[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.

                          ____________________