money than there is in the 
checkbook. Yet today I have both undergraduate and law degrees, and I 
have had the opportunity to serve my community at all levels in 
government.
  What happened? Hard work and lots of it. But hard work was not enough 
for me or for many other people in this country. Without the helping 
hand of student loans and grants, my college education would have been 
out of my reach. My husband and I could not afford it. My parents were 
not in a position to help me. My father was a mailman, my mother was a 
homemaker, ordinary people without resources to contribute to my 
education. Financial aid was the key to my success.
  Of course now, as a Member of Congress, I can easily pay for my 
children's education. In fact, all 435 Members of this body can pony up 
the money necessary for college tuition. In fact, these cuts we are 
discussing will not hurt the children of the people who are vigorously 
defending them.
  It is also interesting to note that many of the individuals who 
support these cuts took help from these very programs when they were on 
the way up. What hypocrisy. I guess it is easy to pull up the ladder of 
success once you and your children are safely on top.
  But what about students like me, the children of mailmen, of 
autoworkers, of waitresses, of cabbies, of ordinary people all over 
this country who want so very much for those kids?
  Mr. Chairman, we must keep the doors of educational opportunity open. 
Miracles are waiting to happen.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say I have to marvel at some of the 
comments coming from the other side of the aisle. one would think that 
we have in fact defunded or we are proposing to eliminate funding for 
worthy and needy college bound students, when nothing could be further 
from the truth. What we are actually talking about here is increasing 
access for needy young people in America to a college education.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter stood just a moment ago 
and explained I thought very thoroughly, very patiently, that we are 
increasing in this bill funding for the Pell Grant Program. In fact, we 
are providing the largest maximum Pell grants in the history of the 
country, $2,440 per student.
  We are also in this bill making sure, of course, that the Perkins 
Loan Program, the revolving loan program, continues in existence. That 
program has $6 billion in assets already in it. Assuming that the 
default rate stays at a reasonable level, that program should continue 
for a considerable length of time, in fact in perpetuity. Loans are 
made by the schools participating in this program. and, frankly, we 
have over 2,000 schools participating in the Perkins program today.
  All we are doing here in response to the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is, frankly, acceding to a budget 
recommendation made by the administration, which proposed to eliminate 
the capital contribution to the Perkins Loan Program.
  We also want to stress, again, Mr. Chairman, that we have attempted 
to be responsive in the preparation of this particular bill. Chairman 
Porter cited earlier that the bill fully funds the supplemental 
education opportunities grants at the President's budget request and at 
the 1995 level. The bill also fully funds the work study program at the 
President's request and the 1995 level. The bill fully funds the TRIO 
program, which is designed to assist minority and disadvantaged 
students, at the President's request and the 1995 level.
  Taken together, that adds up to over $7 billion in student 
assistance. It is all grant assistance, not loans, that have to be 
repaid. We can stand today and say to our Democratic colleagues that in 
fact we have made a good faith effort here to increase access to a 
college education. We have provided again the largest maximum increase 
in Pell grants in history, and, frankly, the gentlewoman's amendment 
should be defeated in the face of this overwhelming evidence that no 
needy, qualified young person who is college bound is going to go 
without Federal assistance should they qualify.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the full committee got before us and he 
gave us some mind-boggling numbers. Let us reduce it to something a 
little more understandable. There are a few people who did not make it 
into his scale. There are 2,600 young people in the State of Oregon 
getting State student grants this year who will not get those grants 
next year because we are zeroing out that program. That is 2,600 
Oregonians.
  That is mirrored time and time again around the country. State 
student incentive grants are gone. They are zeroed out. They can go 
over and apply for the increased Pell grants. We heard a lot about the 
increased Pell grants. It is partially true. They are increasing the 
amount of the grant, but there are an estimated 221,000 students who 
would be eligible under this year's income guidelines, middle-income 
kids, who will not be eligible under their new guidelines.
  So yes, those lucky few who still get the grants will get a little 
bit more, but 221,000 middle-income American kids, scholastically 
qualified to go to college, will not get help with Pell grants next 
year because of changes they are making in the program. Seven hundred 
fifty-seven thousand Perkins loan kids are put at risk because of the 
changes we are making in the program.
  I got student loans, many of you got student loans. Let us remember 
back to those distant days. There are others here who are much more 
wealthy, they never needed student loans. Try and have a little 
compassion. Try and understand the plight of the average American 
family. I know it is hard when you are at $133,600 a year and you live 
in the cocoon of Washington, DC to understand average American 
families. But just try. They need this help so their kids can do a 
little better, like we did.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, yes, in the words of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], there really is a difference in 
philosophy, and nothing has made it clearer than the debate we have 
seen over this amendment, and in fact through the entire bill. We have 
heard people say ``Cut the bureaucrats.''
  Mr. Chairman, we are cutting kids; we are not cutting bureaucrats. 
These are loans to middle-income kids, families who are striving, who 
are working hard to find the American dream. We are not cutting 
bureaucrats. Let us tell it to Denise, let us tell it to Sebastian in 
my district, let us tell it to the million or more youngsters who are 
not getting a student loan as a result of our actions today. And the 
best is yet to come, because we have seen promises in the budget, in 
the reconciliation bill of the leadership, that would cut 

[[Page H 8354]]
even more deeply into student loan programs.
  We are talking about the American dream. We are talking about 
investing in our youngsters. We are talking about giving youngsters the 
opportunity to get that education, to work hard, so they can be 
something.
  Government should not be a handout, government should be a hand up. I 
cannot think of any program that fulfills that philosophy. Oh, yes, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee said that we have the gall, the 
audacity, to fight for these programs. Yes, we have the gall, yes, we 
have the audacity, to stand up for working families, to stand up for 
their children, to stand up for the future of our country.
  Let us be sure that our student loan program is protected. Let us be 
sure that we continue to establish our priorities and invest in our 
young people and our future.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the comments by the gentleman from 
Oregon, I would just like the gentleman to know that not everyone on 
this side of the aisle is completely heartless and insensitive. I am 
currently supporting my 19, soon-to-be-20-year-old son, who is 
attending a vocational education program in the Washington metropolitan 
area, so I think I know a little bit about the kind of financial 
commitment it takes to help support a dependent child obtain a career 
education.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to say that, again, in 
cutting the State student incentive grant program, in eliminating the 
capital contribution to the Perkins program, we have adopted proposals 
made by the President and his administration to terminate those two 
particular programs.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, the funding in this bill, 
coupled with student loan entitlements, will make available to students 
$35 billion in student financial assistance in 1996. We think that 
demonstrates strong support for student aid. I urge Members to oppose 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement with the majority, 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, because there could 
not possibly be enough resources allocated in this bill to make up for 
the cuts.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill contains legislative provisions concerning 
the new direct student loan program that would severely damage the 
Department of Education's ability to manage that program effectively; 
and that constitutes blatant protection for special interests at the 
taxpayers' expense.
  The bill cuts student loan administrative funds from $550 million to 
$320 million, and reserves half of that for the guarantee agencies. 
Since the guarantee agencies were projected to receive only $156 
million based on this year's ACA formula and next year's projected loan 
volume, they are guaranteed a $4 million increase by this bill, and it 
could be more. Meanwhile, funds available for the Department are cut 
from $394 to $160 million. That's a cut of $234 million, or 60 percent. 
The Department says it could easily live with a $100 million cut, and 
perhaps it could absorb somewhat more. But a 60 percent cut is nothing 
more than a clear attempt to totally gut the administration of direct 
loans. This is a stealth attack on that program carried out in this 
appropriations bill where it does not belong, before the proper 
authorizing committee has considered the issue.
  Now when we are cutting everything else, why on Earth are we 
guaranteeing an increase of at least $4 million, and possibly much 
more, for these guarantee agencies? Is this the Guarantee Agency 
Protection Act? This is ridiculous.
  Chairman Porter argued in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter yesterday 
that guaranteed loans, with 69 percent of the total loan volume, would 
be managed with only half of the administrative funds, namely this $160 
million reserved for the guarantee agencies. I respect my colleague so 
highly that I know he has been terribly misled by someone, for he would 
never knowingly put out such total claptrap. Here is what guarantee 
agencies get in addition to the $160 million in administrative cost 
allowance. They get a 1 percent fee from borrowers, totalling about 
$170 million next year. By the way, that is not scored by CBO as a cost 
of guaranteed loans, even though the Federal Government gets to keep 
that amount on direct loans. They get the interest on their $1.8 
billion of taxpayer-provided reserve funds. At 6 percent, that would be 
about $108 million. That's also not scored as a cost of guaranteed 
loans, even though the taxpayers could take back that entire $1.8 
billion under 100 percent direct lending. They get to keep 27 percent 
of whatever they collect on loans after they have gone into default. 
That's about $300 million a year. By the way, it also gives them an 
incentive to allow loans to go into default. Finally, they make untold 
profits as secondary market players by arbitraging with tax free bonds 
at cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 billion over 5 years, also not scored 
as a cost of guaranteed loans even though it would not happen with 
direct loans.
  All told, the guarantee agencies support their 8,000 employees with 
revenues of about $638 million plus their arbitraging profits. 
Actually, 5,000 employees are supported by the $638 million, an average 
of $127,600 per employee. But these agencies aren't the servicers of 
most guaranteed loans at all. The lenders do that using part of the 
interest paid by students. These agencies are nothing but middlemen who 
would be completely unnecessary under direct lending. Their entire $638 
million plus cost could be wiped out. So, the claim that $160 million 
of their funds represents the total cost of administering guaranteed 
loans is an outrageous distortion.
  Now let's look at the Department's funds. Of the $394 million the 
Department was to get next year, it says $200 million was for the 
guaranteed loan program--to administer the default payment system, the 
loan application and management system, and the collection system. By 
the way, the recent CBO scoring actually counted that money as a cost 
of direct loans rather than of guaranteed loans--an inexcusable plain 
error.
  Now, if the department has only $160 million to administer both 
guaranteed and direct loans, including the entire cost of direct 
loans--even the servicing--there's no way that can be done without 
gutting direct loans. That's the real purpose of these provisions, and 
we should not be fighting that battle on this bill.
  The second purpose is to protect the guarantee agencies. If that's 
not obvious from the provision increasing their ACA to $160 million, 
it's obvious from the provision preventing the Secretary from taking 
back any of their reserve funds. With direct lending growing, we will 
not need as many guarantee agencies. Why prevent us from taking tack 
the reserves when any of them go out of business? This is blatant 
special interest protection, and we should be ashamed to be putting it 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Andrews] and I were 
going to offer an amendment to eliminate these terrible provisions. 
Because he cannot be here today, and because we have not had enough 
time to educate the Members about these issues, I will not offer that 
amendment. But I do urge the committee to reconsider this issue, and 
change these provisions in conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to try to tie up some loose 
ends on the last discussion. By all means, cut the deficit. By all 
means, for the 105th time we say: ``We agree, cut duplicative programs 
and cut waste.'' But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say to 
the American people, ``Oh, we are going to have sweeping change 
throughout this country,'' and then say, ``Oh, but, by the way, do not 
worry about it, folks; nobody will feel anything when we make these 
major cuts.''
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations says 
let 

[[Page H 8355]]
us quit taking money from the taxpayers. The fact is that the education 
programs we have been describing have been our Nation's effort to give 
money back to those working taxpayers. Evidently our friends on the 
majority side do not want to do that, at least not as much as we used 
to. Instead, they want to give billions of dollars back to the truly 
needy corporations of this world, everybody from AT&T, Texaco, 
International Minerals, Xerox, Union Camp, Panhandle, Grace, you name 
it. They want to give them back billions of dollars, because they want 
to eliminate the corporate minimum tax. Even though companies make 
billions of dollars in profits, they do not pay zip in taxes. So you 
put corporations ahead of students and working families. I do not think 
that makes much sense.
  We are also told, ``Oh, we are increasing opportunity.'' Very 
interesting. The last time I looked, the discretionary funds in this 
bill went from $72 billion last year to $62 billion this year. That is 
a $10 billion reduction. In addition to that, in the reconciliation 
bill which you intend to do, it is to take away another $10 billion in 
student aid and raise the cost to the average student getting help 
under these programs by 20 percent over their lifetime.
  You say, ``Oh, we didn't cut Pell.'' Thank God for small favors. But 
the fact is that the Pell program under this budget is still in real 
dollar terms $300 below where it was in 1991.
  The reason we are upset with these reductions in education is because 
this is what has happened in the budget since 1980. In 1980, what we 
spent on our budget on investment, and I mean investment in kids by way 
of education, investment in infrastructure by way of decent roads and 
bridges, investment in science so we could make the economy grow and 
create better opportunity for everybody, investment was 16 cents out of 
every budget dollar in 1980, before Ronald Reagan walked into the White 
House.

                              {time}  1600

  By 1992 it had been cut down to 9 percent. That is about a 40-percent 
reduction as the share of our national budget. That is a mistake. We 
are eating our own seed corn. When you deny student loans to kids, that 
is exactly what you are doing. It is penny-wise and pound-foolish, and 
it is cruel to boot. We urge Members to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. Chairman, last year I introduced H.R. 1337, legislation which 
provided competitive grants for public secondary schools wishing to 
increase their academic year.
  Mr. Chairman, on this floor we debate the question of funding in 
education. It is, of course, not only a question of funds. Our students 
can do no more than we challenge them to do. America has the shortest 
school day and the shortest school year in the industrialized world. 
The language that was included in the elementary and secondary schools 
reauthorization bill provided for a Federal program to allow school 
districts to begin experimenting with a longer school year.
  That legislation included an explicit authorization for $90 million 
for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may have been necessary in the 
ensuing 4 years to begin experimentation with a longer school year.
  In title II of the bill we are currently debating, $842 million is 
authorized for school improvement programs. While I regret the 
Committee on Appropriations was unable to specifically allocate money 
for this program, I would like to make it clear that this is not a 
reflection of a lack of support for the authorization that this 
Congress voted upon last year but, rather, a simple reflection of the 
reality of difficult fiscal constraints that the committee currently 
faces.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that efforts are under way in 
the other body to include a limited appropriation which would enable 
this program to commence. Should this occur, it is my hope that the 
House conferees, on a bipartisan basis, will consider the importance of 
extending the school year, as evidenced by last year's authorization, 
and carefully consider appropriating a limited amount of funds.
  Mr. Chairman, in my own district in the community in which I live, in 
Englewood, NJ, we have begun exactly this program. We have found that 
during the summer months much of what students learned in the preceding 
year is lost. Indeed, studies have found that up to a third of the new 
school year is lost simply refreshing students about what they forgot 
from
 previous instruction.

  I believe that experimentation to extend this year and, indeed, to 
lengthen the day would do a great deal as, unfortunately, our German 
and Japanese competitors have already found, to improve instruction.
  I would like, Mr. Chairman, like to include in the Record the 
authorizing language from last year and a full statement of my own in 
support of a longer school year.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Longer School Day 
Program.
  While we have spent a good deal of time over the past few years 
debating the quality of what we teach in the schools, we have paid 
little attention to the far simpler question of whether we are spending 
enough time teaching. I was pleased when Congress finally gave serious 
consideration to lengthening the school year in the United States so 
that our students can compete on equal footing with their counterparts 
in other countries.
  In 1991, Congress authorized the National Education Commission on 
Time and Learning to conduct a comprehensive review of the relationship 
between time and learning in the Nation's schools. The report released 
last year confirms that the United States will not maintain its 
economic superiority unless we provide our children with a competitive 
education by reforming the structure of or school year.
  The report specifically cites that the current American educational 
system consists of 6 hour days where students spend less than half of 
their school day studying core academic subjects. It also notes that in 
order to graduate from high school, the United States currently 
requires a 180-day school year. In contrast, our counterparts in 
Germany have a 210-day schedule and Japan imposes a 240-day school 
year.
  The International Educational Association conducted a study which 
compared the academic skills of the top 1 percent of all 12th graders. 
Those from the United States ranked dead last. Their study also found 
that among 15 developed and less developed countries, students from the 
United States scored at or near the bottom in the areas of Advanced 
Algebra, Functions/Calculus and Geometry.
  These numbers show how woefully inadequate our school system is in 
preparing our children to compete in the global economy. American 
students quite simply are not learning what they should be. The Longer 
School Year program would establish a grant program for public 
secondary schools who increase the academic day to 7 hours and the 
school year to 200 days.
  A longer school day and school year clearly makes sense in a society 
where in 90 percent of the two-parent families, both parents work. 
Keeping kids off the streets and in schools should be an especially 
welcome relief to parents who cannot afford after-school day care or 
summer camp. Schools also provide a safe haven for students who come 
from disintegrated families, are malnourished, or are susceptible to 
drug abuse and violence.
  At a time when international tests are showing American students 
scoring well below students from other countries; a time
 when corporate leaders are beginning to complain about a lack of 
skilled workers; and a time when we are clearly falling behind our 
economic rivals in the world marketplace, we must question whether we 
are doing kids a favor by granting them a long summer vacation.

  My program would establish competitive grants for public secondary 
schools wishing to increase their academic day to at least 7 hours and 
their school year to at least 200 days. We are unquestionably doing our 
children a disservice by not requiring more time in school. It is time 
for Congress to send out a positive message to our Nation's youth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
commend him for his efforts. I can personally say, as a former school 
board member in my home communities and two-term school board 
president, that two essential reforms, based on my experience, would be 
the gentleman's efforts to lengthen the school day and also efforts in 
local communities across the country to reduce class size. So I thank 
the gentleman for bringing this program to my attention and to the 
attention of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
and the other members of the subcommittee. Again, I commend the 
gentleman 

[[Page H 8356]]
for his longstanding commitment to this issue.
  I can tell the gentleman that the committee's decision not to 
specifically allocate funds for this program is not an indication of a 
lack of support for its merits. Should the other body appropriate money 
for this program, the gentleman has my assurance and the assurance of 
Chairman Porter and the other conferees that we will give the program 
every consideration that it deserves.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support, 
for his words and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
my friend.
  I believe that, if the other body were to decide to invest these 
sums, it would be an important statement to local communities. All of 
our States and communities differ. A longer school day or year might 
make sense in some States more than in others. But it is an experiment 
that is worth pursuing, as indeed this Congress voted on a bipartisan 
basis in the authorization bill.
  I thank the gentleman again for his comments.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], 
my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was tied up in some meetings today and was unable to 
be on the floor during debate on title II of H.R. 2127. I had hoped to 
be able to have a few minutes to discuss some concerns that I had about 
the funding provided in the bill for some of the various programs that 
address the health care delivery needs of rural America.
  I would like to associate myself with some of the comments that were 
made earlier by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and some of my other rural 
colleagues.
  I have a statement to submit for the Record expressing my particular 
concern about the funding which is eliminated for the Office of Rural 
Health Policy and a letter addressing the importance of that funding 
from Dr. Keith Mueller of the University of Nebraska Medical Center.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert those materials in the Record, as follows:
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express to Chairman 
Porter and the rest of the House my concern about one area of funding 
eliminated by this bill--that for the Federal Office of Rural Health 
Policy.
  The Appropriations Committee stripped the Office of Rural Health 
Policy of $9.4 million, essentially its entire budget. Supposedly, we 
are told, the office may continue to exist because the salaries for its 
staff are funded under another line item. But no one can tell me that 
an office without programs to administer is going to survive, and that 
means rural health care takes another shot in the back of the head.
  The $9.4 million for the ORHP is a mere drop in the bucket of this 
$256 billion bill. That funding can easily be found, but those of us 
concerned about the ongong struggle of rural health care are hampered 
in offering amendments to restore that funding--we run up against the 
hurdles of dealing with unauthorized programs on appropriations bills 
and into the brick wall of this very urban-dominated House.
  Attempts to assure me that the functions of the ORHP are duplicative 
and its programs will be picked up elsewhere are, in reality, no 
assurance whatsoever. The office was established for the very reason 
that those other programs for years and years ignored and overlooked 
the needs of the rural health care.
  Let me share with my colleagues comments from one of the leading 
experts of rural health care, Dr. Keith Mueller, who has been a 
constant and reliable source of information for this Congress in recent 
years because of the research programs he oversees at the University of 
Nebraska Medical Center, some of which admittedly, are a result of 
federal funding.
  Dr. Mueller writes:

       I sympathize with the imperative to eliminate unnecessary 
     bureaucracies, but the ORHP does not fall into that 
     classification. Contrary to the perception stated in [the 
     report], the ORHP does much more than support state 
     bureaucracies. Less than one full time equivalent position is 
     devoted to the important task of assistance to state offices 
     of rural health. The more important roles of ORHP are direct 
     assistance to rural communities (telemedicine [for example]), 
     developing a rural health agenda, maintaining
      resources for rural health analysis, monitoring regulatory 
     activities to assess rural impact, and providing policy 
     relevant research to a wide audience. The loss of these 
     functions of the ORHP would be a tremendous loss to rural 
     America.

  At the proper time, Mr. Chairman, I will ask that Dr. Mueller's 
entire letter be included in the Record.
  This money has a tangible and important impact on improving and 
maintaining access to health care for more than one-fourth of this 
country's population. That's a fair return on our tax dollars, and it 
should meet the test of programs worth retaining.
  If today we can't get the amendment passed to restore ORHP funding, 
we will turn to the other body for help, and I want to urge Chairman 
Porter to then look on this funding favorably in conference.
                                           University of Nebraska,


                                               Medical Center,

                                         Omaha, NE, July 25, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Barrett,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Barrett: I am writing to ask you to 
     consider supporting the Gunderson/Poshard amendment to 
     restore funding for the Federal Office of Rural Health 
     Policy. The programs of ORHP benefit rural America in many 
     ways, including direct benefits to Nebraska.
       I sympathize with the imperative to eliminate unnecessary 
     bureaucracies, but the ORHP does not fall into that 
     classification. Contrary to the perception stated in the 
     Chairman's mark of the budget resolution in the House, the 
     ORHP does much more than support state bureaucracies. Less 
     than one full time equivalent position is devoted to the 
     important task of assistance to state offices of rural 
     health. The much more important roles of ORHP are direct 
     assistance to rural communities (telemedicine), developing a 
     rural health agenda (National Advisory Committee), 
     maintaining resources for rural health analysis (national 
     clearinghouse), monitoring regulatory activities to assess 
     rural impacts, and providing policy relevant research to a 
     wide audience (rural health research centers). The loss of 
     these functions of the ORHP would be a tremendous loss to 
     rural America.
       The ORHP has been responsible for a special grants program 
     to assist rural health care providers and communities in 
     developing telemedicine systems. The grants awarded thus far 
     include one in Kearney, Nebraska. The grants make it possibly 
     for rural providers to initiate telemedicine systems now 
     rather than wait for urban-based systems to possible extend 
     such services, and terms of use, later. The ORHP provides 
     technical assistance to grantees, and has been instrumental 
     in advancing our knowledge of how to use this technology 
     effectively.
       The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health, staffed by 
     the ORHP, has produced annual reports that identify critical 
     issues in rural health that are affected by federal policies. 
     The most recent report focused on potential changes in 
     Medicare policies, especially reimbursement for health 
     providers. The Committee helps researchers and policy makers 
     alike anticipate need for further analysis and policy 
     development. Another valuable resource is the Rural Health 
     Clearinghouse, which provides information to rural health 
     providers, researchers, and community leaders in an on-line 
     modality.
      The cornerstone of the ORHP programs, in my view, is the 
     research center program. The ORHP provides modest support 
     to develop and sustain rural health research centers. The 
     ORHP also helps those centers develop research agendas and 
     produce reports that are written for the policy maker 
     audience. Those reports address pressing policy issues 
     with research results that can help improve policy. A few 
     examples are:
       ``The National Health Service Corps: Rural Physician 
     Service and Retention,'' University of Washington, WAMI Rural 
     Health Research Center
       ``The Feasibility of Health Care Cooperatives in Rural 
     America: Learning from the Past to Prepare for the Future,'' 
     University of North Carolina (UNC) Rural Health Research 
     Program
       ``A Predictive Model for Retention of Rural Nurses,'' 
     University of North Dakota Rural Health Research Center
       ``Access of Rural Medicaid Beneficiaries to Mental Health 
     Services,'' Maine Rural Health Research Center
       ``Health Care Reform for Rural Medicaid: Finding Solutions 
     with Limited Resources,'' New York Rural Health Research 
     Center
       ``A DRG-Based Service Limitation System for Rural Primary 
     Care Hospitals,'' Minnesota Rural Health Research Center.
       The University of Nebraska Center for Rural Health Research 
     received ORHP support for two years under this program, 
     extended with special awards for two years to produce a 
     series of Policy Briefs that critique health reform proposals 
     from a rural perspective. We would compete for the next cycle 
     of center support from ORHP if this program continues. The 
     ORHP has supported, through the budget for the Maine Center, 
     some of the work of the Rural Health Delivery Expert Panel of 
     the Rural Policy Research Institute, on which I serve.
       I cannot imagine how rural health would continue to have a 
     voice within the Department of Health and Human Services 
     without the ORHP. This Office is a true success story, 
     developing programs that make important contributions 
     directly to rural citizens and directly to you and others who 


[[Page H 8357]]
     must make important policy decisions. Please support the Gunderson/
     Poshard amendment to restore funding. Even with rural 
     programs, there are lower priorities than this Office. I 
     would be pleased to comment further or answer any questions. 
     Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Keith J. Mueller,
         Professor and Director, Nebraska Center for Rural Health 
                                                         Research.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in response to the 
comments made by the distinguished ranking member earlier, I would just 
like to point out for the other Members that approximately 30 percent 
of the spending cuts that were made to the various programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee 
were made in fact in the context of the emergency supplemental 
appropriations and rescissions package. I think it is important to note 
that for the record since that legislation has now become law with the 
bipartisan support of both bodies, both Houses of the Congress and, of 
course, the President's cooperation and signature.
                  amendment offered by mr. cunningham

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: Page 42, beginning on 
     line 13, strike ``That notwithstanding'' and all that follows 
     through the comma on line 20.

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM (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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and a Member opposed 
will each be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that Members on the other side of the aisle 
do have some legitimate issues. One of the issues, in my opinion, is 
that while we attempt to move this money back to the States that I know 
an example in the State of California, the devastating defense cuts 
have cost us nearly a million jobs. We have little things called gnat 
catchers and spotted owls that have affected those positions. We have 
had natural disasters, and the people in the State of California, on a 
State level and a Federal level, are taxed at pretty much an extreme 
rate.
  It is very difficult to pass a school bond to build a school or to 
provide for that instruction.
  When we affect education, we also affect, because it is forward-
funded, not only the funds in the future but the funds that go down 
right now.
  We have to provide a transition for those. This particular amendment 
helps that. It also sets the stage for a direction where we can 
reallocate and put a little different priority and put some of those 
dollars back into education. The amendment improves the Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill that
 deletes legislation language in the bill that prohibits impact aid 
funding to schools for what they call military B kids.

  Impact aid, for the Members, if you are a military recipient of funds 
and you register, say, in the State of Illinois and you move to the 
State of California, you still pay your State taxes. You shop at the 
commissary; you shop at the exchange. All those taxes go not to the 
State where your children go to school. You impact that school, but 
they do not get any money back for it. So what we are doing is shifting 
the money.
  All this amendment does is, in the current language it restricts it 
only to impact aid. Impact aid students are those students that live on 
base with their parents. But the majority of Members, both Republicans 
and Democrats that represent districts, those military families live 
off base and do not qualify for that funding. This amendment eliminates 
that.
  Second, it sets the stage. I have got two of my colleagues that, one 
is the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], the other one is the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], from the other side of the aisle, 
who have been bulldogs on this issue. They have fought tooth, hook, and 
nail to preserve something that is very important, not just in their 
districts but around this country.
  What it does, it is also going to allow us later on in an amendment 
to put over $18 million in authority into BA. We are going to put $15 
million more back into Eisenhower grants for teacher training. We are 
asking our teachers to increase it. We are also going to put another 
$100 million in BA into the vocational education programs.
  This amendment does not affect it, but it is part of a series of 
amendments that we are going to offer to try and help the gentleman 
with some of his reservations and put the money back into education. 
Mr. Christensen and Mr. Edwards have been tigers in this field. I want 
to commend Members from both sides of the aisle in helping us with 
this.
  What it is going to do is allow us to take that impact of those 
students and put some of it back in.
  I would also like to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Riggs, 
who has also been fighting not only on impact aid but these other areas 
to fight for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a brief colloquy to 
clarify one particular point with the gentleman regarding his 
amendment.
  I would like to clarify that his amendment does not affect the hold 
harmless prohibition in the bill?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has zero effect, no 
effect on hold harmless.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not eat up the whole 10 minutes. 
I think this is an important piece of legislation. I think it is a 
piece of legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle will 
support or can support by taking some of those dollars and allowing the 
impact of military families on the school systems to help relieve those 
school systems and also help the teacher training and also come back 
and help the vocational education program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me simply say that I do not want to make a Federal case out of 
this. Again, while I have misgivings about it, I will not push it to a 
roll call.
  Let me simply explain to the Members of the House the situation we 
are in. It appears that at this point that what the gentleman is asking 
will in fact result in a negligible impact on a lot of districts. We 
are not quite certain, frankly, because we do not yet have an official 
computer run from the agency or CBO or anybody else.
  The problem is that, at least I feel that there is a much bigger 
impact on the local school districts with A's than there is with B's, 
because you have a double loss of property tax base with the folks 
involved.
  I also would point out that whether or not this turns out to be a 
reasonable balance depends upon a further contribution from the defense 
bill. And while I expect that that is going to occur, we do not have 
any official certainty that it is going to occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I am minimally enthused about the gentleman's 
amendment, to put it politely, for the moment. But as I say, while I 
have misgivings about it, I am not going to push it to a vote. I 
understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is going to accept 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minority ranking 
member for yielding.
  I would like, if I could, to have a discussion with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham], who has worked very hard, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen], and others of us, trying to find money for impact aid.
  I do want to be clear. This amendment does not add a single dollar to 
the impact aid program that has not 

[[Page H 8358]]
already been appropriated in the defense appropriations bill or 
elsewhere. If that is correct, I must say I am personally disappointed, 
because at one point I thought there was an understanding that some of 
this money was going to be directed to impact aid. And if it has not, 
we keep going on promises made and yet no action seems to occur to find 
any new dollars for impact aid.

                              {time}  1615

  If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but to be clear, this amendment 
does not add any new appropriations to impact aid; is that correct?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the frustration of 
the gentleman from Texas. I also have gone through a lot of frustration 
on this particular issue.
  The reason that I brought up the impact later on and what we are 
going to do is, first of all, this amendment does not add direct 
dollars, but it gives the flexibility to move. If the gentleman's 
particular district has impacted A's or B's, it gives it that 
flexibility, and all this initial stage is doing is trying to remove 
it.
  The second aspect of it, the $35 million from the defense 
authorization bill, I have been guaranteed, I would say to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], that this is going to happen and 
it is going to go into the general fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also supporting an amendment of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards] later on, from other sources to impact, to put the 
$23 million into that fund also. It is kind of a series of packages, 
but I also understand the gentleman's reservations.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the good 
intentions and I hope something will come about, but as of now, this 
bill cuts impact aid to military children's education by over $40 
million.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the 
gentleman indicates that he is guaranteed that the $35 million in the 
defense bill will materialize. That requires a little matter of having 
to pass the House, pass the Senate, go into conference; and frankly, at 
this point, I do not know if the defense bill is going to be finished 
before we leave here for the August recess.
  The gentleman may have a greater comfort level in the security of 
that guarantee than I have.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the problem. The way this House works 
sometimes boggles all of us. As far as the scoring, when they did away 
with the old system and they went to the A system only, the formula was 
a little different. We are going to make sure in the future legislation 
that the formulas agree, so that we do have strong confidence that it 
is a positive impact.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being able to be on the 
floor for the discussion. I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone should understand that I probably 
have more impacted schools and students than many in the House. I have 
a vital personal interest in the Impact Aid Program.
  I believe that when we finish our work on this bill, we will have 
achieved 95 percent of last year's funding level for Impact Aid. I 
believe we will have protected severely impacted schools in an ironclad 
way, and I believe that the Senate mark on Impact Aid will be at about 
98 percent of last year's level.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a very good chance of ending up with very 
little reduction in the program at a time when cuts are being made in 
many other areas. I believe we have done the best possible job that we 
can do on this. I will certainly be putting it at a high priority in 
conference, Mr. Chairman, and I think everyone will be pretty well 
satisfied, when we get finished, that the job has been done properly.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the reason for part of that is, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and the coalition 
that is supportive of this issue. I would like to personally thank them 
in public.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] for his comments and commitments to impact aid. I know he has a 
genuine interest in that effort and has worked tirelessly on behalf of 
the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to make the record clear to people throughout 
this country and to Members of Congress that, after speeches on the 
floor by the majority leader several months ago and several other 
Members of the majority party, this bill, as of today, cuts $47 million 
out of education funds for the children of military families, children 
whose parents may be serving overseas, children who may not see their 
parents months on end.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope to have the chance to continue to work with the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham], but I do not mind saying I am disappointed that, as 
of today, this bill cuts $47 million out of that terribly important 
education program.
  Mr. Chairman, children whose parents have been willing to put on the 
uniform and fight for our country deserve the commitment of this 
Congress.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey], the Speaker, and I have met and they have 
promised me their commitment to this. This whole package is part of 
those pledges that you talked about and that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] spoke of.
  I do not think the gentleman from Illinois can do any more for us. I 
wish we could do more, and in the future, I promise to work with the 
gentleman to even make it ``more better,'' as they say.
  Mr. Chairman, I also understand the gentleman's concerns. The 
gentleman has my tireless pledge to make sure that that happens, and I 
have the pledge of the Speaker and the majority leader to help do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], my subcommittee chairman, in a brief colloquy with regard to 
continued funding for the National Education Goals Panel.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Illinois knows, we have received 
a very recent communication dated, actually, August 1, a letter from a 
bipartisan group of six State Governors, to the gentleman from Illinois 
and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  Mr. Chairman, I briefly would like to read this letter for the 
record. It says:

       Following the historic 1989 education summit in 
     Charlottesville, Virginia, the Governors and President Bush 
     agreed on education goals for the Nation and created the 
     National Education Goals Panel as an accountability mechanism 
     to monitor and report on the Nation's progress towards 
     achieving the goals. We believe that the panel continues to 
     play a significant role in assisting States as they work to 
     improve educational performance for all students.
       The Goals Panel members have recently initiated new efforts 
     to collect and distribute information on the development of 
     world class academic standards and assessment of student 
     achievement at the State level. This kind of information will 
     fill an essential need for State policymakers.
       While we recognize the difficult decisions that you face, 
     we strongly urge you to continue funding for the National 
     Education Goals Panel in the appropriations process.''

  The letter is signed by Governors Bayh of Indiana; Hunt of North 
Carolina; Romer of Colorado; Engler of Michigan; Rowland of 
Connecticut; and Whitman of New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, and as the concern of the Governors 
indicates, our bill presently eliminates funding 

[[Page H 8359]]
for the National Education Goals Panel. We have acknowledged the letter 
from the Governors today, and the important role, as they suggest, that 
the national Education Goals Panel plays in helping States develop and 
implement academic standards within their own States.
  The Goals Panel is made up primarily of Governors and State 
legislators for the primary purpose of helping States determine how to 
best implement academic standards based on the needs of their students.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] whether 
he will be able to commit to restoring funds for the National Education 
Goals Panel in conference and work with me as, a fellow conferee, to 
get the Senate to restore these funds?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I received a 
call from Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, the State neighboring my 
State of Illinois, and had a discussion about the panel. I will do the 
best I possibly can to restore funds for the National Education Goals 
Panel in the conference.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle], our friend and colleague and the former Governor of Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, but I could not support 
this colloquy more, and all Members should.
  Mr. Chairman, this panel has ultimately set goals for America which 
are extraordinary. The Governors support it. It is across all of the 
States. Just because there has been some confusion about what is in the 
goals, it does not mean that the panel should not continue to exist.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tremendous effort by the gentleman 
from California. I am sure that every single Governor in the country 
and every child in America does as well.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we look forward to 
working with the governors and the National Education Goals Panel as we 
prepare our education reform block grant bill in the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the letter and newspaper editorial for the 
Record:
                                                   August 1, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chair, Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Livingston: Following the historic 1989 
     education summit in Charlottesville, the Governors and 
     President Bush agreed on education goals for the nation and 
     created the National Education Goals Panel as an 
     accountability mechanism to monitor and report on the 
     nation's progress toward achieving the goals. We believe that 
     the Panel continues to play a significant role in assisting 
     states as they work to improve educational performance for 
     all students.
       The Goals Panel members have recently initiated new efforts 
     to collect and distribute information on the development of 
     world class academic standards and the assessment of student 
     achievement at the state level. This kind of information will 
     fill an essential need for state policymakers.
       While we recognize the difficult decisions that you will 
     face, we strongly urge you to continue funding for the 
     National Education Goals Panel in the appropriations process.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Evan Bayh,
                                                 State of Indiana.
     Gov. James B. Hunt Jr.,
                                          State of North Carolina.
     Gov. Roy Romer,
                                                State of Colorado.
     Gov. John Engler,
                                                State of Michigan.
     Gov. John G. Rowland,
                                             State of Connecticut.
     Gov. Christine T. Whiteman,
                                              State of New Jersey.
                            Just Plain Dumb

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Burlington, Vt.--Louis V. Gerstner Jr., the chairman of IBM 
     and the man who has engineered its recent turnaround, had a 
     message for the nation's governors when he appeared before 
     their annual summer meeting here this week. Warning that real 
     reform requires resources, Gerstner said, ``True change 
     agents put their money where their mouth is.''
       That message has broad application, not only to the 
     governors but to the self-styled revolutionaries in 
     Washington, who often appear to be letting their budgetary 
     goals predetermine the way they are reshaping programs and 
     agencies.
       But there is particular pertinence for one small program 
     that has been a bipartisan project of the governors and now 
     is threatened by small-minded economizers in Congress.
       ``A decade ago, farsighted governors of both parties 
     including both Bill Clinton of Arkansas and his would-be 1985 
     Republican opponent, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, launched a 
     program to raise the achievment standards in American 
     shcools. Their ``national goals'' effort was embraced by 
     President Bush in 1989 at his ``education summit in 
     Charlottesville, Va. Last year, it was written into ``Goals 
     2000'' legislation by Congress with strong support from 
     President Clinton.
       A small but critical piece of the law was the creation of 
     the National Education Goals Panel to ride herd on the 
     project.
       Now the House Republicans have moved to kill the entire 
     Goals 2000 program, including the $2.7 million for the goals 
     panel. Even before they heard Gerstner, the governors were 
     saying that strangling this effort is dumb.
       That is the view not just of long-time education advocates 
     such as North Carolina's Jim Hunt and Colorado's Roy Romer, 
     both Democrats, but of conservative reformers such as 
     Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson and Michigan's John Engler, both 
     Republicans.
       Thompson told me that because so few of the governors who 
     met with Bush in 1989 to launch this campaign are still 
     around, and because few businessmen are as committed to the 
     cause of Gerstner, ``we need to jump-start this effort 
     again.''
       Thompson and Romer both acknowledge that whether they like 
     it or not, the federal grants to states for Goals 2000 
     programs are likely victims of the budget-cutters. But the 
     goals panel is, in Thompson's words, ``the catalyst'' and the 
     forum that is needed to keep the effort going.
       The governors' original notion was a simple one. In a 
     competitive world, the quality of the education America's
      youngsters receive is the prime determinant of the nation's 
     future well-being. So they set out goals for themselves. 
     Among others, they said, by 2000, all children would start 
     school ready to learn and at least 90 percent of them 
     would finish high school. Every graduate would have 
     demonstrated competence in nine basic subjects.
       No one could argue with the goals. But by setting their 
     deadline so far in the future, Gerstner said, the governors 
     ``left a little bit too much . . . cover'' for themselves. 
     And, he pointedly said, ``Goals aren't worth a damn if you 
     don't measure every day'' how near or far the schools are 
     from achieving them.
       Last week, in a report that was as direct as Gerstner's 
     speech, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) documented 
     how far we are
      from being able to measure that progress.
       While every state but Iowa has began to develop tougher 
     academic standards for its students, only 13 states have 
     standards that are ``clear and specific enough'' to guide 
     curriculum development. While 33 states have or are 
     developing student assessments geared to those standards, 
     only seven states require high school seniors to meet the 
     standards set for 10th-, 11th- or 12th-graders in order to 
     graduate.
       The public has become skeptical about education ``reforms'' 
     that are designed to provide comfort for teachers or 
     students, instead of ensuring that knowledge and skills are 
     actually acquired. This effort falls into the latter 
     category.
       The AFT wants an end to platitudes, instead of saying that 
     fifth-graders ``should be able to use basic science concepts 
     to help understand various kinds of scientific information,'' 
     as one state does, the model should be another state's 
     requirement that those 10-year-olds ``should be able to 
     describe the basic processes of photosynthesis and 
     respiration and their importance to life.''
       That same kind of rigor is what the governors are seeking--
     and what the goals panel is all about.
       Killing it would be one of the dam-best things Congress 
     could do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
                                                   N O T I C E                                                  
                                                                                                                
              Incomplete record of House proceedings. Except for concluding business which follows,             
                  today's House proceedings will be continued in the next issue of the Record.                  
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                          ____________________