[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7206-H7220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 472
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 302 or
308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a
time during further consideration in the Committee of the
Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The
Chairman of the Committee of the
[[Page H7207]]
Whole may reduce to not less than five minutes the time for
voting by electronic device on any postponed question that
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions
shall be not less than 15 minutes. After the reading of the
final lines of the bill, a motion that the Committee of the
Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the
majority leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion
to amend. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hutchinson). The gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bill for the Department of
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and related agencies
always involves some controversy and usually involves much heated
debate. Issues such as abortion, labor policy, the Federal role in
education, stir passions and invite dialogue.
I am therefore, very pleased that the rule before us is completely
open. Any Member who wishes to offer a germane amendment may do so.
Also, in the interest of comity and in recognition of the legitimate
differences of opinion over some of the fundamental aspects of this
bill, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to double usual
time for general debate to 2 full hours, as requested by the ranking
member the gentlemen from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and we acceded to that
request.
In addition, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the
Whole to postpone or roll votes, a step we have taken on many bills
recently which has helped, I think, provide for a smoother and more
predictable schedule for Members in committee with important business
taking place off the House floor.
Finally, the rule includes a preprinting option, I repeat, option,
for the benefit of Members who file their amendments in advance. It is
not mandatory.
Mr. Speaker, there will certainly be very comprehensive debate about
the specifics of this bill. In fact, I think some of it has already
started on the other side. I will not spend a lot of time previewing
those discussions because this is about the rule.
I would, however, like to thank Chairman Porter and his committee for
the good work they have done to bring this bill to the floor. This
legislation, as we will all recall, was indeed a lighting rod last
year, and I think most of us will also remember it spent much time
being stalled in the other body.
I think most Members will recognize the effort that has been made
this year to produce a solid bill, one that is free from many of the
controversial policy riders that hindered the progress in the fiscal
year 1996 bill, a real effort that deserves our attention. While H.R.
3755 fully complies with the strict limits needed to reach a balanced
budget by 2002, that is, it is on the budget glide path, discretionary
funding is nevertheless up $2.4 billion, almost $2.5 billion in
additional, increased spending in this bill.
{time} 1700
Although we undoubtedly will hear the charge from the defenders of
big government that we are not spending enough, we will never be
spending enough for some people. Instead of the old approach of funding
all government programs, those big and small, good and bad, at equally
high levels, which was the way we did business around here for a long
time, which got us into such fiscal problems as we are having now, this
new Congress, under the new majority management, has set priorities for
this bill this time, providing adequate funding for those programs that
were effective and do the most good, programs such as Head Start, and
reduced or eliminated the tax dollars going to wasteful or ineffective
or out-of-date or off-the-mark programs; Goals 2000 is one that comes
to mind.
This is simple, common sense, the same common sense exercised by
families at the kitchen table every day as they plan their own family
finances, or by shoppers at the supermarket as they go about the
business of buying their necessities.
I am pleased that we have been able to instill some of that restraint
here in this bill. Americans are asking for that restraint. Americans
are used to that type of restraint in their own affairs, and they are
demanding that type of restraint for the people who represent them in
this, the House of the people, where all funding bills start.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is a good rule. We do
not ever get a better rule than this rule unless we are opposed to open
rules.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has given us a good rule for a
bad bill. But Mr. Speaker, giving the House an open rule for this
appropriation is essentially a meaningless gesture because, for the
second year in a row, there is simply no way to fix this bill by
amendment. Piecemeal amendments will not turn this sow's ear into
anything but a sow's ear.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has, in this appropriation, made
a very bold statement about their priorities. For the second year in a
row, the Republican majority want to cut, slash and eliminate programs
that aid families, provide educational opportunity, ensure workplace
safety, and protect our children's health.
For the second year in a row, the Republican majority has recommended
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education which ignore the priorities of the American people: jobs,
education and training, and health and safety. The Republican majority
wants to cut these critical programs to balance the budget. The
Republicans want to reduce the number of Head Start slots available for
disadvantaged children, to cut summer youth employment, to reduce the
availability of student loans and grants, and to cut the funds that
make computers and links to the information superhighway available to
schools throughout the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to balance the budget, but I do not want to do it
on the backs of working families and school kids. But the Republican
majority is asking us to do just that. The majority wants to make cuts
that in the short term look good on paper, but in the long term will do
great harm.
These cuts are not just shortsighted, Mr. Speaker, they are foolish.
We cannot expect our economy to grow if our work force is
undereducated. We cannot expect our businesses and industry to compete
in the worldwide marketplace if our workers do not have adequate
training. But, the cuts in job training in the bill will take away
opportunities for displaced workers to retrain and for new workers to
train for the jobs of the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, there is simply no way to fix this bill. The
Appropriations Committee ranking member, Mr. Obey, stated this
yesterday when the Rules Committee met to consider a rule for this
appropriation. At his request, the Rules Committee has provided 2 hours
of general debate so that the House can fully air the differences in
priorities between the majority and the minority. This debate promises
to be only a beginning of yet another long-term debate between the
Republican majority in the House of Representatives and those of us who
want to ensure that American priorities in jobs, education and
training, and health and safety are protected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question.
[[Page H7208]]
I do so knowing that there are honorable people who serve on the
Committee on Rules, and that by and large they try to do the right
thing every time. But I can tell my colleagues in this instance the
Committee on Rules acted somewhat out of character when a bill that has
been sponsored by 8 of the 13 members of the Committee on Rules that I
tried to offer as an amendment to this bill was defeated in the very
same Committee on Rules, by and large, by the eight people who
sponsored the bill.
The bill is all about keeping promises. The bill is all about
changing the way Congress does business. First to the promises. When we
think about it, the only people in America who were really promised
free health care were those people who enlisted in the military when
their recruiter told them, if you serve our country honorably for 20
years or more, at the end of that period of time, you will be given
free care in a military health facility for you and your spouse for the
rest of your life.
That promise was made in the 1930's. It was made in the 1940's. It
was made in the 1950's. And I can assure my colleagues that on June 25,
1971, in the Customs House on Canal Street in New Orleans, LA, it was
made to me. I did not serve for 20 years, and, therefore, I do not
deserve free health care. But there are a heck of a lot of people who
served for 20 years, 30 years, who fought in World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, most recently Desert Storm, Panama and Grenada who had their
enlistment officer tell them just that and who, effective on July 1 of
this year, upon reaching the age of 65 when they showed up at the
military hospital for the treatment they had been receiving for years
were told we cannot take you anymore. You have to go to a private
doctor. Medicare will reimburse some of those costs, but not all of
those costs.
So, now at the point in their life where they cannot go back to work
because they are over 65 and not very many people hire people over 65,
where they thought they had been promised free health care for the rest
of their lives, they were being told they are not. They are being told
that now they have to dig into their pocket.
Now, sometimes it is not a whole lot of money if it is just a common
cold. But what if it is something like leukemia? What if it is
something like cancer? What if it is a serious heart condition that
involves not dozens of dollars but tens if not thousands of dollars?
Now they have to pay, and they have to pay dearly for something that
our Nation promised them.
The amendment that I would like to offer is really not my idea. It is
the brainchild of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and it is
cosponsored by almost 270 Members of this body. It is cosponsored by
both the chairman and the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee. It is cosponsored by the chairman and ranking member of the
National Security Committee. It is cosponsored by the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is cosponsored by myself, and it was a
part of the Blue Dog coalition budget because we think it is important
that this Nation keep our promises.
When brought before the Committee on Rules with all of the things
that I have just told my colleagues, the importance of keeping
promises, the importance of this Congress, of any Congress ever before
keeping its word to the American people, in particular keeping our word
to those people who have given the most to our country, the Committee
on Rules voted in a party line vote, I am sorry to say, not to bring it
before this body. That is wrong and it is time we changed things.
If Members recall, 1\1/2\ years ago a group of people were swept into
office with the promise that no more business as usual, no more letting
parliamentary rules keeping the right thing from happening, no more
losing the forest for the sake of a couple of trees. Today is an
opportunity for those people to keep their word.
Today is an opportunity for the 270 people who cosponsored this bill
to put their vote where they put their signature, and that is to defend
the rights of our military retirees who served this country so well,
who kept their part of the bargain. And all they ask in return is for
our Nation to keep its word. As I said before, they are the only people
in this country who were promised health care. Prior to Medicare and
Medicaid coming along, they were the only people who got health care.
And now is it not ironic that the people who dodged the draft, that the
people who may even be here illegally get free health care? But the
people who paid with 6 months at a time at sea on aircraft carriers and
submarines, the people who lost limbs, the people who lost their
vision, the people who were away from their families, whose families
split up because they were away defending our country, they are not
getting the health care they were promised.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is wrong. It needs to be defeated, and we
need to give those veterans of our country, our military retirees, what
they were promised.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Mississippi, who
is my friend and the substance of whose bill I very much support, even
though I am sorry to say I am not a cosponsor primarily because I
wasn't aware of the substance of all the bill until yesterday, has been
guided on how to go about accomplishing his mission, observing the
rules and the protocols of the House. The first we have heard about
this and the first I had heard about this was last night as we were in
the Rules meeting.
It just so happens that through an agreement in the protocol between
both parties, the minority and the majority on this, we were not able
to stick to our protocols in the Committee on Rules and make him in
order. However, there were other options for him to pursue without
disrupting what I think is a good, open rule for us to get on with the
debate with one of the major appropriations bills that has the funding
for major agencies of the Federal Government and a great many people
who are depending on the activities of those agencies.
It seems to me the right way to deal with that is through the
established rules and protocols of the House, and we have been happy to
provide that information to the gentleman from Mississippi and I hope
he will follow that course and he will have my support if he does.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-Open \2\.............. 46 44 77 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\...... 49 47 34 27
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 128 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may
be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany
it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be
completely open to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
[[Page H7209]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of July 10, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-199; A:
Revitalization. 227-197 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 249-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... PQ: 221-197 A:
voice vote (5/15/
96).
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H. Con. Res. 122. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... C................ H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/19/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. PQ: 219-203 A:
voice vote (5/1/
96).
[[Page H7210]]
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. A: 422-0 (5/1/
96).
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 2974........ Crimes Against A: voice vote (5/
Children & Elderly. 7/96).
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)........... O................ H.R. 3120........ Witness & Jury A: voice vote (5/
Tampering. 7/96).
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 2406........ U.S. Housing Act of PQ: 218-208 A:
1996. voice vote (5/8/
96).
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)........... O................ H.R. 3322........ Omnibus Civilian A: voice vote (5/
Science Auth. 9/96).
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3286........ Adoption Promotion & A: voice vote (5/
Stability. 9/96).
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)........... S................ H.R. 3230........ DoD Auth. FY 1997..... A: 235-149 (5/10/
96).
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 178. Con. Res. on the PQ: 227-196 A:
Budget, 1997. voice vote (5/16/
96).
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96).......... C................ H.R. 3415........ Repeal 4.3 cent fuel PQ: 221-181 A:
tax. voice vote (5/21/
96).
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96).......... MO............... H.R. 3259........ Intell. Auth. FY 1997. A: voice vote (5/
21/96).
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3144........ Defend America Act.... .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3448........ Small Bus. Job A: 219-211 (5/22/
Protection. 96).
MC............... H.R. 1227........ Employee Commuting .................
Flexibility.
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 3517........ Mil. Const. Approps. A: voice vote (5/
FY 1997. 30/96).
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 3540........ For. Ops. Approps. FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 5/96).
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3562........ WI Works Waiver A: 363-59 (6/6/
Approval. 96).
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 2754........ Shipbuilding Trade A: voice vote (6/
Agreement. 12/96).
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96).......... O................ H.R. 3603........ Agriculture A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 11/96).
1997.
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96).......... O................ H.R. 3610........ Defense A: voice vote (6/
Appropriations, FY 13/96).
1997.
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96).......... O................ H.R. 3662........ Interior Approps, FY A: voice vote (6/
1997. 19/96).
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96).......... O................ H.R. 3666........ VA/HUD Approps........ A: 246-166 (6/25/
96).
H. Res. 460 (6/25/96).......... O................ H.R. 3675........ Transportation Approps A: voice vote (6/
26/96).
H. Res. 472 (7/9/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3755........ Labor/HHS Approps..... .................
H. Res. 473 (7/9/96)........... O................ H.R. 3754........ Leg. Branch Approps... A: voice vote (7/
10/96).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a member of both the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, every hard working American family stands to benefit
from the policies the Republican Congress is moving forward.
Despite the outrageous scare tactics and the ``sky is falling''
strategy of the Democrats, the future will be better for our children
and our grandchildren.
We have successfully aimed to cut wasteful spending, reduce
duplication, and lower taxes to get the Government out of our workers
checkbooks. And with a balanced budget, lower interest rates will mean
lower mortgages, lower car payments, and more affordable student loans.
We have pushed for welfare reform that rewards hard work and
perseverance and returns the expectation of personal responsibility.
The Democrats and President Clinton have only blown hot air at welfare
reform while still pushing the same old spend-spend-spend welfare
state.
Republicans have promoted workplace safety protections and pushed for
better designed programs to help students go to college.
And if you really want to help working families, we'll cut their
taxes and let them keep more of their hard-earned money rather than
give them 90 cents an hour.
We've made solid progress to cut spending, balance the budget, and
make this Government work better. This bill is an important part of the
fight. So reject the deception and the distortions. Support the rule.
It is a good rule. It is an open rule and support this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is about fairness, as the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] said earlier, and this is the only way we know
to bring this matter to the floor at this time.
Military retirees and their dependents who are Medicare eligible over
the age of 65 are now being forced out of the military health care
system and on to Medicare. Under current law, the Department of Defense
cannot be reimbursed by HCFA for treating Medicare-eligible retirees.
Without Medicare reimbursement, the Retired Officers Association said
these words: The DOD has no funding or financial incentive to treat
military Medicare eligibles; thus, they are being shoved out of the
military health care system and on to Medicare.
{time} 1715
If that were not bad enough, CHAMPUS eligible beneficiaries who
enroll are abruptly disenfranchised from Tricare when they become
Medicare eligible.
After we looked at the Persian Gulf war 3 years ago and realized that
we could have had a problem if as many people had gotten hurt as
possibly could have, in treating them, we decided we ought to not
persist in a drawdown of medical personnel and medical infrastructure
in our active guard and reserve forces. And so at that time we passed
MediGuard, allowing the Governors of the various States to select
medically underserved areas in those States, and then we would use
reserve and guard personnel to go and conduct what we would call, I
suppose, defensive medicine, screening for high blood pressure and so
forth, to keep that ready military medical infrastructure in place in
case we have another situation like the Persian Gulf.
I am convinced that military medical readiness will suffer if these
people are continued to be denied access to care. Our medical military
system must attract, train, and retain physicians and other health care
personnel if it is going to be a capable and viable national resource
for our defense.
Medicare subvention provides this institutional foundation which is
needed to meet any contingency operation and will ensure that our
military retirees have the freedom of choice in health care that they
have earned, have been promised and deserve.
Now they say, well, this is out of order because we are in an open
rule on Labor-HHS. This is telling HHS in this bill that they can
reimburse the Department of Defense for these people. It is the same
money, the same illnesses, the same medical people, but we do not force
military retirees over the age of 65 out of military hospitals. That is
just plain wrong.
There is a remedy under this bill to do it. If we could defeat this
rule or the previous question, then we can have our amendment, which
was denied us in the Committee on Rules, brought on the floor for a
vote. That is all we ask.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we come again to a time when
this Congress is offering to the American public the multistrike bill
and everyone is out. I would have hoped that after last year we could
have come to the table of compromise on the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education appropriations bill, but we find that this
department is underfunded some $6.15 billion below the President's
request.
What strikes me the most is that we have given up on children by
underfunding Head Start by $38.1 million, which serves only 740,000 out
of the two million children who are currently eligible for this
important and effective early childhood program.
Just a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to be in California
discussing the crisis of juvenile crime all over the Nation, and one
thing that we were assured of or convinced of, as the
[[Page H7211]]
RAND study has indicated, that it is the upfront cost that will allow
us to invest in Americans and prevent the incarceration of citizens in
their later life.
I cannot understand my Republican colleagues for striking out Head
Start once more and disallowing the numbers of children that need this
service to not be served. Additionally, I cannot understand if this is
a Nation of working people, supporting working Americans, that we would
cut the dollars that promotes workplace safety and health and also
pensions security.
Just yesterday, in a very grateful manner, the Senate voted
overwhelmingly to support the increase in the minimum wage. We now in
the House of Representatives will be dealing with a bill that says to
the American workers that they are out. We strike them out on workplace
safety, we strike them out in health care and we strike them out in
pension security.
We have worked over the last 2 years to ensure that our young people
have an appreciation for work. The Youth Summer Jobs Program has been
one that I have personally taken charge to see that we respect the fact
that young people care about work. We cut it in 1995, they cut it in
fiscal year 1996, but yet we were able to see that it survived. Here we
go again, we are now at 442,000 youth who cannot be served because of
the cuts in the Youth Summer Jobs Program. I think it is important that
we recognize that America is a country of inclusiveness.
I would say that, in addition to including our youth, we should
recognize those who suffer from mental illness and drug abuse. The bill
provides less funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration. The amount, $1.85 billion, is an aggregated
cut of $33.9 million below the current funding level and is $248
million below the administration's request.
Just for a moment, one of the things I have heard often when I have
spoken to my health care providers in Texas is that mental health is an
important issue. I think if we defeat this rule we will be able to
support youth, children, and those who suffer from mental illness and
substance abuse. I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition today of the
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill.
While we should be investing more in education to give our children the
tools of opportunity in order to succeed, the Gingrich Congress
continues its assault on education.
The central theme of the leadership revolution has been to deny
working families and children in this country educational opportunities
at every level of their academic development. And this bill is more of
the same.
The enrollment in public schools today is rising. Tuition costs for
college are going through the roof and working families are being
squeezed just to make ends meet. This Congress should be doing
everything in its power to expand access to a college education, to
maintain support for local schools, ensure that every child who walks
into a classroom is healthy, fed, and ready to learn.
This bill does the exact opposite. It slashes education. That is dumb
and it is wrong. Let me cite the blows inflicted by this bill.
Our national investment in elementary and secondary education is cut
by $400 million from last year's level. The bill kicks 15,000 children
out of Head Start. It denies 150,000 children needed help in reading
and mathematics for next year. The bill stops Federal funding of school
reform. Goals 2000, which enables teachers to reform our schools, to
discover innovative methods to improve the academic performance of all
students, is eliminated under this bill. It slashes safe and drug-free
schools, putting children in my district in New Haven, CT at risk of
violence in their schools.
In higher education the bill would deny 191,000 students Pell Grants
next year. The bill denies 96,000 deserving postsecondary students the
opportunity to receive low-interest Perkins loans. It reduces funds to
administer the direct lending program, limiting the number of loans
available to students and working families for 14 colleges and
universities in Connecticut.
The Gingrich revolutionaries just do not get it. We have been down
this road before. The American people have spoken out loudly and
clearly in opposition to an extreme Republican agenda, yet it has
reared its ugly head once again in this bill. The American people
understand that the only way that we move competitively into the 21st
century is through an educated work force.
Educating our kids is primary to families today. Dismantling public
education in this country is the wrong way to balance a budget. We
should reject this all-out attack on education for middle-class
Americans.
Some of my opponents say the Republicans have changed their tune from
4 months ago, found faith in America's public education. This is simply
not true. I call on my colleagues to reject this extreme antieducation
bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Ohio, Judge Pryce, a distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, Mr. Goss, for
yielding me the time, and I rise in support of both the rule and the
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
First, this is another open rule. With the exception of the
legislative branch appropriations bill, which we considered earlier
today, all of the regular spending bills that have come to the floor of
the House this year have been considered under an open amendment
process, and we continue that same spirit of unrestricted debate today.
Second, I'd like to commend Chairman Porter for crafting a very
responsible bill--one that keeps our commitment to preserving and
protecting the health, welfare, and Social Security of the American
people.
Although this year's bill freezes spending for many programs at last
year's level, the bill does provide increased funding for education and
Head Start, for block grants that support child care and community
services, for the Violence Against Women Act, for the National
Institutes of Health, and for valuable outreach and support programs
like TRIO--which encourages young people in my district of Columbus,
OH, to pursue a college education.
Even with the increased funding levels, Mr. Speaker, the bill is
within the 602(b) allocation, and as our colleagues know, that is
crucial to keeping us on the glidepath to a balanced Federal budget.
As we work to get our fiscal house in order, we must ensure that all
funding is spent efficiently and where it is most effective in our
society. This bill achieves this important goal by emphasizing, among
other things, local control, parental involvement, and basic academics.
Notwithstanding the challenge of balancing the Federal budget in 6
years, I believe H.R. 3755 makes the right kind of investment in
education, job training, and health, while also shrinking the size of
government and funding only those programs that have demonstrated their
effectiveness.
Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS bill is one of the largest of the 13
annual spending bills, and under this open rule, we will have the
opportunity to discuss spending priorities in a fair and open manner,
and I look forward to that debate. I urge my colleagues to support this
open rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment to the rule
which will make in order the amendment by the gentleman from
Mississippi, Representative Taylor.
The Taylor amendment seeks to allow HCFA to reimburse DOD for
treatment in military medical facilities of military retirees and their
dependents over the age of 65 who are Medicare eligible.
Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the proposed amendment to the rule
at this point in the Record.
On page 2, line 15, of H. Res. 472, immediately after
``waived.'' insert the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, it
shall be in order to consider an amendment to be offered by
Representative Taylor of Mississippi or his designee, which
[[Page H7212]]
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974) or a demand for a division
of the question, and shall be considered as read.''
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican
majority claimed the House was going to consider bills under an open
process. I want to point out that 60 percent of the legislation in this
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed................ None.
Package.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive........... 2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive........... N/A.
Scheduling.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive........... N/A.
Incarceration Act
of 1995.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open.................. N/A.
Deportation
Improvement Act.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive........... N/A.
Law Enforcement
Block Grants.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive........... N/A.
Revitalization
Act.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive........... N/A.
Habeas.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed................ None.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extend the Health
Insurance
Deduction for the
Self-Employed.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive........... 1D.
Supplemental/
Rescinding
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive........... N/A.
Moratorium.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive........... 1D.
Protection Act.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive........... 1D.
Litigation Reform
Act.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive........... N/A.
Accountability
Act of 1995.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive........... 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform
Act.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive........... N/A.
Supplemental
Appropriations
and Rescissions.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive........... 1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive........... 5D; 26R.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive........... 1D.
America Tax
Relief Act of
1995.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extension.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open.................. N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive........... 3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive........... N/A.
Interests Act of
1995.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive........... 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Bipartisan.
Act; FY 1996.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations;
FY 1996.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive........... 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed................ N/A.
Amendment to
Permit Congress
and States to
Prohibit the
Physical
Desecration of
the American Flag.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive........... N/A.
for China.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open.................. N/A.
North Slope Oil.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive........... 1D.
U.S. Arms Embargo
on Bosnia.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive........... 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. partisan.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations
Act.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open.................. N/A.
Targeted
Investments.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open.................. N/A.
Lock Box.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open.................. N/A.
Acquisition
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Workforce
Development and
Literacy Programs
Act (CAREERS).
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open.................. N/A.
System
Designation Act
of 1995.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive........... 2R/2D.
Democratic
Solidarity Act of
1995.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open.................. N/A.
Employees and
Managers Act of
1995.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open.................. N/A.
Certain
Injunctions.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open.................. N/A.
Space Station
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed................ ..............
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive........... 1D.
Certain
Sentencing
Guideline
Amendments.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive........... 1D.
Preservation Act.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations
Bill.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive........... 1D.
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget
Reconciliation
Social Security
Earnings Test
Reform.
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations FY
1996.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive........... 5R.
in the Statutory
Debt Limit.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open.................. ..............
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed................ N/A.
in the Statutory
Limit on the
Public Debt.
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed................ 2R.
Reform.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open.................. N/A.
Disclosure Act of
1995.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive........... N/A.
Funds for Bosnia
Deployment.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open.................. N/A.
Privatization Act
of 1995.
[[Page H7213]]
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed................ N/A.
Trust Funds.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open.................. N/A.
Management Act of
1995.
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed................ 1D; 2R.
Debate and
Consideration of
Three Measures
Relating to U.S.
Troop Deployments
in Bosnia.
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed................ N/A.
Resolution.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open.................. N/A.
Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed................ N/A.
and National
Wildlife Refuge
Systems Freedom
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed................ N/A.
extension of
nondiscriminatory
treatment (MFN)
to the products
of Bulgaria.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed................ N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/
establishing
procedures making
the transmission
of the continuing
resolution H.J.
Res. 134.
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed................ N/A.
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Laboratory at
Gloucester,
Massachusetts.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed................ N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive........... 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition Bipartisan.
Program.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; Rule tabled N/A.
& Review Act of
1995.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule........... N/A.
Continuing Full
Investment of
Social Security
and Other Federal
Funds in
Obligations of
the United States.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive........... 2D/2R.
Downpayment
Toward a Balanced
Budget.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive........... 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive........... 12D; 19R; 1
and National Bipartisan.
Interest Act of
1995.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed................ N/A.
continuing
appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed................ N/A.
Enforcement and
Second Amendment
Restoration Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed................ N/A.
America
Advancement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive........... N/A.
Coverage
Availability and
Affordability Act
of 1996.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive........... 1D.
Constitutional
Amendment.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 2715...................... Paperwork H. Res. 409 Open.................. N/A.
Elimination Act
of 1996.
H.R. 1675...................... National Wildlife H. Res. 410 Open.................. N/A.
Refuge
Improvement Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 175.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 411 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2641...................... United States H. Res. 418 Open.................. N/A.
Marshals Service
Improvement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2149...................... The Ocean Shipping H. Res. 419 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act.
H.R. 2974...................... To amend the H. Res. 421 Open.................. N/A.
Violent Crime
Control and Law
Enforcement Act
of 1994 to
provide enhanced
penalties for
crimes against
elderly and child
victims.
H.R. 3120...................... To amend Title 18, H. Res. 422 Open.................. N/A.
United States
Code, with
respect to
witness
retaliation,
witness tampering
and jury
tampering.
H.R. 2406...................... The United States H. Res. 426 Open.................. N/A.
Housing Act of
1996.
H.R. 3322...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 427 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3286...................... The Adoption H. Res. 428 Restrictive........... 1D; 1R.
Promotion and
Stability Act of
1996.
H.R. 3230...................... Defense H. Res. 430 Restrictive........... 41 amends;
Authorization 20D; 17R; 4
Bill FY 1997. bipartisan.
H.R. 3415...................... Repeal of the 4.3- H. Res. 436 Closed................ N/A.
Cent Increase in
Transporation
Fuel Taxes.
H.R. 3259...................... Intelligence H. Res. 437 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization Act
for FY 1997.
H.R. 3144...................... The Defend America H. Res. 438 Restrictive........... 1D.
Act.
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............ The Small Business H. Res. 440 Restrictive........... 2R.
Job Protection
Act of 1996, and
The Employee
Commuting
Flexibility Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3517...................... Military H. Res. 442 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3540...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 445 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3562...................... The Wisconsin H. Res. 446 Restrictive........... N/A.
Works Waiver
Approval Act.
H.R. 2754...................... Shipbuilding Trade H. Res. 448 Restrictive........... 1R.
Agreement Act.
H.R. 3603...................... Agriculture H. Res. 451 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3610...................... Defense H. Res. 453 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3662...................... Interior H. Res. 455 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3666...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 456 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 3675...................... Transportation H. Res. 460 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.J. Res. 182/H.Res 461........ Disapproving MFN H. Res. 463 Closed................ N/A.
Status for the
Peoples Republic
of China.
H. Con. Res. 192............... Making in order a H. Res 465 Closed................ N/A.
Concurrent
Resolution
Providing for the
Adjournment of
the House over
the 4th of July
district work
period.
H.R. 3755...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 472 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3754...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 473 Restrictive........... 3D; 5R.
Appropriations FY
1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44% open.
***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented standard
procedure and was never reported from any House committee. PQ Indicates that previous question was ordered on
the resolution. Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and
include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules
providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of
restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the
103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this body are going to have two chances to
vote on Medicare subvention. Again, 270 Members, including the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, who is not here on the floor unfortunately,
are sponsors of this measure. The chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]; the
chairman of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence]; the chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump]; and the ranking
Democrats who serve on those committees are cosponsors of this measure.
{time} 1730
It is the right thing. They are the only people in America who were
promised health care and the only people in America who are being
denied the health care they deserve.
We have a chance to fix that. Two hundred fifty-seven Members of this
body, including most recently 258, because the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Peterson] has signed on, have said this is something that this
Nation ought to do. It is a promise that ought to be kept.
Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the rule and make this in order. If it
is not, then I am going to take the words of the gentlewoman from Ohio
[Mr. Pryce], who is a cosponsor of this measure, to task and see if it
is truly an open rule, and we will offer it as an amendment so that the
Members of this body will have the chance to do the right thing for our
Nation's military retirees; to prove that we are putting right over
procedure and we are going to keep our promises to the military
retirees of this country.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], we had one member of the Committee on Rules come in
unexpectedly. I would ask if I may deviate to recognize the gentlewoman
from Utah, Ms. Enid Greene. It will be a short statement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Utah [Ms. Greene].
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It is
an open rule that will provide thorough consideration of the issues by
allowing amendments to be offered on the floor.
[[Page H7214]]
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we note that for too many
years Washington has spent tax dollars and created bloated
bureaucracies to show that we care. Nowhere is this more apparent than
when we look at what Washington has done to our education system.
Today, we have 760 federally run education programs administered by a
jumble of 39 separate Federal departments, agencies, boards, and
commissions at a cost of $120 billion to the American taxpayers.
But, Mr. Chairman, for all those programs and all that money, student
academic performance in this country has not improved in the last 20
years. In fact, we have seen a steady decline in student performance as
parents and local communities have less control over their children's
educations.
SAT scores have dropped from a total average of 937 in 1972 to 902 in
1994; 66 percent of our 17-year-olds do not read at a proficient level;
reading scores are down, science scores are down, and United States
students score worse in math than all major countries except Spain.
Now, there is no doubt that many of these programs are well
intentioned, but good intentions are not good enough when dealing with
our children's education. Clearly, the Washington education bureaucracy
simply has not accomplished what needs to be accomplished for our
children and there may be no better example of how using spending as
the chief or only measurement of creating educational excellence has
failed this Nation and our children than my own State of Utah.
Mr. Speaker, my State of Utah ranks last in the 50 States in per-
pupil spending in the Nation, yet it ranks second in the Nation in the
number of high school graduates, first in the Nation for the number of
residents who have attended college, and the scores of Utah students
taking the ACT test in 1995 rose in every subject and were higher than
the national ACT group in every area.
As the President said in his State of the Union Address, ``The era of
big government is over,'' and it is time to empower our State and local
communities to pick up where Washington needs to jump off.
Let me stress, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not gut education
programs. This bill freezes spending at last year's level for the title
I program for disadvantaged students as well as for the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Program. Spending for the Head Start Program is increased
by $31 million above the 1996 level, and Pell grants are increased to a
maximum of $2,500, up from $2,470 just last year.
Mr. Speaker, with all the helping the Federal Government has been
doing over the last 30 or 40 years, is it not time to explore other
ways of giving our children the first-rate education they need and
deserve?
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no remaining speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all point out that already we seem to
somehow get away from preciseness in the use of words. I heard ``cuts
in the Head Start Program.'' There are no cuts in the Head Start
Program. As the charts will show and as the debate will show as we go
into the 2 hours of general debate and the individual open rule
amendments, I am sure we are going to see the charts are going to be
displayed that in fact there are increases in programs like Head Start;
good programs that deserve increases.
We have before us a situation where we have many programs that are
nice to have, that are funded by the Federal Government. And we have
many programs that are, I guess we should say that we need to have,
that are funded by the Federal Government for people who have true
serious needs and no other place to turn.
And I think it is important to try and make the distinctions between
``nice to have,'' and ``need to have'' programs because sometimes we
forget here that all of the moneys from these programs do not come from
Washington, they come from us, the people, the taxpayers, from back
home. And if we do a pretty good job of what we do back home and we do
not have to send the money to Washington, it seems to me we are better
off.
So I think when we talk about ``need to have'' programs, the
taxpayers understand a little bit; and when we talk about ``nice to
have'' programs, they are a little less willing to send their hard-
earned dollars to Washington.
I would also point out that some of the people who are working the
hardest for the ``need to have'' programs are the people who can least
afford those tax dollars, and I would point out that this majority is
trying to relieve them of some of their tax burdens as well.
What this boils down a little bit to is restraint. And I think that
it is very important that we continue to exercise the restraint that we
have started on in this Congress toward a balanced budget in the next 7
years. I am going to read just briefly from the administration's
statement on this bill that they, apparently the senior advisors to the
President, have threatened to veto. And I am going to take just one of
the statements, this one has to do with the Department of Education and
student loan programs and here is the statement I am quoting.
And it says, ``As with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bill, the
administration continues to oppose any cap on direct lending.''
Now, that is a debatable point, but it seems to me there is not much
restraint if you are not going to oppose any cap on direct spending.
That means the sky is the limit. How does this match up against other
priorities and other needs? Those are the kinds of concerns that I am
very concerned about.
I go on through the administration's statement and there are five
pages of the sky-is-going-to-fall type statements in here. Then we come
to some of the issues that I think Americans need to know. This is the
type of thing that the administration is saying. And again, I wonder
how many parents in America are going to think this is money well
spent.
I am quoting from the administration's statement that is saying that
``by providing no funding for the $30 million teen pregnancy prevention
initiative, the committee would stall the development of critical
knowledge about how to prevent teen pregnancy.''
Now, I can tell you there is probably a bunch of teenagers running
around out there that could tell me a thing or two about how to stop
teen pregnancy right now. And I daresay that most of us understand how
you get pregnant, whether you are a teenager or not. And I wonder
whether or not the sky is really going to fall if we do not spend this
$30 million that the President's administration says we have got to
spend.
I think it is very important that we have good, informed people about
all the consequences of their actions, whatever their actions and
behaviors may be. But I think to say that we are going to lose the
world with teen pregnancy because we do not spend $30 million on
critical knowledge about how you get pregnant is stretching the point
just a bit. And I would suggest that many American taxpayers are going
to say that that is $30 million that might be well spent in other
programs that will be better used to prevent teen pregnancy.
I take a look at the total difference. It is about $5.5 billion of
what the President asked, which is virtually everything that was put on
the plate, because the President is in the position of being the candy
store proprietor in this budget process. He can come into the candy
store and say, Look, help yourself we have all of these things.
Somebody has to be responsible and say yes, there are all of these
wonderful opportunities, but we have to pay for these things and
somebody has to pay for them and that is of course the taxpayer, and
besides if we consume too much candy, we will get a tummy ache or
worse.
We are in a position right now of being the people who are the
responsible party in the candy store and saying we have to exercise
some restraint both for price and behavioral reasons about how we go
about doing things, and that is what this 2 hours of general debate and
these amendments are going to lead to: legitimate differences of
opinion about what is nice to have and what is need to have in this
area.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposal to defeat the
rule, I think that would be a very shortsighted action at this point.
We should
[[Page H7215]]
support the rule, and we should vote ``yes'' on the previous question
for a very simple reasons. We have an appropriations bill here that has
got billions and billions of dollars that are necessary for many
critical programs, as we have said.
I think that the gentleman from Mississippi has made a very eloquent
statement about an amendment that he feels very strongly about, and I
frankly think it is a good amendment and I wish it could have been made
in order, but we have rules in the House and his amendment is not
germane. And we all know it.
The gentleman's amendment was voted on in the Committee on Rules and
it was voted down in the Committee on Rules because it is not germane.
It is legislating on an appropriations bill. We do not legislate on an
appropriations bill unless we follow a protocol. The protocol is well-
known. The protocol is you have to get a letter of no objection from
the authorizing committees, and we have suggested that to the gentleman
from Mississippi. He has a remedy to take. And I would urge him to do
it because I think he has a good piece of legislation, with a
significant number of cosponsors, which will do well on its own merits
properly brought forward to the House vehicle. This is not the proper
vehicle, and he is asking us to violate our rules and protocol if we
are going to try to defeat the previous question.
So I would say we should vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and
we should vote ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time with in which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 202, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
YEAS--218
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Bartlett
Dunn
Ford
Gibbons
Hayes
Lantos
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Stark
Watt (NC)
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 1803
Messrs. OWENS, RANGEL, HILLEARY, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, and Mr.
TATE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WATTS of Oklahoma, HERGER, SOLOMON, SMITH of Texas, RIGGS,
Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, and Messrs. McINTOSH, SMITH of
New Jersey, DORNAN, SAXTON, SCARBOROUGH, MOORHEAD, and BEILENSON
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hutchinson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3755.
{time} 1805
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health,
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walker
in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
[[Page H7216]]
Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was allowed to speak out of order.)
legislative program
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply for the purpose of
explaining to Members what the schedule will be for the remainder of
this evening.
The vote that was just taken is the last recorded vote, as I
understand it. We will have the 2 hours of debate on the bill according
to the rule, 1 hour on each side, and we will then proceed to
amendments under title I, the Department of Labor, and will complete
that title this evening with votes, if any, to be rolled over to
tomorrow, and we will designate title II also.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] for 1 hour.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
{time} 1815
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the chairman
of the full Committee on Appropriations for the extremely helpful role
he has played in working the bill through the subcommittee mark and the
full committee. Obviously he has, I think, one of the toughest of all
jobs in the House. He does it splendidly, and we are all greatly in his
debt.
I also want to thank each of the members of my subcommittee who
worked so hard, especially the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the
ranking member, for his contribution to the bill, and for all of their
participation in the very difficult process that we have gone through
in marking up and reporting the bill. It has not been easy for any of
us.
Finally I want to thank our staff. The staff of the full Committee on
Appropriations have been extremely helpful to all of us. We hope to
have all of the bills, including this bill, out by the time we enter
the August break. This will be an accomplishment that is a testimony to
the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], and to the very, very fine work on a very experienced and
expert staff, and all of us thank them very much.
I also want to thank my staff, Tony McCann, the Clerk, Bob Knisely,
Sue Quantius, Mike Myers, Joanne Orndorff, and Lauren James. Lauren is
on detail to the committee from the Department of Education, and she
has been invaluable to our subcommittee all year long.
I also want to thank Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith of the minority
staff for their excellent cooperation and the courtesy that they have
extended to each one of us.
Mr. Chairman, this bill includes a recommendation of $65.7 billion
for the discretionary accounts within our jurisdiction. This level is
within our 602(b) allocation and is about on the same level as the
level for fiscal year 1996.
Mr. Chairman, the bill sets priorities. It terminates funding for 39
programs funded last year at just over $1 billion. These programs are
characterized, with few exceptions, as being small, expensive to
operate, and in most cases having little evidence of effectiveness.
Mr. Chairman, at NIH we have taken the position that funding should
be allocated according to the judgment of science as to where the best
opportunities lie, and not according to the political fiat of Congress.
We also have continued our effort to avoid earmarks in the bill. In NIH
once again we removed all disease-specific earmarks and provided no
specific AIDS earmarks. The distribution for AIDS funding as determined
by NIH is at $1.498 billion across all institutes and divisions of the
agency. This is a determination, again, made by science and not by
politics.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat here listening to the debate on the rule
and listening to the people on the minority side talk about all of the
terrible things that are happening to education and job training. Mr.
Chairman, I want people to understand exactly what they are talking
about. The subcommittee's allocation is about level with last year, and
most provisions of the bill are level-funded. There are no huge cuts
anywhere in education.
When the minority discusses cuts, they mean cuts from the level of
funding recommended by the President in his budget. It is clear, Mr.
Chairman, that the President's budget was a purely political document
giving huge increases, that could not be afforded, to every interest
group in America. The President took no responsibility for getting our
fiscal house in order. We have to take that responsibility and we take
it seriously. We have carried out our responsibility in this bill.
Let me talk about what we have done on the increase side. Job Corps
operations is a program aimed to help the most at-risk youth in our
society. It removes them from their current environment to one where
they can get real job training, a chance for a working life and career
in our society. Job Corps is increased by $92 million.
The subcommittee added $54 million for the Ryan White AIDS Program.
Again, the committee has attempted to protect and support programs that
impact the most vulnerable of our citizens. These are important dollars
to be spent for people suffering from a very, very horrible disease,
and we have provided an increase for Ryan White.
Summer youth is level-funded at $625. I heard the gentlewoman from
Texas saying what big cuts there were in the program. There are no
cuts. It is level-funded.
An additional $8 million is provided for the Violence Against Women
Act. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of this program, which
provides support and protection for battered women, rape victims, and
victims of other forms of violence. We have provided an increase for
this series of programs.
The bill provides $900 million in new funding for the Low-Income
Heating and Energy Assistance program, and with other emergency funding
and funding that was available from previous appropriations, a total of
$1.32 billion is available for the LIHEAP program.
NIH research is increased by 6.5 percent.
The preventive health, maternal and child health, social services,
and child care block grants are all increased, consistent with the
subcommittee's policy of increasing funding for programs that increase
local discretion. Again, these programs cannot be seen in isolation
from the individuals they serve: poor women, young children, and the
most vulnerable in our society-all which have a high priority in the
bill.
The community services block grant, which is an extremely flexible
program that can support many social services programs, including
nutrition, energy assistance, employment, and crisis services, is
increased by $100 million, from approximately $390 to $490 million.
Innovative education program strategies is more than doubled, to $609
million, by terminating several categorical programs to increase
funding for this broad block grant.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the premier agency in
the world in the search for the causes and treatment of a broad range
of diseases, is increased by $75 million, to $2.2 billion; $82 million
dollars is provided for infectious disease control, $135 million is
provided for breast and cervical cancer screening, and other health
promotion and disease prevention programs are also increased.
Mr. Chairman, health professions training funding is increased by $34
million. Family planning is maintained at last year's level of $192
million; $802 million is provided for community and migrant health
centers, and other health service programs are increased as well.
Again, Mr. Chairman, these are programs that serve the poor, the
disadvantaged, and the most vulnerable in our society and they are
given high priority in our bill.
Head Start funding is increased to $3.6 billion. Again, this is a
program aimed directly at the poorest, most vulnerable children, and
while not without its faults in some of its applications, is a high
priority in this bill. TRIO is increased by $37 million, an 8 percent
increase. Pell grants, and I heard the gentlewoman say we were cutting
Pell grants, the gentlewoman from Connecticut earlier, Pell grants
maximums are again increased, this year by $30, to $2,500. Federal
work-study grants are up over 10 percent, to $685 million.
[[Page H7217]]
Mr. Chairman, it is here that I have the greatest difficulty of
understanding the criticisms of my friends across the aisle. We have
increased these student financial aid programs this year, and many of
them were increased or frozen last year, yet there is still the
drumbeat that the majority is cutting post-secondary education. We are
not. Funds for college education, post-secondary education, are
increasing.
The bill also continues our efforts at reform. As I mentioned, the
bill terminates 39 mostly small, ineffective programs. Goals 2000,
however, is also terminated. The bill consolidates the Eisenhower
Professional Development Program with the innovative State grant
program that will allow the States and localities to spend Federal
education funding as they see fit, to meet locally defined needs and
programs.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill continues many of the legislative
provisions that were included in the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1996. Among those included are
provisions prohibiting the issuance of regulations by the NLRB related
to single-site bargaining, provisions that have been carried in the
bill for several years prohibiting the use of funds for abortions--the
current Hyde language--provisions that limit the use of funds for the
creation of human embryos for research and the use of embryos in
research.
In addition, the subcommittee included several additional legislative
provisions. Language is included strengthening the current language
regarding OSHA ergonomic standards. The recommended language would
prohibit the development or issuance of standards or guidelines and the
collection of data with respect to repetitive motion injuries. Language
is also included that would raise the minimum jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Board. The increase would return the minimum
jurisdiction to the inflation-adjusted level it originally was set at
in 1950. Finally, Mr. Chairman, language is included that prohibits the
use of CDC funds for the advocacy of gun control.
Mr. Chairman, we are about to hear a great deal of discussion from
our friends on the other side of the aisle on their belief, and the
President's, that we need to spend more money on these and other
programs. In the end, however, we are going to have to be responsible.
In the end, every dollar we spend above current amounts in the bill are
borrowed and must be repaid by our children, who have, after all, no
vote and whose futures we are mortgaging if we spend beyond our means.
This is a responsible bill, Mr. Chairman. It reflects the priorities
for education and health and job training and the protection of the
most vulnerable in our society, and I commend it to the Members. I
believe it is a fair, responsible bill and does the job for the
American people.
I would like to clarify the intent of language included in the
section of House Report 104-659 relating to the buildings and
facilities account within the National Institutes of Health. The report
indicates that the committee expects that the detailed construction
documents for the clinical center be reviewed by an outside party
acceptable to both NIH and Congress. This outside party could be a
single entity or a panel of experts drawn from various institutions.
Such a review would take place at the design development stage of the
project. The review should focus on a thorough examination of program
and cost estimates, but need not involve review of detailed
construction documents.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, I think, defines in a major way the
differences in priorities between the two political parties in this
House. For years we have had a decline in the school-age population in
this country. It has been going down for a number of years. But the
fact is that we are now experiencing a steady increase in school
enrollment in this country, and, in fact, next year there will be more
students enrolled in local school districts than at any time in the
country's history.
We would simply ask the question on this side of the aisle: Why
should we be cutting per pupil expenditures for those students at a
time when we are experiencing an increase in student enrollment?
If we take a look at what is happening to per pupil expenditures and
look at it in real dollar terms, we will see that per pupil
expenditures at the Federal level are declining from $287 per student
to $222 by the end of the sixth year of the Republican budget which
just went through this House several months ago, and this bill is the
first year's step in that budget process.
Last year the Republican majority in this House tried to cut $7
billion out of this bill. The public rebelled. After the public
rebelled at those reductions last year, we were able, in conference
with the Senate, to restore about 90 percent of the education cuts
which had been made by House Republicans in this bill last year.
This year's bill has a more stealthy plan to make those same
reductions. On the surface, it appears to be pretty much a stand-pat
budget but, in reality, there is a $500 million reduction in Department
of Education programs, and over the next 6 years, we would wind up with
a reduction of some $35 billion below current services, and we would
wind up with cuts of about $57 billion below the President's requests.
{time} 1830
That is a 20 percent cut in real deliverable program levels by 2002.
We simply on this side of the aisle do not think that that is in the
interest of the country. We do not think that that will help the
economy grow. We believe that these reductions come at the worst
possible time for local schools. Schools face sharp competition for
resources from State and local sources. This budget squeeze at the
State and local level comes at the same time that Federal education aid
dollars are declining in real terms while school enrollment, as I just
indicated, is rising. That creates a double-jeopardy situation which we
think is unhealthy.
This bill begins the process under which this year up to 15,000 Head
Start kids will be squeezed out of the program under this bill. Over
150,000 title I children will lose title I services that help them to
read and to master science and math. The President's budget would have
supported nearly 450,000 additional title I students. By the end of the
Republican 6-year budget plan, more than 1 million kids will not be
receiving the reading and math help they need under the title I
program. Under Goals 2000, which is the program that was begun under
President Bush, supported by then Governor Clinton, under that Goals
2000 program which would help 8,500 local schools raise math and
science standards so that kids can compete globally, that program would
be terminated in this bill. That results in 2 billion fewer dollars
provided for school improvement between now and 2002. Nearly 340,000
math and science teachers will lose the training that they need to
upgrade their skills because the bill eliminates the Eisenhower Teacher
Training Program. Over 300,000 students will lose vocational education
and training opportunities in just this year alone under the bill.
There will be 14,000 kids who lose bilingual education opportunities.
Two hundred twenty thousands students who receive Perkins loans and
grants under the State-assisted student incentive program will no
longer be able to get the help they need to attend college. There are
107,000 fewer college kids who will receive Pell grant programs
compared to the President's budget. Seventy-nine thousand fewer summer
youth jobs will be provided under this proposal. Dislocated worker
assistance will be provided to 32,000 fewer workers than last year.
This is the bill that is supposed to help children and workers get
ahead in life. Yet this bill puts us on the road to a systematic
disinvestment in education and puts roadblocks in the way of those
workers and those children.
I would point out that there has been a lot of talk through the past
years about how sound Social Security and Medicare will be in the next
century. Raising the wages and the earning power of the American
workforce is crucial to being able to strengthen those funds, because
you need to strengthen the income people have so that they can increase
their payments into those funds. This is the bill that most directly
impacts our obligation to give kids from working families a
[[Page H7218]]
chance to make something of themselves and it is being short-sheeted in
my view.
In addition to the education problem, we have added over 2 million
seniors in the last 5 years to our population. Yet this bill continues
the downward trend of the 1996 Appropriation Act by again cutting funds
for the Administration on Aging.
For worker protection, the House bill cuts worker protection programs
by 13 percent below the President's request and 9 percent below what is
needed to simply maintain last year's level of operations. That means
cuts in our ability to help guarantee workplace health and safety,
pension protection, and immigration reform.
The bill also cuts funding for the NLRB by 15 percent below last
year's level and 20 percent below the President's request. We do not
think that is wise. In addition, it contains a number of riders which
we do not believe make much sense.
Low Income Heating Assistance Program, a program which I started with
Senator Muskie a long time ago, that Low Income Energy Assistance
Program is crucial to help seniors and vulnerable individuals pay their
home heating bills. I come from a part of the country where you get 40
below zero weather, and I am not talking about chill factor, I am
talking about real term temperature cold. In 1996 the Low Income
Heating Assistance Program was slashed by $419 million. This bill
provides $100 million less than the President requested and it
appropriates not one dime for fiscal 1998 for that program.
I would simply point out that from 1981 to 1994, the low-income
population eligible for LIHEAP has grown by 10 million people. Yet the
percentage of eligible households served by it has dropped from 36 to
21 percent and the percentage of assistance on their fuel bills which
people get from the Federal Government has declined from 23 percent to
12 percent in 1994 and it will go down even more.
So for this and a variety of reasons, I would simply say that we on
the minority side feel that this bill is not adequate to the challenge
facing the country and I regretfully intend to vote ``no'' when the
bill reaches its final passage stage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, as a former fourth grade school teacher
and the mother of two, I understand the importance of education to the
health and vitality of our Nation. We who are in positions of authority
have a solemn responsibility to formulate policies that will provide
all children with access to quality education.
Mr. Chairman, 66 percent of 17-year-olds do not read at a proficient
level, and 30 percent of all children entering college have to take
remedial education classes. These sorry statistics are the unfortunate
result of several factors, the most important of which is the
unrestrained growth of the Federal education bureaucracy.
Only about 6 percent of all education spending in the United States
comes from Federal sources, yet one study found that it accounted for
over 50 percent of all the paperwork for local school districts. We
need more teachers, we need better teachers in the classrooms with the
students, not more bureaucrats buried under mountains of paper.
This Congress has trimmed the fat from the education budget but it
has not cut vital and effective programs. Both Pell grants and the
work-study program reach an all-time high under the Republican budget
this year. These programs are proven successes and should be preserved.
Yet out of a Federal education monolith consisting of 760 programs
and costing $120 billion a year, there is much that must be reformed.
Of these programs, only 3.6 percent are science-related, only 1.8
percent are reading-related, and only 1.1 percent are math-related. Mr.
Chairman, our limited Federal resources are being squandered.
Washington, DC is not the place to look for education policy. We need
to look at the local school districts, the teachers, the parents, the
local committees, and families that must be allowed to educate children
without interference from the Federal bureaucracy.
What works for New York State may not work for the children of the
central coast of California, where I come from. I say, give those who
know education best the ability to make policy that works for the folks
at home, for their own communities, their own children. We in
Washington, DC should offer support but get out of the way. Our
children deserve better.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to make an observation with respect to
what is happening in the Congress and in the United States of America
regarding how we spend our money and how we make decisions on spending
our money.
The chart to my right shows that in 1962, 70 percent of the Federal
budget was so-called discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is
decisions that we make about where we want to invest our money to make
our country stronger and more viable as a Nation, to make people more
secure and more able to compete. That has now dropped down to less than
36 percent.
Half of that is for our national defense. I am one of those Democrats
that supports the national defense, and I have done so since 1981 when
I first came here. We added $12 billion to defense this year when it
passed this House. Why did we do so? We did so on the premise that to
freeze defense was in fact a cut. In fact, I think that rationale was
correct. But I am not so sure why that rationale does not apply to the
defense of this Nation as it relates to the education of our children
and the security of our families.
In 1983, the Department of Education issued a report. It was a stark
and compelling report, and it was entitled ``A Nation At Risk.''
What did it say? I am quoting from that report, issued under the
imprimatur of Secretary Terrence Bell, who recently passed away. He was
a fine Secretary of Education, a member of the Reagan Cabinet. The
report said this:
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on
America the mediocre educational performance that exists
today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it
stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have
dismantled essential support systems which helped make these
gains possible. We have in effect been committing an act of
unthinking unilateral educational disarmament.
Mr. Chairman, I will oppose this bill because it sounds retreat, and
America ought not to retreat. In a time when we need to have families
first in our focus, at a time when we need to strengthen education and
strengthen children, sounding the bugle of retreat is not a proper
policy.
We will have a very substantial increase in the numbers of children
going to our schools over the next 6 years. Next year, in fact, we will
have more children in school than in any year in our history.
What does that mean? That means there will be a greater burden on
local and State governments. As the previous speaker said, the Federal
Government contributes only 6 percent of the educational resources
available to our families and to educate our children. But that 6
percent is a critical part. In fact, it is the part which deals with
some of the most vulnerable children in America, those who have
economic, cultural, and educational deprivations in their families, and
who therefore start out behind the others with whom they will go to
school.
This chart shows that we are going to have 3.4 million more children
entering school from 1997 to 2002. It also shows that the Republican
budget's freeze at $14.4 billion for elementary and secondary education
is essentially a retreat, because it will effectively be, in 2002, $12
billion in real dollars, in resources available. In an atmosphere where
the need is growing, our investment is decreasing.
{time} 1845
That does not make sense for our families or for our children. I said
that the numbers of children were increasing, and I showed Members on
the chart where the budget goes from $14.4 billion to approximately $12
billion in real terms by 2002. Now, that is when we will be
experiencing an addition of 3.4 million new young people in our school
system.
[[Page H7219]]
Those children do not disappear. Those children will not have another
chance at being 3 or 4 or 5 years old. This is not something that we
can catch up on tomorrow, when perhaps, as George Bush says, our wallet
will match our will. I believe that we ought to have the will, and I
clearly believe we have the wallet. As a matter of fact, as a Democrat
for a balanced budget, I voted for the coalition budget. The coalition
budget, in fact, balanced the budget, cut more spending than the
Republican or the President's alternative, and provided an additional
$47 billion for education. How did it do that? Because we did not
pretend that we could cut taxes, balance the budget, and make sure that
families were secure in the knowledge that their children would receive
the kinds of education that they need.
Under the President's budget, there would have been $7.05 billion for
title I. Title I is for economically deprived children who need some
additional help to be competitive, so that they can join our workforce
in competing with an increasingly able workforce around the world. A
freeze in real terms would serve 6.8 million children in 2002. The
chairman suggests a freeze in 1997 but in point of fact, that policy
will result in an actual decrease to 5.8 million children who will be
served in 2002. This is opposed to the President's budget, which will
serve 6.8 million children. That is 1 million American children that
will have no seats for title I assistance in the schools of our Nation
because of this Republican budget. I believe that policy is
inconsistent with our desire to compete in the global marketplace, with
our desire to pledge to families that they can be secure in the
knowledge that their children will have the kind of education, Head
Start, and title I assistance that they need.
Now, I want to tell my friends in the House that my children have had
great advantages. Their father and their mother earn substantial
incomes. Their father and their mother had the advantages of higher
education. But let me tell Members something that all of us, I am sure,
know, and that every family in America knows: Our children will be
affected by the ability to participate and contribute of every other
child in their generation. Therefore, I say to my friends that this
budget, which calls us to retreat, is a budget we ought to reject.
I talked about title I. Today in America, in a program that President
Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton supported and funded, we
serve 53 percent of the children who are eligible. That means we do not
serve 47 percent. I think that is a problem. I think what we ought to
do is increase the percentage that we serve. Why? Because it makes us
more competitive and makes us a more viable society.
But this Republican budget, as I said, sounds retreat and moves from
53 percent of children served today by title I to 42 percent of the
children served in 2002. That extrapolates into those 1 million
children that I told Members about. Those are real children from real
families in a country that, increasingly in a global marketplace, knows
that it has got to have better skills for its children.
This next chart shows in very specific terms what will happen in the
cities and towns of America. Let me give some examples. In Dallas, TX,
a freeze in title I as proposed by the chairman will mean 29 teachers
lose their jobs and 726 students lose help next year. S. 726 students
next year in Dallas, TX, as a result of this bill will not get the kind
of help that they need. The Miami-Dade area will lost 40 teachers and
1,011 students next year. It will lost 255 teachers and 6,386 students
over the next 5 years.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in order to stay even, just this
year, we would have to add $2.6 billion to this bill for education.
Now, recall with me my opening statement that we added $12 billion to
the defense bill so that we could stay even and remain the strongest
Nation on the face of the earth. My Republican colleagues pointed out
that if we did not have that additional $12 billion, if we froze
funding at last year's level, that we would in fact be putting at risk
the Nation by underfunding our defense. Ladies and gentlemen of the
House, let us not underfund the defense of America by underfunding the
children, the education of America. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
appropriation bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], a very able member of our subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker tried to
scare us about what is happening in education, and I just want to set
the record straight. First of all, the Federal Government only pays 5
percent of the total amount of money in elementary and secondary
education. Ninety-five percent of the money comes from State and local
governments, and that is where the responsibility belongs, with the
family and State and local governments.
He talks about title 1. Where are the cuts? Title I has increased 40
percent in the last 7 years, and it is flat funded for this year. There
is no cut. The amount of money going for title I stays at $6.7 billion.
I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to talk about
something other than the area of education right now, and I want to
talk about something that is very, very important, and that is the area
of biomedical research.
Biomedical research is a fundamental priority that can dramatically
improve and change the lives of individual Americans. Therefore, for
the second year in a row, we have significantly increased funding at
the National Institutes for Health and for the Centers for Disease
Control. Another reason, by the way, I am supporting this bill very
strongly is we want to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending
programs, and this bill eliminates 39 programs in addition to the 109
programs we eliminated last year. So I support this program because
what it is, we set Federal priorities. We take a hard look at those
functions of the Federal Government and decide what they can do and the
responsibility of the Federal Government should do. We identify those
crucial programs and increase the funding for those that are the most
important, and we decrease funding for wasteful or nonessential
bureaucracy.
The National Institutes for Health is a perfect example since it
represents a true Federal responsibility. By providing over a 6-percent
increase, we are continuing our commitment to ensure the health and
welfare of our citizens. Under the leadership of Chairman Porter, we
have committed to building a new clinical research center, and this had
broad bipartisan support.
The Human Genome Project, which is literally mapping the entire human
DNA, is moving forward ahead of schedule. Funding for AIDS research is
once again increased. We have seen hopeful breakthroughs at NIH for the
treatment this disease, and the Republican plan continues to provide
the resources needed to find a treatment and cure.
We should support the National Institutes for Health because it is
truly one of the great institutions of the entire world. Dozens and
dozens of Americans have been awarded the Nobel Prize with help from
NIH research grants. Some of the most important medical discoveries of
the 20th century have occurred at the NIH campus or through NIH grants
to the Universities in this country.
America has created the finest medical research facility in the
world, and this bill ensures that it will remain a true force for the
improvement of our health and well-being as a society.
Another great institution is the Centers for Disease Control in
Atlanta. It reaches across the entire country and entire globe. This
bill increases funding for several CDC prevention programs. We increase
funding for breast and cervical cancer screening, chronic and
environmental disease prevention, infectious disease, AIDS education
and prevention, lead poisoning prevention, and the preventive health
services block grant. CDC is an example of an activity the Federal
Government is uniquely qualified to accomplish. We have increased
funding in 1996 and again in 1997.
This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Livingston) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
[[Page H7220]]
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________