[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7169-H7182]
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, 1998
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague from Arizona [Mr.
Hayworth] said that he has the most heavily impacted congressional
district in America. I have, perhaps, one of the most heavily impacted
school districts in America with the largest naval training facility in
the world at Great Lakes as part of my district. Impact Aid is very
important to this Member personally, as well as very important to a
number of Members in the House of Representatives and to most of our
States.
Mr. Chairman, we have done everything we possibly can to raise
funding in this area. In 1996, we provided $693 million, and in 1998,
we provide $796 million, a $100 million increase. We have increased
section (f). We have increased construction. The President suggested $4
million for this account; we are raising it to $7 million, almost
double what the President has suggested. We have raised funding for
Federal property. It is a high priority with me, and I know that the
gentleman from Arizona realizes this.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would quintuple the appropriation for
construction in a single year and would represent more than a sixfold
increase over the President's request. That level of funding certainly
has not been justified or even suggested in any of the budget hearings
we held this year.
Regarding the offset, the committee bill already reduces NLRB by
$11.8 million below the President's request. It provides level funding
compared to fiscal year 1997. I have to say that the NLRB was funded at
$170.3 million in fiscal 1996. It would be funded in fiscal 1998 at
$174.6 million, a very, very small increase over the last 3 years.
In total, the NLRB is funded at $1.4 million below the amount
provided by the last Democratic Congress in fiscal year 1995. And when
one considers that the NLRB budget is almost entirely salaries and
expenses, this 1 percent reduction since 1995 is actually closer to a
10-percent real cut, because the Agency has had to absorb mandatory pay
and benefit increases in each of the last 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Arizona that I am no
fan of this administration's NLRB. I think in many instances Chairman
Gould has politicized the institution beyond anybody's imagination, and
I feel that that is a serious problem for our country. But I would also
say to the gentleman that the NLRB is part of a system that we have
devised to resolve disputes in our economic system between management
and labor in a lawful way without violence; hopefully, without
interruptions of work. Its day-to-day work in resolving cases that are
filed before it is very important. When we cut too heavily into an
agency's resources, all we do is create a backlog of cases that makes
it much more difficult for these disputes to be resolved in a
reasonable way. I do not think that simply cutting its budget is a
productive approach at all, even given our frustration over the
political nature that I believe Chairman Gould has given to this
Agency, and I think very unfortunately.
So on balance, I think we have done very well by Impact Aid and very
well by Impact Aid construction. I think the cut in NLRB, while in
certain ways I would agree with the gentleman from Arizona, would be
unwise in this circumstance.
We have level-funded it. It amounts to a cut. I think the committee
has done a very good job in creating a balance between these two
accounts, and I
[[Page H7170]]
would ask Members to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the challenges faced
by both the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking minority
member, and the many different priorities that one tries to weigh and
the compromises that must occur in a legislative body to get work done.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], to take a look at the number of attorneys per commissioner or
board member.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Hayworth, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Porter was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
each board member of the NLRB has anywhere from 18 to 22 lawyers on his
staff and yet, as I understand it, here across the street in our third
branch of Government at the Supreme Court, the Justices of the Supreme
Court have anywhere from two to three, maybe at the most five lawyers
on their staffs as law clerks.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that they do very different work. I do not see how that is
comparable.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
I think it is very important. It may be different work, but certainly
an entirely separate branch of Government in the Supreme Court has work
of no less importance. And yet to see the numbers of folks employed at
the NLRB and to see the extravagance I think is a great concern,
especially when we contrast it with the blight and the poverty on many
Indian reservations and the needs on many military bases and in the
schools there.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, the work of the
Supreme Court is controlled by the Court itself. There are very few
cases that can be appealed to the Supreme Court, except by writ of
certiorari, and they control what cases they will hear.
The NLRB has no control over its caseload. It has to hear what cases
are filed before it. And while obviously it does the best it can to
resolve those without formal hearings, it still takes formal hearings
in many instances. And, again, all we do by making severe cuts in their
budget is to create a huge backlog of cases, which is I think in
neither in the interest of management or labor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should kid ourselves for a moment. In
my view, this amendment does not have a whole lot to do with Impact
Aid. What it does have a lot to do with is that it represents the third
year in a row that certain Members of this House have decided that they
wanted to wage a frontal attack on the ability of the NLRB to enforce
worker rights.
Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the majority in this House cut funding for the
NLRB by 30 percent. That was one of the issues involved in the
Government shutdown.
In 1997, they tried to cut funding for the NLRB by 15 percent. This
amendment cuts it by 10 percent and simply has a ``holy picture'' place
that it puts the money.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point that whether my
colleagues like the NLRB, or whether they do not, it is the only agency
we have that protects workers against unfair treatment by employers and
protects corporations against unfair picketing and violence by unions.
To the extent that we reduce its budget, we cripple its ability to deal
with both problems.
I would point out that this is the Agency that is charged with the
responsibility of giving workers redress when they are fired for an
unfair reason, such as trying to organize a union. It is also the
Agency charged with the responsibility of seeing to it that when
corporations who have contracts with their workers downsize, that they
do so in a fair manner, consistent with the contracts that they have
negotiated, and not arbitrarily savage people outside of the
requirements of law.
Mr. Chairman, this reduction will result in the doubling of the
backlog of cases at the NLRB. It will represent a 14-percent cut in
staff. This is not, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] has
suggested, a choice between children and bureaucrats. This is a
question of whether or not workers are going to have taken away from
them the ability to go to an agency of Government for redress of their
grievances when they feel they have been treated unfairly by the
corporate entity that employs them. Pure and simple, that is what this
amendment is.
Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge that the House reject the
amendment. If we do not like decisions that are made by executive
agencies of the Federal Government, the way to go about that is to
argue with the fellow who appointed them in the first place. But we
should not, under the guise of improving slightly funding for Impact
Aid, we should not be savaging the ability of this Government to
provide a square deal to every worker who sweats for his wages 40 hours
a week.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the observations of the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I just wonder if my colleague
would answer this question. Does the gentleman honestly believe that
the several hundred lawyers who work for the NLRB are toiling by the
sweat of their brow to help, when we see the extravagance?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask that the
gentleman not misconstrue my remarks.
{time} 1630
I said that it is workers throughout the country who have a right to
go to their Government for redress when they have been treated
unfairly. Those workers work very hard and they work and sweat very
often, which is a lot more than can be said about either the gentleman
or me in this place. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would not
mischaracterize my remarks.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I appreciate the gentleman's point of view and the passion that he
brings to this.
Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not my point of
view that I want the gentleman to appreciate. I want him to be accurate
about what I said on the floor.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this argument, and my good friend from Arizona has some
connections in North Carolina, this kind of befuddles me a little bit.
We are not pitting poor children in Arizona or in North Carolina, where
we have many bases, I have been a strong supporter of impact aid ever
since I have been in this place.
We talk about the NLRB. I was not happy with the structure of the
NLRB, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is not happy with
this administration's NLRB appointees, I was not happy with the ones
that were in the Ford administration, in the Reagan administration,
even the Carter administration, I was not too happy with the board
there. But that is not the argument.
The NLRB gives people that work for a living, if they have a
grievance and have not been treated fairly, they have someplace to go.
They mediate this. This has nothing to do with impact aid.
I would like to make one other point, if my information is correct,
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]
testified to the level of funding for impact aid, and it was only $2
million less than the request for impact aid, and they testified and
supported that level.
That was satisfactory with the impact aid people, NAFIS; that was
satisfactory with them. That was the level that they agreed to, and the
chairman and the ranking member put it in the bill. There was no great
concern that I am aware of that the gentlemen contested the level of
funding, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], or the gentleman from
[[Page H7171]]
Texas [Mr. Edwards]. They agreed that this was basically fair and would
get the job done.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but he is wrong. In fact, I
testified for an increase of close to $20 million when I appeared
before the subcommittee.
Mr. HEFNER. OK, Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. And I apologize. But
the gentleman said this is pitting poor children against bureaucrats
and lawyers. That is not really what we are doing here. All the Members
that I know here, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], myself, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], we have been supporters of impact
aid for years and years and years.
In fact, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] led the fight when
Mr. Natcher was chairman of this committee to increase funding for
impact aid. So to say that and make the determination that what we are
doing is denying money to these poor children, impact aid, and you are
going to give it to bureaucrats that do not do anything, that is not
really a fair characterization.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as has been the case often in the last 3
days, agencies are being pummeled for the sins of their predecessors. I
would point out that the building into which the NLRB moved was a
building, they were moved into that building under the Bush
administration. The showers were in that building when the Bush
administration moved the agency into that building.
Second, I would point out that the linen service that the gentleman
is so exercised about was discontinued 2 years ago. So I do not mind
attacking agencies for mistakes that they are making at the present,
but I do not believe that people should be blamed for the mistakes of
either previous administrations or be blamed for practices that have
been long since corrected.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to finish
my statement. I think what we should do is pursue active funding for
impact aid for our military bases for quality of life programs which
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and I have worked very hard
to do, to see that we can have retention for qualified people in our
military. But I do not think that it is really kosher for us to come
here and pretend to say that if you are going to give this money to
NLRB that all these people are going to suffer so much because they do
not get the impact aid. This seems to me not a real good, honest
argument to make.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman misunderstands the
argument. That is not the theory I posited. What I am saying is that
when we come to this floor through the amendments process, as my
colleague from North Carolina who has served ably in this Chamber for
many years understands, this is the chance for us as a collective body
to sit down and say, let us review the priorities and the work done by
the various committees.
With reference to the ranking member's historical observation about
the Bush administration and moving the NLRB into that rather exorbitant
headquarters, and that is fine, I am not here to retrace partisan
history, if something is wrong, then it is wrong. We ought to take a
look at making sure that the NLRB can operate effectively but more
economically in other areas.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, this is not the argument. We are not
talking about funding for the NLRB right now.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Hefner] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hefner was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about posh offices,
showers and all of these sorts of things. We are talking about impact
aid. The impact aid, if the gentleman is opposed to NLRB, maybe he
should have an amendment to do away with any funding for NLRB, but to
make the case, which the gentleman said earlier, do you want to put the
money in for Washington bureaucrats, all these special lawyers and what
have you, and take it away from these poor children in Arizona and
North Carolina and wherever, that is just not, in my view, that is not
a real intellectually honest amendment to make at this time.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment which would
benefit both our military schoolchildren as well as those children
living on the Indian reservations.
As many of my colleagues know, the Impact Aid funding for section
8007 of the construction has been shortchanged over the years. The
Federal Government backed away from providing construction funding
through the Impact Aid Program several years ago.
In my district, funds for construction costs are needed in a variety
of important areas. Checking with our local school administration, I
talked with one superintendent. He was talking about making some of the
bathrooms handicap accessible. We had a remodeling of one that cost
over $32,000. In the Bellevue school system alone, in my district, we
have had 20 bathrooms that have been made handicap accessible, but
still have 15 that need to be done.
Bellevue West Senior High School is 20 years old and is in need of
roof replacement. This will cost over $1 million. Just to cable an
elementary school for technology costs approximately $30,000. Upgrading
the electrical service for technology costs approximately $65,000. One
computer lab in the elementary school costs approximately $100,000.
Appropriations for the Impact Aid construction in the Labor-HHS bill
amount to about $7 million. If this amendment passes, that amount would
rise to $25 million. These needed funds could be used to help school
districts address the problems that I have mentioned so that federally
impacted school kids will have access to safe facilities with modern
technology.
I want to really praise the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations here, because he has been a real champion. The gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has been working for a long time, and I want
to thank him for all his efforts because he has been a true champion.
And this area is really about where we can take some money that we
think is not being wisely used and put it into an area that can benefit
all of us.
The NLRB, as we heard already, has not been the most efficient use of
the taxpayer dollars, whether it was in the Bush administration or the
current administration. I believe that is why we take a look at this
idea of spending more money in the areas of education for the kids of
our military families versus spending it on whether it is rank and file
NLRB employees or whether it is some of the lawyers we have heard
about, that I think there is over 628 lawyers at NLRB with an average
salary of $76,000 a year.
Now, some have complained that we are pitting the NLRB bureaucrats
versus schoolchildren. That is not fair. Let us not look at it that
way. Let us look at how we can use our tax dollars in a more efficient
manner.
We believe that putting the dollars into the construction and into
the education of military kids is a higher priority than spending money
on all the 628 lawyers at the NLRB. It is a simple choice and it is a
choice that I think we can easily make.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and
would like to commend both sides for the candor involved in this
debate.
Mr. Chairman, just going back to some comments made earlier, no one
here is suggesting, as has been implied or perhaps stated, that we seek
a destruction of the National Labor Relations Board. We understand the
importance and value of having a place where labor and management,
where workers can go to settle grievances, the framework which exists.
But again, as we look at priorities and we deal as
[[Page H7172]]
a collective body with the recommendations of the appropriations
subcommittee, I believe we are well within our rights to ask the
legitimate question, given the extravagance that we see at the posh
Washington, DC, address.
Mr. Chairman, I would just invite our friends in the television
networks, and NBC comes to mind with the series, The Fleecing of
America, I think they might want to go down and visit the NLRB and take
a look at what has become, in essence, a Taj Mahal which stands in
stark contrast to schools that are below standards in Timbuktu that we
see in many areas of our Nation, particularly on our Indian
reservations and military bases.
I respectfully, again, would reinforce the notion that we have an
opportunity here to redirect some funding, not to eliminate an agency
but to redirect our priorities, because, Mr. Chairman, the simple fact
is this, if this amendment passes, workers will still have a National
Labor Relations Board to go to. But if this amendment fails to pass,
many children will still lack adequate places to go to school.
It is a simple, stark contrast that compels us to adopt this
amendment.
Again, I thank my colleague from Nebraska and also our colleague from
Mississippi, from whom we will hear a bit later in this debate, for the
bipartisan nature of this amendment, because it does what this House is
supposed to do, rethink priorities and deal with pressing problems.
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on this amendment. I
want to thank the chairman and the ranking member also for the work on
the Impact Aid Department.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Many of my
colleagues who have worked with me as colleagues in this House in prior
Congresses know how hard I have worked, diligently, to express the
needs of children from military families, both who live on base and off
base. We argued this each year in trying to get additional funds for
Impact Aid.
I have to take this opportunity to commend the committee for
understanding the importance of this assistance to our local
communities and steadily, over recent years, enormous amounts of money,
compared to past Congresses, have been allocated to this program. So
they certainly need to have our commendation. And the total Impact Aid
funding for this year, as recommended in this bill, is nearly $800
million. That will be added on to by the moneys that are allocated in
the defense bill.
So I think that the Congress should be commended, not castigated,
which I have to interpret as the nature of this amendment, by asking
that the committee did not act properly by not giving enough money. If
I were a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I would take
offense. I would stand up strongly and say that the needs of the
children in the Impact Aid communities have been more than adequately
listened to when compared to the other needs in the entire education
area.
All of us are frustrated by the fact that we do not have enough money
to provide for the educational needs of this country. Take the
President's recommendation in construction, because this is what we are
talking about here today, $18 million more of construction aid for
Impact Aid schools. What happened to the President's recommendation for
$5 billion in school construction? Talk about priorities of this
country.
All of us come from school districts where the apparent needs of our
schools are not only in the classroom but overhead, because we have
leaky roofs, inadequate facilities. And somehow in the compromise that
was made by the Republican leadership and the White House and others,
we were unable to come up with the $5 billion we need for school
construction.
So let us not talk about weighing priorities. Let us not talk about
weighing priorities, because we had the opportunity right there to do
something about the overall dismal condition of our school apparatus
and infrastructure and hooking up to high-technology and so forth, and
we did not. We failed the school system. But my colleagues do not find
me here on the floor of the House castigating the Committee on
Appropriations for not coming up with this money which I feel is so
strongly needed by our school system.
{time} 1645
I believe in the Impact Aid Program, and I would stand firm with
anyone in this House to advocate for additional funds, but I believe
that this committee has done well by us in this bill and I do not
believe that coming in here under the guise of adding $18 million in an
$800 million budget for Impact Aid is really what this is all about.
What this is about is to take 10 percent of the money away from the
NLRB because there is a move being made here by the Republican
leadership to cut down on the protections of our workers. They do not
want occupational health and safety, they do not want anything there
that helps workers in our communities protect their meager earnings,
overtime pay and rightful minimum wage and so forth.
And now they want to take the last thing that they have, that
challenges their right to belong to a union, to bring their grievances
of unfair labor practices to a national board where these matters can
be litigated and ironed out.
So what we have here today is not an effort to add $18 million to
Impact Aid school construction. We had that opportunity already and we
blew it. This is an effort to try to cut down the protections of
workers, as well as management, to have their legitimate concerns and
complaints heard by an independent board to determine where the
equities are and to settle these matters in as quick and as efficient a
manner as is possible.
This board has not had additional funding this year. They are level-
funded. And I am handed a piece of paper that says that over the course
of time they have had to cut back on their staff. More than a third of
their staff has been cut since 1980, 25 percent since 1985, and another
additional 10 percent since 1991. So we are talking about the crunching
in of the staff that is so essential.
It is high personnel costs because that is what their job is. So I
plead with this House to vote down this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Mink was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
courtesy because I feel very strongly about this.
I do not want to see this pairing or challenging of issues here and
penalizing the people who come to this House with legitimate concerns,
to have them try to balance it out. I am here full square as a defender
of the Impact Aid Program. I shall vote against this amendment because
it is not an honest effort to add Impact Aid moneys, but it is an
effort to challenge a system, the only system we have that will protect
the workers of this country to the right to collective bargaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reemphasize something that
the gentlewoman is saying. This agency's staffing has been reduced by
more than one-third since 1980, from 3,000 people to under 2,000; by
more than 25 percent since 1985.
The staffing level for fiscal 1996 was the lowest since 1962, and yet
their case intake was 56 percent higher. Each employee must now handle
28 percent more cases than in 1985.
I understand that when various labor unions campaign against
individual Members of Congress, that when legislation comes to the
floor Members have an opportunity to offer amendments which reduce the
ability of the agencies to protect legitimate rights of workers; and I
understand that that can happen under the rules of the House, but that
does not make the amendments that might be offered any more advisable.
It seems to me that we should not, under the banner of cutting the
so-called bureaucrats in Washington, actually be gutting the Government
in its responsibility to protect workers and to protect corporations
from unfair
[[Page H7173]]
practices by unions. That is what the effect of this amendment would
be, and I think it deserves to be defeated on both sides of the aisle.
This amendment, were it to pass, would not survive conference. If it
did, there would not be a bill. There is no way the President of the
United States is going to accept a gutting of his responsibility to
enforce the law to protect workers' rights in this country, and it is
just that simple.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to urge this House to consider this amendment for what it is, and it is
a 10-percent cut of the National Labor Relations Board, whose staff
works very, very diligently.
Most of the money allocated, the $117 million, is for payroll. If
they abide by the law and accord these workers their legitimate COLA
increases, it will force them to decrease the number even under the
current funding. So I plead with this House to reject this amendment on
the basis of what it is.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the
comments of my colleague from Hawaii and also to the comments of the
ranking minority member.
If I am not mistaken, it was not but just a few moments ago when my
colleague from Wisconsin pointed out that it should not be my intent to
mischaracterize words or his reasoning. I would simply ask for the same
courtesy from both the ranking minority member and the distinguished
gentlewoman from Hawaii. For if it were my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to
destroy or eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, I would offer
that amendment.
Again, that is not our intent here. We believe there is a legitimate
right for the National Labor Relations Board to work, to operate, to
deal with workers' needs, but again it becomes a question of
priorities.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Hawaii brought up the President's
proposal for 5 billion dollars' worth of funds for school construction.
And just to point out, when she asked the question, where is the
support for that program, it is worth noting, Mr. Chairman, as I think
most Members know, that that $5 billion would not, would not have gone
to schools under the aegis of impact aid because they are in areas that
have no adequate tax base or bonding capacity. And as we know, that was
a prerequisite for the funding, the $5 billion package, offered earlier
by the administration.
Indeed, as we have talked about and heard from the minority side
evidence of so many cuts, just for the record, last year we may recall
the House-passed 1997 appropriations bill included a 15-percent
decrease for the NLRB, but after conference with the Senate, the agency
ended up with a 3-percent increase.
What I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is again for our friends in the
fourth estate, and some call broadcasting the fifth estate, to take a
look at the extravagance at the National Labor Relations Board, the
veritable Taj Mahal in downtown Washington, and ask if that is a
legitimate edifice, if that extravagant headquarters in fact really
helps workers' rights.
I appreciate the fact the ranking minority member talked about the
efficiency and doing more with less, by his account, that the NLRB
states. I am saying with this amendment, as colleagues on both sides of
the aisle are saying, as we are looking at priorities, this is a proper
venue to take money from an organization that can perform well and that
will continue to perform well and put the money where it is needed.
Again, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the slight increase to
$7 million in school construction. But as the National Association of
Federally Impacted Schools states in its study and its request, that
organization says we should fully fund this to $25 million. It is that
request that I believe we should honor. It is in that spirit that we
offer the amendment.
Even as I appreciate the fact that there are profound philosophical
differences on both sides of the aisle, there is also some uniformity
and some recognition of need here; and that is why we come with this
amendment today, again to make the choice of how best to spend this $18
million.
It is desperately needed by federally impacted schools. We must adopt
this amendment, the protestations of the minority notwithstanding.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I think more eloquent than anything I can say, Mr. Chairman, is the
fact that this amendment, that is proposed to supposedly help impact
aid, has drawn opposition from some of the strongest supporters of
impact aid in this Congress.
I know of no one, since the death of Mr. Natcher, who has done more
personally, individually, singularly to increase funding and to defend
funding for impact aid than our chairman from Illinois, who has worked
tirelessly where the real decisions were being made, behind the scenes,
in subcommittee, in committee, to fully fund this program as much as we
can within the limited budget. For the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] to stand up in opposition to this is something that I think
speaks more eloquently than anything I could say.
But as cochairman of the House Impact Aid Coalition, as someone who
helped found the House Impact Aid Coalition several years ago, because
I felt the military children and the native American children of
America needed a voice on this important issue, I want to stand in
opposition to this amendment because I believe, while well intended by
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], I think this proposal, this
effort, is going to harm the Impact Aid Program.
Let me mention two points: First is impact aid has already been
treated very well, exceptionally well within the context of a budget
where we have been cutting funding for senior citizen programs, cutting
back on services to veterans, and cutting back on defense programs.
The fact is that this program is being increased in this fiscal year
because of the work of the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman
from Wisconsin and others in committee from $730 million to $796
million, a $66 million increase, when most other programs are being
cut.
The fact is, the NAFIS organization which supports impact aid
actually put out, in its own newsletter before they were asked about
this amendment, that this funding is within $2 million of even their
request. And I do not know of many groups who make requests before
Congress that get them 99 percent funded, certainly not in this
balanced budget context.
NAFIS also said in their July 29, 1997, newsletter, NAFIS does not
expect any changes to these figures during consideration of the
appropriations bills before the full House and Senate. Through separate
letters, NAFIS has urged all members of the House and Senate Impact Aid
Coalitions to support the respective Labor-HHS, Education
appropriations bills.
The interest group out there with whom I work to support impact aid
has said this was a very fair bill, it was a generous bill.
Now, let me tell the gentleman, my friend, whom I usually work
together with, three reasons I think he is actually harming, not
intentionally, but actually harming impact aid.
First, we are sending a message to the gentleman from Illinois and
the gentleman from Wisconsin and to all the others who work on the
Committee on Appropriations that enough is never enough, so that next
year, if we got another $66 million increase in spending for impact aid
coming out of the committee, that is not enough. There will be floor
amendments making other cuts in their budget proposals.
So what that says to the gentleman from Illinois, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, or others who might be serving in their position, go on and
reduce the committee proposal, the recommendation for impact aid, and
then let the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Texas come
to the floor and ask for an extra $5 or $10 or $15 million.
The bottom line will be, because of efforts like this on the floor
that turn their backs, in effect, on the great increase in funding for
impact aid coming out of committee, we are actually
[[Page H7174]]
encouraging the Committee on Appropriations next year to appropriate
less.
Second, as someone who helped found the Impact Aid Coalition, I think
one of our real successes has been we have had no predators, no natural
enemies to this program. Now we have, because of this amendment on the
floor today, we have labor unions making calls to Members on both sides
of the aisle asking them to vote against this funding for impact aid.
Some of those folks may have thought impact aid in the past was a
highway program; I do not know. But now we have natural predators.
We are also sending a message to others that are funded through this
bill that next year they had better watch it because NAFIS and the
impact aid folks, even if they get an increase, unlike most people in
their committee recommendation for funding, they are going to be out
there on the floor finding some other area to cut.
So the practical impact of this is that the committee is going to
make recommendations for less funding next year, and other groups will
look to impact aid and perhaps want to have floor amendments taking
money from impact aid to put in their pockets.
Now, the third reason, unintentionally, I say to my friend, why I
think this amendment does harm to impact aid is that we are tearing
down----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I are cochairs of the
Impact Aid Coalition. We worked hard to build a bipartisan effort. Yet
when this amendment was put together, our coalition never met. Most
Members I have talked to did not hear from the gentleman. I even have a
letter signed now by a lot of members of the steering committee and
cochairs of the Impact Aid Coalition, opposing this amendment.
And while the gentleman does have some fine Democrats, such as the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] supporting this, and I respect
that, the fact is, this was not put together with the broad support of
the Impact Aid Coalition. So I think the gentleman is tending to tear
down the true bipartisan, nonpartisan nature of the Impact Aid
Coalition.
{time} 1700
For those three reasons, I think unintentionally, this amendment is
actually hurting our efforts. I will say that to NAFIS or to any other
organization that cares about impact aid. I believe in helping military
children get a first-class education and, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly
why I am going to strongly and actively oppose this amendment. While
well intended, so is the path to hell and this is an example of well
intentions going wrong.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hayworth, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards
was allowed to proceed for 1\1/2\ additional minutes.)
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, with
whom I agree on a great many subjects, but hearing his last observation
about the path paved with good intentions, it tempts me to remind him
that I will just go back to my district and be sure to tell those kids
in dilapidated schools that in his opinion they are being treated well
because he and I both know and, Mr. Chairman, I think this body knows
that we have schools literally falling apart, federally impacted
schools. While I joined and sat alongside with the gentleman from Texas
to testify and to talk to members of this subcommittee, the fact also
remains that in the school construction budget, section 8007, the
increase was marginal and woefully inadequate. And the amendments
process is not intended as an insult to the Committee on
Appropriations, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, is well
aware, a colleague to whom I tried to reach out in preparation of this
amendment, and we had an honest difference of opinion on this but we
have this process again to bring to the floor of this Chamber an open
airing of priorities and to give Members a chance to say we believe
despite the good work of the committee some things can be done even
better, as I see the dilapidated state of federally impacted schools in
the Sixth District of Arizona, and I will read a portion of the
statement from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
in support of the Hayworth-Taylor amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]) has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Hayworth, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. ``When Congress reauthorized the Impact Aid law in 1994
and created section 8007, it envisioned this part of the Impact Aid
Program to be funded at a minimum of $25 million each year. Section
8007 has only been appropriated at $5 million each of the last few
years. Currently the House bill includes $7 million for section 8007.''
What we see here is not in gratitude but a simple statement of fact
and intent. While again I join with my colleague, the gentleman from
Texas, on behalf of federally impacted schools and impact aid, this
shows again why we should add these funds, why we should respect not
only the committee process but the amendments process and pass this
amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and I am sorry to have to do this,
particularly because I value my friendship with the gentleman from
Arizona and with my dear friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, as
well. As someone on the steering committee of the impact aid coalition
and someone who was education chair in my State and had to try and deal
with the implications of the failure to have the level of funding
necessary for impact aid, I find myself in this uncomfortable position
of having to oppose the amendment. I hope, actually, by the time this
discussion is over they maybe would consider withdrawing it or not
bringing it to a vote in the hopes that we will not end up in a
situation where people can say, ``Oh, well, I was for impact aid and
you were against impact aid.'' Because, very frankly, and I hope that
we can get attention for everything that is being said from everyone
before we are through, that when this comes down to a question of
funding, which is what it does, we are actually in the wrong venue.
This should be a line item in the Department of Defense budget. This
is not a position, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona, that I am
just coming up with in response to this amendment. This argument goes
back to an argument I had as chair of the education committee in the
State of Hawaii and brought up here to Washington almost 2 decades ago.
This should be a line item in the Department of Defense budget. For
those Members who do not know this, we fund our schools overseas at 100
cents on the dollar. Not my answer to the gentleman from Arizona, but
my response, and I trust he would understand the difference both from a
political sense and personally, is that I not only understand the
capital problem that he is having, the capital assets problem in terms
of the facilities in the school, but also in paying the teachers and in
the operating expenses that are involved. To have the children, the
dependents of our military personnel, dependent on the particular
circumstances of property taxes, however we do the funding in Arizona
or Hawaii or Mississippi or elsewhere, is virtually, from my point of
view, immoral. It is not fair. Those children are there by the
assignment of the U.S. Government and their parents are there in our
name acting in our behalf, and this should be funded out of the
Department of Defense as an obligation.
If we can fund our schools at 100 cents on the dollar in Korea, in
Germany, or wherever, and I suppose if things keep on going, in Bosnia
by the time we get through, then we should certainly do it in the
confines and the boundaries of the United States of America.
My first essential point to the gentleman is that rather than pit
workers against children or one element of government against another
element of government, or however people choose
[[Page H7175]]
to characterize this debate for their own purposes, not for ours in
terms of our discussion, we are going to end up with that kind of a
dichotomy being put forward, and I believe it is a false dichotomy. I
do not doubt for a moment that the funding is needed in exactly the way
that he says it is, and I would support it. This is why I think we
should work together within the coalition, and this is no news to those
who know of my participation in the coalition, that we should move
this, and I would like to work with the gentleman, and anybody else who
is interested in it, in moving the whole funding nexus from the
Department of Education and into where it properly belongs, into the
Department of Defense.
Pending that, I think it is an exercise not so much in futility, but
an exercise in false confrontation or false dichotomy to try to pull
the money from, whether it is NLRB or wherever else it might have come
from, in order to do the necessary funding here. We need to make the
fight, it seems to me, on the basis of the merits of the Impact Aid
Program across the board and that that should be funded as a result of
our commitment to the dependents of our military personnel across the
board.
I do want to say that rather than continue in a vein as to which one
of us is more morally correct or whether or not one is depriving an
essential necessity of governmental operation in the United States of
the funding necessary to do its job in order to benefit the children.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Abercrombie was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Rather than get into that and rather than allowing
this very important discussion to merely become another point in the
overall budget discussion of this particular bill, I plead with the
gentleman from Arizona, let us take this up in another venue, at
another time, working together, Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of
all the children, on behalf of our military personnel so that we can
deal with the issue where it should be dealt with within the Department
of Defense budget. I would be happy to work with him and my good friend
from Mississippi and anybody else who is interested.
I thank the gentleman for his kind attention, and I hope my remarks
are received in the temper that I meant them in the first place, that
is, that we need to focus on the children, we can focus on the children
and perhaps if this discussion keeps going with this particular
amendment, that might be lost regardless of the good intentions of the
author.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I regret that a lot of good people in this debate have
chosen to question other people's motives. I am not going to do that. I
will ask some people that I know to have good hearts to think for a
second and let us try to set some priorities and let us try to set some
priorities involving our Nation's children. For those Members who do
not have a military base in their district and therefore may not be
familiar with Impact Aid, it is a program designed to help pay the cost
of children whose parents either live on a base, work on a base or do
both.
In my hometown of Bay St. Louis, about 60 percent of my property
taxes go toward paying for the schools, building the schools and paying
the administrators. About half of the sales tax, which is the majority
of State taxes that are collected in Mississippi, go to paying
classroom teachers. But if a person is in the military, if they serve
at Keesler Air Force Base or the Navy construction battalion and they
happen to live on that base, well, then they do not pay property tax.
They are serving their country, but they do not pay property tax.
Therefore, they are not contributing directly toward the building of
those schools in Gulfport and in Biloxi. If they shop on the base, and
many of them do because they are underpaid, so we provide base
commissaries for them to shop and save some money, at that base
commissary they do not pay sales tax. Therefore, they are not paying
toward the cost of that classroom teacher, $26,000 in the State of
Mississippi alone.
So a very good program was started and defended over the years that
says since we are placing a burden on these local communities when we
send the children from these bases to the local schools, we will help
subsidize the local school district. But even that falls horribly
short. Nationwide, we spend about $5,500 to educate a child between the
age of kindergarten and 12th grade. Impact Aid contributes only about
$1,500 to those local school districts where the parent lives on the
base, works on the base or does both.
So even with the great progress made this year, and I do want to
commend the committee for doing so, we are still way below the cost of
educating these children. We are a long way from where we should be.
What the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] and I want to do,
though, is there is a separate circumstance, those circumstances where
over half of the young students are the children whose parents live on
a base, work on a base or they happen to be on an Indian reservation.
These are the most remote areas of America where we do our military
training so we do not bother the neighbors, so we do not hurt innocent
bystanders. And so the base is the community. If the base is the
community, then there is no local school district to subsidize. So the
base has to build a school.
With the defense drawdown, and there has been a drawdown, the defense
budget has gone from $300 billion in 1990 to about $270 billion this
year. It has been cut $30 billion in real money, and if we throw
inflation on that, it has probably been cut by $50 billion. What the
gentleman from Arizona and hopefully a number of my other colleagues
are saying is, do you not think those kids deserve a good school? If
their parents are in the Navy, they are away from them 180 days a year.
I will say that again. If their mom or dad is in the Navy, in all
likelihood, they are gone from their children 180 days a year. If they
are in the Army in all likelihood, mom or dad is away from those
children 150 days a year; if they are in the Air Force, 120 days a
year. We cannot make up for these things in money. We are taking their
time away from them, the most valuable thing they have, especially when
they are little.
{time} 1715
God knows we do not pay them enough, because we have 13,000 soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines on food stamps. Where I come from, that is
an embarrassment. I do not think the people who serve our country ought
to be embarrassed like that.
So all we are trying to say is if we cannot pay them enough, and they
have got to be gone all the time, and because Congress will not take a
stand on whether or not to let the President send people all over the
world, to let him do what we will not do with the War Powers Act, and
we are sending parents away to Bosnia, and we are sending parents to
the desert, and we sent parents to Panama and all over the world, why
do we not try to make up for it in some small way, to see to it that
the kids go to a decent school on base?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi was allowed to
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, again, this is our
responsibility. We are not talking about a school district in
Mississippi, we are not talking about a school district in your
hometown, we are talking about those schools where over half of the
students are the children of the people in our Nation's military. It is
our responsibility to see to it they are treated fairly.
So it is not bureaucracy versus schools. It is simply setting
priorities. Should we not be responsible for those children and should
we not treat them properly?
I have got to admit I am a little disappointed when I see Democrat
after Democrat come up here and lambast the motives. That is my motive.
I think those kids deserve a decent school.
I regret as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Personnel, I
could not find the money to get those 13,000 people off of food stamps.
But do you know what? Maybe I can give some
[[Page H7176]]
of their kids a little bit better school to go to.
All we are asking is that we as a Nation set some priorities within
the funds that we have, since we are trying to balance our budget. One
of those priorities will be to shift some money out of the city of
Washington, DC, and spend it on the people who serve our country, to
see to it that their kids can go to a decent school.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hayworth amendment and urge
our colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to, with all the respect in the world for
the previous speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], I
would like to address some of the statements that the gentleman made as
well.
Certainly the gentleman laid out a magnificent justification for
funding for Impact Aid, and I agree with the gentleman completely. As
one who had three bases in her district up until the Base Closure
Commission closed all three of them, I certainly identify with the
concerns and the values that the gentleman put forth and the need for
us to have this Impact Aid.
That is why I congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], for increasing the funding in this bill to $796 million, an
increase of $66 million from last year, for Impact Aid. Indeed, Impact
Aid is a high priority for our subcommittee, as is reflected in this
amount of money, in the $66 million increase, that was given.
The gentleman referenced that he does not like the idea of
questioning the motives of other Members of Congress, and neither do I.
But I will, when I think that the Republican majority is, once again,
for about the fifth day in a row, hiding behind the children of
America, to make an assault, to continue its assault, on the American
worker, and that is what this amendment is about. That is what this
amendment is about.
If we want to have bigger increases in our education programs, and I
fully support that, then we have to take a look at our entire budget
and how we allocate the 602(b) allocation so that the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] does not once again in this lamb-eat-lamb
subcommittee bill, because everything in here we can make a strong case
for and a strong justification for, that is where I would like to see
our Republican colleagues weigh in for more funding for education,
instead of tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country and increased
funding on the defense side without question.
I agree with our colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie], that this, indeed, should be a line item in the defense
budget, and I commend a member of the Impact Aid Task Force, the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Military Construction, for the leadership he has
demonstrated in funding and building schools out of that budget for
children of the military.
The gentleman from Texas, our colleague [Mr. Edwards], is a cochair
of the Impact Aid Task Force, and a champion in that regard, and he
spoke eloquently in opposition to the Hayworth amendment.
But I do question the motives of the Republican majority to day in
and day out hide behind children. The first day it was children with
disabilities, the next day it was vocational education, it was the
education of our Nation's children, and then alternating back and
forth, children with special needs, voc-ed, et cetera, in order to take
money that is there to promote tranquility in the workplace.
The National Labor Relations Board has a freeze in this budget which
represents a 5 percent cut in staffing because the freeze does not
enable them to keep up with inflation.
This amendment, in addition to that, guts enforcement of the Nation's
labor laws that protect workers. The amendment not only guts
protections for workers against unfair firings, it reduces protection
for companies. This is about workers and about companies. Both benefit
from the work of the National Labor Relations Board.
The Hayworth amendment would reduce protection for companies against
unfair picketing and violence in strikes. The amendment would reduce
staffing levels by 14 percent over and above the reductions that our
freeze already impacts, investigations would double or triple, and
election cases would be delayed up to 3 months.
The bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is a bipartisan
product. It balances the needs, the competing needs, of the very worthy
competing needs that our subcommittee's jurisdiction of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education presents.
I believe that in our national budget should be a statement of our
national values. It is an honor to serve on this subcommittee, because
we address the heart of the matter, jobs, job training, health and the
well-being of the American people, and the education, the education of
our children.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, call upon our colleagues to
once again reject this attempt on the part of the Republican majority
to continue its assault on American workers by hiding behind their
children. Every day that I serve in this House I will say that we can
talk all we want about the well-being of our children and their
education, but the economic security of their families is absolutely
essential to that.
The Hayworth amendment undercuts that economic security. I urge our
colleagues to vote no.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I have listened for days now to
the debate over education appropriations. I would like to add my voice
to the debate and say our kids deserve more than what Congress wants to
give them. They deserve well-built schools and classrooms, qualified
teachers, and a chance to learn in a safe classroom and secure
environment.
And we should let students know that public schools are quality
schools, and that it is not only a wonderful opportunity but a
privilege to learn in the public school system. This country's public
school system produces some of the most gifted and well-learned
students in the world. That is why we need to keep our public schools
well funded.
A recent example of how well public schools work in our communities
is Watsonville High School, located in my district in California. Two
students this year graduated from Watsonville High School were
valedictorians of their senior class. Both students came from poverty-
stricken, farm-worker families, both students are the first in their
families to attend college, but both are high achievers attending top
universities this fall. Fabian Bedolla is studying architecture at
Cornell University and Sonya Rocher is attending UC-Berkeley.
If we put our much-needed public education funds into vouchers, we
take away from these students, who want to succeed, and fulfill their
dreams within the public school system. We owe it to our children to
keep all of our public school money in the public schools. They are the
future of our country, and we must give them the tools to lead us into
the next century.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of July 31, 1997, the Chair will
reduce to 5 minutes an electronic vote, if ordered, on the Schaffer
amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 253, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 385]
AYES--170
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
[[Page H7177]]
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sessions
Shadegg
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
NOES--253
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Carson
Conyers
Dellums
Foglietta
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Hunter
Kolbe
Schiff
Waxman
{time} 1742
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1745
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
31, 1997, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device
will be taken on the amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.
Amendment offered by Mr. Bob Schaffer of Colorado
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Bob
Shaffer], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185,
noes 238, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 386]
AYES--185
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bilbray
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Redmond
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Turner
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
NOES--238
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
[[Page H7178]]
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bonior
Burton
Carson
Dellums
Foglietta
Gonzalez
Hunter
Kolbe
Schiff
Waxman
{time} 1752
Mr. CAMP changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and unable to
cast the following rollcall votes today. Had I been present, I would
have voted as follows: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 380, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote No. 381, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 382, ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 384, ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 385, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 386.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was allowed to speak out of order
for 1 minute.)
Announcement Regarding Amendments to House Resolution 168, to Implement
the Recommendations of the Bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules will meet on
Tuesday of next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendments to
be offered to House Resolution 168, to implement the recommendations of
the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force. This task force,
consisting of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, has been
working for several months to produce a product which is acceptable to
Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, the last time there was an ethics reform package in
1989, it was also the result of a bipartisan task force. While there
are many issues which are partisan around here, standards of official
conduct is one area where things should be done on a bipartisan basis.
In light of this history, Members should be on notice that amendments
with bipartisan cosponsorship will be viewed more favorably than
partisan amendments. Any Member who desires to submit an amendment
should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 10
a.m. this coming Tuesday, September 16, to the Committee on Rules in
Room H-312 in the Capitol.
Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel to assure
that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the
Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments
comply with the rules of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I would advise Members to listen carefully to what I
just said. It affects every Member of this House.
Amendment offered by Mr. Rodriguez
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rodriguez:
Page 66, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 66, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 73, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,500,000)''
.Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the $1.5 million
will be coming off the evaluation going into direct service to the
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers throughout this country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all of my colleagues for the comments that I
have received from all the Members that were willing to testify. I am
going to ask my colleagues to hold on their testimony, since it is my
understanding that we have an agreement on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] for his efforts and for agreeing to the $1.5 million. My thanks
also to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I would indicate again that the $1.5 million from
evaluation goes directly for direct service to the Comprehensive
Regional Assistance Centers. They are centers that basically provide
the direct service that the teachers need in the classroom. They are
the centers that provide the direct assistance that helps in terms of
parental involvement. They are the centers that help also to enhance
individuals and to enhance them to make sure that the teachers can deal
with the new technology.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things is that we have a
teacher that is well-qualified in the classroom. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I ask for my colleagues' support.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rodriguez
amendment, just indicating that in one area, and I am sure it can be
emulated in many areas across the Nation, in region 15, the
Comprehensive Center for the Pacific will take care of areas in the
most remote part of the jurisdiction of the United States, areas in the
Pacific like American Samoa, Micronesia, the Mariana Islands, Guam, et
cetera.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment on the basis that Mr.
Rodriguez has been able to put forward his amendment on a bipartisan
basis.
{time} 1800
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the majority has looked at the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas, and we are very happy to accept it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle, we also accept the
amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment
offered by my good friend from Texas.
I support his amendment and the comprehensive regional assistance
centers or CRAC's because they provide much-needed services to schools
throughout this country. They are the most efficient source of
information and services available under the Improving America's
Schools Act, for local education agencies, tribes, and schools.
The CRAC's help districts revamp their curriculum to respond to the
needs of disadvantaged, language minority, tribal, and migrant kids.
These centers work with State departments of education and with
school districts in every State to assist them in important systemic
reform and in providing technical assistance in critical areas such as
technology in the classroom, special education, parental involvement,
and the effective training of our countries' teachers.
The region 8 CRAC located in San Antonio supports the schools in my
district of El Paso.
This CRAC and others provide a one-stop technical assistance shop for
educators who receive title I funds.
The region 8 CRAC provides important services such as guidance to
assist educators make informed decisions regarding the purchase of
technology, professional development, curricula, and instructional
materials.
The region 8 CRAC also provides easy access to accurate information
about programs and practices that have proven successful in education
children in other high-poverty areas and children from special
populations.
Schools use the information provided by region 8 CRAC to help title I
students learn.
I also know that other regional CRAC's have been successfully
providing critical assistance to schools in other parts of the country.
For example, I know of one school district in Nebraska that has made
great strides with the help of the region 7 CRAC located at the
University of Oklahoma. The test scores of title I students in the
Madison School District of Nebraska have greatly increased as a result
of professional development and intervention by the region 7 CRAC.
Mr. Rodriguez' amendment takes just a small percentage of the large
increase in funding provided for the innovative education program for
fiscal year 1998, but the amendment provides a large proportional
increase for the CRAC's.
With the increase provided under this amendment, CRAC's can continue
their quality service to school districts throughout this Nation.
The number of disadvantage, language minority, tribal, and migrant
kids is increasing
[[Page H7179]]
every year, and as we enter the 20th century, the number of kids will
continue to rise. We must be prepared to meet the needs of these
students.
Vote for the Rodriguez amendment and help these centers continue the
quality assistance that they have been providing for the past several
years and continue to help this Nation's children.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Rodriguez for
bringing this important amendment to the floor for a vote.
Comprehensive regional assistance centers are a vital resource for
our educators, and they are the only source for federally funded
comprehensive technical assistance.
They provide valuable resources for all of our children including
children in high-poverty areas, children with disabilities, limited
English-proficient children, and neglected or delinquent children.
I am fortunate to have one of these centers located in my district--
the New York Technical Assistant Center [NYTAC] which is located at
NYU's School of Education. I can see the positive influence that it has
made.
It brings together five organizations in a partnership to provide
technical assistance to the New York State Education Department.
It is one of 15 programs designed to assist schools, districts, and
State education departments in implementing the Improving America's
Schools Act. Children can only learn if those who teach them are
endowed with the proper tools.
I was a teacher in the New York City public schools, and I know the
necessity of having good and current resources at your fingertips.
If we do not give our educators the proper tools, we rob our children
of their best chance at receiving a good education.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Rodriguez amendment, for our
Nation's schools, our children's future.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rodriguez
amendment. We have heard a great deal about education standards
throughout this debate. We all agree that it is time to improve the
standards of education for all children in this country. The Rodriguez
amendment advances this effort by increasing funding for the
comprehensive regional technical assistance centers. These centers are
designed to support students who most need educational assistance. The
children of low-income families, homeless children, neglected and
delinquent children, the children of migrant and immigrant families.
These are the children that we have allowed to fall through the cracks
of our educational system. These are the children from poor and
underprivileged areas. These are the children in need, and deserving of
our increased attention and assistance. If we, as a nation, are
concerned about the standards of our public education system, if we are
concerned that children with learning disabilities and limited skills
in English are not advancing as they should be, we should support the
network already in place to achieve these goals.
The comprehensive regional technical assistance centers not only
support the students who most need it, but also assist in developing
the management of schools and the learning environment required to meet
the challenges of needed school reform. Keeping the schools safe and
drug free, applying new technology for teaching and learning,
continually evaluating the school systems, all of these activities are
conducted by the comprehensive regional technical assistance centers.
These 15 regional centers act as the coordinating mechanism to
implement and initiate programs, integrating efforts of State and local
agencies with the Department of Education.
For example, in my home district, the Southern California
Comprehensive Assistance Center sponsors a new teacher induction
training. This workshop assists new teachers in setting goals and
assists school administrators in designing support interventions for
their new teachers. Teachers and administrators get the opportunity to
practice listening skills, improving their ability to communicate with
students.
The center also sponsors a reading success network. This is a
rigorous early intervention program designed to identify reading
difficulties and promote students to appropriate grade levels. The
center provides training, materials, and on-going assistance to
administrators and parents through their web site. These are just a few
of the programs and services that the Southern California Comprehensive
Assistance Center has developed to advance the standards of education
in region 12 and in our Nation.
This amendment is not about expanding big government or increasing
Government regulations in schools. Rather, this amendment is about
enhancing the network of support that our State and local educational
agencies need to meet the special needs of students in rural and urban
areas. If you stand for equity in education, if you believe that all
children deserve a fair chance at the education they deserve, if you
believe that we need to uphold high standards for education, I urge you
to vote for the Rodriguez amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rodriguez].
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for providing sufficient funding
for the program of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration. I would like to ask him to engage in a discussion with
me regarding SAMHSA.
The subcommittee has included language in the committee report urging
the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment [CSAT] to assist corporations
that are administering residential treatment for pregnant and
postpartum women grants. These are programs that are experiencing
difficulty complying with the match requirement.
I understand that the committee's intention with this language was to
encourage CSAT to explore utilizing existing administrative authority
to waive the match requirement for these grantees.
I also understand that CSAT has determined that they do not have
enough existing administrative authority to waive the match
requirement. So under these circumstances, would the gentleman from
Illinois consider including in the conference report on H.R. 2264
legislative language providing CSAT the authority to waive the match
requirement for PPW grantees?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California is correct.
It was the committee's intent to encourage CSAT to utilize existing
administrative authority if that authority were available to waive the
match requirement for PPW grantees experiencing difficulty in meeting
the match requirement.
In an attempt to address the gentlewoman's interests and the concerns
of PPW grantees experiencing difficulty in meeting this match
requirement, the committee will consider providing waiver authority if
agreed to by our colleagues in the House Committee on Commerce when
H.R. 2264 is considered in conference committee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. His expression of
support and his interest in this matter is very important to me.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Engel:
Page 74, line 3, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $100,000)''.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing to the Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill would add $100,000 to the Department
of Education's program management account so that the Department can
expand its Website to include enhanced information on private
scholarships and financial aid.
I am proposing this amendment along with my New York colleague and
good friend, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy]. In 1992,
the Higher Education Act was amended to require the Department to
compile a database of all private and public student financial
assistance programs. The department conducted a study in 1994 and found
that the database would be beneficial because it would create a one-
stop shopping area where students could access financial aid
information through telephone, computer discs, and on-line services.
However, funding for the program was ended in 1995 and has not been
funded since that time.
This amendment would simply provide the Department with the necessary
resources to expand its existing Website so that it would include the
information required by the Higher Education Act. The funding would
allow the Department to create on-line directories and establish links
to postsecondary education institutions, financial aid offices, and
government agencies that provide scholarships for students.
[[Page H7180]]
At a time when students are having more difficulty than ever in
financing their education, we need to provide an objective,
comprehensive outlet where available aid can easily be accessed. This
problem is compounded by the fact that many students have been the
victims of scams by fraudulent companies that pose as legitimate
scholarship search services. Students often sign up and pay for
services that claim to guarantee scholarships or financial aid.
However, there are many scam artists out there who promise financial
aid but never deliver on this promise leaving innocent students without
the assistance they need.
Creating a centralized, reliable Website containing accurate
information through the Department of Education would help students
find the information they need to obtain funding for higher education.
The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy] and I introduced
legislation earlier this session that would require the Department to
provide direct links from its Website to databases that contain
reliable information on scholarships, fellowships, and other student
financial aid. Helping the Department create a thorough database as
required by law could be even more beneficial to students in their
efforts to pay for an education.
Education is an investment in our future. Students already have a
difficult time financing their studies as well as obtaining reliable
information. One only has to look at the cost of higher education in
this country. It has gone sky high each and every year and so our
students are more and more dependent on financial aid.
Government ought to be facilitating this, making it easier for them
to find out where they can get such financial aid, not making it
harder. The amendment that I propose along with the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. McCarthy] will do just that. We urge our colleagues to
support this amendment so that we can help our young people further
their academic pursuits.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my friend from New York for his creativity
and his frugality, and the majority is pleased to accept his amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we also accept the amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Engel-McCarthy amendment to
the Labor-HHS bill. Our amendment would provide $100,000 to the
Department of Education to provide up-to-date information about
financial aid and scholarships on its Website. I am a big believer in
education. If we can make higher education accessible to more young
people, then we will provide them with more opportunities and more hope
for the future.
What has us all worried is the cost of a college education is rising
every year. I spend every Monday and Friday visiting the schools in my
district. The students I talk to tell me they are depending upon
scholarships and other kinds of aid to help pay for college. The World
Wide Web has placed a lot of reliable information about scholarships at
the fingertips of these students. But the Internet also is being used
by scam artists and conmen to fool students. These scam artists
establish Websites with official sounding names. They use hard sell
tactics like time limits, excessive hype to throw students off guard,
and they promise students guaranteed scholarships if they pay up front
fees.
Many young people have been lured into these Websites and after
paying their money they have learned that there are no scholarships.
This is wrong and it is time we did something about it. The Engel-
McCarthy amendment would provide the Education Department with the
money it needs to broaden its Internet site.
This will give more students and their parents access to legitimate
information about scholarships and financial aid. It will warn students
about Websites that are frauds. This small investment will move us
toward our goal of making sure that a college education is in reach of
more Americans. It will keep kids from wasting their money on fake
scholarships. I urge my colleagues to support the Engel-McCarthy
amendment.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and
certainly the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for supporting us on
this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PORTER. 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.
The text of the remainder of title III is as follows:
school improvement programs
For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles II, IV-A-1 and 2, V-A and B, VI, 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; $1,480,888,000, of which $1,219,500,000 shall become
available on July 1, 1998, and remain available through
September 30, 1999: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, $310,000,000 shall be for Eisenhower
professional development State grants under title II-B of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, $350,000,000 shall be
for innovative education program strategies State grants
under title VI-A of said Act and $750,000 shall be for an
evaluation of comprehensive regional assistance centers under
title XIII of said Act.
literacy
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out a literacy initiative, $260,000,000, which
shall become available on October 1, 1998 and shall remain
available through September 30, 1999 only if specifically
authorized by subsequent legislation enacted by April 1,
1998: Provided, That, if the initiative is not authorized by
such date, the funds shall be transferred to ``Special
Education'' to be merged with that account and to be
available for the same purposes for which that account is
available: Provided further, That the transferred funds shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 1999, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2000 for academic year
1999-2000.
Indian education
For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and section 215
of the Department of Education Organization Act, $62,600,000.
bilingual and immigrant education
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by parts A and C and section 7203 of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
without regard to section 7103(b), $354,000,000: Provided,
That State educational agencies may use all, or any part of,
their part C allocation for competitive grants to local
educational agencies: Provided further, That the
Department of Education should only support instructional
programs which ensure that students completely master
English in a timely fashion (a period of three to five
years) while meeting rigorous achievement standards in the
academic content areas.
special education
For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $4,348,647,000, of which $4,117,186,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 1998, and shall
remain available through September 30, 1999.
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, $2,589,176,000.
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.), $8,186,000.
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.), $43,841,000: 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.),
$80,682,000: 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, $1,486,975,000, of which
$1,483,875,000 shall become available on July 1, 1998 and
shall remain available through September 30, 1999; and of
which $4,491,000 from amounts available under the Adult
Education Act shall be for the National Institute for
Literacy under
[[Page H7181]]
section 384(c): Provided, That, of the amounts made available
for title II of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act, $13,497,000 shall be used by the
Secretary for national programs under title IV, without
regard to section 451: Provided further, That the Secretary
may reserve up to $4,998,000 under section 313(d) of the
Adult Education Act for activities carried out under section
383 of that Act: Provided further, 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, $9,046,407,000, which shall remain available through
September 30, 1999.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 1998-1999 shall be $3,000:
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 1997
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, $47,688,000.
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, and part A
and subpart 1 of part B of title X of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended, the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961, and Public Law 102-423; $909,893,000,
of which $13,700,000 for interest subsidies under title VII
of the Higher Education Act 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 1998-1999
for fellowships awarded originally under part C of title IX
of said Act, under the terms and conditions of part C:
Provided further, That notwithstanding sections 419D, 419E,
and 419H of the Higher Education Act, scholarships made under
title IV, part A, subpart 6 shall be prorated to maintain the
same number of new scholarships in fiscal year 1998 as in
fiscal year 1997.
howard university
For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $210,000,000: 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).
college housing and academic facilities loans program
For Federal administrative expenses to carry out
activities related to facility loans entered into under title
VII, part C and section 702 of the Higher Education Act, as
amended, $698,000.
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, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994; section 2102, sections 3136 and 3141 and parts A, B,
I, and K and section 10601 of title X, and part C of title
XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended, $508,752,000: Provided, That $50,000,000 of the
amount provided for section 10101 of part A of title X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act shall be for grants to
local educational agencies to demonstrate effective
approaches to whole school reform.
libraries
For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $142,000,000.
Departmental Management
program administration
For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $329,479,000.
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, $55,449,000.
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, $30,242,000.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
obligated or expended to carry out section 621(b) of Public
Law 101-589.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 305. 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.
Sec. 306. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from
funds appropriated under the Fund for the Improvement of
Education, the Secretary of Education shall make an award, in
an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, to the National Academy
of Sciences to evaluate and submit a preliminary report by
June 30, 1998 and a final report by August 31, 1998 to the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives on the
following items with respect to the Administration's proposed
national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math: (1)
the technical quality of the work performed under the test
development contract(s), linking activities, and contract(s)
for providing the tests to States and school districts; (2)
the adequacy of the administration of the field tests; (3)
the validity and reliability of the data produced by the
field tests; (4) the reasonableness and validity of the
contractors' design for linking test results to student
performance levels; and (5) the degree to which the tests can
be expected to provide valid and useful information to the
public: Provided, That in no event may the Department of
Education proceed to administer any final version of the
tests, until such time as a final National Academy of
Sciences report is completed.
Sec. 307. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
institution of higher education which receives funds under
title III of the Higher Education Act, except for grants made
under section 326, may use up to twenty percent of its award
under part A or part B of the Act for endowment building
purposes authorized under section 331. Any institution
seeking to use part A or part B funds for endowment building
purposes shall indicate such intention in its application to
the Secretary and shall abide by departmental regulations
governing the endowment challenge grant program.
Sec. 308. Amendments to Eligible Lender Definition.--
Section 435(d)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1085) is amended--
(1) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (A) the following: ``; and in determining
whether the making or holding of loans to students and
parents under this part is the primary consumer credit
function of the eligible lender, loans made or held as
trustee or in a trust capacity for the benefit of a third
party shall not be considered'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(3) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(K) a wholly owned subsidiary of a publicly-held holding
company which, as of the date of enactment of this
subparagraph, through one or more subsidiaries (i) acts as a
finance company, and (ii) participates in the program
authorized by this part pursuant to subparagraph (C).''.
[[Page H7182]]
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1998''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this portion of the
bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES
Armed Forces Retirement Home
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $71,777,000, of which $16,325,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home.
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.
Dickey] having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, 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. 2264)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________