Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7280-H7327]
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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 3755.

{time} 1214

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 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, with Mr.
Walker in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July
10, 1996, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] had been postponed and the
bill had been read through page 22, line 16.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Health Resources and Services Administration

health resources and services

For carrying out titles II, III, VII, X, XIX, and XXVI of
the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of the Federal
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V of the Social
Security Act, and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of
1986, as amended, $3,080,190,000, of which $297,000 shall
remain available until expended for interest subsidies on
loan guarantees made prior to fiscal year 1981 under part B
of title VII of the Public Health Service Act: Provided, That
the Division of Federal Occupational Health may utilize
personal services contracting to employ professional
management/administrative and occupational health
professionals: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $2,828,000 shall be available
until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W.
Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in
addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health
Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected
for the full disclosure of information under the Act
sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the
National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available
until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That
no more than $5,000,000 is available for carrying out the
provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided further, That of
the funds made available under this heading, $192,592,000
shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health
Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning
projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said
projects under such title shall not be expended for
abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be
nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for
any activity (including the publication of distribution of
literature) that in any way tends to promote public support
or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for
public office: Provided further, That $75,000,000 shall be
for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section
2616 of the Public Health Service Act and shall be
distributed to States as authorized by section 2618(b)(2) of
such Act.

amendment offered by mrs. lowey

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: Page 22, line 22, after
the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$2,600,000)''.
Page 26, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,600,000)''.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes and
that the time be divided, 20 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey], 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey],
and 10 minutes to myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle] and I are introducing with the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer] restores funding to the CDC National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. Our amendment simply overturns the Dickey
amendment passed by the full committee which reduced the bill's
appropriation for the CDC injury prevention and control program by $2.6
million and increased the appropriation for the area health education
centers by a like amount.
This amendment will restore the injury prevention and control program
to its fiscal year 1996 level of $43 million, which is the level
approved by the subcommittee. My colleagues who support the area health
education centers program, as I do, please note that under our
amendment, the area health education center will receive an increase of
$2.9 million, or over 12 percent, compared to last year.
Why must we restore funding for the CDC injury control program?
Because the injury prevention and control program helps to prevent
thousands of needless and tragic accidents and injuries each year.
The injury prevention and control program is one of the leading
Federal agencies working to prevent domestic violence. Injury control
funds are also being used to prevent drownings at Federal recreation
facilities, reduce violence in public housing projects, cut down on
driving accidents by the elderly, improve emergency medical services in
order to decrease the number of traumatic brain and spinal cord
injuries, reduce deaths caused by fires in the home and many, many
other lifesaving activities.
Unless our amendment passes, all of these vital activities could be
affected. So why were funds for the injury prevention program cut? Let
me be very blunt to my colleagues. The NRA dislikes the fact that the
injury control center collects statistics and does research on gun
violence. Even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent,
or 2.6 million, of its budget

[[Page H7281]]

on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA. But
frankly, my colleagues, I do not understand this. Is not the purpose of
the NRA to promote the responsible use of guns? Is not the NRA
interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and teenagers
who are not using guns for sport but to kill? It seems to me that the
CDC and the NRA really should be working together to ensure that guns
are used safely and responsibly.

We will hear charges that the CDC research is biased and duplicative,
but the program passed three rigorous reviews by the GAO, the National
Academy of Science and the HHS office of the inspector general.
After reviewing Federal violence prevention efforts, conservative
columnist George Will concluded in 1992:

Clearly the criminal justice community is inadequate to the
task of turning the tide of violence; so as a sound
investment in improving the quality of American life, no
Federal funds are spent better than those that fund the CDC's
research.

While the Justice Department focuses on the incarceration of
offenders after the shootings occur, the CDC focuses on the prevention
of gun injuries before they occur. CDC injury control research is
examining how trauma surgeons can help to intervene in the cycle of
youth violence and prevent youth from returning to trauma centers at a
rate of 44 percent.
CDC research is looking at why some inner-city youths commit violence
with guns and others do not. CDC research is helping State departments
of health around the country better monitor gun related injuries so
that they can most effectively target their prevention activities.
The NRA's attack of the CDC puzzles me put it also outrages me. Gun
violence in America is a public health emergency. According to Dr.
George Lundberg, an editor of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, ``There is no question now that violence is a public
health issue. Research to end this epidemic of violence is absolutely
vital and it must continue.''
Over 37,000 Americans die each year from wounds inflicted by guns.
Almost 6,000 children and teens are shot every year by guns; 100,000
other Americans are injured in shootings each year. This explosion of
violence is placing an enormous burden on our health care system. The
medical cost of gun violence is $4.5 billion a year.
The cost of treating a patient with a gunshot wound averages over
$14,000. As a result, more than 60 urban trauma centers have been
forced to close over the past 10 years alone. If current trends
continue, Mr. Speaker, gunshots will surpass car accidents as the
leading cause of death in United States.
To combat this horrifying trend, the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control has conducted groundbreaking peer reviewed
research on the types and costs of injuries caused by firearms. It has
worked to prevent suicide among teens, taught conflict resolution
techniques. Let me be very clear, the center conducts research, gathers
facts. It is not an advocacy organization nor does it make policy. In
fact, our amendment preserves language in the bill which prohibits the
CDC from advocating or promoting gun control.
Let me state this a second time so that my colleagues are clear. This
amendment preserves language in the bill which prohibits the CDC from
advocating or promoting gun control. The NRA opposes the CDC injury
control research because it wants to suppress the awful truth about gun
violence. The NRA simply does not want the facts set getting out. It is
no more than censorship. It must be stopped.
There are many groups that support this amendment: The College of
Emergency Physicians, AMA, ABA, American Public Health Association, the
American Nurses Association, the Association of State Health Officials,
and on and on. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
preserve the vital work of the injury control center.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, because of my position on this amendment, I
believe that the time that has been allocated to me should be allocated
instead to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] who is an opponent
of the amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes
allocated to me be allocated to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey], and that he control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.

{time} 1230

Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of federally funded political
advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a
disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun
control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through
the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over
the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for
those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the
part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy.
Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people
should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug
trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the
cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with
crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.
Ownership of guns by itself is what this particular amount of money
is going to. It is not a public health threat. In fact, the violence
related to guns has been found to be going down to the extent of two-
thirds, where we actually have a 173 percent increase in the number of
guns in the United States. So it is obviously not a public health
threat, because we are doing this through education and training and
not through a discredited study program by the CDC through the NCIPC.

Some quotes that exist from one of the officials that we pay Federal
money to, what we need to try to do is to find a socially acceptable
form of gun control. Experts from Harvard and Columbia medical schools
have reviewed the work on firearms that this agency has done with
Federal money and have stated that it displays an emotional antigun
agenda and are so biased and contains so many errors of fact, logic and
procedure that we cannot regard them as having a legitimate claim to be
treated as scholarly or scientific literature. So this is discredited
by authorities. It is not something we should be doing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment, but I do
so in despair of our ability to discuss this on substance rather than
on symbolic grounds.
This controversy started when the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey] offered an amendment in subcommittee which purported to
eliminate the ability of CDC to engage in research on gun control and
which purported to prevent that agency from engaging in unbiased
research. I voted against that amendment in subcommittee because I have
always resisted the idea of telling anybody in this Government what
kind of research they can conduct in the health field. I just do not
think that lay people know enough to do that. I think health research
issues ought to be decided by scientists, not by politicians.
But the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and I jointly
cosponsored an amendment to the bill which reads as follows, and it was
adopted. On page 26 of the bill it says: ``None of the funds made
available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun
control.'' We then added this paragraph to the report on page 49: ``The
bill contains a limitation to prohibit the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control at the Center for Disease Control from engaging
in any activities to advocate or promote gun control. The CDC may need
to collect data on the incidents of gun-related violence, but the
committee does not believe that it is the role of the CDC to advocate
or promote policies to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage
responsible private gun ownership. The committee expects research in
this area to be objective and grants to be awarded

[[Page H7282]]

through an impartial peer review process.''
What the gentleman and I tried to do was to make certain that CDC, in
fact, did not engage in biased research, and that is the language that
we adopted. When we got to the full committee, the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] then did not offer the report language to which
we objected and merely offered an amendment which moved money from CDC
to the area health education centers, and I supported that amendment
because it was essentially a judgment about where we thought the money
would do the most good. Would it do the most good in this controversial
program at CDC, or would it do the most good in the area of health
education centers?
I come down on the side of the education centers primarily because I
represent rural areas, and I know that they are medically underserved
communities. The area in which this money was put simply enables us to
support training of medical residents and students for medicine,
nursing, allied health, pharmacy and related fields.
I would point out that in my State, for instance, these agencies are
administered by a partnership between Wisconsin's two medical schools,
the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin
Medical School.
So basically what I would suggest to my colleagues is that this
amendment, while it is being debated in terms of gun control, the
effect of the Lowey amendment will not be to enhance gun control any
more than the effect of the Dickey amendment was to diminish gun
control. The only direct effect on CDC's ability to get involved in the
gun control issue is determined by the language which we already have
in the bill and have in the report by virtue of the amendment sponsored
jointly by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and myself.
So I would say the House simply has a choice to make. If they think
that the money ought to be put in CDC where the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey] puts it, then vote with her. If they think the money
ought to stay in the area of health education centers where I believe
it ought to be and where the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] put
it, then vote against the Lowey amendment. I would urge that my
colleagues vote against the Lowey amendment because I think that the
dollars have been placed in a preferable place by the effect of the
Dickey amendment offered in full committee.
As I say, I despair of this issue ever being discussed in anything
but symbolic terms. I know that at the presidential level we have Mr.
Dole, in my view, trying to exploit the gun issue one way and the White
House trying to exploit it dealing with it the other way. I am not
interested in that phony debate. What I am interested in doing is
making rational choices as a policymaker about where scarce dollars
ought to go, and I frankly think that it has become so controversial at
CDC that the money is much more rationally spent where the committee
wound up putting the money.
So this may seem a very quaint position on my part, but my trouble is
that I read the amendments, I do not just read the titles. So it seems
to me that Members ought to focus on what the real effect of this
amendment really is. It simply moves dollars. It is only indirectly
related to the gun issue, and I wish we could address it in that
fashion because we are qualified to decide where research dollars ought
to go. We are not qualified to pretend that we are doing something that
we are not doing.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle
amendment.
Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime
bill, saying programs like shelters for battered women and rehab for
drug addicts were nothing more than ``pork.''
Now, the NRA has set its sights at the Centers for Disease Control
[CDC]. They have succeeded in pushing an amendment to cut the National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC] from the CDC's budget.
This office does research on injuries, including those caused by guns,
and links it to health outcomes.
But the NRA says that this office engages in ``recklessly biased
research and blatant political advocacy.''
I disagree.
This office does vital studies to improve how law enforcement, the
judicial system, and our health care system can prevent and improve
assistance to victims of domestic violence.
Now the NRA wants us to stop looking at the problem so they can
pretend it does not exist.
They can't further their extremist goals if we engage in studies and
discussion of gun violence as a public health issue.
In this case, the NRA and the radical right are saying, if you fear
it, kill it, and in doing so, they are blocking progress in ending
violence against women and their families.
Vote to end family violence; support the Lowey-Castle amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle], my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Lowey] for yielding this time to me.
I obviously rise in support of the Lowey-Castle amendment, and I
listened carefully to the always articulate comments of the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about this, and I would just note that right
now the National Center For Injury prevention and Control, which is
getting a reduction in this, is actually getting a reduction to less
than 6 percent of their budget from last year, whereas the health
education center he talked about is going up to 23 percent, and if we
are able to succeed in this amendment, that would still go up 12.8
percent, and this particular agency that we are dealing with here would
go down by some 5 percent. So no matter how we look at this, the very
cause that he is talking about is being well treated.
This is a modest amendment. I would simply, as we know, restore the
funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. But
this is very important, and what they do is important, and I do not
think they should be involved in gun control, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out very carefully it is very specific in
this piece of legislation right now that they cannot be involved in any
advocacy with respect to gun control.
I do not have a problem with that. I absolutely concede that. They
should not be, and in fact I think one can even make an argument that
they have not been in the past. They rejected studies that try to do
that. But the bottom line is that it is important because injuries kill
over 85 children and young adults in the United States every day and
cost our country more than $224 billion in the last decade in terms of
direct medical care and rehabilitation costs as well as lost wages of
the individual and productivity losses to the Nation.
This agency, the NCIPC, collects and analyzes data about a wide range
of injuries including motor vehicle crash, fires, drowning, falls,
poisonings, suicide and homicide. They have saved lives. They have
prevented injuries from happening in this country. The centers research
has led to a number of important recommendations in a variety of areas,
from wearing helmets while riding a bicycle to storing firearms in the
home separately from bullets to installing fire detectors in homes.
These are major safety changes. They probably had as much influence on
saving lives as any agency in this country, and I think to reduce their
funding would be a tremendous mistake.

It does also collect and analyze data about firearm injuries because
they are the second leading cause of injuries of Americans between the
ages of 10 and 24. Firearms are the cause of approximately 37,900
deaths in this country as well as all manner of other problems,
including 3 times as many serious injuries. Ten States and the District
of Columbia now have more people dying because of firearms than they do
in automobile accidents. By the year 2000 there are going to be more
people dying because of firearms and automobile accidents in the United
States of America. The cost of gun shot violence in the United States
amounts to $20 billion, a fifth of which is medical expenses. That is
$200 per family that we are paying for these injuries to people

[[Page H7283]]

and deaths to people because of the use of guns in the United States.
They have done many things. My short time does not allow me to go
into all the things which they have done. They are not advocacy, they
are changes which they have made, and I would encourage each and every
one of us to support this amendment. I think it is absolutely the right
thing to do. It is not a gun issue. It is a safety issue in this
country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle-Lowey amendment.
One of the principal efforts of the CDC's National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control was to study American firearms--guns--in regard
to injuries involving firearms.
Let me save the American taxpayer $2.6 million dollars with some free
information:
Guns can be dangerous, especially if loaded, pointed at someone and
the trigger is pulled.
Now, that was simple; was it not?
Given this knowledge, one has to question why taxpayer funds were
even wasted on this issue in the first place. I think I know the
answer.
The bottom line is that it is bothersome to some Members of this body
that many Americans own firearms.
Therefore, anything that can shed a negative inference on firearms,
like the fact that they are dangerous, becomes worthy of taxpayer
support research and political exploitation.
As interesting as pursuing these issues further might be, they are in
the end irrelevant.
The second amendment to the United States Constitution reads: ``A
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.''
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

{time} 1245

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentlemen from New York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
What is the NRA so afraid of? Perhaps it is the truth.
Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific
efforts to make guns more safe for families.
Last year, 38,000 Americans died of gunshot wounds compared to 41,000
who died from automobile accidents. Yet we would never dream of
opposing Government research efforts to make automobiles safer. If the
automobile lobby was as irresponsible as the NRA, we would not have the
seat belt.
Today, we are seeing a proliferation of cheaply made guns that are
blowing up in people's hands, misfiring when jostled or dropped, and
killing or wounding people accidentally.
So while motor vehicle deaths are dropping year by year, we have seen
no progress on the number of those dying accidentally from gunshot
wounds.
Shame on the NRA for spreading its paranoic world view to stop
legitimate scientific research from making guns just a little bit more
safe.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations.
The NRA arguments that the Centers of Disease Control research is
``junk science'' is, of course, specious. Does the NRA know more about
science than the New England Journal of Medicine?
The NRA protestations that the research is duplicated elsewhere is
spurious. Even the GAO disagrees.
So what is the NRA afraid of? They are afraid that legitimate science
will conclude that having a gun in the home is dangerous. They are
afraid that consumers will learn that a gun in the home increases the
chances of suicide and accidental deaths--particularly among children.
Last year, I joined with my Republican friend Steve Horn in a
bipartisan letter to restore these important CDC funds. I hope that
this amendment will have similar bipartisan support.
We need to prove to the American people that when the NRA says jump,
Congress doesn't put on its gym shorts.
Everyone--everyone except the extremists at the NRA--understands that
this CDC research is necessary and objective. Let's show that we can
rise above the paranoid rantings of the NRA to do something to make gun
ownership a little bit more safe.
Support this amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, 145,000 people die each year from injuries
in our society, including those sustained in motor vehicle crashes,
fires, drownings, falls, poisonings, suicide, and homicide. Injury is
the leading cause of death and disability for our Nation's children and
young adults. Those injuries cost our country more than $224 billion a
year in direct medical care and rehabilitation as well as lost wages
and productivity. That is an increase of 42 percent in the last decade
alone.
Is injury a proper subject for our Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention? Of course it is. Only $2.6 million of $46.3 million goes to
gun-related research. It also goes for car crashes. What do they
examine when they look at car crashes? They look at how the cars are
equipped, how the cars are used, how the drivers are trained. Should we
not also look at the same injury result regarding guns? Of course we
should do that. Of course, we should study how we can make society
safer and how we can reduce injuries.
The CDC work on firearms injuries is not duplicated anywhere else in
the Government. Unlike other agencies, CDC uses the same public health
model to prevent firearms injury that it does with other public health
problems. It identifies the problem, examines the risk factors,
develops interventions, and evaluates what works. This is an area we
should be addressing. CDC has done it.
The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] have made absolutely certain that the
information cannot be used to advocate gun control in any way. I
believe this amendment is a very, very proper amendment. To take away
the $2.6 million makes no sense at all. We are making good progress
here. It is not being misused. This is simply an attempt by the NRA to
remove guns, which cause a great deal of injury and death in our
society, from a list of other instruments that do. There is no rational
reason for doing that. They should be examined as well.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague
from Arkansas for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, Centers for Disease Control, Centers for Disease
Control. The words are not real long, only a couple of syllables. Look
up the word ``disease'' in the dictionary, at least any legitimate
dictionary. I have done it. There is no reference in any dictionary
that I can find that says that accidents or handgun injuries or murders
are a disease. There is a reason why they are not found within a
definition of disease. They are not diseases.
Let us talk about honestry and truth in government. The Centers for
Disease Control, all of us ought to agree, and but for the political
agenda on the other side here most Members do agree, that the Centers
for Diesease Control have not eradicated disease. In other words, they
have work left to do, very important work they could be doing. Yet they
are devoting scarce resources for a political agenda that is, pure and
simple, a political agenda.
If my colleagues from New York and other States want to do away with
handguns, that is fine, from their standpoint. Or if people on my side
of the aisle do not like handguns and want to outlaw them, do it, but
do it honestly. Propose legislation to outlaw them. Propose an
amendment to the Constitution doing away with the second amendment. But
do not take an institution that has done so much good work and cause it
to lose credibility further, as it has already done, by engaging in a
political agenda. This is a political agenda.

[[Page H7284]]

The political agenda is well-documented. You can look at publications
such as the Injury Prevention Network, which is funded in part by CDC,
and which engages, by the very terms of its publication, in illegal
lobbying activity. It recommends picketing. It recommends lobbying. As
a matter of fact, the kind of work these organizations engage in with
Federal funds is so bad that even when I wrote to the director of CDC,
Dr. Satcher, he had to agree with it, and said it is improper what they
are advocating here.
There is a political agenda at work here that ought to be of concern
to all of us on both sides of the aisle. It is called politics.
Politics should not be injected into the CDC. One does not also have to
look beyond simply the organizations themselves that the National
Century for Injury Prevention and Control or whatever is engaged in.
They are very clearly, very explicitly, antigun lobbies.
Again, if colleagues on either side of the aisle support those
organizations, support what they do, then come up front and say so, and
say we need to do something to get handguns off the streets of America.
But do not do it through an organization dedicated explicitly to
disease control.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle-Lowey amendment.
Defunding critical injury prevention and control research and
outreach is a dangerous precedent. Over the years, this lifesaving
research has enjoyed bipartisan support. We must not let politics cloud
the need to fund meritorious science in this area. We did not allow
such to interfere with the conduct of research on cancer, AIDS, and
other areas which threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of
Americans. And, we must not prevent critical research in the area of
firearm and other injuries as well.
While CDC conducts research on the prevention and control of injuries
from fires, drownings, and poisonings as well, the concern appears to
be with respect to firearm injuries. CDC is not working the area of
firearms injury prevention and safety for political reasons. It is
working in the area because of the tremendous number of Americans
injured or killed with firearms. According to the American Academy of
Pediatrics, firearms injuries are in fact the fourth leading cause of
years of potential life lost, and is the second leading cause of injury
fatality in the United States. Firearms are the leading cause of death
for African American youth ages 15 to 24, and is the second leading
cause of death among white youth in this same age group. Like cancer,
AIDS, and heart disease, this is a major public health problem that
must be addressed.
Applications for the CDC's injury control research grants are peer
reviewed by the scientific community prior to funding. In fact, its
peer review process is modeled after that used by the National
Institutes of Health which we strongly support.
For over three decades now, firearms fatalities have steadily
increased in the United States. It is projected that if current trends
continue, by the year 2000, they will be the leading cause of injury
death. the World Health Organization has in fact issued a resolution
declaring that violence is a leading worldwide public health problem,
and designating the prevention of violence as a public health priority.
Let's do what's right. Let's continue to protect children and families
across this country. Support the restoration of $2.6 million to the
CDC's Injury Prevention and Control Program.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to this critical
lifesaving amendment.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is a simple
debate between spending money on health care needs of people in low-
income and rural areas and spending money on a politically correct
study that some of our colleagues in some parts of the country think is
very important.
My colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, made the point
very well earlier: What is the Centers for Disease Control doing
studying a politically correct idea that some few people in this
country think is important? This is a classic idea of a Federal agency
that has grown appendages over the years that have nothing to do with
the original mandate that Congress set up in the first place.
If our friends from New York or other States in the country or other
cities believe that this study is important, why do they not go to
their local citizens in their cities, why do they not go to their
States, and ask them to pay more tax money to fund a politically
correct study like this? Why do they not tell them it is a great idea
and raise new tax money for something like this? Why do they think the
Federal Government ought to be studying such an issue?
There is not a one of us in this Congress who believes that kids
should have guns, that people should be using firearms for any reasons
aside from sport. The law-abiding citizens of this country use
firearms. We are for that, but we are not for firearm abuse or misuse
in any way. So we would encourage everyone here to think about that.
We are not talking about a vital function for the Centers for Disease
Control. We need to look after the needs of our people and our
communities, but we cannot stand here and say it is more important to
fund something like this, as opposed to giving people in need health
care that they need in low-income and rural areas. If Members love this
idea, they should go back and ask their local citizens to raise tax
money locally to fund a crazy idea like this.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment. This amendment will restore $2.6 million in funding
for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
This funding was cut in committee in a misguided attempt to stop the
NCIPC's research into the prevention of firearms injuries, based on the
allegation that such research masquerades as Government-funded gun
control advocacy. The cut also represents a profound misunderstanding
of the important work of the NCIPC.
The NCIPC is tasked with undertaking medical and scientific studies
of issues affecting the public health. Such work is validated by a
number of improvements in public health in recent decades, particularly
as it relates to automobiles. Scientific research into car accidents
has led to improvements in car design, road engineering, driver
education, and drunk-driving prevention.
Mr. Chairman, regardless of our views on gun control, there seems to
be general agreement in this body that our Nation is suffering an
epidemic of gun violence. Firearms are the second-leading cause of
death for children and young adults; in 10 States they are the leading
cause. Shootings are the leading cause of death for black teenagers,
and the second-leading cause of death for white teenagers.
NCIPC's research on firearms violence may bring improvements in gun
design, training, and methods of storage. Moreover, the committee cut
in NCIPC funding will not end the center's firearms research. Instead,
the center is likely to reallocate funds from other important violence
prevention programs, such as combating violence against women.
Furthermore, gun control opponents who persist in their belief that
NCIPC has been advocating gun control can take heart from the provision
already in the bill which prohibits the CDC from using injury
prevention and control funds to advocate or promote gun control.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Lowey-Castle
amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, Mr.

[[Page H7285]]

Chairman, and for her leadership in bringing this important amendment
to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it. The National Center
for Injury Prevention and Control provides the Nation with information
that is crucial, reliable, and well-respected among experts about the
incidence of and extent to which injuries, including those which result
from automobile accidents, fires, domestic violence, bicycle accidents,
and guns affect our lives, and identify strategies for reducing these
injuries, many of which are fatal.
The Lowey amendment addresses the problem the committee created in
symbolic action that will have real effects on America's children and
families when it eliminated funds. The gun injury crisis facing our
Nation, especially our children, must not be ignored and cannot be
hidden. Firearms violence from homicides, suicide, or, and this is
important, accidental shootings, killed 5,751 children aged 1 to 19 in
1993. Child deaths from guns in a year are the equivalent of more than
the deaths of 205 classrooms of children. We need CDC research and
expertise to help inform the Nation, to help gun owners have safety. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to point
out that violence and firearms-related research will not be undermined
by a transfer of $2.6 million from the CDC's NCIPC to area health
education centers, because firearms violence is studied already by a
number of agencies within the Department of Justice, including the
National Institutes of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics as
well as the Bureau of Justice Assistance and other programs.
In fact, Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an NCIPC grantee recipient who has
received millions of taxpayer dollars to study firearms, recently
received a grant from the Department of Justice to study firearms
violence, a clear indication of the duplicative nature of NCIPC's work
in this area. I want to point out that a number of studies are
currently involved, studying the cause and effect of injuries caused by
firearms, and I see this transfer as not a threat to that research, but
merely cutting one area of the funding.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment to restore funding for the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control. This research at the CDC not only increases our
understanding of the effects of firearms on our society but may also
aid us in finding ways to prevent firearm deaths and injuries.
Opponents of this research maintain that it is used to further a
political agenda. But acknowledging the 37,000 firearm deaths each year
is not political posturing; it is recognizing that firearms pose a
major threat to the health and well-being of our society.

Those who oppose this research should speak with the police officers
who risk a face-off with a deadly weapon each time they put on their
uniform. They should go to the emergency rooms in my district and
across the Nation where doctors and nurses deal with wreckage left by
gun violence day and night.
They should see the skyrocketing costs of health care to those who
have been affected by this.
They should visit the children who have seen close friends and
neighbors taken away by firearms--or talk, as I have, with the family
of a 6-year-old accidentally killed in a gang shooting.
They would learn then that this research is not about advancing an
agenda, but about combating a growing epidemic of violence.
Already this Congress has tried to repeal the ban on assault weapons
enacted in the 1994 crime bill. A majority of Americans oppose making
it easier to get deadly weapons. Let's not deprive them of the one
weapon they can use in response--knowledge.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowey-Castle amendment.

{time} 1300

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
primarily because the funding for the amendment comes from the Area
Health Education Centers Program. Establishing priorities is always
difficult for each of us but my support for the AHEC Program
specifically stems from the fact that rural America still is in
desperate need of health care providers.
While there is talk of physician gluts in some parts of the country,
rural America faces exactly the opposite with regard to its needs for
physicians. In Texas several AHEC Programs have a direct impact on the
supply and support of rural providers in my district and all over the
State. The AHEC Program has a proven track record of successfully
improving the supply and support of health practitioners. To me,
keeping the funds in this program is a much higher priority for dollars
spent than what this amendment proposes. Therefore, I urge a ``no''
vote on the Lowey-Castle amendment.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the
amendment that is being offered and express my support for the
committee position in the bill and ask that Members vote accordingly.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
restore $2.6 million to support vital research into injury reduction
and violence prevention.
Forty thousand Americans, almost 6,000 children, are killed by
firearms every year. In communities across this Nation, parents must
put their children to bed at night fearing that they might be shot in
their sleep by a stray bullet. The National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control has taken a scientific approach to studying this
problem. That is why their work has passed muster with the New England
Journal of Medicine's peer review process and with the American Medical
Association. But apparently the NRA is fearful that the facts may move
concerned Americans to want to do something about the problem. I think
the fact that thousands of Americans are shot every year is a real
problem. I think the lives of our children are so important that maybe,
just maybe, this Congress should for once say ``no'' to the NRA and do
something about our children being shot.
All the authors of this amendment ask is that we not be afraid to
gather the facts about gun-related violence in America so we may know
better how to deal with this problem and how to prevent it. Vote for
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] has the right
to close. It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has only one remaining speaker and he has 2
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Arkansas has 2 minutes remaining,
and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment to restore $2.6 million in funding for the National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
The Center is the only Government entity that addresses the issue of
injury in a comprehensive manner.
But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I
received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of
Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention
program:

[[Page H7286]]

the crossfire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to
see this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of
violence has served to strengthen my resolve to do something
about it on a personal and professional level.

Continued support for the injury prevention program would allow
scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis, to
continue their work. Vote for the Lowey-Castle amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Castle amendment
to restore $2 million in funding for the National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control.
The Center is the only Government entity that addresses the issue of
injury in a comprehensive manner and encourages an interdisciplinary
approach to decreasing the burden that injuries place on society--
140,000 people in the United States die of injuries each year, and many
thousands more suffer permanently disabling injuries. These deaths and
disabilities lead to loss of productive years of life, as injuries are
primarily a disease of the young and the leading killer of persons
under age 44. Many injuries can be prevented, at a much lower cost than
treating them. In addition, the severity and long-term effect of
injuries that do occur can be minimized through effective treatment and
early rehabilitation.
But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I
received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of
Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention
Program.
Dr. Degutis states:

I have seen the increasing level of gun violence in New
Haven and the surrounding areas. I have seen children die and
adolescents face permanent disability due to spinal cord
injuries and head injuries. Not all of these victims are
victims of interpersonal violence. Many have attempted
suicide. In the case of children, several have been
unintentionally shot by other children, or caught in the
cross fire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to see
this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of violence
has served to strengthen my resolve to do something about it
on a personal and professional level.

Continued support for the Injury Prevention Program would allow
scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis in New
Haven, continue their work in preventing a disease that has its
greatest impact on young people. Projects funded through the Injury
Prevention Program have already had an impact in decreasing injury
morbidity and mortality from recreational activities, fires, bicycle
crashes, falls, domestic violence and other injury events. Restoring
the funds for the center in New Haven will provide the opportunity for
areas of research that have been ignored and developing interventions
to decrease the toll that injury takes on our citizens.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, page 26, line 9 has very binding language
as far as the CDC funding is concerned.
It says as follows: Those funds may not be used to advocate or
promote gun control. They will not be used for that purpose.
As far as the rural health care argument is concerned, that
particular budget, before this amendment which would add $2.6 million,
before the change in appropriations, is going to go up 12.8 percent.
With the additional money, it would go up 23 percent. All we are trying
to do is to have the CDC budget stay the same.
As to politically correct study aspects, the CDC has been dealing in
these issues for a long time: Motor vehicle crashes, fires, drownings,
falls, poisonings, suicide, and homicide. The Center's research has led
to all manner of recommendations in this country with respect to
helmets, with respect to storing guns and bullets separately, in
dealing with all of the problems of injuries in this country. More
people are dying by injuries every year in this country. We simply need
to do something about it. There is a place for CDC to do this. There is
a place to look at what we can do to prevent injuries and deaths from
guns. It is not gun control. Please vote for the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chair that each of the
three participants with time now is down to one speaker, so the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 2 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again trying to separate symbol from
substance, the bill language already clearly says that none of the
funds made available for injury prevention may be used to advocate or
promote gun control, courtesy of the Livingston-Obey amendment. So that
problem is taken care of.
The report language makes clear that CDC may continue to engage in
all legitimate research and analysis. All it says is that the committee
expects research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded
through an impartial peer review process. It says, ``The committee does
not believe it is the role of the CDC to advocate or promote policies
to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage responsible private
gun ownership.''
We have already been told by supporters of the Lowey amendment that
they no longer have any objection to that language. That means we
simply have a choice about where the dollars ought to go.
One can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that. All I would
say is that I think the dollars are best spent if they remain where the
committee put them in the Area Health Education Centers account. That
has been a very tiny account. It is only $23 million.
If you think $23 million is enough to spread around to all of the
underserved rural areas of the country and the underserved urban areas
of the country, you are looking at a different country than I am. Those
underserved areas badly need those added resources. That is where the
committee puts them. I would urge Members to make a choice on that
basis and oppose the Lowey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the
points that were brought out in this debate, because again I invite my
colleagues who support the NRA, who believe that the individual citizen
has the right to carry a gun, to join us in support of this amendment.
I do that for the following reasons: First, I would like to clarify
that the CDC's mission is to promote health, quality of life, by
preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
We have heard from doctors like Dr. Lundberg that violence is a
public health emergency. We are not talking about taking away anyone's
gun. This is not an advocacy amendment. We are talking about preventing
violence. This is not duplicative. We have seen from studies that CDC
does not duplicate the work of any other Federal agency or department
in its work on firearm injuries. It focuses on the prevention of
firearm injuries before they occur. The Department of Justice focuses
on incarceration of offenders after the shootings occur. So we are not
talking about taking away guns, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about
preventing violence. That is why this agency has done such important
work on conflict resolution, helping to prevent violence, working in
our communities, working to prevent domestic violence. That is what
this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge
Members to work with me to stop the violence that pervades our
communities and our country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey] for 2 minutes.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Centers for Disease Control was given
$75 million more than last year in this particular budget. But that is
for disease control. It is not for political advocacy.
So that the people here who are going to vote will know what the
attitude of the Senate is, I have a letter here addressed to the
chairman of the subcommittee in the Senate from 10 Senators, including
Trent Lott, Don Nickles, and Larry Craig, who are part of the
leadership. In that letter it states here,

One of the most egregious of these is contained in a
publication called the Injury Prevention Network newsletter
which was funded by a grant from the NCIPC. This newsletter
contained purely political statements and appears to be
dissuading individuals from voting for certain political
party members.

That is nothing but a lobbying group.
I have another letter from the Help Network which is sponsored by
NCIPC. In refusing to allow someone to come to one of the seminars that
was provided by the Center, it stated: ``Your organization clearly does
not share these beliefs and therefore does not meet the criteria for
attendance at the meeting.''
What are those beliefs? It is intended to be a meeting of like-minded
individuals who represent organizations that believe handgun violence
is a public

[[Page H7287]]

health crisis. They excluded someone, a doctor, a medical doctor who
wanted to come to a meeting, and this was funded federally by this
particular agency.
We have had a decline in gun accidents. I want to be more specific on
that. From 1967 to 1986 there was a rise in the number of handguns
owned by 173 percent. The number of violent accidents that happened was
reduced by two-thirds during that same period of time.
The NRA has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever. It has not
testified. I ask Members to vote against this amendment.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the Denver Post began its
editorial supporting my legislation calling for objective scientific
information about gun deaths the following way:

The often overly emotional debate surrounding gun violence
in America disguises a curious lack of solid statistical
information about firearms and death. America needs better,
more objective information if it is to formulate rational
public policy.

The debate on guns has been guided for too many years by glands.
Let's give our brains a chance to figure out how we reduce the number
of lives cut short by gun violence.
The Lowey-Castle amendment restores the Injury Prevention and Control
Program to its fiscal year 1996 level of $43.19 million. This is what
the subcommittee approved for the program before the NRA exerted its
influence.
The Lowey-Castle amendment gives us a chance to rationally talk about
gun and gun violence in a way where we are dealing with untainted
science, rather than politicized rhetoric.
Unbiased facts on guns and death would improve public policy. The
Lowey-Castle amendment will allow the American people to get those
objective facts.
CDC's approach to violence prevention is based on science--good
science. To ensure this level of credibility, the research on firearm
injury prevention passes through two tough peer-review processes.
This science can yield answers to questions being asked in
communities around the country: How can we curb the number of
unintentional deaths and injuries from firearms? Can we do anything to
prevent violence in the streets, violence in the home, and violence in
the schools?
In 1992 alone, firearms were responsible for approximately 1,500
unintentional deaths and an undetermined number of suicide attempts and
non-fatal injuries. Are we not to try to figure out why and see how
these unintentional injuries could be prevented? When Americans were
dying by the hundreds due to automobile accidents, we turned to science
to help us figure out how to prevent these deaths. The result?
Seatbelts and child restraints. Perhaps if we take a scientific
approach to firearms, we can find a similar solution.
Let's give our brains a chance to treat violence as a major public
health problem that can be solved. Vote for the Lowey-Castle amendment.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the amendment offered by my colleagues from New York and
Delaware. This amendment calls for the reinstatement of $2.6 million
for the Centers for Disease Control. Specifically, these funds would go
to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC]. The
NCIPC has produced studies relating to a multitude of issues addressing
violence in America. For example, because of the work of this national
center, we now know the effects of abuse on women and the preventive
measures that will help to provide better intervention programs for
batterers. The NCIPC also provided a study on the effects gun violence
has on our health care system.
I want to say to my colleagues that this is a serious public health
issue that we cannot ignore. During hearings that my subcommittee held
last Congress on ``Violence as a Public Health Issue,'' witness after
witness discussed how violence in this society is having an
increasingly negative impact on the public health sector. For example,
the Centers for Disease Control reported that firearms have accounted
for more than 90 percent of the upturn in homicides in young Americans
since the mid-1980's. A recent Washington Post article reported guns
kill more teenagers than cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and other
diseases combined. In 1990, 57 percent of African-American teenagers
who died, died because of a bullet. This issue is not only about lives
lost, but also an issue of bad economics. In New York City hospitals,
nearly 10 percent of all emergency room visits, that were the direct
result of violence, are without coverage. This does not include
followup visits. Simply stated, the cost to hospitals is enormous.
Let us make no mistake: The Injury Prevention and Control Center is
not promoting gun control; it is promoting new approaches to
controlling violence and reducing injuries. The fact that most
traumatic injuries are due to gun violence is not a rationale for
eliminating funding for this important center's work. In this day and
age doesn't it seem only reasonable that we should help promote any
Federal program dedicated to the prevention of violence? I, therefore,
urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle
amendment.
Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime
bill, arguing that crime prevention efforts--like shelters for battered
women and rehab for drug addicts--were nothing more than ``pork.'' Now,
the NRA and members of the new majority, have aimed their assault
weapons at the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. The NRA succeeded in
pushing an amendment to cut $2.6 million--the exact amount budgeted for
the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC]--from the
CDC's budget.
The NCIPC does research on injuries and links it to health outcomes.
They have found that there are 56,000 violence-related fatalities a
year, which includes 37,000 deaths from firearm injuries. They also
estimate that there are approximately 100,000 nonfatal shootings each
year--and that the resulting injuries burden an already over-extended
health care system.
Other projects have included: Examining the effectiveness of methods
like interventions with batterers, preventative education, and better
enforcement of protective laws by the police and court system; and
helping states to collect data on violence against women and services
available to these women while evaluating training programs for health
care providers in order to identify, treat, and refer victims of
violence.
It's clear to me that these studies don't fit the NRA's accusations
that the NCIPC engages in ``recklessly biased research and blatant
political advocacy.'' But, it should come as no surprise that the NRA,
and members of the radical right want to kill this program--because
it's the year of an all-out assault on American women and children.
The NCIPC's research is vital in our efforts to learn what causes gun
violence, violence against women, and what we can do to prevent it.
That the NRA squeals that programs like these are ``pork'' shows their
desperation--they can't further their extremist goals if we engage in
studies and discussion of gun violence as a public health issue. The
NRA has fought to kill NCIPC funding for one reason, they know they
can't really argue against studies that will protect our children, and
reduce deaths due to domestic violence. In this case, the NRA and the
radical right are saying, if you fear it, kill it--and in doing so,
they are blocking progress in ending violence against women and their
families.
Vote to end family violence, support the Lowey-Castle amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
will be postponed.
Are there further amendments at this point?

amendment offered by mr. ney

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ney: On page 22, line 22, strike
``$3,080,190,000'' and insert ``$3,082,190,000'' and on page
57 after line 13, insert:
Sec. 215. Amounts available in this title for Congressional
and legislative affairs, public affairs, and
intergovernmental affairs activities are hereby reduced by
$2,000,000.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1969 Congress passed the Black Lung
Benefits Act upon realizing that specialized pulmonary medical services
were needed in the Nation's coal fields. They also realized that
Federal support would be needed to develop these services.
The main goal of the Black Lung Clinics Program has always been to
keep respiratory patients out of the hospital by utilizing preventive
medicine in the fields. Mr. Chairman, these patients are extremely
expensive to treat. The Black Lung Clinics Program also guarantees that
respiratory disease patients will have the medical care they need even
if they cannot afford it.
However, this year the Black Lung Clinics Program is funded at the
level of $1.9 million which is the same level requested by the
President in his fiscal year 1997 budget proposal. Unfortunately this
would represent about a 50-percent reduction from the fiscal year

[[Page H7288]]

1996 funding level of $3.8 million. It should also be noted that in
fiscal year 1996 the Black Lung Clinics Program received a funding
reduction of about 8 percent. My amendment merely restores funding for
Black Lung Clinics to the original level.
It has been recently brought to my attention, and I hope my
colleagues listen closely to this point, that some confusion has arisen
between the Black Lung Clinics Program and the Black Lung Benefits
Program. as you know, the Black Lung Benefits Program pays disability
and medical benefits only to those coal miners that are found to have
black lung disease. On the other hand, the Black Lung Clinics Program
currently has 40 black lung clinic sites and 27 mobile units throughout
the United States, providing preventive health care to over 165,000
coal miners in our country.

{time} 1315

Mr. Chairman, coal miners have helped to build this great Nation, and
they made it what it is today. Through no fault of their own, many
miners are now constricted by a variety of respiratory illnesses
contracted through occupational hazards, and that is associated with
the mining of coal.
I ask my colleagues for their support in restoring funding for the
Black Lung Clinics Program. I can assure my colleagues that this money
will be spent wisely on hard-working Americans whose industries have
been decimated by previous acts and rules and regulations around 1990.
Mr. Chairman, I also would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman
from Illinois, Chairman Porter, and his staff for their efforts, also
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and his staff for their efforts
on this, and the diligent work of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Poshard, who worked with this to help make this amendment come about.
Also the support of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans], the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Weller], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
I again urge your support of a very important amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we believe very strongly that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has targeted a very, very serious problem. Black
lung is a pernicious disease. We support the amendment, commend him for
his leadership and urge its adoption.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, on this side, let me say I have mixed feelings about
the gentleman's amendment because I do agree with his effort to add
funding for the Black Lung Clinic's Program. I am dubious about the
fairness of taking the funding from the area the gentleman takes it
from, but with the clear understanding that the source of this will
have to be fixed and rearranged in conference, I, at this point, would
have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would accept it on
this side.
Mr. POSHARD, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the
Ney amendment. I represent a district in southeastern Illinois that
once was home to a large and prosperous coal mining industry--one that
employed thousands of miners and provided a strong economy for our
region. Unfortunately, many of these miners, who have since lost their
jobs, now suffer from black lung disease.
Withut a strong Black Lung Clinic Program, many of the coal miners in
my district and across the Nation suffering from this disease will no
longer have access to needed health care services. I am afraid that
because of a weakened economy and high unemployment, many of the miners
in my district will be forced to seek more costly services.
The fact is decreasing funding for the Black Lung Clinic Program will
only increase the cost of health care for all Americans and the burden
on Federal and State governments. Those currently seeking the services
of black lung clinics do not want to be forced onto public aid and into
welfare simply because they can no longer afford and have access to
these services.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Ney amendment
to restore level funding to the Black Lung Clinic Program, and to be
champions of cost-effective health care services in America.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Ney].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

medical facilities guarantee and loan fund federal interest subsidies
for medical facilities

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of
the Public Health Service Act, $7,000,000, together with any
amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans
and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health
Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation
for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal
year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees
shall be made.

health education assistance loans program

For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as
authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as
amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the total loan principal any part of which is to be
guaranteed at not to exceed $140,000,000. In addition, for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program, $2,688,000.

vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

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

vaccine injury compensation

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

disease control, research, and training

To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of
the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201,
202, and 203 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977, and sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970; including insurance of official motor
vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, $2,153,376,000, of which $8,353,000
shall remain available until expended for equipment and
construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition,
such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which
shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition
to amounts provided herein, up to $48,400,000 shall be
available from amounts available under section 241 of the
Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center
for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available for injury prevention and control at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to
advocate or promote gun control.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair whether or not it would
be in order, if the gentleman from Illinois concurs, to ask unanimous
consent to take out of order the Condit amendment and dispose of it. I
understand that after a colloquy the gentleman has agreed to withdraw
the amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, how much time
will it take?
Mr. OBEY. I think less than 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman that by
unanimous consent that can certainly be done. Is the gentleman from
Wisconsin asking unanimous consent?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the Condit
amendment out of order at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] is
recognized for purposes of offering an amendment out of order.

amendment offered by mr. condit

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: Page 87, after line 14,
insert the following new section:

[[Page H7289]]

Sec. 515. The amount provided in this Act for ``DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Administration for Children and
Families--Refugee and entrant assistance'' is increased, and
each other amount provided in this Act that is not required
to be provided by a provision of law is reduced, by
$487,000,000 and 0.9 percent, respectively.

(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, by the end of the fiscal year, nearly 150
Hmong refugees will be reunited with their families in the 18th
Congressional District of California. It is morally right for us to
allow these families to be reunified after decades of separation.
However, it is morally imperative that the Federal Government assure
the communities of the resettlement that their new residents will not
place undue strain on already scarce local resources. Unfortunately in
the past, this commitment has never been fully met.
The underlying law, which establishes cash and medical assistance to
refugees, provides such assistance to continue for 36 months. The
appropriations bill before us today provides assistance for only 8
months. For many refugees unfamiliar with life in the United States, 8
months of assistance is simply not enough. The 8 months ends, but the
need remains for much longer. Invariably, it is the State and local
communities which are left to fill the void. This is unacceptable.
The amendment which I offer today would increase refugee cash and
medical assistance levels to the point at which they would reach their
36-month threshold authorized in law. In reality, the need is much
greater, even than that, even than my amendment today, Mr. Chairman,
proposes. Many refugees require aid as long as they live here. The
number in my amendments are the best estimates of those who administer
th program based on the broad numbers assumptions, but the fact is
clear, the money in the appropriation bill on the floor today does not
even begin to cover the cost of the refugees and assimilate the
refugees into their new communities.
The burden they are placing on social services is breaking the back
of communities like my home community of Merced County. In Merced
County, CA, in my district, the unemployment rate is over 20 percent,
and almost half of the population is in some sort of public assistance
program. Clearly, communities such as Merced need to be compensated,
and this needs to be thoroughly thought out, and they need help under
these very difficult circumstances in assimilating additional refugees
into the community.
We must begin to increase our sensitivity to this issue. Granted,
many of these problems transcend finances. It is undisputed that
structural changes are necessary in the way we resettle refugees, and I
have been working with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the
chairman of the committee on legislation to achieve this much-needed
change. But in the meantime, the issue of money is not trivial. It is
extremely important.
I am pleased that this year the office of refugee resettlement
received a comparably generous level of funding in this lean budgetary
time. Yet the amount is still pale in comparison to what local
communities need and to the funding level originally intended by
Congress. I am hopeful that the committee in the future will impart the
greatness, at least discuss the importance of the Federal
responsibility in this area, and would ask the chairman and the ranking
member if they would just for a moment engage me in a colloquy on this
matter.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage my colleague from
California in a colloquy. I understand that this is an issue of Federal
accountability, and I share the gentleman's concern for local areas
strapped by the demands of refugee resettlement. While there may be
more to be done, I believe that the increase in funding for the office
of refugee settlement over the administration's request represents our
real commitment to these programs.
However, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman in the future
to assure that this issue continues to receive the committee's full
attention. I will be happy to work with the gentleman from California
[Mr. Condit] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] during the
conference on this matter.
Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my timing, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
for entering into this colloquy. I also want to thank the chairman for
all his hard work on this legislation. I realize the difficult
balancing act which it represents, and so I greatly appreciate the
gentleman's effort to protect the current funding for refugee
assistance. It also goes without saying any additional funding which
may emerge in conference with the Senate would be most helpful.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I commend him
for his successful effort in assuring a more substantive level of
funding for refugees and his assistance in the bill which is before us
today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for helping us to raise
this issue because it is important for Members to understand what is
happening. I happen to share the problem that the gentleman has in his
district.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman referred to Hmong refugees. For those people
who do not understand who they are, during the Vietnam war, the Hmong
did our CIA's dirty work in Laos. They took a lot of guff. They
suffered a lot of casualties. When the war effort collapsed, a lot of
them came to this country. More are now coming. If we did not want to
incur more obligation to the Hmong, then we should not have asked for
their help undercover during the Vietnam war. It is just that simple.
They performed a service for this country and that is the reason that
they are now here, because their country has collapsed. The problem,
however, is that when the Federal Government made a foreign policy
decision to allow them into this country, it did not follow up that
decision with the provision to deliver adequate support to the local
districts so that education costs, welfare costs, and other costs would
not have to be borne by local taxpayers who never made that foreign
policy decision.
That is why, during the immigration bill, I tried to offer an
amendment which would correct the problem, because I think that there
is a bigger problem than just the absence of money. I think the current
system is broken. The problem is that refugees are abandoned at the
doorstep of the local welfare office. This condemns those refugees to
the welfare treadmill and it condemns local communities to having to
pay large amounts of their support.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I tried on the immigration bill last year
to require private voluntary organizations to actually assume their
obligations and become true sponsors of refugees through an intensive
case management approach of job skills and that our proposal would have
barred able-bodied refugees from any cash assistance during their first
year in the United States.
This approach was tried on a pilot basis by Catholic Charities in
Chicago and San Diego. They reduced welfare levels to a very low level.
It was also tried by the Cuban American National Foundation in Florida.
Both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration tried to
adopt this approach but they were prevented in court from doing so, and
I am extremely unhappy that the Committee on Rules prevented us from
attacking this problem on the immigration bill.
But I want to assure the gentleman that my interest remains and I
know the gentleman has already joined in sponsoring that legislation
with me. But I would invite other Members who are aware of the problem
to join us, as well, because it is a serious problem. Local taxpayers
should not be left holding the bag for a foreign policy decision, and I
congratulate the gentleman for helping us to once again bring this to
the attention of the House

[[Page H7290]]

and look forwarding to the opportunity to work with him.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the chairman, Mr.
Porter, and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, for their willingness to
discuss this matter. This is an important matter to, I think, a lot of
people in my district, as well as the district of the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and probably other people throughout the country.
We are not opposed to the people coming to our district, I want to
underline that. We are not opposed to that. We just simply think it is
unfair to bring them there and not give them the wherewithal to
assimilate them into the community. It is unfair to them. It is unfair
to the citizens around them. It puts an undue burden on the social
structure, social services in the community. We welcome them there, we
want them there, but we want them to be able to be constructive,
important components of the community.
So with that, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the
ranking member, and I look forward to working with both of them.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

In addition, $33,642,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40151
and 40261 of Public Law 103-322.

National Institutes of Health

national cancer institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $2,385,741,000.

amendment offered by mr. goodling

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--National
Institutes of Health''--
(1) in the item relating to ``national cancer institute'',
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$48,902,000)'';
(2) in the item relating to ``national heart, lung, and
blood institute'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $29,581,000)'';
(3) in the item relating to ``national institute of dental
research'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $4,499,000)'';
(4) in the item relating to ``national institute of
diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases'', after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$17,270,000)'';
(5) in the item relating to ``national institute of
neurological disorders and stroke'', after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,826,000)'';
(6) in the item relating to ``national institute of allergy
and infectious diseases'', after the dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(reduced by $31,124,000)'';
(7) in the item relating to ``national institute of general
medical sciences'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $20,175,000)'';
(8) in the item relating to ``national institute of child
health and human development'', after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $13,293,000)'';
(9) in the item relating to ``national eye institute'',
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$6,816,000)'';
(10) in the item relating to ``national institute of
environmental health sciences'', after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $7,058,000)'';
(11) in the item relating to ``national institute of
aging'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $10,947,000)'';
(12) in the item relating to ``national institute of
arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases'', after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$5,319,000)'';
(13) in the item relating to ``national institute of
deafness and other communication disorders'', after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$4,566,000)'';
(14) in the item relating to ``national institute of
nursing research'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,385,000)'';
(15) in the item relating to ``national institute on
alcohol abuse and alcoholism'', after the dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $4,857,000)'';
(16) in the item relating to ``national institute on drug
abuse'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $10,377,000)'';
(17) in the item relating to ``national institute of mental
health'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $14,462,000)'';
(18) in the item relating to ``national center for research
resources'', after the dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $9,311,000)'';
(19) in the item relating to ``national center for human
genome research'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $6,923,000)'';
(20) in the item relating to ``john e. fogarty
international center'', after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $490,000)'';
(21) in the item relating to ``national library of
medicine'', after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,251,000)'';
(22) in the item relating to ``office of the director'',
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$5,450,000)''; and
(23) in the item relating to ``buildings and facilities'',
after the first dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $19,118,000)''.
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--special
education'', after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the
following: ``(increased by $291,000,000)''.

{time} 1330

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that
10 minutes be allocated to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and 10 minutes to myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, to put it very bluntly, my amendment
would increase the Federal appropriation for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. IDEA is the Federal law supporting
our Nation's special education system. It was originally passed 21
years ago. It was supposed to be a partnership between the Federal
Government, States, and local government, but that partnership has
disintegrated. But before that I would say that last month we passed by
voice vote a comprehensive reform of IDEA. In that bill the central
partnership of IDEA remained unchanged. But let me tell my colleagues
what the partnership was all about 21 years ago.
Twenty-one years ago this Congress said we have a partnership with
State and local governments. We will tell you exactly what you will do,
how you will do it, when you will do it; we will mandate everything,
but as partners, we are going to give you 40 percent of the money for
all of our mandates.
Anybody have any idea how much they got last year? Less than 7
percent; 21 years later our partnership has provided less than 7
percent of the 40 percent we promised.
We should have been promising 100 percent if we were going to mandate
100 percent. The greatest problem facing local school districts at the
present time is this tremendously unfunded mandate from the Federal
Government, IDEA. It costs almost 2.5 times more to educate an IDEA
student than it does to educate any other student. And without Federal
support, the only place the local districts have to get that money is
to take it from the rest of the students because of a Federal mandate.
Now, for 20 years, as a minority member, I tried to get the then
Democrat majority to live up to the obligation that we said we were
going to carry out when we passed the legislation. In fact, in a
bipartisan effort on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from
Michigan, Congressman Kildee, and I worked out a plan where we would
get close to the 40 percent over a 5-year period simply by increasing
by 5 percent per year. But look what has happened. We promised 40
percent and we should get there.
In fact, Mr. Perkins, when he was the chairman and when IDEA was
originally on the floor in 1975, said,

Members should understand that while the legislation will
place the Federal Government in a more active role of
financing the education of handicapped children, it does so
in gradual fashion and in a manner which can only be
described as fiscally responsible.

Senator Randolph said,

This measure will provide for a gradually increasing
Federal fiscal role for the education of handicapped
children. . . . Beginning in fiscal year 1978 a new formula
will target Federal monies for handicapped children by paying
a specified percentage of the

[[Page H7291]]

average per pupil expenditure multiplied by the number of
handicapped children receiving special education and related
services in a State.
This percentage will increase gradually from 5 percent of
the average per pupil expenditure in 1978 to 40 percent in
1982.

Not 1996; 1982. Our support is going down, folks. And what is
happening to local school districts? The cost of special education has
skyrocketed. It has skyrocketed for many reasons; first of all, a
number of children are born to drug-addicted mothers. Second, it has
skyrocketed because of expenses that local districts must pay defending
themselves when they get into a conflict with a parent. And there are
many other reasons.

But what happens all the time, and particularly from my side of the
aisle, they will say, boy, the cost of education today is skyrocketing
and yet education is not any better. Never does anyone say, however,
that much of that escalated cost comes from Federal Government
mandates, and this is the biggest one.
We do not mandate chapter 1; we do not mandate early childhood
education programs; we do mandate IDEA, but we do not pay for it. The
local district is caught having to pay for that.
So I merely ask that we take $291 million, not from NIH but from an
increase for NIH. Under this bill, that increase is 6.8 percent. This
amendment would make it only a 4.4-percent increase, which is a 10.5-
percent increase over the last 2 years.
Let me point out, by the time this bill is finished in conference, no
matter how much we may decrease NIH at this particular time, I
guarantee Members that it will be more than the 6.8 percent that the
House has in the bill now. And how can I say that? Because just last
week I was with the senior citizen from Pennsylvania. Excuse me, I am
the senior citizen from Pennsylvania; he is the senior Senator from
Pennsylvania. As we traveled through a disaster area in Gettysburg, he
said, ``Goodling, you can tell Porter that I already told NIH that
there is no way Porter can outbid me, that I will make sure they get
more from me than he can possibly promise them.''
It was suggested to me that this can be taken care of in conference,
and we can get this measly 1 percent increase. Take $291 million from a
$283 billion appropriations bill? Well, I would like to believe that we
could get that, but we went through this last year, and I assumed that
we would get an increase last year. Now, the negotiations were taken
out of the hands of the people that normally negotiate, but in the end,
we did not get a penny, not one penny.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Montana.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues on both sides,
and particularly on this side, to heed the wisdom of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, and I would ask my
colleagues this: Have you not heard from your school districts, your
school boards, and your local mill levy taxpayers about the cost of
your schools? Well, the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, is taking a fairly good step to try to solve that problem
of local school costs.
One of the reasons, as the gentleman has noted, that local school
costs are climbing like they are is because the Federal share, the
promised, guaranteed but reneged on Federal share of educating
America's disabled students is on the decrease. The gentleman is trying
to stop that hemorrhage, and I urge my colleagues on behalf of their
local taxpayers to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Let me again indicate that contrary to what a lady from Hanover, in
my district, called this morning to say, I am not taking money from her
sick family.
How could anything be more wrong than a statement like that? I am
trying to get a little bit of the increase to NIH moved to IDEA. I
cannot emphasize enough how much we mandated everything in that law. We
promised them 40 percent. Last year they got somewhere between 6 and 7
percent, and this year they do not get a penny more.
So I would encourage all to keep in mind that we made a great promise
21 years ago. We called it a partnership, but the partnership turned
out to be ``we will dictate from Washington everything you will do, and
you will pay for it, because we said you will pay for it.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the
amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I do that
reluctantly because first of all, I have a great respect for him, I
served on the committee for 2 years with him, and also because I agree
with most of what he said concerning the IDEA program and the problems
about mandates.
My opposition to it is not about the IDEA program or the question of
mandates; my opposition is the cuts in NIH funding. The National
Institutes of Health is really one of the crown jewels of the Federal
Government, something we can all be proud of. This is the area where
dozens and dozens of Nobel Prize winners come out of.
The National Institutes of Health is where the National Cancer
Institute is located, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.
This is where AIDS research is done.
Now, it is not all done at the National Institutes of Health; 78
percent of the money for the National Institutes of Health is given in
extramural grants to universities and research centers all over the
United States. In fact, over 1,700 institutions in the United States
receive grants from the NIH. Some 78 percent of the money goes all over
the United States, and that is what is funding AIDS research, heart
disease research, cancer research.
We have to make such touch choices when we are on Appropriations and
Budget, and really this gives a great illustration of the touch choices
we are faced with. I am a very strong believer in basic biomedical
research, and we have to continue to provide that kind of support.
I urge my colleagues, we have made the choices, we have made the
decision, let me see if we can find more money from the IDEA program,
but let us not cut the National Institutes of Health. I urge opposition
to the amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full committee and the
subcommittee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot disagree with a single word uttered
by the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, or
whatever the new title is now. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] has had a long commitment to education for the handicapped,
and I respect it and I share it.
I would simply say that the problem with the amendment is not where
he wants to put the money; it is what has to be cut in order to fund
it. The basic problem we have is that this problem cannot be fixed
under the allocation process given to us by the Speaker and by the
leadership of the Republican Party in the House.
Any time that this House decides it is going to add $11 billion above
the President's request for the Pentagon, then we have to expect that
that money is going to come out of somewhere. And that means that we
have less available to put in this bill, less available to put in
housing, less available to put in environmental protection.
That is the nub of the problem. That is why on this side of the aisle
we fiercely oppose the allocation that led this subcommittee into this
hole. At this point Mr. Goodling has no choice but to try to find a
source within this bill to fund this amendment, and the problem is the
source he has selected means that we would reduce the number of
competing research grants at NIH by 282 new researchers, we would slow
research development from the committee bill for Alzheimer's disease,
for developmental diagnostics of breast and prostate cancer, cancer
genetic studies, et cetera, et cetera.
I do not think Members want to do that. I do not think Members want
to vote against the Goodling amendment either. So what I would suggest
be done, Mr. Chairman, is that for every

[[Page H7292]]

Member in this House, no matter which party they belong to, who would
like to do what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is asking that we do, I
would suggest that you go to your leadership, explain that the
allocation process which they have supported has short-sheeted this
committee and that this subcommittee needs more resources, and we ought
not be increasing the Pentagon budget by $11 billion in the process.

{time} 1345

These decisions are not the fault of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter]; they are the fault of the allocation process which in my view
has been severely warped, which causes all of the reductions that lead
us to oppose this bill in general.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise us about the
allocation of the remaining time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the chair of the Biomedical Research Caucus.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, just as the other Members have expressed the pain that
they are sustaining at having to disagree with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my colleague, I must say that it is doubly
painful for me because we are neighbors in spirit, neighbors in
geography, neighbors in congressional districts, and I believe until
now good friends. We will see, following this presentation of mine,
whether we remain, but I think we will be on equanimity when I
terminate.
Mr. Chairman, the biomedical research that is conducted by the
National Institutes of Health has for years shown a steady progress in
the prevention of disease and fight against disease. That goes without
saying.
The programs that the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to support
also show the necessity for this society to do something about a
special problem, namely with special education.
The problem that we had in determining how to vote on this bill is,
which is an orange, which is an apple, which one will we put in our own
fruit basket?
For now it seems that we have to stick with the NIH, the orange of
this combination, because in the long run it also helps disabled
students. The NIH, if it completes its work, and, of course, it will
never complete its work, will some day bring us a startling discovery
that will prevent a whole generation perhaps of disabled students, the
very students which the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to help by
transferring this fund.
We have made a commitment to NIH because it is a national problem of
discipline in the research and bringing about of remedies for disease.
The disabled children will be helped by that.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the
authorizing committee. We work well together. We have attempted to
reflect his priorities in our appropriations, and have done the very
best that we can with limited resources to do that.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman correctly puts his finger on an area of
funding that is a very high priority for our country. Special education
for handicapped children certainly is very high on our priority list,
and he correctly points out that it is an unfunded mandate that the
Federal Government promised to meet and has fallen far short of
meeting.
I might say to the gentleman, however, that the bill, this bill
alone, this one bill, provides about $10 billion of assistance to
children with disabilities. It is provided in different ways, not just
through the education system, but through Medicaid and through SSI,
where kids are helped. That, of course, does not help the budgets of
the school districts involved, I realize. But it is not as if this
country and this Congress and this side of the aisle is not making a
very strong commitment to kids with disabilities. We are.
I might repeat a point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Gekas] just made, and I want to make it more forcefully even than he
did. That is, if we can invest money in biomedical research, we can
over time prevent the very disabilities that end up with kids having to
have special education in our schools.
So it is the primary investment that I want to support, to make
certain that we do not have a growing population of kids with
disabilities but a reducing population, and hopefully at some point in
time, absolutely none; every kid able to be in school without special
education funding and the need for special education treatment.
HIH is a priority for our country. NIH is perhaps the best money we
spend. The entire cost of biomedical research has been saved in America
by one discovery. All the costs of NIH through its entire history have
been paid for through one discovery, and there have been tens of
thousands of discoveries. It is a tremendously efficient investment for
our country. We lead the world in biomedical research. We improve
the lives of people not only in our country but everywhere on earth
through the discoveries made. There are tough choices to be made.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania in closing
that I will do everything possible in conference and in negotiations
with the White House, if I am permitted to be a part of those
negotiations, to bring up funding for this very high priority. Special
education for disabled kids is a priority for our country, and I think
the gentleman puts his finger upon a problem that we must address and
correct.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time, and I thank him for the leadership that he has shown for
biomedical research.
Mr. Chairman, the National Institutes of Health, as has been stated
by my colleagues, has done phenomenal work in terms of seeking remedies
through research, from the time a child is born through the elderly,
with women's health. This is now the midpoint in the decade of the
brain. Some incredible research has yielded some fantastic results
which it comes to juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, coming to grips with
some of the major problems we have had.
We know that the work that is being done, as one small example, that
if we arrest Alzheimer's for 5 years we save $40 billion. This is the
kind of research, as has been stated, that is going to allow these
young people who have taken advantage of the IDEA Act to find that they
have the cures.
So, Mr. Chairman, IDEA is a very good program. We can work it out in
conference. It has been funded as it was last year. Let us keep this
money in NIH. It will make a difference in health care.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairamn, in closing I want to say that, number one, I am not
taking any money that NIH presently has. They will still have a 10.5
percent increase in this Congress. But all of our biomedical research
is not going to do anything to stop the number of youngsters that will
be coming into IDEA because of mothers and fathers who are drug
addicted, and mothers who are smoking and drinking during pregnancy.
All of those things are going to continue to bring more and more young
people into IDEA.
IDEA is a mandate from the Federal Government, one of the few in this
entire bill when you get beyond Medicaid and Medicare. Yet what do we
do about it? We just give lip service. In fact, even worse than that,
as the chart shows, we decrease the amount, not increase, the amount
that we promised 21 years ago and just last month. We are down to less
than 7 percent, and who knows where we will be by the time conference
is over?
Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that the leadership that I pleaded with
for 6 months to do something about this issue will do something for
someone who plays on the team, rather than what I see in this bill,
with all sorts of increases for those who give the leadership fits on
many issues. Maybe that is the way Members get something around here,
and if that is the way it

[[Page H7293]]

is, I will have to change my sweet disposition and become a miserable
cuss.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his excellent leadership in developing a very
good bill under very difficult circumstances. The subcommittee faced a
very restricted 602(b) which made difficult choices necessary.
I want to compliment the gentleman particularly for providing
important increases for the National Institutes of Health. These
increases total $819.6 million over last year and $340.9 million over
the President's request.
But, as the chairman knows, liver disease affects 25 million people
and there has been a recent 11 percent surge in the number of people
affected by hepatitis C. Dr. Tony Fauci recently talked about the need
for ``a strong commitment to basic and clinical research'' to address
new emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. Dr. Fauci specifically
mentioned liver disease due to the hepatitis C virus as one of those
emerging diseases.
Does the gentleman from Illinois agree with me that liver disease due
to hepatitis C virus is a very serious public health problem to which
the National Institutes of Health should give priority?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree, and would encourage NIH
to sue all of the mechanisms at its disposal to create a balanced
interdisciplinary program of basic, applied, and clinical research to
learn more about the ways to treat, cure, and prevent hepatitis C.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
My second question relates to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. I understand from the private organizations which are
trying to respond to the public's need for information about liver
disease that they have experienced a fourfold increase in public
inquiries about liver disease from patients, family members and
physicians. Does the gentleman believe that the CDC has a role to play
in meeting this public demand for information on liver disease?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
yes, I certainly believe it is within the mission of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to inform the public about this serious
risk, and the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases such as
hepatitis. I would encourage the agency to work collaboratively with
national voluntary health organizations, which include professional
societies and community-based patient groups, to help meet this need.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
his response. I feel strongly that the CDC should actively pursue a
public information campaign to meet the rapid growth in public
inquiries about liver disease.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] in a colloquy regarding traumatic brain injury. As the
gentleman is aware, I have been working for 3 years for enactment of a
comprehensive bill to address the needs of those affected with
traumatic brain injury.
H.R. 248, of course, the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, passed the House
earlier this week and is expected to pass the Senate before the week is
out. We believe it will be this evening. The bill authorizes a number
of activities that are essential to those with serious brain injuries:
Prevention projects, enhanced NIH research, demonstration projects to
improve access to health services, and epidemiological data collection.
We had hoped this bill would be signed into law by the time the House
considered the Labor-HHS appropriation so that we could take the next
step to fund these important new activities. I realize that that will
not be possible under the rules of the House, but I would ask the
chairman if he would consider supporting these activities in later
action on the bill once they are authorized.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to respond to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, and want to applaud his diligent efforts to enact
legislation to address this important health problem.
As you point out, we cannot fund programs that have not yet been
authorized, but if H.R. 248 is enacted in a timely way, it is my hope
that the Senate and eventually the conferees will support its
activities.

{time} 1400

I am sure my colleagues on the committee recognize how devastating
traumatic brain injury is to our country and its citizens, and we will
do everything to be of help in this regard.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

national heart, lung, and blood institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $1,438,265,000.

national institute of dental research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$195,596,000.

national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney diseases, $819,224,000.

national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $725,478,000.

national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $1,256,149,000.

national institute of general medical sciences

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,003,722,000.

national institute of child health and human development

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $631,989,000.

national eye institute

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $333,131,000.

national institute of environmental health sciences

For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $308,258,000.

national institute on aging

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $484,375,000.

national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $257,637,000.

national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $189,243,000.

national institute of nursing research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$59,715,000.

national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $212,079,000.

national institute on drug abuse

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $487,341,000.

national institute of mental health

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$701,247,000.

national center for research resources

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $416,523,000: Provided, That
none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the
general research support

[[Page H7294]]

grants program any amount for indirect expenses in connection
with such grants: Provided further, That $37,000,000 shall be
for extramural facilities construction grants.

national center for human genome research

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$189,267,000.

john e. fogarty international center

For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $26,707,000.

national library of medicine

For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $150,093,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 1997, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.

office of the director

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $275,423,000:
Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of
not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1
percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all
National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities
the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such
appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 1
percent by any such transfers and that the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer: Provided further, That NIH
is authorized to collect third party payments for the cost of
clinical services that are incurred in National Institutes of
Health research facilities and that such payments shall be
credited to the National Institutes of Health Management
Fund: Provided further, That all funds credited to the NIH
Management Fund shall remain available for one fiscal year
after the fiscal year in which they are deposited.

buildings and facilities

For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $90,000,000 shall be for the clinical research
center: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a single contract or related contracts for the
development and construction of the clinical research center
may be employed which collectively include the full scope of
the project: Provided further, That the solicitation and
contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds''
found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

substance abuse and mental health services

For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$1,849,235,000.

retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

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

Agency for Health Care Policy and Research

health care policy and research

For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, $90,469,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom
of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to
this appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$34,700,000.

Health Care Financing Administration

grants to states for medicaid

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $75,056,618,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 1997, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 1997 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1998,
$27,988,993,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

payments to health care trust funds

For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social
Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $60,079,000,000.

program management

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, title XIII of the
Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed $1,733,125,000,
to be transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act;
together with all funds collected in accordance with section
353 of the Public Health Service Act, the latter funds to
remain available until expended, together with such sums as
may be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of
data, which shall remain available until expended: Provided,
That all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from
organizations established under title XIII of the Public
Health Service Act are to be credited to and available for
carrying out the purposes of this appropriation.

health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of
the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 1997, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

Administration for Children and Families

family support payments to states

For making payments to States or other non-Federal
entities, except as otherwise provided, under titles I, IV-A
(other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of
the Social Security Act, and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24
U.S.C. ch. 9), $13,301,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-A and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security
Act, for the last three months of the current year for
unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year,
such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-A (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X,
XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of
July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9) for the first quarter of
fiscal year 1998, $4,700,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

job opportunities and basic skills

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

low income home energy assistance

For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $900,000,000.

refugee and entrant assistance

For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $412,076,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 103-
333 for fiscal year 1995 shall be available for the costs of
assistance provided and other activities conducted in such
year and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

child care and development block grant

For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $950,000,000, which
shall be available for obligation under the same statutory
terms and conditions applicable in the prior fiscal year:
Provided, That $13,000,000 shall become available for
obligation on October 1, 1996.

social services block grant

For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the
Social Security Act, $2,480,000,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 2003(c) of such Act, the amount
specified for allocation under such section for fiscal year
1997 shall be $2,480,000,000.

children and families services programs

For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act, the Native American Programs Act
of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption
opportunities), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988,
and part B(1) of title IV of the Social Security Act; for
making payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act;
and for necessary

[[Page H7295]]

administrative expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I,
IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the
Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980, and section 126 and titles IV and V
of Public Law 100-485, $4,854,036,000, of which $531,941,000
shall be for making payments under the Community Services
Block Grant Act: Provided, That to the extent Community
Services Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds
by a State to an eligible entity as provided under the
Act, and have not been expended by such entity, they shall
remain with such entity for carryover into the next fiscal
year for expenditure by such entity consistent with
program purposes.
In addition, $27,358,000, to be derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40155,
40211 and 40241 of Public Law 103-322.

family preservation and support

For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act,
$240,000,000.

payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

For making payments to States or other non-Federal
entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act,
$4,445,031,000.
For making payments to States or other non-Federal
entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for
the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, $1,111,000,000.

Administration on Aging

aging services programs

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $810,545,000.

Office of the Secretary

general departmental management

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, $148,999,000, together with $5,851,000,
to be transferred and expended as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance
Trust Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available under
this heading for carrying out title XVII of the Public Health
Service Act, $11,500,000 shall be available until expended
for extramural construction.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $29,399,000, together with any funds, to
remain available until expended, that represent the equitable
share from the forfeiture of property in investigations in
which the Office of Inspector General participated, and which
are transferred to the Office of the Inspector General by the
Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, or the
United States Postal Service.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights,
$16,066,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be
transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1)
of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

policy research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security
Act, $9,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be
available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception
and representation expenses when specifically approved by the
Secretary.
Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through
assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health
Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in
AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency
for International Development, the United Nations
International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health
Organization.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may
be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health
Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of
Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
Sec. 204. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to withhold payment to any State under the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act by reason of a
determination that the State is not in compliance with
section 1340.2(d)(2)(ii) of title 45 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. This provision expires upon the date of
enactment of the reauthorization of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act.
Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for
the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay
the salary of an individual, through a grant or other
extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of $125,000 per
year.
Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service
Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act,
or for other taps and assessments made by any office located
in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the
Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House
detailing the planned uses of such funds.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 207. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for the Department of Health and Human Services,
General Departmental Management, for fiscal year 1997, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall transfer to the
Office of the Inspector General such sums as may be necessary
for any expenses with respect to the provision of security
protection for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Sec. 208. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
obligated or expended for the Federal Council on Aging under
the Older Americans Act or the Advisory Board on Child Abuse
and Neglect under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 209. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Health and Human
Services in this Act may be transferred between
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That
the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least fifteen days in advance of any transfer.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 210. The Director of the National Institutes of
Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS
Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes,
centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by
these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the
human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is
promptly notified of the transfer.
Sec. 211. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the National Institutes of Health to provide
grants or cooperative agreements under the SBIR program under
section 9(f) of Public Law 85-536 for research proposals when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that (in the process of
technical and scientific peer review under section 492 of the
Public Health Service Act) the median of the evaluation
scores for the proposals in the review cycle involved is
higher than the median of the evaluation scores in such
review cycle for RO1 proposals.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Beginning on page 43, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 44, line 7.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes,
with the time divided equally between myself and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will each control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise today to object to a particular provision that was contained
in this bill. I think anyone that recognized that this is basically
writing legislation in an appropriations bill would recognize very
quickly that, if you look at the specifics that are contained in this
provision, that there is a major change in U.S. law, which is for the
first time going to be backing off the standard for the SBIR Program.
People in the Chamber and listening on C-SPAN ought to understand
that the SBIR Program is one of the most innovative and creative and
successful programs that has been created in the Government of the
United States. It sets aside just about 2 or 2.5 percent of all the
funding that goes into every funding bill that comes through the
Congress of the United States and makes certain that there is a small
business component to how our funding is set.
I have fought very, very strongly and successfully to increase NIH
funding. In this legislation, there is a funding increase of over 6.5
percent. Yet what we find is hidden in the appropriations

[[Page H7296]]

language a very devious and, I think, harmful piece of wording which
essentially limits the small business component from what should be 2.5
percent of total funding down to 2 percent of total funding.
Now, there are those within NIH that would say that small businesses
have not been able to come up with the kind of quality applications for
funding that have been provided by universities. Universities receive
98 percent of the funding that comes out of NIH.
The truth of the matter is universities do something very, very well.
They do basic research very, very well. The kind of research that we
see in the SBIR Program is not basic research. It is applied research.
It is specifically designed to create jobs for the people of our
country and to create a competitive environment for the people of our
country so that we can actually take the basic research which our
universities and others do and use it to actually create real wealth
for the American people.
Now, what is bizarre is that we use the standards for basic research
to determine whether or not the applications that come in under the
applied research portion of the bill which goes into the small business
component as the standard for determining whether or not the small
businesses are meeting the quality criteria that is required of the
universities.
If we simply assessed what, in fact, was basic research versus that,
in fact, was applied research, there would be more than enough quality
applications submitted under the SBIR Program to attain the 2.5 percent
level which was part of this bill and a part of this legislation before
there was language submitted into the legislation which has been
protected under the rule which no longer allows us to knock out the
provisions that essentially provide authorization within an
appropriations bill.
I wish we could knock this out on a point of order. The truth of the
matter is that what we really see here is a devious and, I think,
unfair attempt by the major universities and academic institutions of
the country to come in and knock out just a 2.5 percent setaside for
the small businesses of this country.
We fund, as I said, 97.5 percent. Today 98 percent of all the money
that comes into NIH, which we have fought very hard to increase when
every other account of the Government goes down, we have actually
increased the NIH funding by 6.5 percent. But that is not good enough.
My district, in Cambridge and all the rest of it up in Massachusetts,
receives more money from NIH perhaps than any other district in the
country, a fact which I am very proud of. But I am not proud of the
fact that those same universities are going out through the back door
of cutting and gutting the provisions that set aside funds for the SBIR
Program.
I would hope that the Congress of the United States would take action
today; if we are not successful today, that we will take action between
now and the time that we actually mark up where we go to conference to
make certain that the full assessment is done to determine whether or
not it is in fact fair, justified or even good public policy to have
the small business standard assessed by virtue of the academic
standards that are met for basic research by the universities.
I would ask my friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], if he would entertain a colloquy with me
over the idea of perhaps meeting with those various interests,
including people from NIH, from GAO, from the National Science
Foundation, as well as those people in the biotech industry and people
in the small businesses of this country and determine whether or not we
in fact have achieved the best public policy by virtue of the
legislation that was contained in today's action on the House floor.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that our
concern with the SBIRs is not that there is a set-a-side for biomedical
research. That is fine. Our concern is with the quality of research
that is offered.
I think there are some very, very legitimate unresolved questions as
to how you evaluate that quality. I think the gentleman has put his
finger on an issue that has to be resolved in some sensible and good
way. I would say that his suggestion that we bring together all of the
concerned parties, including NIH itself, and sit down and work through
this, I think people of good will can resolve this very easily. I would
definitely support the gentleman in that conference and be willing to
sit in on it and see if we cannot work this out. I am sure that we can.

{time} 1415

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman, who is perhaps one of the reasonable and, I think, an
individual who has pursued, ever since I have served with him in the
Congress, nothing but good public policy in all of the actions that he
has taken, and it is a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. And having said that, I think it is unfortunate
that we in this legislation actually knock down what should have been a
2.5-percent funding level to a 2-percent funding level.
I think that if the review would indicate that there is not, in fact,
good quality research that is coming in by the small businesses, then
obviously we do not want to be funding it. But I think that it is
unfortunate that we took action to actually knock down the funding
level for the small businesses before the full assessment in terms of
the basic research versus applied research differentials were taken
into account.
But I think that if the gentleman is willing to try to take into
account those differences at a meeting between now and the time we get
to the conference, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment and look
forward to meeting with the gentleman unless--I know that there were
some other speakers, but they probably do not know we are even doing
this.
So I would be happy to withdraw with that proviso that we do, in
fact, have that meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 212. Extension of Moratorium.--Section 6408(a)(3) of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, as amended by
section 13642 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000, or the first day of the first
quarter on which the Medigrant plan for the State of Michigan
is effective under title XIX of such Act.''.
Sec. 213. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may in accordance with this section provide for the
relocation of the Federal facility known as the Gillis W.
Long Hansen's Disease Center (located in the vicinity of
Carville, in the State of Louisiana), including the
relocation of the patients of the Center.
(b)(1) Subject to entering into a contract in accordance
with subsection (c), in relocating the Center the Secretary
may on behalf of the United States transfer to the State of
Louisiana, without charge, title to the real property and
improvements that (as of the date of the enactment of this
Act) constitute the Center. Such real property is a parcel
consisting of approximately 330 acres. The exact acreage and
legal description used for purposes of the transfer shall be
in accordance with a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
(2) Any conveyance under paragraph (1) is not effective
unless the conveyance specifies that, if the State of
Louisiana engages in a material breach of the contract under
subsection (c), title to the real property and improvements
involved reverts to the United States at the election of the
Secretary.
(c) The transfer described in subsection (b) may be made
only if, before the transfer is made, the Secretary and the
State enter into a contract whose provisions are in
accordance with the following:
(1) During the 30-year period beginning on the date on
which the transfer is made, the real property and
improvements referred to in subsection (b) (referred to in
this subsection as the ``transferred property'') will be used
exclusively for purposes that promote the health or education
of the public, with such incidental exceptions as the
Secretary may approve, and consistent with the memorandum of
understanding signed June 11, 1996 by the Chancellors of
Louisiana State University and Southern University.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter] if he
would please engage me in a brief colloquy.

[[Page H7297]]

I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for his tremendous
leadership in crafting this bill. I am most grateful for the
gentleman's continued strong support for medical research.
Two weeks ago, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would authorize
expenditures for research into an extremely rare and deadly disease
known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis, or ``LAM.'' LAM is especially cruel
because it strikes only women, most of whom are of childbearing age.
LAM victims develop painful cysts on their lungs and gradually lose
their capacity to breathe. Because doctors know so little about LAM,
they often misdiagnose it. Tragically, LAM patients die within 10 short
years of their diagnosis. The intent of the LAM Disease Research Act is
to build upon the excellent work undertaken by the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute; work encouraged by the gentleman and his
subcommittee in its fiscal year 1996 report.
Were the rules different, I would have offered the LAM Disease
Research Act as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriation. I
understand, however, that such an amendment would be subject to a point
of order. Therefore, I cannot offer my amendment.
It is my understanding, however, Mr. Chairman, that money
appropriated under this bill may be used by the National Heart, Lung,
and Blood Institute to study LAM and work toward a cure. I ask the
gentleman if I am correct in that understanding, and I know that he
joins me in being greatly concerned about the deadly LAM disease.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I
might say to the gentleman that testimony was given before our
subcommittee on this very deadly disease. I did manage to pronounce its
name, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] did so successfully a
moment ago. I am not going to try it again.
But let me say that he is correct that under this bill the money may
be spent to research LAM along with other deadly diseases. In fact the
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has begun research into LAM, and I
fully expect that effort to go forward.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I want to commend
him for his efforts in this area. I and many, many people afflicted
with this disease really do appreciate his efforts.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to offer my amendment. I missed by a few minutes the earlier time and
would like to offer the amendment at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] under my reservation
that we have so many amendments offered to the bill, that since he was
not here at the time this portion of the bill was read I find great
difficulty in going back now to pick up these amendments.
I think the gentleman perhaps, from Wisconsin, would also object to
this, and while we would like to accommodate the gentleman from Indiana
and would have accommodated him had he been here, I do not know that we
can do it with so many amendments pending. I think we are going to have
objection on the other side as well.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. PORTER. I would object, yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask unanimous consent
to return to that portion of the bill?
Mr. GUNDERSON. If necessary, Mr. Chairman. I thought we were on that
portion of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment goes to a section of the bill
that we have already passed in reading by paragraph, so the gentleman
would have to ask unanimous consent in order to take up the amendment
at this time.
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] ask unanimous
consent?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I do. I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would say
to the gentleman again it is the same problem, but I understand that
the gentleman intends merely to make comments and then withdraw this
amendment.
Mr. GUNDERSON. That is correct.
Mr. PORTER. On that condition, I would not object if he simply wants
to strike the last word and present his arguments.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request
and move to strike the last word.
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, it was our intent on behalf of the Rural
Health Care Caucus, and I apologize for the confusion on timing here to
offer an amendment which would do two things. The amendment would
increase spending for rural outreach grants and for rural transition
grants by $10 million each. It was our intent personally, not by
everybody, but at least by this Member, that we would take that money
out of the $2.4 billion available for the social services block grant.
Why do I say that? I say that because if my colleagues will look at
the committee report, the committee report intended that these programs
would be funded out of that social services block grant.
Now, the reality is, in all due respect, that our rural counties do
not get that much money under the social services block grant, that
that money is truly available in this area.
Second, I think it absolutely essential that we understand the
importance of these two particular programs, that perhaps all of the
rural programs, these are the two programs most essential in
guaranteeing access to health care in rural areas. The transition
grants are the basis by which we make changes in rural hospitals in
order to keep those health care access facilities alive, and they have
been a very key program.
Yes, they should be changed from a demonstration project to a
permanent project or permanent program, but what we have done on behalf
of the Rural Health Care Caucus is we have introduced legislation that
will consolidate these various programs into a rural health care
program. Unfortunately, that was originally a part of the balanced
budget reconciliation for last year. As my colleagues all know, that
bill was vetoed by the President, through no fault of us, and so that
has not been accomplished.
We have in the last week, on a bipartisan basis, introduced a
Comprehensive Rural Health Care Improvement Act that includes these
changes. It is our intent to get this done, if at all possible, before
the appropriation process is complete, and at that point we would hope
that we can then get the necessary funding for these programs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], my colleague and leader from the Committee
on Agriculture.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin is the cochairman of the
Rural Health Care Coalition. I had the privilege only a session ago,
and I was going to rise in support of his amendment; I do, and it
simply has been described by the gentleman very well.
The problem is this bill includes only $4 billion for the rural
health outreach grants. This is $27.3 million below the level of last
year. As the gentleman has indicated, in the committee report we were
supposed to get the full funding. This funding will provide support
only for the continuation of grants that were funded before this year.
As to the transition grants, and as the gentleman has indicated, both
of these programs are vital to the rural health care delivery system,
this bill simply zeros out all of the transition grant funding.
Now, what the gentleman was trying to do and what I certainly was
going to support him doing is that we are increasing the social
services block grant $99 million. We were simply going to ask for an
additional $20 million of restoring that funding that would be under
last year's level.

[[Page H7298]]

And so I guess I would ask the distinguished chairman of the full
committee whether or not it is his intent when we go to conference,
since I think, obviously, he is going to object when we offer this
amendment, but could I have the assurance of the distinguished
gentleman and the chairman, who I know has worked very hard, so that at
least in conference we could restore these funds and we could restore a
vital part of the rural health care delivery system?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Let me explain what my feelings are about the program the
way it is written. We talked, if I can say to the gentleman from Kansas
and the gentleman from Wisconsin, earlier we talked about a program
called Healthy Start, a demonstration program started under President
Bush by Secretary Louis Sullivan at HHS, a very, very good program. I
said in respect to this program and in respect to the State students
incentive grants program, one that the President himself zeroed out in
this budget and that we zeroed out and have steadfastly maintained it
ought to be zeroed out, these are programs that have never been
specifically authorized. They have operated under a demonstration
authority just like this one has, the rural outreach grants, since
fiscal year 1991, and in respect to rural outreach the current cycle of
grants will end for the most part in fiscal year 1996.
The bill's funding level of $4 million would permit the few remaining
grantees to continue operating through fiscal year 1997. But after $146
million of total funding this demonstration should be evaluated, the
lessons learned from it and the resources provided, incorporated into
existing programs that provide similar services or new legislation
should be written to reflect that, and one of the great difficulties we
have in Congress is that we start a demonstration project. SSIG is a
prime example; 24 years of demonstration, and we kept funding it year
after year after year.
And so I would say to the gentleman I would try to do my best to work
out his concerns because I think there is undoubtedly a lot to be
learned and a lot of good derived from this program, but if the
gentleman, both from Kansas and from Wisconsin, and he is on the
authorizing committee, if we could get this thing moved into
legislation that applies broadly and not continue with those
demonstrations year after year after year, we would make a lot of
progress in getting our budget under control.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Gunderson]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gunderson was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)

{time} 1430

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has
indicated, we are striving to do just that in regard to authorizing
language. We have a rural health care bill that is supported in a
bipartisan effort on behalf of the Rural Health Care Coalition; 146
Members now support this effort, so we can get the authorizing
language.
What I want to demonstrate to the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee is this. Last year, 309 hospitals all throughout our rural
areas have applied for these grants. Sixty-five new grants were
awarded. With the funding we have for these programs now, that is going
to end. When we have Medicare reimbursement problems, when we have
miles to go in regards to servicing our area, when we have major health
care reform and managed care reform, this is the way we are going to
transition.
These are good programs. We need the funding if we possibly can. We
simply ask for $20 million, when it was cut by $26 million. It is very
evident to me that with 309 hospitals applying for these grants almost
on an emergency basis, I have small communities in my district who have
no primary health care, a community of 8,000, which, with a grant, then
had the primary care for 3,000 of these residents. We will simply have
no health care in many, many areas.
So I would plead with the chairman that once we do our job in regard
to the Rural Health Care Coalition, we can have at least adequate
funding under the severe budget restrictions that we have. I thank the
chairman for listening.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman would further yield, nothing would make
me happier to see that by the time we go to conference on this bill we
have authorizing legislation and we can fund that directly.
Mr. GUNDERSON. We are working toward that goal. I appreciate the
support of both gentlemen.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr.
Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a
colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman for his
leadership in increasing NIH by over $800 million and the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute by some $83 million.
I rise to have this colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee
because I am very concerned about problems of women as it relates to
cardiovascular diseases. It is not well understood or known, but heart
disease is the No. 1 killer of women. However, women are not
represented in research. For many years women and minorities were
either absent or underrepresented in clinical trials. Most of the
treatment and equipment are based on studies that have been limited
basically to men.
Unfortunately, and surprisingly, many of the doctors in this country
remain unaware of women's more subtle symptoms, such as shortness of
breath, dizziness, and arm pain. They do not recognize these as
symptoms of cardiovascular disease, and oftentimes when women go in
complaining of these symptoms they are mistreated, misdiagnosed, or not
treated at all. Of the women who die suddenly from heart attack, 63
percent of them had no evidence of previous heart disease. They did not
know, there had been no other signs. But the fact of the matter is they
have these symptoms that are unrecognized by doctors. Four out of 5
women are not aware that heart disease is the leading killer of women
in this country.
I know that oftentimes we hear a lot about cancer, we hear a lot
about other diseases. Most people think that cancer may be the No. 1
killer of women, but Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know that heart
disease is the leading killer of women in this country. One in 5
females has some form of cardiovascular disease. Half a million females
die from cardiovascular diseases each year. This is almost double the
number of deaths of all cancers combined.
Mr. Chairman, appreciating the work of the chairman of the
subcommittee with NIH and the way that he has worked to fund them, and
I know he understands these problems, as we continue with this year's
appropriations process, I would like to know if we can work together to
ensure that NIH, in particular the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
focus a fair portion of their increased budget resources on research,
prevention, and education programs for women, and at-risk women,
including African-American women.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewomen yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. We would be very happy to work with the gentlewoman in
this regard, Mr. Chairman, I think she puts her finger on a very
serious problem, and to work also with NIH to ensure that they move in
that direction.
Ms. WATERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I think if we can work
together to ensure the research, management, and support account for
education programs of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
that we will eliminate the slippage that we see in funding levels. The
chairman is aware that that account has been as high as $6 million, but
it could fall to as low as $3 million this year.

[[Page H7299]]

We know that education can work. Education is the first line of
preventing these diseases, and it is particularly important for women's
heart disease. If we can work together through this process, we can
ensure that the education budget shares in the increase provided to
NHBLI.
Mr. Chairman, I hate to push this issue. I know that with all the
work the gentleman is doing and all the attempts the gentleman is
making, he is trying to focus attention on so many things, but I have
gotten focused now on cardiovascular diseases of women, and I am very
moved by the fact that many of my friends now who are my age are
literally dying, women in their fifties who are dying from
cardiovascular diseases.
I think we need not wait much longer until we have a higher number of
women dying. We can in fact, with a little attention, focus some
education so we can eliminate this as a major problem in our society.
Mr. PORTER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
I would agree that NHLBI's public education activities are tremendously
important, and I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman to ensure
that they are well supported in the final product.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would
say to the chairman, over the years he has been a strong supporter of
the efforts to end domestic violence in this Nation. His commitment in
the issue is reflected in his support of the Violence Against Women Act
programs in the bill. He has committed all of the funds allocated to
this subcommittee from the violent crime reduction trust fund to these
crucial programs. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, these programs
are not yet fully funded because the current 602(b) allocation falls
short of the necessary funding levels.
As we know, the Violence Against Women Act was passed unanimously by
this House in 1994. This Act was Congress' statement that we would not
stand idly by while American women were injured by their husbands,
boyfriends, or family members. It symbolizes our commitment to end the
epidemic of domestic violence in our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with the chairman of the
subcommittee on the provisions in the bill that funds the domestic
violence programs. Currently this bill takes a large step forward in
fulfilling our commitment to the women of this country. Working
together, we have provided funding for battered women's shelters,
victims of sexual assault, and local community programs to end domestic
violence. In addition, we have also included full funding for the
National Domestic Violence Hotline. The hotline, which opened in
February received over 15,000 calls in its first 4 weeks alone. It is
helping women all over the country receive the services that they
desperately need.
Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman of the subcommittee did everything
he could to fund these programs under the 602(b) allocation from the
crime trust fund for this subcommittee. However, despite his commitment
to these programs, we are still approximately $16 million short of full
funding. Can we find a way to get these programs the funding they so
desperately need?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
New York for bringing this to our attention. I would also like to
commend her for the wonderful work she has done on the subcommittee on
behalf of the victims of violence. No one has been a stronger advocate,
and she has kept our focus on these very, very important issues.
Like the gentlewoman, I believe that the Violence Against Women Act
programs provide much needed services to victims of domestic violence
throughout our country. I was glad to provide as much funding to these
vital programs as I could under the current allocation to our
subcommittee. I was particularly pleased to provide over $57 million to
the battered women's shelters. This money is critical because it goes
directly to the victims of domestic violence and helps them to escape
the violence and begin their lives anew.
As pleased as I was to provide $61 million to the Violence Against
Women Act programs, I believe these crucial programs should be fully
funded. It is my understanding that the Senate subcommittee for Labor-
HHS appropriations has a 602(b) allocation that will allow it to fully
fund these programs.
In addition, it is my understanding that Chairman Specter currently
intends to fully fund VAWA programs. In light of this, at conference I
would plan to seek an adjustment of our 602(b) allocation to allow us
to match senate funding levels. I am committed to doing everything I
can to ensure that Violence Against Women Act programs are in fact
fully funded.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for his
dedication to eradicate domestic violence, and his commitment to fully
fund these programs. Under his leadership we will have a program that
truly assures that victims of domestic violence will receive the
services they desperately need.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title II is as follows:
(2) For purposes of monitoring the extent to which the
transferred property is being used in accordance with
paragraph (1), the Secretary will have access to such
documents as the Secretary determines to be necessary, and
the Secretary may require the advance approval of the
Secretary for such contracts, conveyances of real or personal
property, or other transactions as the Secretary determines
to be necessary.
(3) The relocation of patients from the transferred
property will be completed not later than 3 years after the
date on the transfer is made, except to the extent the
Secretary determines that relocating particular patients is
not feasible. During the period of relocation, the Secretary
will have unrestricted access to the transferred property,
and after such period will have such access as may be
necessary with respect to the patients who pursuant to the
preceding sentence are not relocated.
(4) The Secretary will provide for the continuation at the
transferred property of the projects (underway as of the date
of the enactment of this Act) to make repairs and to make
energy-related improvements, subject to the availability of
appropriations to carry out the projects.
(5) The contract disposes of issues regarding access to the
cemetery located on the transferred property, and the
establishment of a museum regarding memorabilia relating to
the use of the property to care for patients with Hansen's
disease.
(6) In the case of each individual who as of the date of
the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the
transferred property with management, engineering, or dietary
duties:
(A) The State will provide the individual with the right of
first refusal to an employment position with the State with
substantially the same type of duties as the individual
performed in his or her most recent position at the
transferred property.
(B) If the individual becomes an employee of the State
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the State will make payments in
accordance with subsection (d)(3)(B) (relating to
disability), as applicable with respect to the individual.
(7) The contract contains such additional provisions as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the interests
of the United States, and the Secretary shall have final
approval over the terms of the contract.
(d)(1) This subsection applies if the transfer under
subsection (b) is made.
(2) In the case of each individual who as of the date of
the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee with a
position at the Center and is, for duty at the Center,
receiving the pay differential under section 5545(d) of title
5, United States Code:
(A) If as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b)
the individual is eligible for an annuity under section 8336
or 8412 of title 5, United States Code, then once the
individual separates from the service and thereby becomes
entitled to receive the annuity, the pay differential shall
be excluded from the computation of the annuity unless the
individual separated from the service not later than 30 days
after the date on which the transfer was made.
(B) If the individual is not eligible for such an annuity
as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b) but
subsequently does become eligible, then once the individual

[[Page H7300]]

separates from the service and thereby becomes entitled to
receive the annuity, the pay differential shall be excluded
from the computation of the annuity unless the individual
separated from the service not later than 30 days after the
date on which the individual first became eligible for the
annuity.
(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the individual is
eligible for the annuity if the individual meets all
conditions under such section 8336 or 8412 to be entitled to
the annuity, except the condition that the individual be
separated from the service.
(3) In the case of each individual who as of the date of
the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the Center
with management, engineering, or dietary duties, and who
becomes an employee of the State pursuant to subsection
(c)(6)(A):
(A) The provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title
5, United States Code, or of chapter 84 of such title,
whichever is applicable, that relate to disability shall be
considered to remain in effect with respect to the individual
(subject to subparagraph (C)) until the earlier of--
(i) the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the
date on which the transfer under subsection (b) is made; or
(ii) the date on which the individual first meets all
conditions for coverage under a State program for payments
during retirement by reason of disability.
(B) The payments to be made by a State pursuant to
subsection (c)(6)(B) with respect to the individual are
payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund,
if the individual is receiving Federal disability coverage
pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such payments are to be made in
a total amount equal to that portion of the normal-cost
percentage (determined through the use of dynamic
assumptions) of the basic pay of the individual that is
allocable to such coverage and is paid for service performed
during the period for which such coverage is in effect. Such
amount is to be determined in accordance with chapter 84 of
such title 5, is to be paid at such time and in such manner
as mutually agreed by the State and the Office of Personnel
Management, and is in lieu of individual or agency
contributions otherwise required.
(C) In the determination pursuant to subparagraph (A) of
whether the individual is eligible for Federal disability
coverage (during the applicable period of time under such
subparagraph), service as an employee of the State after the
date of the transfer under subsection (b) shall be counted
toward the service requirement specified in the first
sentence of section 8337(a) or 8451(a)(1)(A) of such title 5
(whichever is applicable).
(e) The following provisions apply if under subsection (a)
the Secretary makes the decision to relocate the Center:
(1) The site to which the Center is relocated shall be in
the vicinity of Baton Rouge, in the State of Louisiana.
(2) The facility involved shall continue to be designated
as the Gillis W. Long Hansens's Disease Center.
(3) The Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to inform
the patients of the Center with respect to the planning and
carrying out of the relocation.
(4) In the case of each individual who as of October 1,
1996, is a patient of the Center and is receiving long-term
care (referred to in this subsection as an ``eligible
patient''), the Secretary shall continue to provide for the
long-term care of the eligible patient, without charge, for
the remainder of the life of the patient. Of the amounts
appropriated for a fiscal year for the Public Health Service,
the Secretary shall make available such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out the preceding sentence.
(5) Except in the case of an eligible patient for whom it
is not feasible to relocate for purposes of subsection
(c)(3), each eligible patient may make an irrevocable choice
of one of the following long-term care options:
(A) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may
reside at the Center.
(B) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may
elect to receive payments each year in an annual amount of
$33,000 (adjusted for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent
fiscal year to the extent necessary to offset inflation
occurring after October 1, 1996), which payments are in
complete discharge of the obligation of the Federal
Government under paragraph (4). If the individual makes the
election under the preceding sentence, the Federal Government
does not under such paragraph have any responsibilities
regarding the daily life of the patient, other than making
such payments.
(6) The Secretary shall provide to each eligible patient
such information and time as may be necessary for the patient
to make an informed decision regarding the options under
paragraph (5).
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``Center'' means the Gillis W. Long Hansen's
Disease Center.
(2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(3) The term ``State'' means the State of Louisiana.
(g) Section 320 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247e) is amended by striking the section designation and all
that follows and inserting the following:
``Sec. 320. (a)(1) At the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease
Center (located in the State of Louisiana), the Secretary
shall without charge provide short-term care and treatment,
including outpatient care, for Hansen's disease and related
complications to any person determined by the Secretary to be
in need of such care and treatment.
``(2) The Center referred to in paragraph (1) shall conduct
training in the diagnosis and management of Hansen's disease
and conduct and promote the coordination of research,
investigations, demonstrations, and studies relating to the
causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of
Hansen's disease and the complications of such disease.
``(3) Paragraph (1) is subject to section 213 of the
Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act,
1997.
``(b) In addition to the Center referred to in subsection
(a), the Secretary may establish sites regarding persons with
Hansen's disease. Each such site shall provide for the
outpatient care and treatment for Hansen's disease to any
person determined by the Secretary to be in need of such care
and treatment.
``(c) The Secretary shall make payments to the Board of
Health of the State of Hawaii for the care and treatment
(including outpatient care) in its facilities of persons
suffering from Hansen's disease at a rate determined by the
Secretary. The rate shall be approximately equal to the
operating cost per patient of such facilities, except that
the rate may not exceed the comparable costs per patient with
Hansen's disease for care and treatment provided by the
Center referred to in subsection (a). Payments under this
subsection are subject to the availability of appropriations
for such purpose.''.
Sec. 214. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
or any other Act may be used to make any award of a grant or
contract under section 1001 of title X of the Public Health
Service Act for fiscal year 1997 or any subsequent fiscal
year unless the applicant for the award agrees that, in
operating the voluntary family planning project involved, the
applicant will comply with the following conditions:
(1) Priority will be given in the project to the provision
of services to individuals from low-income families.
(2) An individual will not be charged for services in the
project if the family of the individual has a total annual
income that is at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty
line, except to the extent that payment will be made by a
third party (including a government agency) that is
authorized, or is under a legal obligation, to pay the
charge.
(3) If the family of the individual has a total annual
income that exceeds 100 percent of such poverty line but does
not exceed 250 percent of the line, the project will impose a
charge according to the ability to pay.
(4) If the family of the individual has a total annual
income that exceeds 250 percent of such poverty line, the
project will impose the full charge for the services
involved.
(5) Subject to paragraphs (1) through (4), the policies of
the applicant will ensure that economic status is not a
deterrent to participation in the project.
(b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
expended for the program under section 1001 of title X of the
Public Health Service Act after the expiration of the 180-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits to
the Congress, not later than such date of expiration, a
report providing, to the extent that the information is
available to the Secretary, the following information for the
most recent fiscal year for which the information is
available:
(1) The number of individuals who receive family planning
services through voluntary family planning projects under
such section 1001, and the demographic characteristics of the
individuals.
(2) The types of family planning services chosen by
recipients of services from such projects.
(3) The number of individuals served by such projects who
are--
(A) at risk of unintended pregnancy; and
(B) from a family with a total annual income not exceeding
250 percent.
(4) The extent to which the availability of family planning
services from such projects has, among individuals served by
the projects, reduced the number of unintended pregnancies,
reduced the number of abortions, and reduced the number of
cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
(5) The extent to which the availability of family planning
services from such projects has reduced Federal and State
expenditures for--
(A) the program under title XIX of the Social Security Act
(commonly known as the Medicaid program); and
(B) the programs under title IV of such Act (commonly
referred to as welfare programs).
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and
Human Services Appropriations Act, 1997''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the balance of title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi], and amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

[[Page H7301]]

The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment, to strike the ergonomics
rider from this legislation.
I had thought the radical House Republicans had learned their lesson
last year, when their extremist agenda of adding legislative riders to
appropriations bills led to two Government shutdowns. Unfortunately, as
this bill shows, it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
The ergonomics rider is a clear demonstration of the Republican
Party's utter disregard for both worker safety and science. The bill
forbids the Department of Labor from issuing any rules, or even
proposed rules, or even voluntary guidelines, to protect workers from
ergonomics injuries. This despite the fact that ergonomic injuries
represent the fastest growing workplace health problem, resulting in
estimated annual workers compensation costs of $20 billion annually.
But the bill goes even further.
Despite the pious claims of Republicans that they merely want
regulators to use good data when they regulate, this provision adopts a
``hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'' attitude toward workplace
safety. This bill actually forbids the Department of Labor from even
collecting data about ergonomic injuries.
The Republican view is that what OSHA does not know OSHA does not
have to regulate. Unfortunately, with respect to workplace safety, what
you don't know can cripple you.
Make no mistake, this rider is not about ensuring that the Department
of Labor regulates in a rational manner. This rider is about
suppressing data, suppressing science and suppressing the truth. And
American workers will suffer.
Let's strike this extreme rider from the bill. Let's help prevent
another Government shutdown. Support the Pelosi amendment.

amendment offered by ms. pelosi

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi: Page 19, strike lines 8
through 15.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 205, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 301]

AYES--216

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)

NOES--205

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--12

Becerra
Clayton
Dunn
Fattah
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Oberstar
Vento
Young (FL)

{time} 1501

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Clayton for, with Mr. Longley against.

Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. McKINNEY, Ms. McCARTHY, and Mr. KLUG changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mrs. lowey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 263, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 302]

AYES--158

Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton

[[Page H7302]]

Clement
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
King
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Pryce
Quinn
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--263

Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--12

Becerra
Dunn
Fattah
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hancock
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Oberstar
Vento
Young (FL)

{time} 1510

Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. FOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. CLAYTON and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, on July 11, 1996, due to an error, I was
incorrectly recorded on the Lowey amendment to H.R. 3755, the fiscal
year 1997 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The record reflects
a ``no'' vote on rollcall vote No. 302. I request the record reflect I
intended to vote ``yes'' and emphasize my support for the Lowey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

education reform

For carrying out activities authorized by the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act, $175,000,000, which shall become
available on July 1, 1997, and remain available through
September 30, 1998.

education for the disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, $7,204,130,000, of which
$5,895,244,000 shall become available on July 1, 1997, and
shall remain available through September 30, 1998, and of
which $1,298,386,000 shall become available on October 1,
1997 and shall remain available through September 30, 1998,
for academic year 1997-1998: Provided, That $6,042,766,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall
be available to the Secretary on October 1, 1996, to obtain
updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data
from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That
$684,082,000 shall be available for concentration grants
under section 1124(A) and $7,000,000 shall be available for
evaluations under section 1501.

{time} 1515

amendment offered by mr. mica

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

Amendment offered by Mr. MICA:
Page 57, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 57, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 58, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 66, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I present this amendment today. It is
slightly different than what was printed. I had hoped to increase this
amount by $40 million; however, I have changed the amendment to $20
million.
Let me tell my colleagues what my amendment does today, and it is
probably one of the most important amendments on this bill and dealing
with education in particular. What this does is it, in fact, transfers
from Washington bureaucracy to the local classroom education dollars.
What we in the Congress do and what we are doing through this
appropriations procedure is, in fact, deciding how the resources of our
Nation and the Congress get allocated to different programs.
This is an important amendment because it is part of the fundamental
debate about what we have been talking about in Congress during this
entire session. It is a fundamental question. It is not just how much
money we throw at various problems and how much money we expend, but
how we expend the money. That is the fundamental part of my amendment.
Let me tell my colleagues, I chair the House Subcommittee on Civil
Service, and I know where the bureaucrats and the bodies are buried
throughout our nearly 2 million employee Federal work force. There are
5,000 employees in the Department of Education, 5,000, and then
thousands of other contract employees. Of the 5,000 full-time employees
in the Department of Education, 68 percent are in Washington, DC.
What this amendment does is it does not cut any money from any
programs, it does not cut any money for education, but what it does is
it transfers some of that money that we as a Congress are appropriating
and it transfers it from the bureaucracy and administrative account in
Washington, DC, to the classroom. That is what this debate is all
about.
This is not a debate on exactly how we can spend all the money and
the regulations that come out of the Department of Education, and I
cannot change that because this is an appropriations bill, and I would
like to change some of the way we authorize the money. But what this
does is it addresses a fundamental question. Do we spend the money up
here on a big Federal education bureaucracy or do we

[[Page H7303]]

send the money to the classrooms, when we have instances where some of
our classrooms do not have the resources, they do not have the
materials, they do not have the teachers?
We have a clear responsibility in this Congress to make these
important choices, and that is the choice this amendment gives us
today. Do we spend it here in Washington on the 68 percent of the
employees of the 5,000 who are located in Washington, DC or does that
money go back into our local classrooms?
This is a very, very fundamental debate. I want to take a minute and
talk a little bit more about what we are doing with education. I hear
from parents all the time. I talk to my community college presidents.
When we have students who cannot read their diplomas, when we have 71
percent of the students in one of my local community colleges entering
that require remedial education, when we have a situation in education
that I consider a crisis, when we have to put police and others in our
classroom and fire other teachers and do not have the money for the
resources that we need in our classroom, we, as a Congress, have an
important responsibility to make these choices of where that money is
spent.
So this is a simple amendment. it is a clear choice. Do we spend the
money in Washington on bureaucrats and a large Department of Education?
I am not cutting the Department of Education. We will still have a
Department of Education. But what we are doing is taking $20 million
and we are putting it into title I programs, the programs that are
really in our classrooms, that affect our children and their education.
So we are going to decide by my amendment whether we put those
resources again in Washington or in the local classroom where our
students and our teachers are really at the bottom end of the feeding
chain, because we have built a huge bureaucracy, not just the 5,000 in
Washington, DC, but we have exploded that bureaucracy to regional
offices and then to State offices.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I remember serving in the legislature and I
saw that bureaucracy. I saw the huge bureaucracy that we created and
that we force, and I cannot solve those problems today with this bill,
but what I can do is to help this House as it makes those important
choices, and we will, by this amendment and by the agreement that we
have reached, restore title I to its level of funding for last year.
So this is an important amendment. Again, it is a clear choice. Do we
spend the money on bureaucrats in Washington, or do we spend it in
local classrooms on students and teachers?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I
am interested, does the gentleman have any idea of what percentage of
discretionary education the Department of Education, the bureaucracy,
or bureaucrats of which he speaks, is?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the total amount of money
that comes from Washington, DC, towards local education, I believe, is
about 5 percent of all education funding.
Mr. HOYER. No, no, no, that is not what I asked. Does the gentleman
know what percentage----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I asked a question; let me answer the question. Of the
money, discretionary money, that we spend on education--which is, as
the gentleman points out, a relatively small percentage of the total
amount spent on education in this country, 2 percent--2 percent, is
administrative cost. Two percent is administrative cost, I tell my
friend.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Of course, one
could say we will put $20 million more in title I. We ought to put $20
million more in title I. We ought to put $100 million more in title I,
I tell my friend from Florida, but we are not doing it because the
602(b)s have been squeezed very badly. Why? Because the Republican tax
cut was deemed to be essential in a time when we are trying to balance
the budget and serve our children.
I tell my friend, that 2 percent--2 percent--is administrative cost
for the administration of the 98 percent of discretionary funds which
is sent either to students or to schools and local school districts.
Two percent.
All the gentleman wants to do is, as he frankly likes to do on a
regular basis, attack the bureaucrats. These are real people doing
important things, trying to make programs that this Congress adopts
work. I frankly am fed up, I tell my friend, fed up with people rising
on this floor and using ``bureaucrat'' as an epithet, as a slur, as an
effort to dehumanize people that we have employed to try to carry out
the policies and programs that we adopt.
Good people have to spend time every day trying to make sure that
these policies and programs will work for Americans, for children, for
families. ``Bureaucrat''--it is said with a snide smile sometimes,
demagoguing for the people back home. I am fed up with it.
Yes, I represent a lot of Federal employees, and I am proud of it.
They work hard and they do a good job, and I dare every one of you to
ask the people who come from the private sector, from corporations,
from businesses, large and small, ask them what they think of the
quality of the morale and of the product of those people who work in
Washington and around the country.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, only 20 percent work in Washington. The
rest work in Florida, in California, in New York, in Texas, in Iowa, in
Illinois, in every State in the Nation, trying to deliver the services
that this Congress and the President--in previous administrations and
in this one--decided were appropriate for the American public.

{time} 1530

Two percent, I tell my friend from Florida, 2 percent overhead in
education and 92 percent to the recipients, either students or local
school districts or States, to deliver education to the students of
this country to make us more competitive.
I am tired of this demagoguery. You can disagree with the programs,
but we ought to stop demeaning the people that we have hired, because
there are some demented souls in America who hear that debate and
decide that they can go to the office building in Oklahoma City, angry
at their government, angry at the policies of their government, and in
a demented, deranged, sick manifestation of that sentiment, attack the
people, persons, the individuals that we ask to carry out the
responsibilities given to them by the Congress and the President of the
United States.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is defeated. If the
gentleman wants to put $20 million additional in title I, I will
support it because it needs $20 million more. But to cut Federal
employees further in the process when we are already reducing 272,000
plus probably another 50,000 or 100,000, I say to my friend, is wrong.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has put
his finger on the right place to put more money, because title I
concentration grants go to the schools that need the money most. I have
been saying for quite some time now, and I want to say again, that one
of the major problems with title I is that it comes out of that era of
our Government where we felt that in order to get something passed here
in the House for people who need it, we had to spread it around to
every single congressional district, every school district in America.
And title I money goes to school districts all over this country who
have plenty of resources and no need for the additional money, and we
ought to stop that practice.
The authorizing committee ought to address targeting this money where
we have real serious problems with poor kids that have no opportunity,
and stop sending it to school districts like some in my district; New
Tria high school get title I money and the administrators and the
parents will tell us

[[Page H7304]]

that it should not be sent to them at all.
Mr. Chairman, we ought to start deciding where our problems are and
putting our money to solve those problems, instead of thinking that we
have to buy votes in here by spreading it all across America, and so I
would commend the gentleman to the extent that that is the place to put
the money.
I would say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that I do not
understand how anyone can stand up and say that the problem is with
title I or any other spending that we have cut taxes. To my knowledge
we have not cut taxes. It has been proposed but it has never been
enacted.
No, the reason that we do not have enough money is that we have not
had enough courage, the President has not had enough courage to sign a
bill that would slow the rate of growth in entitlement programs that he
could have signed last year but did not, that would take the pressure
off the discretionary spending where we cannot solve our budget
problems entirely.
We can make a contribution, sure. But we will never get the budget
into balance if we don't address the growth in entitlement programs.
This Congress has had the courage to propose good programs to do that.
The President of the United States chose to veto that, I think in great
error.
I am very reluctant to take money out of S&E accounts. It seems like
an easy place; salaries and expenses, we will just take it out of that.
The gentleman from Maryland is right. Federal employees are just like
all the rest of us, they have families, they have kids, they have kids
in school, they have mortgage payments to meet. Making a cut sounds
easy, but it does affect real human beings who do an excellent job for
our country for the most part.
And yet, I think the amendment does aim in the correct direction on
providing greater money for concentration grants. I am not going to
fight it for that reason. I am not enthusiastic about the place from
where the gentleman takes the money.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Mica cut-the-bureaucracy,
not-education amendment. I believe that it is the right thing to do. I
do sympathize with the gentleman from Maryland that we are talking
about real people, but I do want to point out that while we are
downsizing the Federal Government, for some reason the Department of
Education has almost skirted all the downsizing.
In 1992, the number of full-time equivalent employees was 4,876, and
today it is 4,816. That is a decline of less 1 percent. Compare that to
the Department of Defense and it has declined over 13 percent.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would bother to look at the
size of DOE going back to 1980, he would discover that Department has
declined in size already by 20 percent.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this is from the full-time equivalents as
the gentleman knows.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am talking about. The
gentleman is talking about a 1-year bridge. What he is forgetting is
that from 1980 up to until 2 years ago, the Department of Education had
major, major, major reductions. If the gentleman is going to compare
apples to oranges, let us do it over the decade not over the
nanoseconds.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the
point is that the declination in the size of the bureaucracy is the
will of the American people, and it is necessitated by the fact that we
have a deficit and a national debt of almost $5 trillion.
The deficit on an annual basis we pay nearly $20 billion a month in
interest on. It is time to bring this thing under control. What the
Mica amendment simply does is say let us take the money out of
bureaucracy and put it in the classroom. I have been in one of the
title I program classes in my district, and it is a very effective,
hands-on program teaching kids how to read, how to improve their
education skills, and so, forth. And this is not an education cut. It
will help counties where there is over 15 percent of the kids below the
poverty level.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up a couple of points.
First, the gentleman from Maryland who launched into the debate, first
of all, I oversee the Federal work force as chairman, at least from the
House side, as chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, and I
greatly respect the efforts of our Federal employees throughout our
Federal work force. But we have the neighborhood of 350,000 Federal
employees within my speaking voice here in the Washington, DC area. And
they do too have to experience some downsizing.
The Department of Education in the past year has had a 1-percent
decrease. I heard the ranking member talk about the actual number of
decreases in full-time employees and he is correct, but we have
examined this in the Civil Service Subcommittee and seen where
thousands and thousands of employees have been contracted out. And that
is one of the problems that we have.
But the question here is now a cut of probably about 300 positions in
the Department of Education, which would be between an 8- and 10-
percent cut of the Washington work force in Washington, DC. I tell my
colleagues that through normal attrition we lose between 6 and 7
percent, people who die or retire or go on to other positions. So I
think this can be managed.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's agreement to accept
this amendment and support this amendment. And I also thank the
chairman for his support of this amendment, also the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and
other Members, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and the 20
or 30 Members who are prepared to come out here and talk in favor of
it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time one of the things I
hear over and over again from teachers in the classroom, and I visit
lots of schools, is that they have too much of their day-to-day routine
dictated out of Washington. This type of amendment reduces the
influence of Washington command and control bureaucracy and allows
teachers to teach children in their home counties as they see fit. I
think it is a very good amendment, and urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to understand, if this amendment
has been accepted, why are we palavering on it? Why do not we just move
on?
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. deal of georgia

Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia: Page 57, line 24,
after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by
$1,000,000)''.
Page 57, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 58, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 66, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment likewise deals with the area of
title I basic education funding. It would simply transfer $1 million
out of the management administration account and even though there have
been transfers pursuant to the previous amendment, I would point out
that in this one Office of the Secretary, half of the 100 employees
there perform press-related activities. I believe that an additional
million dollar transfer would certainly be appropriate into the
classroom to deal with title I basic education, Mr. Chairman, that this
is a minimal thing that we can do to help those in the classroom level
of education.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

impact aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $728,000,000,
of which $615,500,000 shall be for basic support payments
under section 8003(b), $40,000,000

[[Page H7305]]

shall be for payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d), $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for payments under section 8003(f),
$5,000,000 shall be for construction under section 8007, and
$17,500,000 shall be for Federal property payments under
section 8002.

school improvement programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles IV-A-1, V-A, VI, IX, X and XIII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
$1,235,383,000 of which $1,071,495,000 shall become available
on July 1, 1997, and remain available through September 30,
1998: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $606,517,000
shall be for innovative education program strategies State
grants under title VI-A: Provided further, That the
percentage of the funds appropriated under this heading for
innovative education program strategies State grants that are
allocated to any State or territory shall not be less than
the percentage allocated to such State or territory from the
total of the funds appropriated in appropriation laws for
fiscal year 1996 for the combined totals of such grants plus
Eisenhower professional development State grants, foreign
language assistance grants, and the star schools program.

bilingual and immigrant education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual and immigrant education activities authorized by
parts A and C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, without regard to section 7103(b),
$167,190,000, of which $50,000,000 shall be for immigrant
education programs authorized by part C: Provided, That State
educational agencies may use all, or any part of, their part
C allocation for competitive grants to local educational
agencies: Provided further, That the Department of Education
should only support instructional programs which ensure that
students completely master English in a timely fashion (a
period of three to five years) while meeting rigorous
achievement standards in the academic content areas.

special education

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (except part I), $3,246,315,000, of which
$3,000,000,000 shall become available for obligation on July
1, 1997, and shall remain available through September 30,
1998.

rehabilitation services and disability research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance
for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller
National Center Act, as amended, $2,509,447,000.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

american printing house for the blind

For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $6,680,000.

national technical institute for the deaf

For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $43,041,000: Provided, That from the
amount available, the Institute may at its discretion use
funds for the endowment program as authorized under section
207.

gallaudet university

For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$79,182,000: Provided, That from the amount available, the
University may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.

vocational and adult education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education
Act and the Adult Education Act, $1,329,669,000, of which
$1,326,750,000 shall become available on July 1, 1997 and
shall remain available through September 30, 1998: Provided,
That no funds shall be awarded to a State Council under
section 112(f) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act, and no State shall be required to
operate such a Council.

student financial assistance

For carrying out subparts 1 and 3 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $6,630,407,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 1998.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 1997-1998 shall be $2,500:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 1996
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.

federal family education loan program account

For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $29,977,000.

higher education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
parts A and B of title III, without regard to section
360(a)(1)(B)(ii), titles IV, V, VI, VII, and IX, part A and
subpart 1 of part B of title X, and title XI of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Mutual Educational
and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961; $829,497,000, of which
$15,673,000 for interest subsidies under title VII of the
Higher Education Act, as amended, shall remain available
until expended: Provided, That funds available for part D of
title IX of the Higher Education Act shall be available to
fund noncompeting continuation awards for academic year 1997-
1998 for fellowships awarded originally under parts B and C
of title IX of said Act, under the terms and conditions of
parts B and C, respectively.

howard university

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $187,348,000: Provided, That from the amount
available, the University may at its discretion use funds for
the endowment program as authorized under the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480).

higher education facilities loans

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

college housing and academic facilities loans program

For administrative expenses to carry out the existing
direct loan program of college housing and academic
facilities loans entered into pursuant to title VII, part C,
of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $698,000.

college housing loans

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

historically black college and university capital financing, program
account

The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724
of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act shall not
exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such bonds shall
not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title VII, part B of the Higher
Education Act, as amended, $104,000.

education research, statistics, and improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994; the National Education Statistics Act of 1994; section
2102(c)(11), sections 3136 and 3141, parts A, B, and section
10601 of title X, and part C of title XIII of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and title VI
of Public Law 103-227, $319,264,000: Provided, That
$48,000,000 shall be for sections 3136 and 3141 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph may be
obligated or expended for the Goals 2000 Community
Partnerships Program.

libraries

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
titles I, III, and IV of the Library Services and
Construction Act, and title II-B of the Higher Education Act,
$108,000,000, of which $2,500,000 shall be for section 222
and $1,000,000 shall be for section 223 of the Higher
Education Act.

Departmental Management

program administration

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $320,152,000.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $54,171,000.

office of the inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector
General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of
Education Organization Act, $27,143,000, together with any
funds, to remain available until expended, that represent the
equitable share from the forfeiture of property in
investigations in which the Office of Inspector General
participated, and which are transferred to the

[[Page H7306]]

Office of the Inspector General by the Department of Justice,
the Department of the Treasury, or the United States Postal
Service.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
available under section 458 of the Higher Education Act shall
not exceed $420,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. The Department
of Education shall use at least $134,000,000 for payment of
administrative cost allowances owed to guaranty agencies for
fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The Department of Education shall
pay administrative cost allowances to guaranty agencies, to
be paid quarterly. Receipt of such funds and uses of such
funds by guaranty agencies shall be in accordance with
section 428(f) of the Higher Education Act.
Notwithstanding section 458 of the Higher Education Act,
the Secretary may not use funds available under that section
or any other section for subsequent fiscal years for
administrative expenses of the William D. Ford Direct Loan
Program. The Secretary may not require the return of guaranty
agency reserve funds during fiscal year 1997, except after
consultation with both the Chairmen and ranking members of
the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee
and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Any
reserve funds recovered by the Secretary shall be returned to
the Treasury of the United States for purposes of reducing
the Federal deficit.
No funds available to the Secretary may be used for (1) the
hiring of advertising agencies or other third parties to
provide advertising services for student loan programs, or
(2) payment of administrative fees relating to the William D.
Ford Direct Loan Program to institutions of higher education.
Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
obligated or expended to carry out sections 727, 932, and
1002 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and section 621(b)
of Public Law 101-589.

(transfer of funds)

Sec. 306. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary
funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Education in this
Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such
appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by
any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least
fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1997''.

Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title III be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. porter

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Porter: Page 69, after line 23,
insert the following:
Sec. 307. (a) Section 8003(f)(3)(A)(i) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7703(f)(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking
``The Secretary'' and all that follows through ``greater of--
'' and inserting the following: ``The Secretary, in
conjunction with the local educational agency, shall first
determine each of the following:'';
(2) in each of subclauses (I) through (III), by striking
``the average'' each place it appears the first time in each
such subclause and inserting ``The average'';
(3) in subclause (I), by striking the semicolon and
inserting a period;
(4) in subclause (II), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
period; and
(5) by adding at the end the following: ``The local
educational agency shall select one of the amounts determined
under subclause (I), (II), or (III) for purposes of the
remaining computations under this subparagraph.''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1995.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I
understand that both sides on the authorization committee have agreed
to it, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on our
subcommittee. It has been scored by CBO as having no cost.
The amendment is a technical amendment to the impact aid law
regarding payments for heavily impacted districts. Payments to these
school districts have been made in the past on the basis of one of
three formulas.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to save time, let me simply say we accept the
amendment on this side of the aisle.

{time} 1545

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. obey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: After title III of the bill,
insert the following new title:

``Title III-A--Education and Training Program Increases

additional amounts for education and training programs

The amount provided in title I for ``Employment and
Training Administration-Training and employment services'' is
increased, the portion of such amount for ``Employment and
Training Administration-Training and employment services''
that is specified under such heading to be available for the
period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 is increased, the
amount provided in title II for ``Administration for Children
and Families--Children and families services programs'' is
increased, the amount provided in title III for ``Education
reform'' (including for activities authorized by titles III
and IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act) is increased,
the amount provided in title III for ``Education for the
disadvantaged'' is increased, the portion of such amount for
``Education for the disadvantaged'' that is specified under
such heading to be available for the period July 1, 1997
through September 30, 1998 is reduced, the portion of such
amount for ``Education for the disadvantaged'' that is
specified under such heading to be available for the period
October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 is increased, the
amount provided in Title III for ``School improvement
programs'' (including for school improvement activities
authorized by titles II-B and IV-A-2 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965) is increased, the portion of
such amount for ``School improvement programs'' that is
specified under such heading to be available for the period
July 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 is increased, the
amount provided in title III for ``Student financial
assistance'' is increased, by $125,000,000, $125,000,000,
$70,000,000, $250,000,000, $450,000,000, $1,000,000,000,
$1,450,000,000, $258,000,000, $233,000,000, and $93,000,000,
respectively.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, last year this committee funded the coming
school year by providing funding for a combination of both fiscal years
1996 and 1997 by moving a portion of the funding for title I from 1996
into fiscal year 1997.
This year the committee has done the same thing for the following
school year, which means the school districts will get one check in
July and another in October. We in this amendment simply propose to do
the same thing. We propose to increase the portion of that funding that
goes out with the October check, which enables us to increase education
funding for a number of programs.
The new result is that this amendment would increase funding for
education and training programs by $1,246,000,000 over the same period
of time, which is being considered in this bill.
Title I, overall, would be increased by $450 million; dislocated
workers would

[[Page H7307]]

be increased by $100 million. That would enable us to provide one-half
of the President's request for an increase so that 50,000 additional
workers who lose their jobs because of the impact of foreign imports
can get help to be retrained.
For Head Start, it enables us to add $70 million to maintain the same
number of kids who were funded last year. For Goals 2000, which was
begun by President Bush, and President Clinton was then Governor, and
which was strongly supported by Governor Clinton, representing all of
the Nation's governors at that time, Goals 2000 has been zeroed out by
the committee. We would restore $250 million of that funding. That
still leaves us $240 million short of the President's request.
For safe and drug-free schools, we would add $25 million. That would
bring us back up to the 1996 funding level. For Eisenhower teacher
training, we add $233 million. The committee has zeroed this money out.
That still leaves us $42 million or 15 percent below 1996, even if you
accept the added numbers in our bill. That would enable 286,000 math
and science teachers to receive upgraded training under this proposal.
On handicapped education, we just had the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling] come to the floor and ask us to add $300 million for
handicapped education by taking it out of NIH. The House rejected that
amendment.
We would have asked that $100 million of that $300 million increase
be provided. This is one-third of the increase asked for by the
President, only we would not cut the National Institutes of Health in
order to do it. We would do it by following the same procedure that
this committee provided by way of title I funding.
This would enable us to begin to respond to the fact that the Federal
Government has reneged on its responsibilities to local school
districts for a long time to pay more fair share for the education of
handicapped children.
For Perkins loans, we add $93 million, which would bring it back up
to the 1996 level. The committee had limited Perkins loans. For summer
youth, we add $25 million. Under the committee bill, 79,000 fewer
children will be provided with summer jobs. With this addition, we
would be able to meet the needs of approximately one-fourth of those
children, still, a very small addition but one which we think is amply
justified.
This, in my view, is the primary amendment to this bill. This
amendment more than any other defines the differences between the two
parties in terms of our priorities. We believe that a Congress which
can afford to add $11 billion above the President's budget for Pentagon
spending, a Congress which has tried to provide twice as many B-2
bombers as the Pentagon asked for, we believe that, if a Congress
decides it is OK to do that, it certainly ought to be OK to try to
restore some of the reductions that have been made in real dollar terms
and in nominal dollar terms in the committee bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, this committee bill
is the first step in a 6-year process that will reduce the investment
that we make in our kids by 20 percent in real dollar terms. I do not
think, and I do not think that the country thinks, that this is the way
to prepare for the 21st century.
The children we are sending into the world of work today are going to
have to be better prepared, better educated, better trained than any
kids in the history of this country, if they want to get decent-paying
jobs and provide a decent standard of living for their families. They
do not do that, they are not going to be in a position to do that if we
short-sheet this bill, if we short-sheet our ability to help the kids
who are most difficult to educate in this country to get ahead.
This amendment, I apologize for the fact that it is so small because,
even after this amendment, it still leaves us some $5 billion below the
funding level for education and training that was contained in the
bipartisan coalition bill on the budget just a couple of months ago. It
is the very, very, very least that we should do to provide adequate
education for our young people. It is far less than we can afford to
do, but it is at least a nominal step forward from the committee bill.
I strongly urge passage of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] insist on
his point of order?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not press my point of order, no.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation of a point of
order.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if he
could explain to the House how much total money would be added under
his amendment and from where he would derive the funding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, we are adding $1.246
billion to the bill.
Mr. PORTER. And where is the gentleman deriving that from?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are adding that by moving, just as the
committee bill did on title I, we are moving a significant amount of
money from title I expended in this year, moving it to the October
payment, must as the committee has provided for an October payment, and
that gives us ample room to provide the additions that I described.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we have been
working with the minority all last night and all today, and we have
never seen this gentleman's amendment. We knew nothing about the fact
that it was going to be offered until it was offered. We did not have a
copy, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin, we
did not have a copy of the amendment prior to its being offered.
The gentleman and I both exchanged concern about not being informed
of other Members' amendments just a moment ago, and this suddenly comes
out without any prior notice to the majority that it was going to be
offered.
I have to say, I am incredibly surprised by that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
am, too.
I must say two things. First of all, this is not the only thing that
has come out with considerable surprise to Members of this House today,
as Members will find out in days to come. And I would certainly say
that I apologize for the fact that we did not make the gentleman aware
of this amendment. We have been perfecting it up until the very moment,
literally, that we offered it. And as the gentleman knows, because of
the great difficulty in making certain that it was in order
parliamentarily, we had to keep making adjustments until we could get
it in shape to offer it.
Mr. PORTER. May I ask the gentleman if I can expect anymore surprises
this evening or tomorrow?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, none that I know of. Again, I would apologize
to the gentleman for not getting it to him. I literally had still been
working with the staff on this into the hours this afternoon trying to
perfect it so we could, in fact, offer it and have it be made in order.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will simply address
the substance of the amendment.

Would we like to put in more money in Head Start or in special ed or
in dislocated workers? Of course. What this amendment does is simply
borrow from next year's 602(b) allocation $1.3 billion and make the
same mistake that we were forced to make in the 1996 fiscal year final
product, when the President absolutely insisted before he would sign
the bill on additional spending that was not within our allocation. And
it is a gimmick that no Congress should ever have engaged in and we
should not have engaged in last year but had to in order to get the
bill signed. I would oppose it on that ground alone.
It is simply a budgetary gimmick to take from next year and spend
this year. It is going to have to be paid for sometime.

[[Page H7308]]

If I can say to the gentleman, once again, and say it as emphatically
as I possibly can, while I realize that we are never going to be able
to balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending and that we
must address the rise in entitlement programs and we should not cut
taxes, I would add to that as well, and I am not always happy with the
allocations in function, but let me say to the gentleman, we have a job
to do here and that is to get spending under control. And simply to try
and squeeze it out of next year is adding more to the deficit
ultimately, asking our children and grandchildren to pay the bills for
spending that occurs right now.
I do not want to be any part of that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let
me say that this may be a gimmick but this is a gimmick which the
gentleman's own bill has engaged in to the tune of $1,298,000,000.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time from the gentleman, that
gimmick was forced by the White House in order to get a signable bill
and was not something that we engaged in. They wanted to put in more
spending than we could possibly afford.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Unless we
adopt the Obey amendment, this bill reduces our commitment to education
by an additional $400 million below last year's cut of over $1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, there are a host of reasons for supporting the Obey
amendment. Let me mention just a few.
First, education cuts will hinder our efforts to improve the overall
productivity of our economy. The National Center on Education and
Quality of the Work Force estimates that each 10 percent increase in
education results in an 8.6 percent increase in productivity and that
increasing education improves productivity more than increasing capital
or increasing hours. In other words, making investments in education
benefits the entire Nation.

{time} 1600

As my colleagues know, one can transfer capital around the world,
fluid capital, instantaneously; machinery in a matter of days. One can
transfer capital anywhere. What gives us the cutting edge in
competition in the global economy is education and training.
Second, we expect, Mr. Chairman, significant new enrollments in
schools across the country in the next few years. In my own State of
Michigan alone there will be 29,000 new enrollments by next year.
Schools in my State will need to hire an additional 1,700 teachers. We
should not be turning our back on local communities when their needs
are increasing, and that is exactly what we will be doing if we do not
adopt the Obey amendment.
Do not forget that in the last appropriations bill we cut education
funding by over $1 billion.
Now my colleagues will hear today that this budget merely freezes
last year's funding levels. That is not true. It cuts $400 million
below last year's levels, but even so, freezing a billion-dollar cut is
not something to be proud of.
I think it is very unfortunate that in this bill once again the
Republican leadership, bowing to pressure from outside, has endorsed
the elimination of Goals 2000. I would like to quote one of our
witnesses before our committee this year commenting on Goals 2000. That
was James Burge, vice president of Motorola. He said ``The business
community has been supportive of bipartisan legislation to encourage
education reform in the States, beginning with Presidents Bush's
America 2000 proposal through President Clinton's Goals 2000
proposal.'' This was a bipartisan concept, Goals 2000. There is only
one reason for eliminating this proposal: political posturing and
pressure from certain extreme groups in the outside.

Goals 2000 is the most voluntary program we have. It is the simplest
program, a 1-page application. Forty-eight States are participating in
it. The Governor of Texas, the son of President Bush who started this
concept, has endorsed and embraced Goals 2000, and why again are we
insisting that those 48 States who have embraced Goals 2000, that they
are wrong and we are going to pull the rug out from under them?
States are beginning to see some real improvements in their
achievement levels under Goals 2000. Real, sustainable progress is
being made because of Goals 2000. Goals 2000 had its roots with the
Governors, was picked up by President Bush. Lamar Alexander frequently
visited my office for several months pushing Goals 2000, although he
denounced it during his primary election for President.
This is no time to pull that rug out. To my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who through the years have been supporters of
education, I am convinced that the Obey amendment is the most important
education vote we can cast. This will assure that the Federal
Government will keep its support of education. Education is a local
function. We want it to be a local function. It is a State
responsibility, a very important State responsibility, but it is a
very, very important Federal concern, and to help these States with
voluntary programs to improve their educational standards, their
delivery system, is something that reflects that Federal concern.
I urge support for the Obey amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 80 minutes
divided, 40 minutes to the gentleman form Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 40
minutes to myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and I rise in very strong support of this amendment.
Earlier in this debate today I quoted from ``A Nation at Risk,''
issued in 1983 by the Reagan Department of Education. In that report
they said this:

History is not kind to idlers. The time is long past when
America's destiny was assured simply by an abundance of
natural resources and inexhaustible human enthusiasm. We live
among determined, well-educated and strongly motivated
competitors. America's position in the world may once have
been reasonably secure with only a few exceptionally well-
trained men and women. It is no longer.

That is what this amendment is about.
I voted for a budget which balanced the budget by 2002. It cut $137
billion more from the debt that will be incurred over the next 6 years,
and it provided for $45 billion more for education than the Republican
alternative.
My colleagues, this amendment adds $1 billion to education in 1997
far short of the additional $6 billion in the Coalition budget.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] mentioned a little earlier
that there will be, over these years for which we budget, 3,410,000
additional students in our schools. Next year, there will be more
students in America's schools than at any time before in history.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and I had a debate about adding
$20 million to title I. He said that was important, to put money on the
ground in schools for kids that needed help. The gentleman from Florida
ought to be very enthusiastic about this amendment, and I presume he
will vote for it.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] offered an amendment to cut
management and add $1 million to title I. That would not be noticed, of
course, by the State of Georgia or any other State when we spread that
among the school districts of this country. This amendment gives the
gentleman from Georgia the opportunity to add $450 million to title I.
Now, that is an important thing to do because what the chairman's bill
does without this amendment is to take down the number of students that
will be served in 1997 from the 6.8 million who receive them today to
6.6 million next year. That is 200,000 students that will not be
served.
This amendment will add next year an additional 150,000 students over
those provided for in the bill. Why is that important? Because
under title I today, my colleagues, we serve only 53 percent of those
students who are eligible. What does title I try to do? It tries

[[Page H7309]]

to take those students who are educationally and economically and
culturally deprived and tries to make sure that they will be able to be
participants in growing our economy and increasing the quality of our
society.

This is not a esoteric or intellectual interest. This is a real
interest for my children and the children of families across America.
This is a families first, children first amendment. That is why this
amendment should be improved. If we do not pass this amendment, and we
support the chairman's bill--and I might say the chairman was
constrained by the 602(b), that is to say, the money he had available--
we will cut from 53 percent of the young people served to 42 percent.
That is 11-percent fewer children served in America in programs that
the Reagan administration supported, the Bush administration supported,
and the Clinton administration supported, to lift kids up, to educate
them and make them full participants in our society.
Furthermore, this amendment adds $70 million to Head Start to serve
15,000 additional children, 15,000 additional children. We talk a lot
about being concerned about one life, the ability to make one life
better, more able to understand and to participate in and be advantaged
by education. One life. This is 15,000 additional children and
additional families, additional moms who want to see their children
have a seat in Head Start, not to hear, ``No, there is no more room.''
This amendment also adds $250 million, as the gentleman from Michigan
indicated, to Goals 2000 to provide for better quality education in
America.
My colleagues, this was called a gimmick by the chairman of our
committee. Let me point out that the Committee on the Budget has
interposed no objection to this process.
Let me repeat to my colleagues, the Committee on the Budget has
interposed no objection to this policy. As a result, my colleagues in
this House, we are giving an opportunity to raise an additional billion
dollars for educating kids to help families in America, which is what
we all say we want to do. And we do that consistent with what the
Committee on the Budget has approved within the framework of our
numbers.
Mr. Chairman, I hope when the role is called on this amendment, my
colleagues will vote ``yes'' for children, ``yes'' for families,
``yes'' for America.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me further comment for a moment on the procedure here.
First of all, it was our understanding before the Committee on Rules
that the reason the gentleman from Wisconsin asked for additional time
for general debate, and there was 2 hours allotted, was that we would
not be seeing this generic type of Democrat priority amendment again.
We had seen it in our subcommittee, and we had seen it in the full
committee, in part, and it was our understanding it would not be
offered.
Beyond that, it is being offered without any notice, without any
chance for us to analyze whether it is different than previously
offered or not, and I would say to the Members of the House that this
is the Democrat wish list for funding for education that is not
supported by anything except additional borrowing of money. It is part
of the problem and not part of the solution, and I believe very
strongly it is irresponsible in the extreme and in further forwarding
funding where we have forward funded in the past in response to the
President's demands that we spend more money than we have. And I would
simply say the Members ought to reject this kind of approach out of
hand. It is exactly what the problem is in Washington and the kind of
problem that we are trying to solve by getting our budget into balance
and not pull these kinds of gimmicks in funding in order to say that we
are for this group or that spending or the like. I think it is the
height of irresponsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ilinois
[Mr. Porter] yielding me as much time as I might consume, but I ask the
Chair to advise me when I have consumed 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is a cute way to avoid the Budget Act and appear
as if we are throwing money at education and saying the children need
education dollars. The fact is, if we look at President Clinton's own
budget, we see that in 1996 the total amount of funding that there is
available for education, training, and employment and social services
is about $39 billion, and it goes up in his budget substantially over
the years to almost where it peaks at about $46 billion, and then by
his own figures it starts to go down substantially in his plan to
balance the budget.
Now, the President has said of course he wants to balance the budget.
Ironically, his cuts do not really ever get anywhere until after the
next term of office. I would not have any idea why that is, but we
would assume that again it is typical liberal mentality and that we
will worry about the real problems manana; not this term, or even the
next term of course, but the term after.

{time} 1615

That shows though that even he talks about the need to cut back. That
is not in keeping with the sentiment of this particular amendment,
which throws money that we do not have at education.
Where does it really go? Does it go to the child? No, of course it
does not go to the child. The current Washington bureaucracy in the
Department of Education involves the Office of the General Counsel,
Inspector General, Secretary of Education, the Deputy Secretary, Under
Secretary of Education, Office of Public Affairs, Executive Management
Committee, Reinvention Coordinating Council, Budget Services, Planning
Evaluation Services, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs,
Intergovernmental Agencies, Interagency Affairs, Secretary of
Education, Office of Elementary, Secondary, and Post-secondary
Education, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The money goes to the Washington bureaucracy. Even if this amendment
were adopted, the money go to the bureaucracy, which the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] who has just preceded me in the well would hope to
perpetuate because these are his constituents anyway.
Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is under this bill, money for
education goes up, money for student loans goes up. This is the
projection from 1995 to the year 2000. Every year the estimated annual
student loan volume and the cost goes up. The average student loan
amount increases from $3,600 in 1995 to $4,300 in the year 2000. The
maximum Pell grant, the overall student aid, the TRIO Program, the work
study programs, all go up between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997.
Head Start, which has gone up 132 percent since 1990, is held even in
fiscal year 1997. Title I, where in the last 7 years alone there has
been an increase of 40-percent in title I grants to the States, it is
being held even; again, a 40-percent increase over just what was spent
in 1990. It goes on and on and on.
Look, there is never any end to the pleas for more money to help the
children who need to be educated. The Federal Government only handles 5
percent of the total education dollars, and most of the money, 95
percent of the money spent on education for elementary and post-
secondary education or secondary education, comes directly from the
States and local governments. But, they never have enough money to
spend.
The fact is, even if they took the money and spent it, it would go to
the bureaucracy and not to the children. Where does the money come
from? It comes from the American taxpayer, and increasingly, since
World War II, the average American taxpaying family has contributed
back then 5 percent of its annual income to Washington, DC and the
Federal Government, and today, 25 percent of its annual income to
Washington, DC, so the people who take their money can go back and get
reelected every 2 years by saying, look what we have done for you with
your cash. Even then, they have taken more and more and more over the
last 50 years, and that is still not enough, because they have spent
even more and even more and even more.
In 1980 they were spending $100 billion more than they were receiving
in

[[Page H7310]]

revenues. By 1990 they were spending $300 billion more than they
received. This year, even though we are spending $1.6 trillion in the
Federal budget, it is still not enough, and we are spending $150
billion more than we collect.
As a result, all those accumulated deficits mean that we now have a
national debt of $5.1 trillion, $20,000 for every man, woman, and child
in America, and we are paying interest on that debt, the interest of
which is soon to exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation in
a single year.
The first dollar that we spend in the Federal payroll goes to
interest, not to defend America, but to interest on the debt. And yet
they say spending is not enough. They want to drive this country into
bankruptcy in order to get reelected. It is time we stopped it. Reject
this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, whatever amendments Democrats offer to try to help
people, we get the same response from the Republican side of the aisle:
``It is all going to the bureaucracy.'' Let me tell the Members where
the money is going. We are trying to provide help for 15,000 more kids
for Head Start, so we do not have to reduce the number by 15,000 this
year from last year. The last time I looked, first-graders were not
bureaucrats, they were kids who needed help.
We provide help for 450,000 kids under title I. Those are not
bureaucrats, those are first- and second- and third-graders. We provide
$250 million for school improvement. That goes to schools. It goes to
neighborhood schools. We provide $233 million to restore the teacher
training that they wiped out in the bill. That is 186,000 math and
science teachers that will get the training they otherwise would not
get. We restore $25 million for safe- and drug-free schools, not
bureaucrats. I wish it could be $125 million. We restore $25 million to
help 17,000 kids, not bureaucrats, get summer jobs. We restore $93
million in order to help 96,000 students, not bureaucrats.
We provide $150 million so 50,000 American workers who have lost
their jobs because of trade can get help to get retrained. So do not
give me this baloney about money going to bureaucrats. This money goes
to workers, it goes to kids, it goes to neighborhood schools, it goes
to working families. This is the bill above all others that is supposed
to help kids and working families get ahead. Give me a break. Quit
giving us that same old song.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the subcommittee for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the education and training
amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin, The amendment overturns
this bill's devastating funding shortfall in worker assistance and
summer jobs, Head Start, support to local schools, and student aid. The
$100 million increase in dislocated worker training means that 50
thousand additional, for a total over 600 thousand, workers would
receive the critical training and related services they need to
successfully re-enter the workforce. One might ask, just who are these
people? Well, let me give you a basic snapshot: 54 percent are male; 73
percent are in the prime of their working career aged 30 to 54; 79
percent are white; 21 percent are minorities; over 40 percent have post
high school education; and 17 percent are veterans. These are people,
who in good times, have carried the weight of this country on their
backs, and will resume doing so when they return to the work force.
However, for now, as a result of some form of downsizing, they have
been forced out of their jobs. These hard working people do not want a
hand out, they just need a temporary helping hand. They deserve that
much from their country.
The $25 million increase for summer jobs means that over 15,000
additional summer jobs can be supported. While this is an improvement
to the bill, the number of summer jobs supported is still 65,000 fewer
than the number currently supported, which is 521,000. The Summer Jobs
Program is absolutely critical to furthering the development of the
Nation's disadvantaged youth. As I am sure each of us knows,
disadvantaged children from all backgrounds whether they are African-
American, Hispanic, Native-American, or White--just do not have access
to the critical linkages to the work force that they need. The Summer
Jobs Program provides that ``critical link'' and marks disadvantaged
youth's first step toward learning work ethics and gaining real work
experience.
In fact, the unemployment rate among all teens almost triples that of
the overall unemployment rate. For African-American teens, the rate of
unemployment is more than five times that of the overall rate. The
potential costs to society from not adequately developing and nurturing
its disadvantaged youth is too costly to ignore. It is for these
reasons that the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request includes
$871 million to support 574,000 summer jobs. This Nation's investment
in summer jobs pays for itself.
With respect to education, the Obey amendment provides for children's
safety and academic achievement. By adding $25 million for safe and
drug-free schools, children's safety in the classroom is much improved.
These funds are absolutely critical in providing the over 40 million
children served by the program a crime and violence-free classroom in
which to learn. Schools use these funds to support conflict mediation,
latchkey programs, substance abuse prevention, and violence prevention
initiatives including counseling and support groups for at-risk
students. The availability of resources to improve classroom safety
have encouraged students, parents, and teachers to get involved in
managing their schools. And, equally important, it has encouraged
parents to get involved in managing their children's education. As a
result, some of the schools are experiencing improvements in academic
achievement and attendance. Also, dropout rates and suspensions are
going down.
The $70 million increase for Head Start will make available 15,000
additional slots. Less than half of the estimated 2 million children
who are currently eligible for Head Start are being served.
The restoration of funding, $250 million, for the Goals 2000 Program
which was eliminated by the bill, means 6,800 schools will have access
to the resources they need to raise academic standards and to continue
to help students meet them. In my own State, Ohio, Goals 2000 funds are
being used to advance local school improvements designed to enhance
student achievement in math and other subject areas where students are
lacking in proficiency, to increase and strengthen parental, business
and community involvement in education, and to support partnerships
with other school districts, colleges, and universities.
The $450 million increase for title I means that 450,000 additional
children, as compared to H.R. 3755, will now have access to the
critical assistance they need in basic reading and math. Title I funds
have made a positive difference in communities across the country
allowing schools to focus on early intervention strategies to help
prevent academic failure, to help close the gap between the lowest
achieving children and other children, between high- and low-poverty
schools, and to involve parents more centrally in the education of
their children.
The amendment's restoration of $233 million in funding to the
Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which was eliminated by
the bill--means that an estimated 286,000 teachers and other educators
would receive the training and development they need to teach core
academic subjects.
The restoration of $93 million in funding to the Perkins loan program
means that approximately 96,000 students will be provided the
additional financial aid they desperately need at a time when the cost
of college is up. Providing a maximum award of $4,000, the Perkins
student aid program is critical to helping make college affordable for
low-income and middle class families alike.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here on behalf of the Nation's children. Let's
not abandon them and their families. Let's fix this bill. I urge you to
vote ``yes'' on the Obey education and training amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to try to put all this in perspective for
people. The

[[Page H7311]]

total spending on primary and secondary education in this country is
somewhere in the neighborhood of $280 billion. The Federal Government
spends about $14 billion of that sum. That means about roughly 5
percent of the total. The cuts made last year between fiscal 1995,
enacted in fiscal 1996, here in the Congress in education funding would
amount to approximately three-quarters of 1 percent of the money spent
on education.
So let me say, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman on the other side of
the aisle once again, he is saying the sky is falling, that we are
doing terrible things to education, that we are shortchanging the kids.
Believe me, the gentleman is so, so far from the truth.
Let me say one other thing. If we follow the approach of this
amendment, no appropriations subcommittee will ever be able to enforce
the discipline of the Budget Act, or to live within their 602(b)
allocations.
We will set ourselves on the course of borrowing from the next year
ahead on and on in the most irresponsible way, and I would tell the
Members that the gentleman from Maryland who just made his
presentation, I believe I heard the same presentation four times now,
and that may be very good propaganda, but I know it word for word. I
think he would tell us if he were here that this is an irresponsible
way to proceed, because I have heard him say it myself many, many
times.
This is not serious legislation, Mr. Chairman, this is a propaganda
game to see who can say they are spending the most and caring the most.
It is irresponsible in the extreme.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the
subcommittee yielding so I can make this simple point. As the gentleman
knows, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and I, too, have sat through this very
informative presentation by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] during the course of both the
subcommittee and full committee markups.
As the chairman will recall, on both occasions we asked the minority
to tell us how much per pupil funding, per pupil expenditures for
public education by State and local education agencies has increased
over that same corresponding time period. We have yet to get an answer
to that particular question.
Since everyone participating in this debate acknowledges that public
education is chiefly the responsibility of State and local education
agencies, I think that is a rather important piece of information that
is currently lacking from the debate. I call again on the minority to
tell us and the American people how much per pupil funding has
increased for public education over the same time period, as used by
their charts.

{time} 1630

Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman from California.
Mr. Chairman, I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on
each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 28 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 29 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of my subcommittee for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a budget-busting amendment, make no
mistake about it. During general debate last night, I attempted to
point out what an important and integral part of the balanced budget
question this entire legislation is. We need to ask ourselves with
regard to this amendment, are we going to be able to make the tough
decisions to actually reduce the deficit and stay on a glide path
toward a balanced budget by 2002?
To adopt the amendment that is before us would be to add another $1.3
million in spending that we cannot afford and that we cannot expend and
stay on that path.
A second question that is a legitimate concern for Members of this
body is, can we adequately fund education in the context of the bill
that has been reported by the Committee on Appropriations? I would
simply point out to my colleagues, the chart that I have before me,
student aid increases under this bill.
As my colleagues can see, Mr. Chairman, the maximum Pell grant will
go up from $2,470 to $2,500 under this bill. Overall student aid will
be increased under this bill between 1996 and 1997. An increase for the
TRIO Program. An increase for the work study program.
With regard to Head Start funding, as my colleagues can see, this
legislation in the context of a balanced budget provides a modest
increase for Head Start. According to this chart in the last 7 years,
Head Start funding has increased by 132 percent. That is a substantial
commitment that this Congress has correctly made to this important
program. As a matter of fact, since fiscal year 1989, the appropriation
for Head Start has grown by 200 percent, reflecting the commitment of
this Congress to Head Start funding. That amount will increase by some
$31 million under the bill that we have before us.
Another point that my colleagues have made, particularly my friend
from Maryland, is that we are trying to balance the budget and give tax
relief to middle-class Americans at the same time. My colleague from
Maryland says we cannot do that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we
can do that. In the budget plan that we have adopted that a majority of
this body has voted for, we can do that. I want to provide tax relief
for that middle-class family. I want to provide an opportunity for that
family making $25,000 to $30,000 a year to have an extra $1,000 or
$1,500 in their take-home pay. If we can do that and still provide an
increase for Head Start and for the other programs that I have already
outlined, then I think that is a bargain that we ought to take. That is
an opportunity we ought to grab. I think the American people support
that.
One last chart, and the chairman of the full committee has already
alluded to this, this is a chart of President Clinton's budget for
education, training, employment and social services out through 2002.
As my colleagues can see, the President and his party have proposed
dramatic increases in spending in these areas until 2000. That would be
the end of the text presidential term. And then the President of the
United States says, ``After 2000, we will make dramatic cuts in these
programs.'' How are we going to do it? It has not quite been explained.
I say that if we were to take this approach and adopt this sort of
dramatic upswing and then hope for a cut in the out years that we will
never balance that budget and I think every Member of this body on
either side of the aisle knows that. It is the same with this
amendment. This amendment says,

Let's spend in fiscal year 1997 another $1.3 billion, and
we're not going to get it out of another program, we're not
going to take it out of some other line item, we're just
going to borrow it from next year. Next year. We'll worry
about it then.''

Is that not the problem that we have had that has led to the deficit
that we are currently faced with? Is that not the problem that has led
to a $5 trillion debt or has contributed at least to a $5 trillion debt
in this country?
I urge my colleagues to say no to robbing from people tomorrow so
that we can spend more money today. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this budget-busting amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the distinguished ranking member of the Education
Authorizing Committee.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey education and
training amendment and in opposition to H.R. 3755, the fiscal year 1997
Labor-Education-HHS appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, Republican appropriators boast that their budget
preserves meaningful Federal support for education. Unfortunately,
their behavior does not coincide with their rhetorical bragging.
The appropriations bill before us today does not preserve our
commitment to the children of this country. It

[[Page H7312]]

shortchanges basic education and assistance to the most vulnerable
student populations, withdraws support for State and local education
reform, sabotages school improvement efforts, and denies opportunities
for low-income students to pursue higher education as a reasonable
goal.
Republicans attempt to package their fiscal year 1997 education
budget as a freeze. But characterizing this atrocity as a budgetary
freeze is like calling a termite an interior decorator. In reality, the
bill represents a continued erosion of Federal support for education.
The simple fact is this bill cuts education funding, and these cuts
come on top of last year's $1.1 billion reduction in education dollars.
Unfortunately, the Republican 6-year balanced budget calls for a
continued downward slide in Federal education support.
I fail to see the logic of curtailing support for education,
particularly in light of the increasing demands on our education
system. School enrollments are rising to record-high levels. In the
next 6 years, the period covered by the Republican budget plan, public
elementary and secondary school enrollments are projected to increase
by 7 percent, and college enrollment by 12 percent. Given these soaring
increases in the student population, ever-increasing service costs, and
shrinking local education budgets, these cuts will have disastrous
results for our children.
It makes no sense to balance the budget by sacrificing investments in
the young people who will assume awesome responsibility of leading the
world. Investing in education yields extraordinary benefits in terms of
increased productivity and economic growth. Equal access to education
and educational excellence for all of our children require vigorous and
responsible leadership. The bill before us today takes this country in
the wrong direction.
Mr. Chairman, on the other hand, I support the amendment offered by
my colleague, Mr. Obey. His amendment would restore funds to assist
8,500 schools in improving the academic achievement of their students,
provide basic education assistance for an additional 450,000 children
from low-income communities, preserve professional
development opportunities for 750,000 teachers and educators, and
restore opportunities for 96,000 low-income students to receive Perkins
grants to pursue higher education.

Finally, the bill's funding of training programs is woefully
inadequate. In this era of increased global competition, we must rely
more than ever on our Nation's most valuable resource: The skills and
productivity of our workers. A strong training system is critical to
our future. Regrettably, the Republican Congress continues to ignore
this reality.
The Republican Congress cut over $3 billion from education and
training in the 1995 rescission bill and the 1996 omnibus
appropriations bill. Today we consider a bill that cuts further at
training programs. The Republican bill would deny training
opportunities to thousands of dislocated workers who seek retraining to
improve their skills, and remain productive citizens. Job losses are
inevitable in today's fast-paced economy, as corporate downsizing
continues at an alarming rate. The faster dislocated workers can move
into new jobs, the better it is for them, their families, and for the
American economy. We cannot turn our backs on workers in need of
retraining.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican approach to education
and training. I urge Members to honor our commitment to students and
workers by voting for the Obey amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, the charts and graphs and the square root of last
year's budget are all interesting, but I think they miss an essential
point. That is, that traditionally and without exception, appropriate
funding and aggressive support for education has been a bipartisan
effort in this Congress. It was, after all, a Democratic President that
proposed the GI bill and a Republican Congress that said yes. It was a
Republican President that supported the great National Defense
Education Act and a Democratic Congress that said yes. Together we have
supported such things as drug-free schools and Head Start. The list is
glorious and it was bipartisan until this Gingrich Congress. Until this
Congress, for 50 years, both Democrats and Republicans joined hands as
the American people wanted us to in appropriately funding education and
now it has changed. Our Republican colleagues cut $1.1 billion out of
the schools and the children of this country in the last Congress and
now they propose to cut almost a half a billion more. The Obey
amendment attempts to restore bipartisanship to education, to what it
has traditionally been.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. RIGGS. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, to hear all this compassionate discussion about public
education makes me harken back to last year and our efforts to offer
educational choice to the poor people of the District of Columbia. If
we have a direct responsibility for any education system in this
country, it certainly is the District of Columbia public schools and we
were unable, because of Democratic opposition, to offer educational
choice to the poor children of the District of Columbia and their
families. These are children that are trapped in failing schools and
trapped in circumstances that as far as I am concerned very seriously
cloud their future and deny them educational opportunity, which is the
cornerstone of American democratic society.
But the point I want to make during this debate is that simply
throwing more money, more taxpayer dollars at our failing educational
system has not helped the problem and it is not the answer. I think I
can come down to floor here with pretty clean hands because I parted
company with some of my California Republican colleagues, I certainly
parted company with some of my colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations and voted against the defense spending bill last year
because I thought it was excessive, only to later witness the
President, who had opposed the bill and threatened to veto it, turn
around and sign that bill into law because he claimed that he needed
the $8 billion additional spending in that defense bill, which he had
earlier called excessive, to help pay for our Bosnian mission which I
think is in the long term doomed to catastrophic failure in that part
of the world.
But I want to point out, here is what is missing from the charts and
the statistics and the figures that are thrown around on the other side
during this debate. Since 1970 per-pupil spending in this country, this
was the point I tried to make earlier, per-pupil spending in this
country has increased from $4,000 per pupil to almost $7,000, and that
is adjusted for inflation, a $3,000 per-pupil increase after adjusting
for inflation. Yet SAT test scores have dropped from a total average of
937 in 1972 to 902 in 1994.
There are a couple of other figures that I want to share with Members
as well. We all recognize that education is suffering in this country.
According to the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress, when
testing for U.S. history achievement, 36 percent of fourth graders, 39
percent of eighth graders, and 57 percent of 12th graders failed to
attain even a basic skill level. For reading achievement, the same
National Assessment of Educational Progress test reports that 40
percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and 25 percent
of 12th graders failed to attain again basic skill sufficiency levels.
So where is all this money going? Because it is obviously not going
into the classroom, it is obviously not producing the kind of
educational results, the kind of educational improvement that we would
like to see in this country.
Mr. Chairman, we really have to take this into account when we hear
the other side talk about spending more and more money and growing our
Federal education bureaucracy back here in Washington. When we took
over last January and became the new Republican majority in this House
of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, we started an
inventory of all Federal education programs. That count today stands at
760 separate categorical Federal education programs and increasing.
Seven hundred and

[[Page H7313]]

sixty education programs, administered by a bureaucratic, redtape,
absolutely a maze of bureaucratic agencies. Thirty-nine separate
Federal departments, agencies, boards and commissions to administer
these 760 Federal education programs. These programs cost Federal
taxpayers $120 billion in 1995. But only 51 of these programs are
determined to be for the purposes of science, reading, or math. That is
how far we have gotten away from the 3 R's in this country. Remember
reading, writing, and arithmetic? I would add two others, respect and
responsibility, which I think we all need to teach through our public
schools. Only 3.6 percent of these 760 Washington Federal education
programs are science related, only 1.8 percent are reading related, and
only 1.1 percent of these programs are math related.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear. We are not getting the bang for the
buck, we are not getting the kind of results and the kind of
accountability we should expect and demand in our public education
schools in this country today.
I urge my colleagues, reject this argument and remember that the best
thing we can do for our children is to balance the budget. The
Democrats say that this bill hurts children but the fact is that we are
balancing the budget for our children, for the first time in decades.
If we do not get runaway Federal spending under control, we simply will
not have money for college loans, we will not have money for Head
Start, and we will not have money for children's health programs.

{time} 1645

So we again are prioritizing spending. Remember, more money, based on
the experience of the last few years, the last few decades in this
country, does not necessarily mean better education.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the argument that
throwing money at the problem is the solution. Qualitative educational
reform and improvement is the answer.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Sawyer].
(Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and
in opposition to this bill and specifically in opposition to the bill's
shortsighted allocations for education funding.
Mr. Chairman, if this country is truly going to meet the challenges
of the 21st century, its children will meet the best education we can
provide. I think we all agree on that point. However, this bill does
not reflect that need.
We know that over the next several years, enrollment in public
schools will rise to levels we have never seen before. In fact, the
Department of Education estimates that America will need 50,000
additional teachers for the upcoming school year, just to keep class
sizes the same as they were last year. This is not a 1-year anomaly--we
expect these numbers to continue to increase over the next several
years.
At the same time, we are facing a collapse of the current cohort of
teachers. The baby-boomers are reaching retirement age. This will mean
not only fewer teachers, but fewer role models and mentors for all of
the new teachers we hope to acquire. All of this is happening during a
time of extreme change in our society. For example the body of
scientific knowledge changes daily. We simply can't expect teachers who
were trained in this subject 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago, to be
able to teach science effectively without the resources and the
training they need to stay current. Constant retraining and
strengthening of skills is essential--especially as we ask teachers to
incorporate new technology into their classrooms.
However, this bill responds to this by doing exactly the opposite of
what is needed. It eliminates the Eisenhower Professional Development
Program--the one program that has provided national leadership in
strengthening the skills of our Nation's teachers. The Department of
Education estimates that the President's request for this program would
have given 750,000 teachers hands-on training. Even keeping the level
of funding equal to last year would have given 338,000 teachers the
professional development necessary to teach the next generation the
lessons they will need to survive in today's changing world. This does
not even take into account the millions of teachers who access the
Eisenhower clearinghouse on-line every year to share information about
lesson plans and innovations, in order to make their classrooms better
learning environments.
With this bill, none of that will take place.
And this is only one cut. I have not even spoken of the detrimental
effects of eliminating Goals 2000 or rejecting the President's
technology initiative. If we expect our schools to improve, we cannot
take away the tools--and yes, the money--they need to do so. With
enrollment increasing, with our current teacher cohort shrinking and
becoming, on average, less experienced, and with technology developing
faster than ever before, we must begin to invest more in education--not
to cut, or simply maintain the efforts of previous years. I have always
maintained that education is a local function, a State responsibility,
but now more than ever, it must be an overarching national concern. I
hope that before Members vote on this bill, they understand both the
gravity of that decision and its implications for this country's
education system.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 25 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey
amendment to restore vital funds for public education.
The amendment rejects the bill's slashing cuts in public education
that hit children and working families at every level of their academic
development. This bill will deny working American families the great
equalizer of our time, the opportunity of a quality public education.
It cuts safe and drug-free schools. It kicks 15,000 children out of
Head Start, denies help in reading and mathematics to 150,000 kids, and
it limits the ability of colleges and universities to grant student
loans to middle-class families.
The Obey amendment honors the priorities values of working American
families by making desperately needed educational investments.
Education is vital to the productivity and the competitiveness of our
Nation, both today and in the 21st century. Some of my opponents say
that the Republicans have changed their tune from 4 months ago and have
a newfound faith in the merits of public education. This is simply not
true. Put families first. Put out kids first. Vote for the Obey
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gene Green, because he talks slow.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for an
extra 30 seconds. Those of us from Texas, we talk a little slower.
I am just shocked that the Republican majority would be opposing this
amendment that does not increase the deficit and yet it puts money
where 80 percent of the American people want it, in education funding.
Education is hard, it's difficult and it is not cheap, and we know it
is not free. We cannot cut spending, as my colleague from California
thinks, in education and expect it to improve. Education is tough when
we spend the money. It is impossible when we do not spend the money.
That is why the Obey amendment is so important. It increases title I
funding, increases summer youth training programs, dislocated workers,
Head Start it increases $70 million, title I funding for disadvantaged
children, $450 million.
At a time when we see an increase in the student enrollment, as the
chart in the front talks about, 7 percent increase, this bill cuts it.
That is why the Obey amendment is so important.
If we do not restore the funding with the Obey amendment, then a
number of us are going to have to vote against this bill because it is
not preparing for the future of our country. It is cutting

[[Page H7314]]

the future of our country. Using the gentleman from California's
argument that education is failing and it is because we are not seeing
the improvement, the Pentagon might be zeroed out this year if we know
what the GAO study said on the gulf war. We have to do better, not only
with the Pentagon but also with education funding.

That is why the Obey amendment is so important for us to adopt and to
pass.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in serious opposition
to some remarks that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] made. In
fact, walking on the floor, I thought I was back in the Mississippi
legislature when they were debating not whether or not to increase but
whether or not there would even be mandatory education in the schools.
Mr. Chairman, Mississippi tried that. We went for almost 30 years
without mandatory education, I say to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Riggs]. That is probably why our State ranks last in so many
categories. It does not work. It costs to educate kids, and it costs
more to educate kids with disabilities. There was a time when they were
given a couple pots and pans and told to play in the backyard. Now we
try to educate them and, yes; we spend a disproportionately high amount
of money trying to educate those kids. But it is for the purpose of
making them self-sufficient so that we do not have to pay welfare for
them.
It costs money to educate children. My State tried the alternative.
My State tried going without education and it is suffering for it. So I
rise in complete argument with everything that the gentleman said and
also want to remind you that the Republican Congress is increasing the
annual operating deficit, not reducing it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Obey
amendment to maintain our commitment to our Nation's children, workers,
and our schools.
Mr. Chairman, the spending bill we are debating today provides
insufficient funding for title I math and English instruction, Safe and
Drug-Free Schools, and Head Start. When we consider that school
enrollment will increase by 44,000 in New York State alone and that
even modest inflation will mean higher costs everywhere, level funding
is simply not good enough.
This bill also completely eliminates funding for Goals 2000, provides
no new funds for the Perkins Loan program that helps families send
their kids to college, and that is just not acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, what will this bill mean? New York City will need an
additional $4.5 million in title I funds to provide remedial math and
English instruction to their students. Under this bill, they just will
not get it. More than 6,000 students and 260 teachers will be cut from
the program under this bill next year alone. What is worse, if we
follow the Republican budget resolution through the year 2002, 41,000
fewer students will receive title I instruction and 1,600 fewer
teachers will be funded in New York City. Overall, the Republican
budget resolution cuts funding for education and training by several
hundred million dollars by 2002.
The Obey amendment would add $450 million to title I and bring
funding up to the level requested by the President in his 6-year
balanced budget plan. Under the amendment, over 100,000 students who
would have lost remedial help can continue to receive it. An additional
250,000 to 300,000 disadvantaged students would receive the help they
so desperately need.
Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned that American students have fallen
behind their peers in other countries in math and science. To help push
our students to the head of the world's class, the Obey amendment
provides an additional $230 million for math and science professional
development. This funding is crucial to help train teachers to prepare
our students for the technical demands of the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I remember when I was in college and there was a great
rush to catch up with Sputnik and there was a big move to invest in
math and science, and we did so. There was a tremendous effort to
invest in math and science at the time, and we made a real difference
in our schools. Well, we need to do that again. This amendment restores
funding to the Goals 2000 program to ensure that our schools are
prepared for the 21st century.
In 1996, New York State received $25 million in Goals 2000 funds to
help establish and meet challenging academic standards. Some in this
Chamber may argue that schools do not see Goals 2000 money. However, 90
percent of Goals 2000 money that went to new York this year will reach
local schools, 90 percent. So make no mistake about it, eliminating
Goals 2000 will mean $22 million less to local schools in New York
State, and that would be wrong.
In addition, this amendment adds $70 million for Head Start. That
means 15,000 more slots in a program that ensures that young children
will be ready to learn when they enter school. As written, this bill
will deny Perkins loans to thousands of needy college students. This
amendment restores $93 million for the Perkins Loan Program, enough to
restore Perkins loans to 96,000 needy students who want desperately to
achieve the American dream.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that 1 short week after cost of
government day that says that all the income that American families and
individuals make up until July 3 of any given year goes to support
various aspects and various taxes, but basically it goes to fund the
cost of government. The Republican vision for education is to return
decisionmaking back to the local level. When we are already collecting
taxes for more than half the year, perhaps we ought to reassess how
those tax dollars are being spent, and more importantly, perhaps what
kind of impact are they having.
When we take a look at putting more money back into the educational
system in Washington, perhaps it is important to take a look at how
Washington defines education. So often we say education in Washington
is the Education Department, right? It is this agency, this Department
that funnels education dollars back to States and local school
districts. They are the ones that drive for excellence in education at
the local level. They maybe have a few programs that do this targeting
at different kinds of needs and specific requirements at the local
level. It is a little bit more complex than that.
It is really a myth here in Washington, because in education, we
really have embraced the myth that Washington can solve every problem
in education at the local level.
What has this myth evolved to? The result of us in this Chamber
believing that we can solve every problem means that we have developed
760 different education programs in this town; 760 different programs
that people at the local level have to filter through. It is a good
thing that these all go through the Department of Education, so at
least the people at the local level can go to one agency and one
bureaucracy in Washington and say: These are my requirements. How can
you help me and where should I go to look for assistance?

{time} 1700

Wrong. If you are at the local level and you have a problem and you
think that maybe the Federal Government can help you, and you say which
one of these 760 programs is targeted to help my specific requirements,
I think I will go to the Department of Education and get a catalog of
these. No, sorry, go to the Department of Education and then go to the
38 other agencies in Washington that have responsibility for education.
I am at the local level. I can go to 39 agencies and say, can you
please help me find out which of these 760 programs can help me to
solve my problem, 760 programs, 39 agencies. But they spend a lot of
money. Yes, they spend about $120 billion per year.
It is time to take a look at the agencies, not the money.

[[Page H7315]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member
for yielding me this time and also thank him for his leadership. This
is a very important amendment because if there were nothing else wrong
with this Labor-HHS bill there would still be three reasons, as I said
yesterday, to vote against it: Education cuts, education cuts,
education cuts.
The needs of our children and our schools are increasing rapidly and
that this House is willing to shortchange them is shortsighted. Our
children deserve better.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Committee on Appropriations voted to
cut the President's request for funding for education by $2.8 billion.
The Obey amendment would restore funding for some of the education and
training programs that have been frozen, cut, or eliminated in this
bill.
I am also pleased that the Obey amendment contains $100 million for
dislocated worker training. This is a particularly difficult time for
Congress to be freezing or cutting funds for dislocated worker training
when workers are dislocated by virtue of trade and downsizing. I should
not say virtue, but because of trade, downsizing, or technology. It is
just exactly the wrong time for us to be cutting funding for their
relocation and their training.
I am pleased also that there are funds for summer youth training.
Some of those positions are restored, 16,000, even though the committee
cut 79,000 summer job training positions. Of course, I am pleased with
the increased funding that the Obey amendment provides for Head Start,
Goals 2000, and title I.
Much has been said on the floor today about the Federal role in
education, and over and over in the course of the debate in the
committee, full committee, and here, about the fact that the Federal
role is 5 percent of education funding in our country. Indeed, it is
only 5 percent, but it is an important 5 percent, and under this
legislation, as has been presented here today, we, this Congress of the
United States, would not even be able to sustain that small
responsibility as important as it is to our Nation's children.
Our children deserve to learn in a safe and drug free environment, to
arrive at school ready to learn, to fully develop basic skills like
reading and math, to have expanded access to new technologies, to be
taught by well prepared teachers, to support higher education and to
learn the appropriate skills to succeed in the 21st century workplace.
Sometimes it is difficult for some of us to understand when we have
helped to teach our children to read and write that some children do
not have that assistance at home. Title I helps provide that for
children, and I am so pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] has found a way to increase the funding for title I.
We are beholden as public servants, I believe, to provide these
opportunities for our children. If we do not display this commitment,
we are destined to slam head first into a crisis in education and a
down turn in our Nation's productivity.
By this fall, 52 million students will be enrolled in elementary and
secondary education schools. Local education budgets are stretched to
the limits. Ask any local educator. Education is not just a local
responsibility, however, and I addressed earlier the 5 percent that we
provide that is very essential. It is the responsibility of all of us,
and if we do not live up to it, our children will suffer great
consequences.
The education of our children is at great risk. In my view, our
Federal commitment to education is a measure of our sincerity about
economic success, social progress, and our children's future. I hope
our colleagues agree and that they will support this amendment.
So many times in the course of the appropriations bill we have to
refer to the budget allocation that our chairman receives. He deserves
credit on making the best of our allocation. Even so, I think we should
keep our priorities in line with children first and support the Obey
amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the debate here is not who
supports education more. Everybody supports education; the Democrats,
Republicans. I have two children, one still in graduate school working
on her master's in social work. We support education; that is not the
debate. The debate is who is fiscally responsible in addressing the
problem.
Do we go back to the irresponsibility and use smoke and mirrors and
just build up debt and put debt on our children? We are talking about
the future of our kids, and the future of the kids is dependent upon
the debt we are putting on them. We have a debt of over $19,000 to
every man, woman, and child in this country today. If we just build
that up and build that up and spend, spend, spend, that is nice for
today, but what are we doing for our children and grandchildren? That
is what this debate is about.
We have to have fiscal responsibility. We have to have common sense
when we get into spending, and we are talking about the future of our
kids. That is what it is about. If we just throw more money, that does
not necessarily solve the problem. We have increased spending for
elementary and secondary education in this country from $4,000 per
child in 1970 to $7,000 today.
The District of Columbia spends over $9,000 per child. Now, there is
sending, lots more money, and what do we have to show for it? I doubt
if there is a Member sitting in the room today that will put their kids
in the public school in the District of Columbia, and that is throwing
more money at it.
So I think the rhetoric is scare tactics and that is unfortunate. It
has been tried on Medicare: Oh, the sky is falling. We are going to
destroy Medicare. Hey, we all support Medicare. They support Medicare.
We want to preserve Medicare. Education, the same thing. Everybody
feels strongly about education. We need to educate our kids. It is the
future of our country. But let us educate them in a fiscally
responsible way and not burden them with more debt.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about $1.3 billion extra
in Federal spending. No matter where we say the money is going to go,
where is it going to come from? We asked the proponents, and they say
we will take it out of the money that we were planning to spend next
year. Where do we get the money next year? Well, from the year after
that and the year after that.
Kind of reminds me of the husband who wanted the boat. He says to his
wife, ``I am going to get a boat.'' ``Where are you going to get the
money?'' ``I will take it out of the mortgage.'' ``How will you pay the
mortgage?'' ``I will take it out of the electric bill.'' ``How are you
going to pay the electric bill?'' ``I will take it out of the clothing
budget.'' ``How are you going to buy clothing?'' ``I will take it out
of the grocery budget.'' ``How are you going to buy groceries?'' ``I
guess we will have to borrow.''
That is what this is about. This is about increasing the amount that
we are going to borrow. From where do we intend to borrow this $1.3
billion? Well, there are many different ways. We could write a check,
if we had one. We could put it on a MasterCard or an American Express
or a Visa. But ultimately it means we are talking about borrowing that
money from our children.
I have five of them. I do not want them to be buried in debt before
they are even grown. I keep a chart in my office. It is on the wall.
People come in and they can see every day what is the national debt:
$5.1 trillion, $5,154,104,500,603 as of today, the share of each of my
children, $19,329, and going up.
Where is the money going to come from? They want to borrow, borrow,
borrow, borrow and put our kids in hock for it. This is not for the
kids. This amendment is for the bureaucrats, to preserve 760 Federal
programs in the name of education, and 95 percent of the education
budget in this country comes from the communities and the States. It is
not dependent upon the Federal Government.

[[Page H7316]]

What depends on the Federal Government is bureaucrats, 760 Federal
agencies spread out among 39 departments. Department of Defense. I do
not even know the names of some of these. Department of Energy. I do
not know what ATBCB is or AG. I know what EPA is and HHS and HUD. But
760 Federal programs? How many bureaucrats are we trying to support on
the backs of our children? That is what this is about.
If we believe in responsibility, if we believe that our children come
first, then we should not pretend we are helping them by borrowing more
money and putting more debt on their backs. Oppose the amendment. Let
us keep some sanity. Let us get away from the notion that has dominated
this body for so long that the American people are sick of it. Quit
borrowing, let us keep the budget solid and keep on the path towards
getting in it balance.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on Appropriations and
the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that this really is
not about education. We are all committed to education. There are
philosophical differences as to whether or not the education can best
be paid for at the Federal level or at the State and local level. I
think most of us on our side of the aisle believe this is a local
responsibility.
We can have programs that are better, more efficient, better funded,
better for children if they are run locally and funded locally. But
that is not really the issue that is involved here because we have
increased spending. If we put all the spending of State, Federal and
local spending together, we have increased dramatically.
Over the last 40 years, even when we take inflation into account, we
have more than doubled the per capita spending. Can anybody in this
body look at the statistics and say we are getting more for the dollars
that we are spending on education? I doubt it.
So the issue really is whether or not we are going to spend more to
provide for Federal bureaucracies. That is really what we are talking
about, keeping the bureaucracies in place who run these Federal
programs that amount to only 5 percent of the total education dollars.
Now, I know this is a little bit inside baseball, but the gimmick
that is being used here is very clever, and I think my colleagues need
to know about it. It is really a very clever device, because what they
are doing is, rather than take the money out of any other account,
reduce spending in any other place, because that might mean some pain
in some other areas, in health care, or in higher education or in job
training or something else, so rather than do that, we are going to
forward fund. That is, we are going to take the money out of certain
accounts and we are going to put it into the accounts in fiscal year
1998.
This is another year, not the year for which we are appropriating,
but we will make it available on October 1 during the school year,
October 1, 1997.
Now, the people on the other side have claimed, well, this has really
already been done by the Committee on the Budget, and it is true. In
the case of title I we did some of this forward funding. Why did we end
up having to do that? Because the President last year on this bill said
he would veto it if all the money he wanted for title I was not in the
bill, and we could not take it out of any other place, so we had no
choice but to forward fund that.
It is certainly not a practice that anybody should want to continue.
It is certainly not a practice that anybody thinks we ought to
replicate and make widespread in the Federal budget, because as the
gentleman who spoke before me suggested, when we start doing this with
one part of the budget, we can do it with all the parts of the budget.
Why not forward fund defense or the Commerce Department and law
enforcement, and so forth? And we will just keep borrowing it and
putting it all into the next year's budget. We will take this year's
and put it into the next year's budget.

{time} 1715

Obviously, each year the problem becomes bigger as we try to deal
with this problem. This is a bad process. We should not follow this
process. We should not do this any further. We should reject this idea.
We should stick to the budget resolution that we have adopted. We
should not play these kinds of games and use these gimmicks. This
amendment should be soundly rejected.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, where in the world were the bleeding
hearts an hour and a half ago when I stood down in this well and
pleaded with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face up to
the mandate that they gave 21 years ago which is destroying every
school district in this country? Not one of them was here.
Mr. Chairman, for 20 years they have refused to step up to the plate
and put the 40 percent they promised into special education, and for 2
years my side of the aisle has done exactly the same. And now they want
to exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I will not have a snowball's chance in Hades of
getting any money to step up to the plate to do something about the 40
percent unfunded mandate in special education because they are now
taking the 1998 money away from me.
Where were they an hour and a half ago when they should have been
here? Dislocated worker training is not an unfunded mandate. The summer
youth training is not an unfunded mandate. Head Start is not an
unfunded mandate. The Goals 2000 is not an unfunded mandate. Title 1 is
not an unfunded mandate. Eisenhower Teacher Training, unfunded mandate,
and it is not zeroed out either. It is moved into what we call chapter
2, which is where it should be, which gives the kinds of flexibility we
need.
But to think my Democrat colleagues would then have the gall not to
step up to the plate and do what they should do for local school
districts, which is deal with the IDEA problem. Why are they falling
behind in education in this country on the local level? Simply because
of unfunded mandates from the Federal Government. They have to take
their money that they would spend to upgrade education for the masses
of students to spend on what we mandated for the few that are out
there.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on the other side, do not turn
around and play games before an election like this and take away the
possibility that at least next year, if I cannot do anything about it
this year, at least next year being able to step up to the plate and
help those local districts and do something about the unfunded mandate
so that they can improve the education system. They know how to do it.
We do not. But we mandate and they pay. Let us reverse that. Please
reject this amendment above all.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the time remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 4 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 13\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon], the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning of the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office following the debate, and I
heard the same old untrue tirade of how we are cutting student lending
and how students will not be able to get help to go to college. I do
not know how many young people we have scared into not even trying to
get into school because of saying this untrue thing.
It seems to me that there is enough difference philosophically and
politically between us on both sides of the aisle that we can make our
points while still telling the truth, and I would implore that we do
that. That

[[Page H7317]]

we not scare people needlessly with untruths.
Let me just give a new facts about student loans. This bill that we
are working on right now, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill
for Federal student aid, this year increases Federal student aid $2.4
billion to $40.7 billion from the $38.7 last year. We continue to make
student aid one of our priorities, and we increase funding for all of
the major student aid programs.
Just a few examples: Pell grants we increase to $5.3 billion. That is
a $428 million increase. The Pell grant maximum we raise to $2,500 from
the $2,470. This is the highest maximum ever provided over the maximum
that we increased last year. The work-study program we increase to $685
million. That is over $68 million increase from last year, higher than
the President's request.
The TRIO Program we increase to $500 million. That is a $37 million
increase.
The bill appropriately makes limited reductions in duplicative and
outdated student aid assistance programs, but no student will have his
or her aid decreased as a result of the bill.
Student aid funding in combination with Federal entitlements like
student loans will increase aid available to students, as I said, this
year by $2.4 billion. So please ignore the false rhetoric and
misleading statements regarding student aid in this bill. This is a
good bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes. I had thought there
would be other speakers here, but there are not, so I will try to limit
my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric today and we have heard
a lot of talk about bureaucrats. We have heard a lot of talk about
mandates. The gentleman from Pennsylvania just asked where on earth
were we when he offered his amendment just a few minutes ago. I will
tell my colleagues where I was. I was right here, and I was voting
against his amendment because I do not believe that we ought to reduce
the funding in the committee bill for cancer research. I do not believe
we ought to reduce the funding in the bill for Alzheimer's research. I
do not believe we ought to reduce funding in the bill for the new
clinical center at National Institutes of Health to replace a 50-year-
old hospital. I make no apology for not wanting to cut those items.
As I indicated earlier, I think that where the gentleman wanted to
put the money was fine. Where he got the money from was atrocious. And
so if the gentleman wants me to be blunt about it, I voted against his
amendment because it took care of one problem and it creates numerous
others. And given all of the people who die from heart disease and
cancer and Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease and all the rest, I am
not going to go home and try to explain to people why I have voted to
cut medical research. I do not believe in cutting medical research.
Having said that, let me repeat again what we are trying to do. I
believe, and I think most people in this country believe, and I
certainly think most people on our side of the aisle believe, that we
are most clearly defined, both economically and morally, by where we
rank the importance of helping our children, and where we rank the
importance of helping people who struggle every day to make ends meet,
to stay one paycheck ahead of the bill collector, and hopefully to find
some way to help their kids get ahead in the process. And I also think
we are judged by how we deal with the most unfortunate members of our
society.
This bill makes quite clear that our top priority is education. Now,
it has been said: ``Oh, my goodness, if we move this money out of this
fiscal year into the next fiscal year in order to provide more head
room to meet education needs in the country, that we are adding to the
deficit next year.'' Absolutely not so. All we are suggesting is that
next year we ought to be spending more money than we otherwise will be
spending on education, and maybe, just maybe, that means that the
majority in this House will not make the same decision next year that
it made this year when it decided that new Pentagon toys were more
important than better education for our kids.
Mr. Chairman, I simply do not believe that next year we ought to add
$11 billion to the Pentagon budget above what the President has asked
for and what the Pentagon itself has asked for. After all, we already
spend 2\1/2\ times as much as all of our military opponents put
together. Add up any list one wants to name. We spend 2\1/2\ times as
much as they do.
I do not think we are nearly as much at risk from a Soviet or from a
Russian soldier or a Russian tank as we are from cancer, Alzheimer's,
bad education, bad discipline in schools, and weak worker training for
workers who are expected to compete in a world economy.
So what we are trying to do is not give more money to bureaucrats. I
repeat where this money goes. We are trying to see to it that my
Republican colleagues do not knock an additional 15,000 kids out of
Head Start, which this subcommittee bill will, and we are trying to see
to it that they help 450,000 American kids who otherwise will not be
helped to learn math and science and how to read. We are asking that
they restore 70 percent of what we cut out of the Goals 2000. That
money goes to schools to improve school quality.

We ask that they restore 85 percent of the money that was cut in
Eisenhower teacher training so that we can provide 186,000 math and
science teachers with upgraded training.
We ask that the restore Safe and Drug-Free School funding to the 1996
level. We ask that they provide $25 million more for summer jobs than
the committee bill does so that rather than stripping 79,000 kids out
of that program next year, that we can at least help 17,000 of the
79,000 kids that they are dumping out of that program next year.
On Perkins loans, we are asking that 96,000 young people in this
country get Perkins loans that otherwise would not get them because
they zeroed out the program.
We are asking, last, that we provide $100 million more than the
committee provides so that 50,000 American workers, not welfare
recipients but workers who have been dumped out of their jobs because
of the consequences of trade and imports, so that they can get some
training to get a second start in providing a decent income for their
families.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out, this does not violate the Budget Act.
This does not exceed the budget. This comes in, in fact, $5 billion
below the bipartisan Coalition budget which was provided for education
and training. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, if anything, this is
too modest.
I would simply add one point in closing. When my colleagues look at
this bill, this above all others is the bill that the Congress produces
each year which is supposed to be focused on creating greater
opportunity for working people and creating greater opportunity for
people just starting out in life. That is what this bill is supposed to
do. It is, as Bill Natcher used to say, the ``people's bill.'' We are
trying to provide greater educational opportunity. We are trying to
provide greater training opportunity for workers, and that is all this
amendment does.
It can be attacked for being socialistic, which is a joke. It can be
attacked for spending too much money. It seems to me that we are far
better off spending money here than we are in spending additional money
to buy additional B-2 bombers that we do not need. And I would also
say, Mr. Chairman, that in the end, I think this more than any other
amendment on any appropriation bill this year defines the differences
in priorities between the two parties.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that if Members vote
for this amendment, what they will be doing is trying to pull us away
in some small measure from the determination demonstrated in this bill
to take the first step which, over a 6-year period, will lead to a 20-
percent real reduction in the amount of deliverable education support
for our youngsters in this country.

{time} 1730

That is where this committee bill wants to take us. This committee
bill wants to say: ``OK, we are going to stealthily begin the process
under which at the end of the 6 years, under the budget resolution--
which you have adopted on your side of the aisle--that we will be
spending 20 percent less than in real dollar terms to support the
education of our children and the training

[[Page H7318]]

of our workers.'' We simply do not believe that is the best way to
prepare America for the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I have heard the other side say several times in the
course of the debate that we were zeroing out the Perkins loan program.
That is simply, plainly not true. There is $6 billion in circulation
under the program. We are simply not adding additional capital this
year to the $6 billion.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a serious amendment. I have heard the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for years now, because he and I
would always agree on this in subcommittee markup, oppose forward
funding of exactly this type and denounce it as fiscally irresponsible
in the extreme. And yet he got up and debated in favor of the
amendment, knowing very well that that is exactly the kind of funding
that he himself opposes. No, it is not a serious amendment.
It is, however, a very serious propaganda effort by the other side to
say somehow Democrats are more concerned than Republicans are about
educating kids and yet they know that is something that could not be
further from the truth and is not true.
No, we can never seem to outbid the other side in terms of saying how
much we are going to spend and that, therefore, makes us more concerned
because the other side takes not responsibility for the bottom line.
They simply say, ``we would spend and add to the deficit. We do not
care what level of debt we put upon our children and grandchildren. We
are willing to do anything to say that we are more concerned about
education than you are.'' That is total nonsense.
What is true, Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to do the job of
education better for the kids than has been done by the Democrats over
the last 40 years.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] pointed out very
forcefully, we have spent far more money on education and have gotten
worse results. What we are going to do is work for programs that work
better for the kids and get results.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to investing in our
children's education, the new majority needs to take a refresher course
in basic arithmetic because their numbers just don't add up.
Just take a look at this bill: At the same time school enrollment is
expected to increase by 7 percent by 2002, the new majority is
proposing to cut funds for education by 7 percent.
This means our schools will have larger classes, fewer teachers, and
fewer learning resources, like textbooks and computers. While
enrollment increases.
I would recommend that my friends on the other side of the aisle
study the history of the Goals 2000 Program, which they are proposing
to eliminate.
They would learn that it was a Republican President, President Bush,
who first championed the need for education reform. It was the Bush
administration which crafted the Goals 2000 Program to meet that need
and enlisted the help of Democratic Governors, such as then-Governor
Clinton, to get goals 2000 passed by Congress.
Eliminating funds for Goals 2000 means ending support to almost every
State in this country, as they work to establish high national learning
standards and to ensure that all their students can meet those
standards. My State of California will lose approximately $42 million.
I wonder how many of the Members who support this bill have taken a
field trip recently to a local school, and talked to the students and
their families? Are they telling these kids and their parents that they
want to cut the funds that help kids learn basic reading and math, cut
the funds for special education and cut funds for safe and drug-free
schools?
In addition, this bill completely ignores the President's technology
initiative, which joins public and private resources to get computers
in all our classrooms and to give teachers the training they need so
that every American student will know how to use modern technology in
school and on the job.
And what about the teachers? Do they know that this bill eliminates
the valued Eisenhower Professional Development Program? We need, and
expect, so much from our teachers these days. They need to be a
combination of Mother Theresa, Mr. Chips, and Bill Gates--yet, the new
majority wants to end funding for professional development?
Maybe the supporters of this bill should audit a college course, and
get to know some of the more than 200,000 college students who will be
affected by the bill's provision to eliminate new funding for the
Perkins Loan Program. They would learn, firsthand, what those of us who
support this amendment to increase funding for education already know--
the cost of college is increasing too rapidly for many students to
afford, and they need our help to continue their education and get the
skills they'll need for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of tomorrow.
Americans want a good education for their kids, and they expect
responsible national leadership to help them get it. I hope my
colleagues will ``get it'' too, and support the Obey amendment and
support American students and schools.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

amendment offered by mrs. lowey

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: At the end of title III of
the bill, insert the following new title:

``TITLE III V-B--WOMEN'S EDUCATIONAL EQUITY INCREASE

``The amount provided in title III for `school improvement
programs' (including for activities authorized by title V-B
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) is
increased, and the amount provided in title III for
`education research, statistics, and improvement' is reduced;
by $2,000,000, and $2,000,000, respectively.''

Mrs. LOWEY (during the reading.) Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that
the time be divided, 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Lowey], and 10 minutes to myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Along with my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, I
am very pleased to offer an amendment to the bill that will provide $2
million in funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act programs.
Currently, the bill eliminates funding for these important educational
programs.
Abolishing the critical WEEA program is simply unfair to girls and
women throughout this Nation. These programs successfully opened
previously closed doors for girls in school and in the workplace.
The WEEA programs cost $2 million, and that money pays off in a big
way. As my colleagues all know, women still earn only 72 cents for
every dollar earned by men. The glass ceiling has kept women from
achieving success in upper management. The best way for women to break
through these economic barriers is by becoming better educated,
particularly in nontraditional jobs which are generally higher paying.
The Women's Educational Act programs will give today's girls the
ability to become tomorrow's high-wage earners. These programs help
girls to succeed in math, the sciences and other
nontraditional classes. In addition, WEEA supports programs that keep
girls from dropping out, in keeping with the national goal of
increasing graduation rates to at least 90 percent by the year 2000.
Other programs are designed to eliminate discrimination against girls
in the classroom and to develop programs, materials, and curricula free
of gender bias.

[[Page H7319]]

Let me tell my colleagues about a few of the successful projects
funded by WEEA.
In Massachusetts, the Preengineering Program helps girls to enhance
their performance and their participation in math and science, classes
and encourages them to pursue careers in engineering, science and
technology. In Chairman Livingston's State of Louisiana, the Women's
Leadership Development Program works with high school girls, teen
mothers, and female educators to keep girls in school and, by
graduating, to increase their independence and self-sufficiency.
In Florida, Project Can provides young women with training and
information about high-skilled, high-wage careers that can provide them
with economic self-sufficiency.
My amendment will be offset by reducing funding for research at the
Department of Education by $2 million. In this bill, research is
increased by $16 million over fiscal year 1996 and over $15 million
more than the administration requested. While I certainly support the
research efforts of the Education Department, I believe that we must
save the successful Women's Educational Equity Act programs. Cutting
these programs is incredibly shortsighted. We may save some money this
year, but we are sacrificing the future of today's young women.
With the WEEA programs, these girls can learn the skills they need to
become independent and economically successful. Let us not let them
down. Our amendment is supported by the American Council on Education,
the PTA, the American Association of University Women, the Association
of Women in Science, the National Organization of Women, the Older
Women's League, and many other organizations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong with the program that the
gentlewoman wants to fund. In fact, for years I was a very strong
supporter of that program. The question, however, is where it is to be
funded.
We have made a very strong effort, and this is some of what we are
talking about in making government work better for people. We have made
a very, very strong effort in approaching our bill over the last two
cycles, this being the second cycle, to take small programs that are
very expensive to administer and put them into larger programs where
they can be administered much more effectively and efficiently and this
is one that we did that to.
This is a program that is presently not funded. Why not? Because the
money is put into education research and improvement, and the program
can be carried out there very easily.
Now the gentlewoman would want to take the money out of education
research and improvement and put it back into a separate line item for
women's educational equity. I suggest that that is wonderful
symbolism, and we all are concerned about women's educational equity. I
am and I have supported it for a long, long time. But I do not see the
point of doing that.

I think we have to go back to the core programs, the larger ones that
can be more effectively administered instead of having a favorite line
item for every single Member of the House and every single Member of
the Senate and make a very inefficiently run department.
The Department of Education has 240 separate programs to administer.
Sit down with anybody in the Department under any administration,
Republican or Democrat alike, and they will tell you this is crazy. It
is nonsense to administer all these separate programs.
We have made a very, very conscious effort to try to move smaller
programs into larger ones so that they can be funded and have some
discretion over in the Department as to where the funds ought to go.
This is one of them.
I would simply urge the Members to reject the amendment, not because
women's educational equity is not important. It is very important. But
allow the Department to pursue it through the educational research and
improvement account where they have been pursuing it. It is perfectly
well done there. It saves administrative expense, and I believe that it
is equally well served there as having its own separate line item.
I would oppose the amendment for that reason.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, just to respond
to our distinguished chairman, although I agree with the gentleman that
consolidation of programs when it makes sense is a good idea. Whenever
we can save money in administration, I think it is a good idea. But
this happens to be a jewel of a program, if we can target money to
specific programs that are known to work effectively.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland
[Mrs. Morella], my distinguished cochair of the Congressional Caucus on
Women's Issues.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me. As she mentioned, the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey, and
I chair the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. This is a high
priority for us. I think for all of the women in the United States, as
well as the men in terms of wives, daughters, nieces, et cetera.
I want to respond also to the chairman of the subcommittee, and I
have mentioned earlier that I think he has done a yeoman job on this
bill. I think he has really tried to treat very sensitively all of the
programs. I would submit to the gentleman that this is a small program
that focuses on what its primary objective is. It is like bringing
Government closer to the people and closer to the people who are
administering it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the
Lowey-Morella amendment. This amendment would restore $2 million for
women's educational equity programs. The funding would come from
educational research, a program which would receive, in this bill, an
increase of $16 million over the fiscal year 1996 amount and more than
$15 million over the budget request.
I believe that in order to achieve educational excellence in our
schools, we must eliminate gender bias. In 1974, the Women's
Educational Equity Act [WEEA] was established to promote title IX,
which barred sex-discrimination in federally funded programs. Over the
years, WEEA has funded research, training programs, and other projects
to promote educational equity for girls and women. More than 20 years
after the enactment of WEEA, a pattern of gender equity still persists
in our Nation's schools.
Research by the American Association of University Women [AAUW] shows
that during the school years, girls receive less teacher attention then
boys and less constructive criticism. Girls' self-esteem drops
dramatically as they move through adolescence, and they continue to
drop-out of high level math and science courses. Although girls score
as well as boys on math tests, by the time they are 17, they have
fallen behind. High school girls still earn more credits then boys in
English, history and foreign languages, but fewer in math and science.
Women earn more than half of all bachelor's degrees, but their degrees
are clustered in traditional fields for women such as nursing and
teaching.
WEEA provides schools with the materials and tools needed to comply
with title IX. WEEA promotes projects that help girls to become
confident and self-sufficient women. These projects help to prevent
teen pregnancy, keep girls in school until graduation, and steer them
toward careers in math and science. A current project of WEEA is
designed to clarify for schools a definition of sexual harassment and
what the law requires them to do. WEEA funds also initiated the
observance of Women's History Month, which has alerted students across
the country of the important contributions of women.
Mr. Chairman, we must not allow WEEA programs to fall by the wayside.
Girls and women have made great strides through the programs funded
under WEEA. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella amendment
to continue funding for WEEA. Our efforts to reform and improve
education will not be complete unless we address the needs of all of
America's school children.

{time} 1745

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the distinguished

[[Page H7320]]

ranking member from the authorizing committee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, as former chairman of the elementary and secondary
vocational subcommittee and as a teacher and as a father of a daughter,
I stand here to support this amendment very strongly. I support it as a
separate program also, not to be buried in another program, because we
need to build sensitivity to the rights and abilities of all women, all
students.
I recall a few years ago when my daughter and my two sons and I were
flying, the cabin attendant came by and gave my two sons pilot wings
and gave my daughter stewardess badges, and I told the cabin attendant
at that time, I am sure my daughter would rather have the pilot wings.
That situation exists in our schools yet today, too, where they steer
people in a certain direction because of their gender. We have to break
down this gender bias, and this program as a separate program is
important, because that gender bias still exists in society, and that
includes our schools. So it is very, very important that we keep this
program as a separate program, not buried in another very good program.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the committee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment to restore
funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act.
We have talked much in this Congress about preparing our children for
the future and teaching personal responsibility. The programs
administered under the Women's Educational Equity Act, in place for the
last 20 years, have made great strides to accomplish these goals for
girls.
Girls and young women face a number of real and serious obstacles
that often keep them from reaching their full potential, such as lack
of skills or self-confidence, teen pregnancy, sexual harassment,
violence in the classroom, and intentional and unintentional sex
discrimination.
Through projects and outreach programs, girls learn job skills for
traditional and for nontraditional, high-paying careers. They learn to
reject the notion of traditional employment for women and embrace
education in a variety of fields. It is sad but true that girls and
women still need to be told in our society that they are capable of
anything. These programs helps girls become confident, educated and
self-sufficient. They remind and encourage girls that they can become
self-sufficient adults who make a great contribution--our scientists,
world leaders, working mothers, Members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, for the sake of the future of your
daughters and granddaughters, to vote for the Lowey amendment to
restore funding to this important program.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from New York, and in great support of women and
girls in our education system.
I support this amendment because often the barriers to girls'
participation in the classroom or on the playing field are
unintentional. Often these barriers are subtle and go unnoticed. But
the fact remains that girls in our country, and the consequences are
profound.
Mr. Chairman, as we move toward the 21st century, there is no
question that girls and boys need top-notch math and science skills.
Women earn more than half of all bachelor's degrees, yet, their degrees
are clustered in traditional fields for women, which often means lower
paying jobs.
Unless we combat this problem, women will have fewer economic
opportunities, women will continue to a lower quality of life than men,
and these inequalities will persist into the next century.
We must make sure this does not happen.
As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee,
I am working hard to improve education for girls and boys, for women
and men.
Programs funded through the Women's Educational Equity Act is a way
to achieve this goal.
When you vote on this amendment, I urge you to think of your sister;
your wife; your granddaughter. Vote for the Lowey amendment, and vote
for equality in education.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished 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. Chairman, I rise to support the
amendment of the cochairman of the Women's Caucus to emphasize the
importance of girls' education with respect to science. This is an
important amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to say
that I understand that the gentlewoman in her remarks had said the
American Council on Education endorses this amendment. We have received
a call just now. The American Council on Education does not endorse the
amendment. We just received the call.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in opposition to this
amendment. This amendment, some of the language in it says:

Gender equality policies and practices. The program
provides teacher training to encourage gender equity.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, and I am
speaking here today on behalf of our children, this program was zeroed
out in fiscal year 1996, as we know, The fact remains that if we do not
reach a balanced budget, if we do not make the appropriate steps to
balance the budget, then none of our children, boys and girls, will
have a future, will be able to preserve the American dream.
We know a child born today owes $187,000 only in interest on the
national debt. If I had started a business the day Jesus Christ was
born and spent $1 million a day every day from then through today, I
would still not have lost my first $1 trillion, and we are $5 trillion
in debt.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a legacy that we can send onto our
children, whether they are male or female. I very much resent the
opportunity not to be able to compete with anyone, man or woman, on a
level playing field. I do not think that women feel that they are in a
position where they cannot compete. I think so much of this discussion
is a generational problem. The young women that I know believe that
they can compete, and that they can do equally as well in this society.

Yes, I freely admit in the years that I was in college and the years
when I was younger, I agree there was discrimination, and it was harder
for women to make their way in the professional world. But I believe
times have changed, and I also believe that we need to cut programs
that are not as effective as they should be, because we have to spend
our money in wise use in this budget. We need to do that for the sake
of our children.
I am very determined. I will not be a party to leaving a country to
my children or other people's children that is not in as good a
condition as the country that I received from my parents. We need to
save the American dream for them, and we cannot do that if we continue
to spend money on irresponsible programs. I ask on behalf of the
children and families in America that we defeat this amendment and get
on with our business.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentlewoman, I was prepared
to yield some of my time to speakers on the gentlewoman's side, with
the understanding that she was not going to ask for a recorded vote on
this. Since I now understand the gentlewoman is going to ask for a
recorded vote, I find it difficult to do that. Therefore, I will simply
close after the gentlewoman proceeds with her final speakers.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the remaining speakers who
are going to speak on the gentleman's generous time would clarify the
issues, so that I have confidence that he would

[[Page H7321]]

want to continue to yield the time to them.
I know that our distinguished Member, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], would like to speak, and we have a few
speakers here to share my 1 additional minute.
Mr. PORTER. Maybe I should not have opened this subject, Mr.
Chairman. I wanted to explain why I was unable to yield the time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 40 seconds to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of this amendment. This small program has made an enormous difference
in creating among girls in America the belief that they have a wide
range of opportunities in our society.
One of our biggest problems right now is teen pregnancy, and the
teen-to-teen pregnancy prevention is enabling girls to see that math
and science open worlds of opportunity, that staying in school matters,
that self-esteen is there for them to get. This program funds projects
that do exactly that for girls. We must not pull back on a single
dollar that can help our girls understand that life is full of
opportunity.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Patsy Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
debate on this amendment be extended by an additional 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Hawaii?
Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I was about
to yield my remaining time, except for 1 minute, to the side of the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], if that would help. Could we do
it that way?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, except 1
minute, to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] yields 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and he retains 1
minute for himself.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of this committee,
for the time that is so precious to defend this amendment, to urge its
adoption. It is only $2 million, and it is basically a research
program. It is moneys that are coming out from a research program in
the department, and we are using this method to earmark the money for
an area that might otherwise be ignored.
It is so important that we fund the research and training and impetus
to the classrooms and to the schools to keep encouraging them to
emphasize the importance of equity in education. Our girls are not
being encouraged properly into the fields of math and high-tech and
science, and they need this special way of dealing with this issue,
especially in the elementary ages. They need programs that enhance role
models. The whole thing of history, women's history month, is to find
all of the people in the country, women, who have excelled in these
programs, and to encourage our young people to follow that route.

{time} 1800

If we just support research in general in the department, and the
committee has been very generous, and I commend them for it by adding
$16 million, but if we leave this area into this general, nebulous
research and not carve out a special program of only $2 million for the
girls, for the sake of equity in education, we are going to really love
the tremendous ground that we have achieved thus far. I happen to be
the author of this program, and I applaud the gentlewoman for raising
this issue once again.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as generous and knowledgeable as
our chairman the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, is, and of course
he has the strong support of the ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Dave Obey, I do not think they realize how important this
is. This is a very important amendment which the gentlewoman from New
York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, has put in. She asked for merely $2 million.
This $2 million will being recognition to the women in this country. It
was a very hard fight to get this recognition for women. Please, I beg
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the Members who are not
supporting this amendment to turn around and think what an important
time this is. Women fought hard to get here. We need your support to be
sure that this $2 million will focus this similar block grant, because
I know and most Members know, when this money is allocated, women's
equity will not be at the top of the list and when the money is
allocated, we will be at the end. Please support the Lowey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is
recognized for 20 seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, to close this debate, I would like to thank
my colleagues with whom I have worked so closely on this issue over the
years. Having seen the results of these programs, having seen the
educational programs that have encouraged women to get into fields of
math and science and engineering, I would again like to appeal to all
my colleagues to support this very important amendment. We can work to
cut out a lot of programs, but this is one in which we should invest.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say again, I have supported this
program in the past, I think it is important, but line items are not
meant for recognition. If so, we have too many already. This program
can be and is presently administered under the education research and
improvement line item. That is where it is right now. There is not a
separate line item for it. That is where it ought to remain. To put it
simply back into existence either as recognition or symbolism to me is
simply not the way we ought to proceed. There are too many separate
programs. They are all worthy, of course. They all have defenders. But
we have managed to cut down on the number of single programs with high
cost to administer, put them under larger accounts like educational
research and improvement. We have done it here. I would ask the
Congress to keep that exactly as it is and allow us to reduce the
number of programs and do a much more efficient job.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
will be postponed.

amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: After title
III of the bill, insert the following new title:

``Title IIIC--Bilingual Education Increase

Of the amount made available under the heading ``impact
aid'' for Federal property payments under section 8002 of
title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, $10,000,000 is transferred and made available as an
additional amount under the heading ``bilingual and immigrant
education'', of which $6,800,000 shall be for carrying out
subpart 2 of part A of title VII of such Act.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect very much the
process of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and also the question of the importance of
education that has been debated on this floor today. I supported the
Obey amendment and

[[Page H7322]]

will support it once it comes to the floor again for a vote, because I
believe the priorities of education says to the American people that we
would invest in the front end and not the back end, the back end
meaning incarceration, imprisonment, hopelessness and joblessness for
Americans. Interestingly enough a recent report cited that the lack of
promise of our recent immigrants comes mostly from their lack of
understanding of English and their inability to have the appropriate
job skills to move into mainstream America.
Coming from the State of Texas, I can say to you that I applaud local
officials and the Governor of the State of Texas that have not tried to
create a wedge issue on immigration. We have in fact included our new
immigrants and have worked very hard to provide them with the resources
that they need to integrate into our society. Bilingual education is
the key to providing people the opportunity to open the door that gives
them an even playing field, and particularly it is important to provide
the dollars added professional development training of teachers so that
they can educate those who come into our school system. Although the
committee has worked hard in this area, I think it is important that we
recognize that more dollars are needed to support bilingual education.
This particular amendment would have offered an extra $10 million to
ensure that bilingual education is both respected and enhanced in the
professional and development training and to provide the access to
those teachers who would teach our children. Recognizing that the
source that I have taken such moneys from deal with Impact education,
and might I say that I recognize all those who worked so hard in the
Impact education area, I would note that it was only 235 school
districts that are impacted on this out of 14,000, but nevertheless it
is an important issue.
But I raise this amendment because I think it is important again to
focus on the question of bilingual education. I would simply ask my
colleague from California [Mr. Becerra], who is on the floor, if he
would accept me engaging him in a colloquy on bilingual education.
This amendment is one that I have offered, though I am going to ask
for unanimous consent to withdraw it. But the reason, of course, is to
comment, I think both of us have been in the Committee on the Judiciary
and we have heard that studies offered by the Rand Commission that have
talked about the front end investment versus the back end. So I am
hoping that we can all join together and work on increasing the dollars
for bilingual education to ensure that direct dollars to the school
systems but as well to training bilingual teachers and enhancing their
professional development. I query Mr. Becerra for his input on the
importance of this kind of training and expanding bilingual education.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and would say that
I agree with everything she has said. All the information we have, the
data and any studies you look at show that we are absolutely in need of
teachers who can help transition a lot of our young students who are
not yet proficient in English so that they can become fully proficient.
What we have found is that the best way to do that is to not let them
fall behind in math, in geography and science while they are trying to
learn English but let them learn all those subjects so that within 3,
4, or 5 years they are actually in fully mainstream course work.
I would agree with the gentlewoman completely we do need to see more
funding, we do need to see some money allocated to the professional
development component of bilingual education so we can have the
teachers that we need to teach. We are drastically by tens of thousands
of teachers understaffed in our schools for bilingual education and
hopefully we will see something remedied as we go through the process
of trying to pass a bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I may make an inquiry to
the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I had wanted to enter
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] but I do
want to allow the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]
to comment on this.
Would the gentleman yield me time to enter into a question of him so
that I can yield to the gentlewoman?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we expected
that she was going to offer the amendment and then withdraw it. We see
that there are other speakers on both sides. Perhaps we could simply
agree to a 10-minute time limit on this amendment and all amendments
thereto and divide it between yourself and myself and finish it in the
next 10 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would appreciate that.
Mr. PORTER. I ask unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just speak on behalf of the increase in
funding for bilingual education. We do recognize that there are
numerous students now coming into the public school systems that are
non-English-speaking students. There is a critical need for teachers to
teach these students English. I am appealing to those who are on the
Committee on Appropriations and my colleagues to increase bilingual
education, thereby providing these young people a qualified teacher who
can help them to learn English. It is important, it is critical for the
future of our country to have these young folks who are thousands,
increasing thousands, in the public schools, to have a teacher who can
teach English to them.
I am urging that we support the increase in bilingual education that
will afford us the opportunity to train teachers to teach these
students.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Kelly].
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas.
The amendment seeks to cut funding from the Federal Impact Aid
Program and transfer the moneys to bilingual education.
Without debating the merits of bilingual education, let me emphasize
that cutting impact aid, especially section 8002 of the program, will
be devastating to schools around the country that depend upon this
assistance.
Local governments cannot collect property tax revenue from federally-
owned property, which affects their ability to provide sufficient
revenue to the local school system. Section 8002 of impact aid
reimburses local governments for the lost tax revenue.
Funding for impact aid represents the Federal Government's commitment
to reimburse local governments impacted by a Federal presence. By
cutting these funds, regardless of the reason, we are essentially
turning our back on this commitment.
I represent the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District, which
sits adjacent to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and is very
dependent on the moneys it receives from the Impact Aid Program to
survive. I fear the gentlewoman's amendment, if passed, could seriously
jeopardize the school district's ability to remain open or adequately
serve its students.
The Federal Government must live up to the commitment it has made to
the communities in my district and across the country who depend on the
Impact Aid Program. The bill contains a modest amount of funding to
reimburse land-impacted school districts like the one I represent. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think I mentioned and stated earlier for the record
that I

[[Page H7323]]

offered the amendment and asked unanimous consent to withdraw it in
order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] if he would on the question of the importance of bilingual
education.

{time} 1815

We realize that there are so many interests involved in this bill
dealing with Education and Health and Human Services. Certainly, I
believe that we could have enhanced this legislation by additional
funding for bilingual education. However, in the spirit of cooperation,
I would simply say to the gentleman who has worked hard, along with the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], that I would like to join with
others to make sure that we have the number of bilingual teachers and
the proper training for those teachers to ensure that we invest in the
front end and not the back end, to make our new immigrants have access
to English and to ensure that the children who are in our schools are
fully educated in some of our States.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I support transitional
bilingual education that moves young people from their native language
as quickly as possible into English and teaching them then in English.
But I do not support bilingual education as has been practiced in many
of our larger cities where kids are kept in their native language for
year after year instead of moving them to English. So, to the extent
that we transition and actually use the bilingual program as it was
originally intended to move children as quickly as possible into the
English language and being taught in the English language, I support
it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, and simply forwarding
or completing my remarks, let me say that we probably have a slight
disagreement on that. It is my concern that we continue to teach
children as long as they need to be taught in order that they can move
into the mainstream. However, I will seek to work with those who will
work with me to ensure that we do provide the right kind of resources
for bilingual education, a fair assessment of resources for bilingual
education.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I am actually quite encouraged to hear the
chairman's remarks because I think, if he were to go to some of the
large cities like mine in Los Angeles, what he would find is that
transition is actually occurring rapidly. But when you have a situation
where, like in Los Angeles, you have so many new kids coming in who are
in a situation where they must learn anew--in fact, you have some kinds
who have never seen a computer so they do not even know how to say
computer even in their native language--it takes some time for a school
to be able to show the success. But if you look at the individual
children, the average time of stay in a bilingual education program is
3 years. So they are transitioned to a fully mainstreamed program of
English-only instruction in about 3 years.
So I am very encouraged to hear the chairman's remarks and I hope
that we are able to do something because over the last decade,
bilingual education has taken about a 60-percent cut in funding. So
these are kids who are trying to learn who have seen their funding at
the Federal level cut by 60 percent.
I have a figure here that says that the Department of Education
recently estimated that we are short approximately 175,000 bilingual
education teachers to help these kids transition quickly into
mainstream instruction.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I think Texas will work
with California and many other States that are impacted by this need
for additional funds. I would simply encourage all of my colleagues
that we work to make sure that we invest in the front end and not the
back end.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair at this point,
we have 3 minutes of our time remaining, whether we are not entitled to
use that before the amendment is withdrawn.
Mrs. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, then, Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman is going to have another speaker.
Mr. PORTER. Why does the gentlewoman not reserve the balance of her
time?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time and
withdraws her unanimous-consent request.
The gentleman from Illinois will have the right to close.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
This is an issue in bilingual education that I have done a good deal
of study on, and I think it is important for us to have a balanced view
of what is taking place in bilingual education. Thirty percent of the
Hispanic students in America drop out of school. The lowest pay rates
in America today come to Hispanic youngsters because they do not have
training in the English language. Kids in bilingual education are not
in their for 3 years. They are in there for as long as 9 years, and
they get 30 minutes a day at the most in English language.
This comes from U.S. News & World Report, that did an in-depth study
on bilingual education. They concluded that, along with the crumbling
classrooms, along with the crumbling classrooms, violence in the
hallways, bilingual education has emerged as one of the dark spots in
the grim tableau of American public education.
Today I wish that the person who is introducing this amendment would
talk to some of her constituents in Texas, for example, Ernesto Ortiz,
who said: They teach my kids in school in Spanish so they can become
busboys and bellhops. I am trying to teach them English at home so they
can become doctors and lawyers.
That is what I am saying today. Let us give these new Americans the
same chance to have part of the American dream that we have
historically given our new Americans. There is a 30-percent dropout.
This is not an issue between the kids in school. This is an issue of
the bureaucracy. The only people who are for this are the bureaucrats.
In New York City, kids are put in bilingual education. Why? Because of
their surname, and then the parents cannot get them out of these
educational classes.
In New York City, the parents had to take the school board to court
to get their kids out of bilingual education so their kids could have
an equal chance. If my colleagues want to establish linguistic ghettos
in America, vote for this type of amendment. But if my colleagues want
this country to be equal and have everyone have an equal chance, then
vote against amendments like this. Americans, all Americans should have
the same chance to be part of, get part of the American dream that all
of us have had.
English is a language of opportunity in the United States. The way
people are kept down is if you keep them in bilingual education. You
have to immerse young Americans in the English language so that they
can compete. We want all Americans to have an equal chance, and we have
to begin with giving all Americans an equal chance with the English
language. Otherwise we are going to keep these kids in linguistic
ghettos, and we are opposed to that in any form.
(Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Jackson-
Lee amendment, which would transfer $10 million from section 8002
impact aid funds to bilingual education.
As we all know, States and localities provide approximately 95
percent of education funding in the United States. The largest source
of this funding is local property taxes. When a school district loses
10 percent of its taxable property to the Federal Government, the local
schools are severely impacted. In 1950, Congress responded to this
problem by creating the Impact Aid Program. I have always been a strong
supporter of this program.

[[Page H7324]]

Mr. Chairman, Burr Ridge School District 180 in my congressional
district is 1 of 8 districts in Illinois that qualifies for section
8002 impact aid funds. In the case of Burr Ridge school district,
three-fourths of the assessed value of the school district is federally
owned land at Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. When
the Federal Government does not pay its share for the Federal property
taken off the tax rolls, the burden falls to local homeowners.
Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the entire section 8002 impact aid
program costs about $17.5 million. This funds federally impacted school
districts at about 40 to 50 percent of funds they are qualified to
receive. In the case of Burr Ridge school district, these funds go
directly to teaching positions, reading programs, and special
education. Unlike most Federal aid programs, such as title 1 and drug-
free schools, impact aid directly funds schools which are adversely
impacted by the presence of Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to strongly oppose the Jackson-Lee
amendment, and support our responsibility to serve federally impacted
schools.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1
additional minute, please.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just have to object. We have to
expedite these bills. We cannot carry them on any longer.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] allow me time to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair, is there any
necessity for yielding time to the gentlewoman from Texas to ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can ask unanimous consent to withdraw
her amendment without additional time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to avoid any more ugly talk
about bilingual education, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment so that those of us of good will can work together to ensure
that the children are educated and we are investing in America.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

amendment offered by mr. fox of pennsylvania

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania. Page 66, line
9, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced
by $1,923,000)''.
Page 70, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,923,000)''.

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is an
agreement agreed to by both sides, by the ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and also by the chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would just make brief remarks, if I may, in
support of the amendment.
The Foster Grandparents Program pairs low-income adults with special
needs children. The foster grandparents themselves are active, healthy
older Americans who have a desire to stay active in their communities
but do have limited incomes. The children that are served in the Foster
Grandparents Program have special needs and are considered at risk.
Some of the children included in this program are: children with HIV/
AIDS; children with severe physical, mental or emotional disabilities;
children suffering from serious or terminal illnesses; children who
were abused or neglected; and pregnant teens.
The foster grandparents spend 40 hours in training and orientation.
Then they are matched with approximately four children. The
grandparents are then required to work 4 hours a day for 5 days a week
participating in activities with the children.
The benefits of the program include enabling seniors to increase
their own standard of living by offering them a small stipend for their
work.
The Foster Grandparent Program has also done an outstanding job at
providing matching funds from the State and local level and from the
private sector. As a matter of fact, the Foster Grandparent Program is
currently averaging a 46 percent matching level. In my hometown of
Montgomery County, the Preschool Intervention Program, a program for
children ages 3 to 5, lost their grandma and are in desperate need of
help. After placing a call to the local Foster Grandparent Program,
they were told that there was simply not enough money to provide a new
grandparent for them.
In a similar situation, Mr. Chairman, a drug treatment center that
rehabilitiates drug-addicted mothers and their children recently lost
two grandparents. But this can be avoided, Mr. Chairman, with the
passage of my amendment and the adoption by both sides of the aisle
because it will restore the funding for the Foster Grandparents Program
to the fiscal 1995 level, an increase of only $1.9 million, which would
equal 550,000 volunteer hours from Federal dollars, an additional
550,000 in non-Federal match, about 1,000 additional volunteers, and
4,000 additional children that can be served.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time. I will be ever so brief.
This is an important amendment. I hope Members on both sides of the
aisle will join us in supporting this amendment. Really what we are
talking about is prioritizing the Foster Grandparent Program. As Mr.
Fox indicated, this really is the ultimate public-private partnership
and the return on our investment is really very, very excellent. It
taps into one of the most underutilized resources in this country, our
senior citizens. Most importantly, it is revenue neutral.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I simply would say to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania that this is a very good amendment. The gentleman has
shown great leadership and support for the Foster Grandparent Program,
and we would accept the amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I rise today to support the amendment offered
by Mr. Fox. I have had the pleasure over the past few years to work
with the Foster Grandparents Program as well as the other programs
within the National Senior Service Corps. Last year I was successful in
offering an amendment adding $13.8 million to the National Senior
Service Corps and have worked with Mr. Porter this year to secure a
$4.5 million increase. I commend Mr. Porter for the commitment he has
made to these programs.
For over 30 years the National Senior Service Corps programs, which
include Foster Grandparents, have brought needed services to
communities across America and have provided hundreds of thousands of
service opportunities to older Americans.
America's seniors have a wealth of experience and knowledge which
must be engaged. As we look at today's social problems, it is essential
that as a nation we look toward those who have faced adversity before,
and now stand as examples of that which makes America great. Currently,
America's seniors are greatly underutilized in solving today's
problems.
Foster Grandparents help to fulfill community needs which may
otherwise go unmet. Activities conducted by Nation Senior Service Corps
and Foster Grandparents volunteers include: serving the homeless,
providing hospital volunteer services, training, tutoring, serving
emotionally disturbed children, serving the terminally ill, caring for
children who are born with drug addictions and HIV, as well as many,
many others.
The money spent on these programs goes a long way to aid both the
seniors who volunteer and, more importantly, those who receive their
valuable services. We should support America's senior citizens in
utilizing their talents and experiences to better themselves and their
communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose of entering into a colloquy
with the chairman. I want to compliment the chairman for his leadership
in developing a very good bill in difficult circumstances. In order to
stay within the

[[Page H7325]]

restrictive subcommittee 602(b) allocations, difficult decisions are
required.
I am particularly pleased to see the increase in funding provided to
the National Institutes of Health given these funding restrictions. As
the chairman knows, there are many worthy medical research projects
underway at NIH and throughout the country. In time, I believe that
this research will alleviate the suffering of a great many people
throughout our country. I am particularly concerned that adequate
research regarding hyperemesis, or severe morning sickness, including
nausea and vomiting, a condition that by one estimate affects over
50,000 pregnant women a year, is not being adequately conducted.
In addition to decreasing pregnant women's productivity in their jobs
and private lives, this condition can lead to hospitalization due to
severe dehydration.

{time} 1830

In fact, in 1993, 43,000 women that we know of were hospitalized for
severe morning sickness. Severe hyperemesis can lead to a decision to
terminate a pregnancy or even lead to death in extreme cases.
I know of only one NIH study, ``Nausea, Vomiting Nutrition and
Pregnancy,'' that is, in part, looking at this problem, yet the
majority of women in this country have been or will be pregnant at some
time during their life and a majority of them will experience morning
sickness.
Does the chairman agree with me that a problem this pervasive is a
serious health problem to which the National Institutes of Health
should give priority, including devotion of resources for basic
clinical research?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman, and would
encourage NIH to use all mechanisms at its disposal to support basic
applied and clinical research that addresses the problem of hyperemesis
in pregnant women.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his support and for his response.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material:

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School,
Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center,
Boston, MA, July 10, 1996.
Hon. William Orton,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Orton: I've been informed of your interest
in Hyperemesis Gravidarum and would like to share my concern
regarding the need for further research in this area and some
very interesting preliminary findings from a pilot study
conducted at our institution.
Although there have been no reliable studies that have
documented the incidence of severe hyperemesis, estimates
suggest that as many as 2% of all pregnancies require
hospitalization for this condition. It is clear that this
represents a substantial public health problem considering
that most women who suffer from this condition do not seek
appropriate medical care.
We have recently reported (and are in the process of
preparing for publication) results from a pilot study
suggesting that factors that contribute to high prenatal
estrogen levels may be important in the etiology of this
condition. As you can see from the attached abstract
presented at the recent Society for Epidemiologic Research
Meetings, we have observed that the risk of hyperemesis
requiring hospitalization increases 3-4 times with each 15
gram increase in consumption of saturated fat (equivalent to
one 4oz cheeseburger). Although we do not know the mechanism
by which this dietary association may influence the risk of
hyperemesis, we do know that a diet high in saturated fat
will increase estrogen production.
To better study the influence of diet and hormones on the
risk of severe hyperemesis, we would like to identify women
as close to the time of their conception as possible and then
measure their hormonal profile to see which profiles are more
predictive of the subsequent onset of severe nausea and
vomiting. We have proposed such a study to NIH which was not
funded during this most recent cycle. However, we will review
the evaluation when it becomes available and consider a
resubmission.
If you would like any additional information concerning our
research in this area please don't hesitate to contact me
directly. Thank you for your interest in this area which
certainly deserves much more high quality research.
Sincerely yours,
Bernard L. Harlow.
____

Saturated Fat Intake and the Risk of Severe Hyperemesis Gravidarum

(By L.B. Signorello, B.L. Harlow, S.P. Wang, and M.A. Erick, Harvard
School of Public Health and the Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology
Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital)

Hospitalization for hyperemesis gravi- darum (nausea and
vomiting during pregnancy) occurs in up to 2 percent of all
pregnancies. Women suffering from this condition can
experience malnutrition and severe weight loss, resulting in
adverse health effects for both themselves and their babies.
The authors conducted a case-control study to examine the
potential association between dietary factors and the risk of
severe hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). With previous research
suggesting an association between estrogen levels and risk of
nausea and vomiting, the aim of this study was to investigate
the role of modifiable dietary factors that may influence
prenatal estrogen production and/or metabolism. Cases were 50
women who were hospitalized for HG and who delivered
livebirths at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) between 1/1/
92 and 12/31/95. Controls were 100 women who delivered
livebirths at BWH during the same time period and who
experienced less than 10 hours of nausea and less than 3
episodes of vomiting over the duration of their pregnancies.
Data were collected via self-administered food-frequency
questionnaires, with reference to the average diet during the
year just prior to the pregnancy. Summary measures for the
average daily intake of macro- and micro-nutrients were
calculated from this data. Preliminary results using a
multivariate logistic regression model indicate that high
intake of total fat increases the risk of HG (odds ratio
(OR)=2.2 for each 25 gram increase, 95% CI 1.1-4.2). Further
investigation revealed that this association was driven
primarily by saturated fat intake, with an OR of 3.5 (95% CI
1.4-8.5) for each 15 gram increase in daily saturated fat
intake (equivalent to 1 four ounce cheeseburger or 3 cups of
whole milk) after adjusting for age, body mass index, total
energy intake, and vitamin C consumption. This finding
suggests that saturated fat intake may be a strong risk
factor for HG and that modifying the intake of this type of
fat could prevent the onset or lessen the severity of HG. The
extend to which saturated fat serves as a market for prenatal
hormone levels warrants further investigation.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, America's children could once again become the innocent
victims of shortsighted proposals to cut education programs.
The American people remember last year, when the majority unleashed
an all-out assault on title I, Head Start, Goals 2000, bilingual and
immigrant education, student loans, and a host of other valuable
programs.
Well, here we go again. We have an education budget for 1997 that
looks a lot like last year's proposal. Many of the cuts that appeared
in their 1996 budget proposal have been given starring roles in 1997.
The plan for 1997 falls more than $2.8 billion short of President
Clinton's request. Proponents of the plan claim that they are merely
freezing education funding at last year's levels, yet their proposal
would cut the Federal education budget by $644 million from last year.
At the same time, 1 million additional children who rely on these
programs will be enrolled in America's schools by the fall of 1997.
California's K-12 enrollment is expected to be 350,000 higher in 1997
than it was 2 years previously.
Considering this growth, the majority's plan grossly underfunds
education programs. The level of underfunding in my home State of
California is staggering:
Total funding for education in California falls $328 million short of
what is needed.
Goals 2000 is underfunded by nearly $55 million.
Title I--more than $66 million below what is needed.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs--underfunded by nearly $8
million.
Immigrant education programs--more than $14 million below what is
needed.
Special education--underfunded by more than $33 million.
Job training and education--more than $3 million below what is
needed.
Adult education--underfunded by nearly $5 million.
Even the smaller but equally as important programs that help children
in California will suffer under the majority's plan. For example,
homeless children and youth--more than $750,000 below what is needed;
Indian education--underfunded by more than $800,000.
The majority needs to learn that the American people don't want to
see cuts

[[Page H7326]]

in education. Americans overwhelmingly rejected the cuts that were
proposed last year. Perhaps the advocates of these cuts should listen
to their colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have put forth a
families first agenda, which would balance the budget without draconian
cuts in education.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would pass the Obey amendment that
is on the floor or that we would reject the bill before us because it
shortchanges America's children.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in response to some of the
comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin had made during the debate
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], on which all time being used, there could be no response.
There seems to be in this country a complete mistaken belief that
bilingual education programs and the use of languages other than
English in the classroom or anywhere else in this society somehow
weakens the ability of a country and a society to move forward.
One of the problems that we have in this country right now, I
believe, is that some people have taken certain very emotional issues
and put them forth in a way that scares the American public. And why
not? If we tell the American people that bilingual education or any
other program in the Nation threatens the use of English as the
official language in this country or the language of this society, then
certainly good-hearted, well-intentioned, and good patriotic Americans
respond to that by saying, oh, my God, there is a problem here that we
have to attack.
But there is no problem. All we have to do is ask any parent of any
child in this country where the family speaks a language other than
English or a second language what they see, what they envision for
their children, and every single one of their parents, unless they are
not in their right state of mind, would tell you that they want the
child to learn to speak English, to function within the society, to
grow within the society.
However, what we have done in this country in the last few years,
and, unfortunately, it has been going on for much too long, is to
suggest to people that there are a couple of things that are going to
wreck this society and one of them is the existence of languages other
than English in the society.
Now, whenever I speak on this subject I use myself as an example. I
speak Spanish, I speak English. I read Spanish, I read English. I write
in Spanish, I write in English. I can listen to music in either
language, I can read literature in either language, I can function in
either language. I do not think that my existence in this House shows
in any way, shape, or form that my knowledge of another language has
caused a problem. I think in Spanish at times and speak in English, and
it has not confused me. I understand the issues well and in no way am I
handicapped.
We are handicapped as a nation, however, when we send messages
throughout the world that if you want to deal with us you must deal
with us in English or we shall not speak to you. If you want to trade
with us you should trade with us in English or we shall not speak to
you. And if you want to play baseball on the ballfield we will only
speak English, otherwise I will never speak to you.
I suggest that that is a very narrow-minded approach, and all I would
ask is people who support this movement of making English the official
language, and therefore attack all other languages, to simply
understand that the growth of a nation as great as ours is not just an
economic growth, it is not just a military growth, it is not just a
growth of a democracy; it is also the ability to work with other people
throughout the world and to say to them we are not afraid of your
language, in fact, we want to learn your language. We want to learn
your culture.
Let me make one last point. During the 1970's, as I have said on a
couple of occasions on this floor, there were the famous spaghetti
westerns that Sergio Leone put out. These were western movies made in
Italy and the actors spoke in Italian and in French and Spanish and in
English. It is sad to note that even then, and nothing has changed, it
was only the American actors who had to have their voices dubbed in
other languages while the European actors dubbed their own voice in
various languages.

What is the fear? Let us be honest about bilingual education. It is
simply a program that takes you as a child speaking another language
and teaches you information in your language until you learn to speak
English, with the intent being that by the third grade or the fourth
grade we will move you over to English, and then if in the process you
maintain a second language, in my opinion, that only strengthens the
society. That does not weaken the society.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that when I learned that ``Jorge
Washington es el Padre de la Nacion'', I learned in Spanish that George
Washington was the father of the Nation. It was the same information. I
just learned it in another language first.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to
thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to associate myself with
the remarks of the gentleman, and add that I am just returned from the
European Parliament, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in
Europe, where 53 member nations were represented. English was the
second language of most of the persons there. They all spoke either two
or three languages.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Serrano was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, in Sweden, where this meeting was held, children are mandated
at age 7 to learn English. In Australia, where I visited last year, it
is mandatory that their children learn two Asian languages.
I am finding it abhorrent that we continue this debate, and I just
wish to associate myself with the remarks and the leadership of the
gentleman.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments, and I would hope that people in this country would
understand that to speak more than one language actually strengthens
you; it does not weaken you in any way.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that just spoke about
English as a common language, but it is also very, very important to
have multilingual, especially in the trade and economic issues that we
have.
I do disagree with my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Filner]. He quite often states his own opinion as fact, and he is
factually challenged and I would like to tell my colleagues how.
First of all, the Federal Government only provides about 5 percent of
the total revenue for education; 95 percent of education funding comes
from State and local funds. Now, it is legitimate for those that want
the Federal Government to handle more of that burden to say we can
spend more money out of the Federal Government. My point comes from the
waste, the fraud and the abuse that happens at the Federal level. It is
better to handle it at the State level.
Let me give you a couple of examples.

{time} 1845

Of that 5 percent that the Federal programs give for education, the
committee identified over 760 education programs; 760 programs.
Everybody wants a good program and, in fact, back in my own district I
went back and everybody was coming and saying, Duke, we have all these
programs and these are great programs. And you can fall into that pit.
But what it does is that it spreads that 5 percent out so much that we
get very little back to the classroom. In some areas, we get as little
as 23 cents on the dollar and in other areas about 32 cents on the
dollar. That is not good business.
We have taken, for example, Goals 2000 with 45 instances in the bill
that says ``States will.'' we have taken that and saved the money from
that. The

[[Page H7327]]

President's direct lending program, I wish we could totally cut it out
and do it privately. Why? Because to administer the direct lending
Government program cost $1 billion more to administer just capped at 10
percent. GAO did a study and said it would take $3 billion to $5
billion just to collect those dollars.
We took those savings and capped the administrative fees and we
increased, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner],
we increased Pell grants. We increased student loans by $3 billion. We
increased access to student loans by 50 percent. We did not cut. We
added it.
We took Federal programs which my colleagues on the other side would
rather spend money on the Federal level, and we are returning that
money to the States and getting a bigger bang for the dollar. The
vision.
If my colleagues want to work on something in education, we have less
than 12 percent of our classrooms that have a single phone jack. Before
Republicans and Democrats, the testimony has been that over 50 percent
of the jobs in the near future are going to require high-technology
skills and we do not have the tools.
Mr. Chairman, one thing I disagree with in the bill, we ought to have
more money for Eisenhower grants, not less. Why? Because if we are
going to expect our teachers to learn how to turn on a computer and
teach the children in the future, these high-technology skills to meet
their efforts in the 21st century, then we have got to train our
teachers to do that. It is a disagreement I have with the bill, but
overall we have added dollars for education. We have taken the Federal
Government out of it and turned it back to the American people, and we
have given it to the people that need it: students, not the
bureaucracy.
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.
Forbes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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.

____________________