[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7381-H7452]
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.


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Nadler:
       At the end of title V, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 516. (a) No funds made available under this Act may be 
     used under title XI, XVIII or XIX of the Social Security Act 
     to pay any insurer if such insurer--
       (1) offers monetary rewards or penalties, or other 
     inducements to a licensed health care professional to 
     influence his or her decision as to what constitutes 
     medically necessary and appropriate treatments, tests, 
     procedures, or services; or
       (2) conditions initial or continued participation of the 
     health care professional in a health insurance plan on the 
     basis of the health care professional's decisions as to what 
     constitutes medically necessary and appropriate treatments, 
     tests, procedures, or services.
       (b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``insurer'' 
     means an insurance company, insurance service, or insurance 
     organization licensed to engage in the business of insurance 
     in a State, a health maintenance organization, a preferred 
     provider organization, and a provider sponsored organization.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``health 
     care professional'' means a physician or other health care 
     practitioner licensed, accredited, or certified to perform 
     specified health services consistent with State law.
                                                                    ____

       At the end of title V, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 516. (a) No funds made available under this Act may be 
     used under title XI, XVIII or XIX of the Social Security Act 
     to pay any insurer unless under health care coverage provided 
     by such insurer--
       (1) the determination of what is medically necessary and 
     appropriate within the meaning of the insurance contract is 
     made only by the treating health care professional in 
     consultation with the patient; and
       (2) the insurer covers the full cost of all treatment, 
     tests, procedures, and services deemed to be medically 
     necessary and appropriate by the treating health care 
     professional in consultation with the patient, subject to any 
     deductibles, co-payments, or percentage limitations provided 
     in the insurance contract.
       (b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``insurer'' 
     means an insurance company, insurance service, or insurance 
     organization licensed to engage in the business of insurance 
     in a State, a health maintenance organization, a preferred 
     provider organization, and a provider sponsored organization.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``treating 
     health care professional'' means a physician or other health 
     care practitioner licensed, accredited, or certified to 
     perform specified health services consistent with State law, 
     who is directly involved in the care of said patient.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring 
     the provision of coverage for benefits not otherwise covered.

  Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Without objection, the amendments are considered en bloc and 
considered as read.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we all know that there have been many, many 
complaints and horror stories about the conduct of some health 
maintenance organizations or HMO's. It is news to no one that HMO cost-
cutting measures are fast becoming an issue of vital concern and often 
life and death to many of our constituents.
  We witnessed the subordination of health to profits just last year 
during the debate over the so-called drive-through deliveries, and some 
Members have introduced legislation dealing with drive-through 
mastectomies. It would certainly be silly for Congress to attempt to 
deal with this problem procedure-by-procedure, to have one bill for 
mastectomies and another for tonsillectomies, and so forth and so on.
  Many of the States have enacted legislation to deal with this 
problem, but the State legislation cannot impact Medicare and Medicaid, 
and for that matter, is barred from dealing with employer insurance 
where it is self-insured because of ERISA.
  These two amendments would protect HMO patients on two fronts. One 
amendment would simply say that most insurance contracts say that they 
will have a list of covered services, and say they will pay for any of 
those covered services, whether it be a gall bladder operation or 
whatever, if it is determined that that service is medically 
appropriate and necessary.
  This amendment says it is the doctor, the health care professional 
dealing with the patient, who makes the determination whether it is 
medically necessary and appropriate, and that no funds can be spent to 
reimburse an HMO unless their procedures say that the doctor makes that 
determination, not a utility reviewer sitting thousands of miles away 
at a computer console. We all have heard complaints from doctors saying 
that they spend two-thirds of their time arguing with people who have 
never seen the patient about whether the patient needs a CAT scan or to 
see a specialist or needs an operation. This amendment simply says the 
doctor dealing with the patient determines what is medically necessary 
and appropriate and not someone else.
  The second amendment says that when the doctor or the nurse or the 
physical therapist determines whether a service is medically necessary 
and appropriate, that decision should be made on the basis of medical 
necessity, not on the basis of cost. This amendment says that one 
cannot fund an HMO if the procedures of that HMO give an incentive to 
the doctor to effect that decision. One cannot say to the doctor, ``If 
you determine too many people need CAT scans, too many people need to 
see a specialist, we will pay you less money or we will knock you out 
of the plan; if you determine that very few people need expensive 
services, we will pay you more money.'' That sets up an 
institutionalized conflict of interest.
  If someone came to a Member of the House and said, ``We will pay you 
if you vote this way or that way,'' that would be called bribery, it is 
a crime. But if someone comes to a doctor, if the HMO comes to a doctor 
and says, ``We will pay you more money if you decide that Mr. Smith and 
Mrs. Jones together do not need certain services,'' that sets up an 
institutionalized conflict of interest between the doctor's medical 
judgment and his pocketbook, and we should have no such conflicts of 
interest.
  These two practices of someone other than the doctor saying why is it 
medically necessary, someone who has never seen the patient, and 
offering the doctor monetary incentives to make cheaper decisions and 
penalties if he makes more expensive decisions, put cost ahead of 
health, and they must be stopped.
  So these two amendments say Medicare and Medicaid cannot pay for HMO 
services unless those procedures are changed so that the doctor makes 
the decision of what is medically necessary and appropriate, not the 
insurance company, and so that doctors are not pressured by financial 
incentives to decide what medical procedure is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that we have not gotten a waiver for these 
amendments from the Committee on Rules and that they will be ruled out 
of order, but I thought it important to air this on the House floor, 
and I will not request a vote on the amendments. I will save the 
gentleman the trouble of making his point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman withdraw his amendments?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendments are 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

[[Page H7382]]

                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Riggs

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Riggs:
       Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 516. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Admissions 
     Preferences in Public Education.--None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used by the Department of 
     Education to withhold any financial assistance, or to impose, 
     administer, or enforce any other penalty, sanction, or 
     remedy, for the refusal or failure of a Federal grant 
     recipient to enforce a preference or affirmative action plan 
     based on race, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin for 
     admissions to public educational institutions.
       (b) Applicability.--The limitation established in 
     subsection (a) shall apply only to Federal grant recipients 
     located in a State in which the enforcement of such 
     preference or plan is prohibited by the laws of the State or 
     by an order of a Federal court.

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this is a very controversial 
and I hope serious amendment, deserving far more debate than time will 
permit on the House floor today, so I want to indicate to the Chairman 
and to my colleagues at the outset that it is my intent, respecting 
obviously the reservation of a point of order which has been lodged 
against my amendment, to withdraw my amendment at the conclusion of my 
remarks or at the conclusion of the remarks of anyone who wishes to 
speak on the amendment.
  However, I hope this is just the beginning of a congressional and 
national debate on the whole issue of gender and racial preferences in 
governmental hiring policies, in governmental contracting policies, and 
in college admissions. As most of my colleagues I believe probably know 
by now, the people of California spoke loud and clear last November 
when they approved by a 54 percent margin Proposition 209, otherwise 
known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibits race 
and sex references in affirmative action programs in State and local 
government, education, employment, and contracting.
  As our Gov. Pete Wilson, the primary proponent of Proposition 209, 
said, and I quote, ``This brings us one step closer to a colorblind 
society, to ending unfair racial preferences, and to judging people 
based upon the content of their character rather than the color of 
their skin.''
  As we prepare to enter the new decade, the new century, the new 
millennium, I cannot think of anything better than when that big ball 
drops on Time Square, that it really does signify the beginning of a 
new decade, a new era when people really will be judged on the content 
of their character rather than the color of their skin.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is intended to prevent the U.S. 
Department of Education, through their office of civil rights, from 
pursuing any sort of legal remedies using funding under this spending 
bill against a State such as California where the voters have, by a 
statewide referendum, a statewide ballot initiative, prohibited 
granting racial or gender preferences in college admissions. Of course, 
this initiative or these voter sentiments would apply to the California 
State university system and the very august and distinguished 
University of California system.
  It is interesting also to note, I say to my colleagues, that a 
Federal appeals court recently upheld the constitutionality of 
Proposition 209, which has been subject to legal and constitutional 
challenges almost from the day the California voters voted for its 
enactment.
  Now, my concern, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is that there is some 
preliminary indication that the Office of Civil Rights in the 
Department of Education disagrees with the people of California and may 
very well attempt to investigate, should the constitutionality and 
legality of Proposition 209 ultimately be upheld by the highest court 
of the land, may intend to pursue some sort of investigation that could 
lead to sanctions against any of the California universities and 
colleges that fall under the provisions of Proposition 209.
  In fact, I am quoting now from a letter sent to me on May 1 of this 
year by Norma Cantu, the Assistant Secretary in the Department of 
Education who heads up the Office of Civil Rights, and she says, and I 
quote now, ``It is the position of the Department of Education that 
outside the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department believes it is 
permissible for an educational institution that receives Federal 
funding to consider race or national origin in an appropriate manner in 
either its admissions or financial aid programs in order to achieve a 
diverse student body, consistent with Justice Powell's opinion in the 
landmark Supreme Court case of the Regents of the University of 
California v. Bakke.''
  Well, the problem with that, colleagues, is that Proposition 209 
effectively reversed, it overturned the Bakke decision, at least as it 
applies to admissions policies at the University of California.
  She goes on to say, ``In addition, outside the 5th Circuit, we 
believe it is permissible for a State institution to consider race or 
national origin in an appropriate manner in admissions or financial aid 
programs in order to remedy past discrimination in State educational 
systems.''
  Well, the problem with that, of course, is it not only flies in the 
face of what California voters wanted, but we now know in California 
that these well-intentioned affirmative action policies actually result 
in discrimination against other minority groups.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, in fact it has been well documented that the 
existing admissions policies at the University of California 
discriminate against the minority group Asian-Americans. So what we are 
trying to do here is make sure that the Department of Education, 
through my amendment, is not able to withhold Federal funding or pursue 
other sanctions against California universities if they eliminate, as 
they are required to do by Proposition 209 and the people of 
California, race-based preferences in college admissions.
  My amendment would prevent State universities from being caught in 
this odd position of either defying a Federal court or losing millions 
of dollars, potentially losing millions of dollars in Federal funding. 
My amendment would, as I said, prohibit the Department of Education 
from withholding funds from schools, from colleges and universities 
located in States that have a law or a court order prohibiting 
affirmative action, like California, again through Proposition 209, the 
California Civil Rights Initiative.
  I just want to clarify one other thing for my colleagues. There are 
claims now that the repeal of race-based preferences or affirmative 
action admissions in California have had an effect on applications and 
admissions at the postgraduate schools at the University of California, 
the professional schools.

                              {time}  1230

  So far the results have been very mixed in California. Boalt Hall, 
which is the University of California at Berkeley's prestigious law 
school, the incoming class, as has been reported in the news media, 
contains only one African-American student. That came after black 
admissions dropped 81 percent, and the 14 individuals who got into the 
University of California Berkeley law school, Boalt Hall, decided to go 
elsewhere.
  But at the University of California's five medical schools, although 
the number of minority applicants dropped, the American public 
enrollment will be about the same, 69 versus 73 students.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, so this has occurred in the aftermath of 
Proposition 209. There has not been this chilling effect, at least at 
the University of California medical schools, that some people have 
suggested as a result of California voters expressing their will and 
passing Proposition 209.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I realize, again, that the time is inadequate today 
to

[[Page H7383]]

properly debate this issue. I know there are people of sincere good 
will on both sides of this issue who would like to engage in this 
debate. So let me signal to my colleagues that I intend, as a member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, to raise this issue again 
later this fall or early next year when we bring the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act before the committee and ultimately before the 
House.
  I hope that we can have a debate that will go to the heart of Federal 
preferences based on race and gender in Government contracting policies 
as well as in college admissions, and I hope ultimately we will be able 
to eliminate affirmative action quotas in the Federal Government.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] 
continue to reserve his objection?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my objection, and I 
move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the gentleman has offered 
an amendment that would undermine our country's civil rights 
enforcement. This amendment would bar the Department of Education's 
enforcement authority from seeking remedial action where there has been 
discrimination in admissions by a college, university, or school.
  In truth, this amendment turns the clock back on civil rights 
enforcements to the pre-Civil War concept of interposition and 
nullification, where States decided that the Federal law would apply. 
This amendment weakens the Department's civil rights enforcement. It 
would create a chaotic patchwork of civil rights protections.
  The Department's Office of Civil Rights has never attempted to take 
enforcement action against a school's refusal to implement affirmative 
action that was not necessary to remedy discrimination. Schools or 
colleges may be required to use affirmative action only if a court or 
the Office of Civil Rights has determined a school violated civil 
rights laws, and that affirmative action was necessary to remedy 
discrimination.
  In fact, the Department has not charged that Proposition 209 violates 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaints made against the 
California schools only challenge whether the current admissions 
policies of the schools violate civil rights laws. The Department of 
Education has made no threats to cut off aid. It does not and never has 
required quotas or affirmative action for diversity purposes.
  The author of this amendment has no evidence to substantiate the 
allegations he has made regarding the Department. This is a poorly 
conceived, poorly drafted measure that is without purpose, other than 
to play to racial fears. I urge its rejection.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point of order, I yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman in his opposition to this 
amendment. It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that despite the drastic 
school resegregation that is taking place in both California and Texas, 
that we are considering an amendment that would encourage the 
resegregation of other schools around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, the University of Texas Law School, which had no blacks 
until ordered by the Federal courts, will have no African-Americans in 
this year's first year class. The University of California at Berkeley 
Law School will only have one African-American in its first year law 
school. Medical schools have also registered drops in African-American 
enrollment of 80 and 90 percent, numbers which are the lowest since the 
1960's.
  Instead of being appalled by the resegregation of our schools in 
Texas and California, this amendment applauds turning back the clock 
and encourages other States to follow suit. It prevents the Federal 
authorities from determining whether the absence of blacks is mere 
coincidence or an intentional result of an invidious discrimination, 
and it prevents the Federal Government from remedying illegal 
discrimination.
  The provision of this amendment which gives the States the ability to 
opt out of civil rights enforcement is particularly egregious. It 
suggests a bizarre interpretation of Federalism in which a State can 
exempt itself from Federal enforcement of civil rights laws simply by 
passing a statute, even if that statute is not enforced.
  Mr. Chairman, the State institutions who receive Federal funds have 
the responsibility of ensuring that those funds are being disbursed in 
a manner that does not discriminate against minorities and women. But 
if they fail in that responsibility, then the Federal authorities must 
vigorously enforce title XI and title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
  Mr. Chairman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for 
the majority in the Adarand decision, stated, and I quote, ``The 
unhappy persistence of both the practice and lingering effects of 
racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an 
unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in 
response to it.''
  This amendment would effectively disqualify us from acting 
responsibly to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to become 
productive members of our society.
  I therefore urge the Members of this body to support diversity in 
education, oppose the resegregation of America's schools, and vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 516. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act for 
     the Department of Education are revised by reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Education Reform'', increasing 
     the amount made available for ``School Improvement Programs'' 
     (and the amount specified under such heading to become 
     available on July 1, 1998), reducing the amount made 
     available for Eisenhower professional development State 
     grants under the heading ``School Improvement Programs'', 
     increasing the amount made available for innovative education 
     program strategies State grants under the heading ``School 
     Improvement Programs'', reducing the amount made available 
     for ``Bilingual and Immigrant Education'', reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Education Research, Statistics, 
     and Improvement'', and reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Departmental Management--Program Administration'', by 
     $1,022,165,000, $1,734,274,000, $310,000,000, $2,791,662,000, 
     $354,000,000, $322,600,000, and $35,509,000, respectively.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes, and that the 
time be divided between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], 20 
minutes, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 10 minutes, and 
myself, 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for 20 minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today, I want to talk about what the Hoekstra block 
grant amendment would do. What we are focusing on here is moving the 
emphasis on where decisionmaking is in education from Washington to our 
children. This is a step toward moving decisionmaking back to parents 
and moving dollars to the classroom. This is about providing 
flexibility at the State level.
  The status quo today in Washington is 760 programs, 100 billion 
dollars' worth of spending. What we are proposing to do is to take 28 
programs and

[[Page H7384]]

about $2.7 billion of spending and put it into a single block grant, or 
move it into chapter II of funding, so we give maximum flexibility to 
the States to do what they believe is most appropriate for the 
students, the children, and the parents in their State.
  Over the past year, year and a half, we have gone around the country 
taking a look at what works and what is wasted in education. What we 
are finding is very exciting. What is working in education is the 
reform and innovation that is going on at the State level. Whether we 
are in Cleveland, whether we are in New York City, Milwaukee, Los 
Angeles, Phoenix, Louisville, there are exciting things going on in 
education. Education is actually turning around, and we are getting the 
kinds of results we would like to have.
  As we talk to parents, as we talk to children, as we talk to 
educators and administrators, the message is very clear: They are 
turning around their educational system and getting positive results 
because of the impact and the decisions they are making at the local 
level, not because of what we are doing in Washington.
  As a matter of fact, too often we find that Washington is a hindrance 
in driving the kind of reform and change we need at the local level. 
States will tell us, we get 6 percent of our money from Washington, we 
get 50 percent of our paperwork. We get all kinds of mandates that 
inhibit the kind of change that we would like to be making.
  We cannot defend that type of status quo, where Washington is 
standing in the way of reform at the State and local level for a 
resource as precious as our children. What we see today is, in this 
area, we see 28 different programs where the directions and decisions 
about how those dollars are spent and what happens in the classroom are 
made by people here in Washington; where the local level has to look 
not to parents for what they want to do, but they have to look to 
bureaucrats and rules and regulations in Washington.
  Here is just one example. These are the forms, not the completed 
forms, the forms, rules, and regulations that the State of Michigan has 
to fill out to get their money from Washington. This is what the State 
fills out, and this is duplicated thousands of times as we go around 
the State, as we go to individual schools and educational districts. 
That is not value-added.
  We had testimony here in Washington where one of the administrators 
from a school district in Pennsylvania said, you know, 25 percent of 
the money that I get from Washington never gets to the classroom, never 
gets to the kids. I need to spend 25 percent of the Washington money 
just to fill out the Washington paperwork. That is not value-added.
  We need not a Washington-based program that delivers us these kinds 
of programs and this kind of complexity. We need to move to an approach 
that does not focus on bureaucracy and goes through thousands of 
bureaucrats to get to a student. We need the focus to be on the 
student, on the child, where teachers can look at the child, not at the 
bureaucrats; where parents can focus on the children, and not the 
bureaucrats, so that we really are driving the dollars to the classroom 
where we have the leverage.
  It is time to take another look at education. It is time to have true 
reform and move decisionmaking back to the local level, back to the 
parents, and away from bureaucrats in Washington. The exciting thing, 
as I said, is the change and improvements we are seeing in education at 
the local level: Real progress, real innovation, and real movement away 
from what one of our administrators described as the three B's, when 
she dealt with Washington and her local bureaucracy.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, the administrator said, Miss Yvonne Chan said, ``When I 
focused, and before I started running the charter school, I focused on 
the three B's.'' We said, ``What are the 3 B's?'' She said, ``I had to 
focus on bussing, on budget and the buts. And the `but' was, every time 
I had a good idea, I got the answer back from the local administrators 
or from Federal rules and regulations that said, `That is a great idea, 
but you cannot do that. If we let you do that, but then we would have 
to let everybody else do it.' '' She said, ``I had great ideas on how I 
could help my kids in my school but the rules and the regulations got 
in the way.''
  She has now been freed up from many of the State's regulations. What 
we now want to do is free her up from the Federal regulations.
  This is the beginning of the debate. Later on I will ask permission 
to withdraw this amendment, because this will continue and this is 
going to be a process. But this process and this dialog has to take 
place and it has to take place on this amendment, because what is 
happening is there is a different way to help our kids than the model 
that is currently in place.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the appropriate committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time; second, I oppose this irresponsible 
amendment because it would tear the heart out of critical education 
programs. It would subject programs such as school-to-work grants, safe 
and drug-free schools, bilingual education and magnet schools to the 
whims and fancy of 50 different Governors.
  These programs have been vigorously supported by parents, teachers, 
local and State officials who attest to their great success. There is 
absolutely no justification other than crass political motives to gut 
these important initiatives.
  Mr. Chairman, more troubling, many of the programs affected by this 
amendment are targeted to school districts and children most in need. 
This disastrous amendment would increase instead of decrease the 
disparity of resources in our public schools. I do not believe anyone 
who has seriously looked at the needs of our schools believes writing a 
blank check is the way to improve those schools.
  This amendment also plays havoc with the amount of funding State and 
local educational agencies would receive. Louisiana would lose $6 
million in funding, or a 16-percent decrease; Mississippi would lose $4 
million; and New York State would lose $46 million. At the local level, 
some education agencies would lose significant funding.
  This amendment would also cause mass disruption in existing services 
to our students. It is incredibly ironic that the sponsor of this 
amendment claims to want to send more dollars to the classroom and yet 
this amendment would have the perverse effect of moving dollars out of 
the classroom and into State bureaucracies. Title I now only allows 1 
percent of the money to be used for administration. Under this 
amendment, State bureaucracies could claim up to 15 percent of the 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, it is apparent to me that the majority in this Congress 
thinks it is smart politics to attack teachers, to bash public 
education, and to promote school vouchers. I do not think so, and I 
urge Republicans to stop playing politics with America's schools. I 
urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a superficially very alluring amendment. It 
seemingly would consolidate many programs and reduce redtape. The 
problem is, when analyzed further, the amendment is in a sense, a 
pernicious one, based, I think, upon a faulty premise. I do not think 
it would work the way the authors would expect and it would disrupt 
State and local funding for education.
  This amendment and the Gorton amendment in the Senate, which it 
attempts to mimic, is a form, in my judgment, of revenue sharing, a 
policy that was adopted, tried, and ultimately rejected by the Congress 
and the American people many years ago. Revenue sharing was based on 
the premise that the progressive income tax would forever create 
increasing revenues and would not serve as a drag on the economy. We 
now know better. Revenue sharing was based on the premise that it was 
good for one level of government to collect money and provide it as a 
general subsidy to another level of government. We now know better.
  We learned that States and localities never felt these funds were a 
secure source and, thus, used the money for one-time projects or low-
priority programs. The very nature of the funding

[[Page H7385]]

source turned it into a categorical grant that localities would use 
only for programs that could be terminated if funding ceased, and few 
of these programs exist in education. Experience indicates that 
localities would view the money made available in this amendment, 
perhaps, in the same way.
  The amendment would consolidate funding for programs such as safe and 
drug-free schools and technology programs. Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
creates massive winners and losers with little, if any, policy 
justification.
  I requested an analysis by the Congressional Research Service of the 
distribution of funds. They were able in a very short time to provide 
the current distribution for $1.7 billion of the over $2.5 billion in 
what I believed to be the most recent version of the Hoekstra 
amendment. Now there has been a more recent version than that.
  The remaining amounts are in small discretionary programs. If we look 
at the analysis, and we cannot put specific figures on the distribution 
of funds at this time because the amendment has changed so recently, 
but it appears very clearly that California, for example, would lose 
substantial funds; Louisiana would lose money; Mississippi, a 
particularly poor State, would lose funding; New York would lose 
substantial amounts of funds; Oklahoma would lose money; Texas would 
lose money.
  Conversely, States such as Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, 
Rhode Island, and others would receive large increases. While these 
are, in some cases, needy States, as all States are in a sense, they 
are hardly States with the greatest numbers of needy students.
  This amendment would terminate funding for a number of small programs 
that many Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed support 
for, both to me personally and to the subcommittee. These include Very 
Special Arts, Education for Homeless Children and Youth, the Close-Up 
Program, International Education Exchange, Civics Education, which 
supports We The People Program, the National Writing Project, the 
Javits Gifted and Talented Program.
  The committee bill itself, Mr. Chairman, increases the title VI block 
grant by $40 million, an increase of 13 percent, and we have 
continually worked to increase the funding level of this program. When 
we started in 1996, the program was funded at $250 million, it is now 
$340 million in the bill before the House.
  But that does not mean that we should increase it by billions of 
dollars, because the assumption then is that a State block grant 
program, and this is a State block grant program, can assure the best 
decisions. In my judgment, we have to be very careful that we not 
substitute State bureaucracy for Federal bureaucracy.
  It was said before that a lot of money is siphoned off by the 
Department in respect to programs that it administers. In rough 
figures, the Department administers about $50 billion in Federal funds 
through discretionary funds, mandatory funds, and off-budget spending 
and the overhead costs of those are about $800 million, or about 4 
percent. Ninety-six percent of the money goes either to the States or 
to the local government or to students that are in need or are provided 
for under Federal programs.
  I think the effect of this amendment politically would be very clear. 
It would destroy the bipartisan support for the bill and increase 
rather than decrease the leverage of President Clinton, since ultimate 
passage of the bill, if it occurs, will be with a narrow majority, I 
believe.
  So I think the authors of this amendment are very wise. They have 
indicated to me that they will withdraw the amendment. I think that is 
a very wise decision. On the other hand, I strongly agree with them 
that a good debate on this subject, looking at all the facts involved 
and looking for the formation of better policies in the future, is all 
to the benefit of this body.
  I believe that this amendment would not do what the proponents 
believe that it would do; that its impact on the distribution of funds 
has no policy justification and that would hurt some States while 
helping others. We ought to look very, very hard before an amendment 
that moves this massive amount of money from programs that have been 
tried, tested, and found working to a simple block grant administered 
by State bureaucracies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], a member of the committee.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, we have those on the other side of the 
aisle attempting to score political points at the cost of our Nation's 
children and the educational system which provides for them.
  The Hoekstra amendment, which will essentially gut the provisions of 
numerous Federal education programs intended to ensure educational 
excellence and equality, is an ill-conceived and destructive policy 
statement that no Member in this House should support.
  As the body knows, a similar, but not identical amendment was passed 
by the Senate during their consideration of the Labor/HHS 
appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, my fellow Education Committee colleague, Mr. Hoekstra, 
has latched onto the message of the Gorton amendment and is now 
attempting to break what, for the most part, has been a careful 
bipartisan balance on this bill. Fortunately, the President has 
realized the complete lack of a policy basis for such an amendment and 
has issued a statement saying he would veto any bill which contained 
either the Gorton amendment or a similar provision. Ladies and 
gentlemen, the Hoekstra amendment meets the President's criteria for a 
veto. This amendment will gut the existing focus of excellence and 
equality in present Federal programs. Consider some of the programs 
which this amendment will transfer funds away from: title I, safe and 
drug-free schools, education technology, Eisenhower Professional 
Development, magnet schools assistance, bilingual education, and 
school-to-work, just to name a few. All of these programs focus heavily 
on providing Federal assistance to States, local education agencies, 
and schools which are in need of additional funding.
  The loss of funding for these programs will take the largely poverty 
emphasis away from Federal funding efforts in education. Unfortunately, 
the program to which all of these funds are being transferred to has 
little if any requirement that poverty be a factor in distribution.
  In addition to the very real concern of losing our existing poverty 
focus if this amendment were to become law, Members should consider how 
their individual school districts will be impacted.
  Those Members who would support this amendment should realize that 
the current funding streams which are going to their districts could be 
jeopardized. For example, those States and locals who were recently 
awarded technology grants by the Department of Education should be 
aware that the funding for these grants would be absorbed into the 
title VI block grant--and not distributed as currently envisioned. As a 
Member whose local school districts have received such a grant, I am 
especially concerned about the impact of this amendment.
  Lastly, members should realize that the vital provisions ensuring 
accountability in the programs which Mr. Hoekstra is seeking to defund 
will be lost. Gone will be the ability of both Congress and the 
Department to ensure that Federal tax dollars are being spent in an 
effective manner. In a time when educational resources are consistently 
growing scarce, now is not the time to nullify these important 
provisions.
  I urge Members to vote against this ill-conceived and baseless 
amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the reasons 
enunciated by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of our 
subcommittee, who both spoke eloquently and effectively to the merits.
  I want to say to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra, that I have a 
bill in and it is called the Family Services Improvement Act. It seeks 
to make it easier for local LEA's and States and counties and cities to 
apply for Federal funds, and seeks to put the burden on the Federal 
Government, not on the local entities, to coordinate their resources to 
make it easier to access, to help the children that the gentleman from 
Missouri and the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from 
Michigan and myself, and everybody on this floor, in fact, want to 
help.

[[Page H7386]]

  So although I oppose the gentleman's amendment, I think that the idea 
that the gentleman expresses in terms of maximizing resources so that 
children can be better educated, families can be better served, is an 
objective in a time of fiscal constraint that we need to pursue with 
vigor.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a 7-year-old with a learning disability in my 
district. This second grader receives special assistance from her 
school so she can keep up with her class. But because of the financial 
constraints of her school district, the little girl only receives help 
because the school district receives specifically designated Federal 
education funds. And so today, I want to make sure that my colleagues 
understand just what a drastic effect this amendment would have on all 
of the children throughout this country who need our help.
  The Hoekstra amendment would block grant Federal K through 12 
education funding as general education aid without addressing Federal 
priorities or providing for any program accountability. Mr. Chairman, 
program accountability must not be overlooked. The Federal programs 
that this amendment would consolidate have strong accountability 
requirements that focus on program effectiveness, a crucial requirement 
for any Federal program.
  A vote in favor of this amendment would eliminate the specific 
national purposes of the Federal investment in education. Under this 
amendment, Federal funds would not have to be used for their intended 
purpose. Local education agencies would have an unlimited discretion to 
spend Federal K through 12 education funds for any purpose they deem 
appropriate, including noneducational purposes. The current formulas 
provide funding on the basis of need.
  The amendment would drastically reduce the targeting of Federal funds 
to the most disadvantaged students and neediest school districts. The 
purpose of Federal education funding is to ensure that school districts 
and disadvantaged students are not overlooked and receive the resources 
they so desperately need. The Hoekstra amendment would actually direct 
a greater percentage of Federal funds to the State educational agencies 
rather than directly to the school district under the current system.
  And, Mr. Chairman, there is another important fact that has been 
overlooked by my colleagues on the other side of the isle. The Hoekstra 
amendment breaches the bipartisan budget agreement that this 
legislative body entered into earlier this year. Specifically, the 
agreement allowed for the President's budget request for Goals 2000, 
education technology, and bilingual education. This amendment 
effectively strips funding for all three important programs by 
consolidating them into title 6 block grants.
  I would urge my colleagues not to overlook that 7-year-old with the 
learning disability who looks to us for help. She will fall through the 
cracks if we vote to pass this amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank my colleague from Maryland, and we will take a look at that. I 
think we both understand and appreciate that there is a problem out 
there with the Federal bureaucracy and the Federal paperwork.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Pitts].
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Hoekstra amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As a 
former math and science teacher, as the father of three children who 
went through the public school system in Pennsylvania, I have, for a 
long time, been involved with education. Since becoming a Member of 
Congress, I have begun to investigate the Federal Government's impact 
on our educational system and, frankly, I do not like some of the 
things I see.
  We are wasting a lot of money on bureaucracy. The Hoekstra amendment 
would help put an end to this practice by sending billions of dollars 
directly to the States and local school districts and to the classrooms 
where they are most effective. We must shift the focus of the education 
debate from Washington to our local communities. We need to listen to 
the local folks who are trying to teach our local children.
  One of my school superintendents, Dr. Charles Garris, came and 
testified recently before the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities and he gave his district's personal experience. If I can 
sum it up, basically he said that at the local level 25 percent of the 
funds never reach the students that they are intended to serve. Again, 
25 percent never reach the students.
  Today, let us support the Hoekstra amendment, which draws the line in 
the sand, the distinction between those who want to continue the status 
quo and those who want to continue the education system in which 40 
percent of American 8-year-olds cannot even read; those who want to 
empower bureaucracy and those who want to get education dollars to the 
classroom; those who want to give local teachers the tools they need to 
teach kids; those who want to empower parents. We have a choice.
  It has been shown time and time again that the Federal Government has 
created excessive red tape, regulations, paperwork and unproven 
programs and that we cannot get the dollars to the classroom and to 
students. So in this battle I think we need to join the gentleman from 
Michigan to expand the flexibility of the States and give them the 
funds.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
want to commend its author for bringing forward what I think is a very 
bold and vital policy for us to set forth for the national government 
on education. It essentially poses the choice between a child-centered 
program that gets money to the schools to benefit our Nation's children 
or a Washington-centered approach that keeps the money here, keeps the 
strings tied to Washington on how that money will be spent, and does 
not allow our teachers, our school administrators, our parents to make 
decisions on how to use those resources to best benefit the children 
and their schools.
  Let me tell my colleagues that over the August break I visited 
several schools in my district and talked with teachers, 
administrators, parents and students; and the one thing that came up in 
schools in rural areas and schools in more suburban towns, in schools 
that are like the inner-city districts in many of our States, they all 
said that their biggest problem is that they spend time filling out 
paperwork that comes from Washington rather than spending time teaching 
children in the classroom. That has to change.
  This amendment is a tremendous step forward in moving to that new 
approach where we say we are going to fully fund the educational needs 
of this country, but we are not going to attach strings coming out of 
Washington on how that money is spent and best used for our children. 
We are going to let the people who know, the teachers, the local school 
boards, the parents, decide how to make the most out of those funds to 
help children who are disabled get the extra programs they need, to 
help children who are gifted and talented get the extra resources they 
need, to help the students that are in the middle to be able to have a 
classroom where they learn the skills and the knowledge that they will 
need to be the future leaders and future citizens of this country.
  So I strongly support this amendment. I want to commend my friend, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for bringing it forward, and 
I look forward to working with him in the future in the authorizing 
committee in moving this type of policy forward as we set forth the 
clear difference between the Washington-centered approach, which is the 
old way of spending education money, and this new, bold approach that 
is a child-centered approach that I am convinced will be the best thing 
for America's children.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair will advise that 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 4 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

[[Page H7387]]

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra] for yielding.
  As a parent and former school teacher myself I know firsthand the 
vital role that good schools play in our children's future. And I would 
like to thank my good friend from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for offering 
this amendment, and for bringing his committee to my district in 
Cincinnati and looking at education and seeing what works there 
firsthand. This past May his committee came there, and we had many, 
many programs that we looked into and found out how they work there.
  The education reforms that we saw in Cincinnati were local 
initiatives that took root in schools only after being nourished by 
parents and teachers and local businesses and local folks. I want to 
emphasize that the Federal Department of Education played virtually no 
role in this at all. These were things that grew up locally and work 
very well.
  The amendment today would block grant 28 Federal programs into one 
block grant and the money has to be used in the classrooms. It can be 
used to purchase books, computers, but not to support the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  What this amendment does is it focuses the money and the attention on 
what really works in the classroom. Do we want to spent money in the 
classroom, or do we want to spend it on bureaucrats here in Washington? 
I support the Hoekstra amendment. I say let us spend money in the 
classroom, not on bureaucrats here in Washington.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker left, so I will 
reserve my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise reluctantly to oppose the Hoekstra amendment, reluctantly 
because I think that the sponsor of the amendment has done a great job 
in the Committee on Education and the Workforce and sincerely has the 
best interests of children and education at heart. But I do not agree 
with the concepts of this particular amendment.
  I think we really need to review the role of what the Federal 
Government is doing in accountability. There are, I believe, 28 
programs that are affected here, all the way from Goals 2000 to Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools, some parts which have worked, others perhaps not 
worked. But these programs have been specifically created at the 
Federal Government level, usually to fill a need which is not being 
served at the local level, and are aimed at that purpose.
  If we do block grant these funds, it essentially means that we turn 
all the money over to a local government, we remove almost all the 
accountability that we have now. And there may be too much paperwork, 
and I think those statements are correct that we should be looking at 
these things at the authorization level. The committee should be 
examining these particular areas.
  But the bottom line is that the money is turned over. We do not know 
how the money would be expended. And clearly all these programs, it 
would probably in some way or another result in a lot of them may be 
eliminated altogether. And yet, they would all seem to have some fairly 
good cause.
  We also do not know to whom we are always turning it over. We 
complain about the District of Columbia schools, and yet we would be 
turning the money over to that as well as to other areas. I support the 
goal of what is happening here. It is my judgment that we are putting 
the cart before the horse.
  It is my judgment that the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
should sit down and go over this with some care and make 
recommendations, and then it should go to an appropriation. This is not 
the way we should be doing business, by having it come up in the Senate 
and then all of a sudden, out of blue air, have an amendment be brought 
up in the House of Representatives. I think it is too much, too fast. I 
do not think it reflects Federal priorities, and I do not think it 
should be included in the appropriations process.
  As I said, there may be some merit to block granting these programs, 
but it should be through a deliberate reauthorization process. For all 
these reasons, I would hope we withhold and oppose the amendment at 
this time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, did not invent this out of 
blue air. He has been working on this issue for some time, and he has 
always favored block granting.
  It is not a question whether or not we believe there should be more 
emphasis on education. Those of us who are parents realize, with the 
possible exception of family values and strong personal values and the 
importance of moral values, nothing is more important than our children 
and education.
  It is a question of who is going to make the decision regarding our 
children's education. Is it going to be parents, local school boards, 
teachers, and the State, or is it going to be the Federal Government? 
It is not a question of where the money goes, but who is micromanaging, 
how that money is used.
  For example, I think as we work through some standards this fall, and 
the gentleman agreed to withdraw the amendment at this point, if we are 
going to bring tax dollars to Washington and send them out, holding 
people accountable is justified. But they should be minimal. When we 
have two different programs trying to decide how much exactly goes in a 
drug-free school, how much exactly goes into the arts or whatever, I 
think those decisions should be made back in Indiana, in my case, 
rather than here in Washington.
  I strongly support the concept of, if we cannot get all the money in 
the classrooms, at least getting it 600 miles closer to my home State 
where those decisions are going to be made. I believe that the Hoekstra 
bill moves this in that direction.
  We are starting a debate that is likely to go on through this fall 
and into next year as we all try to decide not whether our children 
should be educated but how. And I have more confidence in the school 
boards of this country, in the parents of this country, in the teachers 
of this country then to say the fount of all wisdom is here in 
Washington.
  I believe in Indiana we understand that we have a drug problem and 
that those drug problems can be allocated to the schools where they can 
be treated, and that we can make them work more efficiently than the 
way we are currently providing. I believe that a society without arts 
and culture is damaging. But I do not believe that arts and culture 
just flow from this building or the buildings down the street in the 
Education Department and the White House. I believe they flow out of 
the local community. And that is what this amendment does.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] 
has given us a unique opportunity today to debate a 20-year-old Federal 
power grab in education. Those in Washington, who think they know best, 
continue their assault on local control of schools, putting the future 
of our students in the hands of the Washington Department of Education.
  The lesson of the last 20 years of Federal education policy is clear. 
Having a centralized Federal authority imposes one-size-fits-all 
approaches to public education that just simply do not work.
  Chairman Johnny Isakson of the Georgia Board of Education made the 
case against Federal control over education earlier this year. He noted 
that, and I quote,

       There are simply too many dollars scattered in far too many 
     programs managed by far too many agencies. If the dollars 
     spent could be concentrated, the management less disbursed, 
     then more of the money would actually flow into education and 
     out of administration.

  We should join the gentleman from Michigan in supporting this 
amendment so that we may begin enacting education reforms locally that 
enhance basic academics, increase parental involvement, and focus 
attention where it belongs, on our children and on our local 
classrooms.

[[Page H7388]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] for yielding me the time, and certainly to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and 
even to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  I rise today to express strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra], my colleague and friend. I 
think this amendment and the debate over national testing really go to 
the heart of a very serious question: ``What role should the Federal 
Government play in educating our Nation's children?''
  It is mind-boggling in many ways to listen to my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], talk about a power grab in 
education when the Federal Government spends less than 7 percent of 
moneys we spend on educating elementary and secondary students in this 
Nation.
  I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], 
and those on the other side of the aisle, that this is a national 
security issue.
  When we look at schools here in this District of Columbia and 
throughout America that are crumbling, without air-conditioning, 
without proper wiring to bring technology into the classroom, these are 
our future workers, our future State lawmakers. Since it is clear that 
you all have an affinity for the State and State lawmakers, these are 
the future State lawmakers that you choose to devolve power to. These 
are the future scientists and astronauts and pastors and business 
people. We have an obligation here at the Federal level to reach out to 
teachers and to parents and to communities to ensure that they educate 
our young people.
  Oppose this amendment. And I appeal to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Hoekstra] to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  If we are for our children and students, we support this amendment. 
If we are for more bureaucracy and more strings attached that take the 
money out of the classroom, then we are against this amendment.
  When this block grant program was first created in 1981, 42 programs 
were put into one, 350 Federal bureaucrats were no longer needed, and 
for each Federal bureaucrat there are scores and hundreds at the local 
level that are having to apply for grants, fill out application forms, 
do compliance reports, do extra audits, and so forth. We are talking 
about being able to eliminate thousands of bureaucrats who take the 
money that we want to go into the classroom, and enabling that money to 
go into the classroom instead.
  The U.S. Senate went on record in favor of this last week. Last year, 
I sponsored a lesser scale amendment that this House supported. I 
applaud the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] for expanding that 
and saying we want to take a bold step to help students, not to be 
supporting bureaucrats.
  It takes the taxes of nine American families for each bureaucrat in 
Washington, DC, and there are similar numbers for all the additional 
bureaucrats that our State and local governments and our schools have 
to hire to deal with the Washington bureaucrats and the redtape and the 
paperwork that flows back and forth, and it does not help the kids.
  Let us support this amendment and help children, not bureaucrats.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra] and applaud him for offering this amendment.
  There is a great debate going on in America, and times change. There 
was a point in the history of our Nation when we felt the best 
education policy should be in Washington, DC.

                              {time}  1315

  I suggest to my colleagues that time has changed. This amendment 
takes a giant step in the right direction toward advancing education, 
improving education in the classrooms of our children. I think it is 
best said that the money that reaches the teacher that knows my son 
Stephen's name and the money that reaches the teacher that knows my 
daughter Courtney's name is the best money spent in education. And the 
ideas that the teachers and the administrators at Stephen's school and 
Courtney's school have are better than ideas created and imposed top 
down thousands of miles away in Washington, DC.
  We are not increasing a program here of the Federal Government. What 
we are doing is embracing a concept. That concept is simple and 
straightforward: That the best education and the best education reform 
can be created not in Washington, DC, thousands of miles away from 
where my daughter Courtney and my son Stephen go to school, but right 
there at Courtney's school and Stephen's school.
  This amendment is a thoughtfully considered amendment which will 
advance the education of our children. I urge my colleagues to support 
it. It will, in fact, improve education in America. I urge them to 
embrace the concept.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to 
rip the foundation out of our public school system.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to block grant 
Federal education funds. This is an assault on the Federal Government's 
important role in education, and a serious threat to the future of our 
students.
  The Federal role in education is critical to maintaining a nationwide 
effort to improve our schools. To shift virtually all funding for 
elementary and secondary education programs to the title VI education 
block grant would drastically alter the Federal, State, and local 
partnerships that prepare our children for the future.
  The Hoekstra amendment will eliminate 26 Federal education programs, 
including the bilingual and immigrant education program--which provides 
funding to school districts throughout the country to help more than 3 
million limited English proficiency students to become proficient in 
English and achieve high standards.
  The amendment would remove all requirements that local education 
agencies provide services for limited-English proficient students, 
economically disadvantaged students, Native American students, 
immigrant students, or gifted and talented students. Funding will be 
eliminated for education technology, school-to-work programs, 
professional development, and teacher training. Funds normally targeted 
for these activities could be used for any purpose, even noneducational 
purposes.
  This block grant provides no guarantee that the maximum amount of 
funds will reach the classroom. The title VI grants guarantees that 
only 85 percent of block grant funding must go to local school 
districts. Under the current title I program, States can retain only 1 
percent of funding for administration. The block grant allows up to 15 
percent.
  While there is talk that each State will receive the same amount it 
does currently through these programs, we know historically that block 
grants do not sustain these funding levels. We have not yet received 
sufficient data to know the precise impact on schools in our districts 
and in our States. We do know that States with the neediest populations 
will be hardest hit, because targeting Federal funds to the neediest 
students and districts through title I formulas will be eliminated.
  The progress that has been made in school districts under these 
priority programs will be completely disrupted. This amendment 
thoroughly devastates the Federal Government's commitment to strengthen 
accountability, raise academic standards, and ensure that all children 
posses the specific skills they need to meet the challenges that lie 
ahead.
  We worked diligently in this subcommittee with our chairman and 
ranking member in an attempt to keep this bill free of controversial 
riders. The President will veto this bill with this provision included. 
This is not the bill or the forum in which to debate an issue that will 
be so wholly disruptive to our education system. Drastic revisions of 
our Nation's education policy should be considered carefully through 
the authorization process, not haphazardly tacked on to an 
appropriations bill.
  This amendment is a thinly veiled first step to completely dismantle 
the Department of

[[Page H7389]]

Education. It rips the heart out of the priorities for our children's 
education that we have taken great pains to address in this bill. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this 
amendment and encourage the gentleman to withdraw it because it 
literally will do away with the programs that help our children in the 
public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoekstra amendment to 
eliminate the vital functions of the Education Department.
  As the former two-term superintendent of North Carolina's public 
schools--a statewide, elected position--I know firsthand the critical 
importance of the partnership between the Education Department and the 
State of this Nation. Make no mistake about it: this amendment would do 
great harm to the education and well-being of America's children.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I testified in front of the House 
Education Committee in defense of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
Program, in opposition to the very same block grant scheme as this 
amendment. I told the committee that it is crucial that we maintain 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools as an Education Department priority because 
it is an essential component of our effort to develop a safe and secure 
environment for learning. The principle is very simple: our children 
cannot learn if they are not safe. We cannot expect our children to 
learn geometry if they are scared to death from gunfire. We cannot 
expect our teachers to teach effectively when the scourge of drugs 
invades their classrooms. And we cannot expect our parents to have any 
faith in our schools as learning institutions without the faith that 
they are free from drugs and violence. Safe and Drug-Free Schools plays 
an essential role in that effort, providing support to 97 percent of 
all school districts in the country.
  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
initiative is an effective and vitally important effort to improve our 
Nation's schools, this House should defeat this amendment's attempt to 
destroy that effort.
  This misguided amendment would also eliminate School-to-Work, an 
innovative approach to help people gain the skills they need to compete 
and succeed in the modern workforce. Mr. Chairman, I represent one of 
the most economically booming regions in the country. The unemployment 
rate in Raleigh-Durham is less than 2 percent. Driven by the technology 
sector, our economy is growing so rapidly that businesses cannot find 
workers with the training required for these jobs. Many of these jobs 
do not require a college education, and Schools-to-Work is an effective 
tool for skills training.
  The Technology Challenge Fund, Goals 2000 education standards, and 
Eisenhower Teacher Training are all important education initiatives 
that would be eliminated by the Hoekstra amendment.
  During the previous Congress, I served on the front lines of the 
effort to educate our children. When Members of the people's House 
tried to abolish the Department of Education it had a devastating 
effect on the morale of the men and women who teach our children. I 
came here to fight that effort, and I call on my colleagues to defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].
  (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised 
suggestion.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated at the beginning, this is the start of a 
larger debate of redefining how we help our children. As I have 
indicated, as we have gone around the country, we have seen wonderful 
things. We have seen wonderful things in public education. We have seen 
great innovations in public education. We have seen wonderful teachers 
who are motivated to help our children and help our children get a 
better education. At the same time we have run into a constant 
frustration at the State and the local level about the involvement of 
the Federal Government in setting priorities, in setting direction at 
the local level.
  This amendment and this debate will be about how do we move dollars 
to students, how do we move decision-making to parents, and how do we 
increase flexibility for States, because we know that when we focus on 
basic academics, when we focus on our young people, when we get dollars 
into the classroom, and when we move decision-making back to parents 
and back to the local level is when we are seeing success. As we 
withdraw this amendment, recognize that we will come back to flesh out 
these ideas to move the money to students, decisionmaking to parents 
and flexibility to States.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, why are Republicans so afraid of labor 
unions? The Hoekstra amendment seeks to allow corruption to play a role 
in the elections of the largest labor union in the Nation. This 
amendment would pose such an additional financial burden on the 
Teamsters that it would prevent the effective organization and 
representation of its workers.
  And this is what the Republicans are really trying to do. They are 
trying, through any means necessary, to destroy American labor unions. 
Actions like this throughout this Congress reveal true motives.
  Are they afraid of workers having a representative voice? Are they 
afraid of workers having a voice in contract negotiations? Are they 
afraid of workers having fair and safe working conditions?
  The use of the Republican slush fund to persecute working families 
and their Representatives combined with the countless hearings held by 
the Oversight Subcommittee on Education and the Workforce are being 
done to destroy unions. Mr. Hoekstra's latest amendment shows the 
Republican objective is to silence the only voice of the American 
worker.
  Our Government made an agreement with the Teamsters in the 1989 
Consent Decree. Let us not break our word to hard-working Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to stop this persecution of labor unions. I urge 
my colleagues to allow the Justice Department to do their job and to 
uphold prior agreements. I urge my colleagues to support the working 
men and women of America and to oppose the Hoekstra amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating it.
  Our children will compete for jobs in a national, and even global, 
marketplace. We know our workers, and our economy, can be the best in 
the world--if we also have a world-class education system.
  Our schools are not living up to our expectations. Too many schools 
are overcrowded and crumbling. Too many schools aren't safe, and aren't 
teaching kids the skills they need to learn. We have failed to hold our 
schools and our students accountable to the highest standards.
  If you believe, as I do, that as a nation we have failed to hold 
schools accountable, you should be very wary of an amendment which 
would make it virtually impossible to ever hold them accountable. And 
that's precisely what this amendment would do.
  We need to hold our schools more accountable, not less. We need to 
demand higher performance and higher standards. And we need to target 
poor performing schools in resource-poor areas and give them the funds 
they need to succeed.
  In fact, this amendment goes contrary to everything which Republicans 
and Democrats on this subcommittee and on the Education and the 
Workforce Committee have been trying to do in reforming the title I and 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs. Where we have 
attempted to target funds to where they are most needed, this amendment 
would spread them around to schools whether they are needed or not.
  Where the two committees have moved to tie funding to efforts to 
improve standards and promote better academic achievement, this 
amendment would spread funds around to schools whether they are taking 
steps to improve or not.
  Where the two committees have moved to tie funding to schoolwide 
programs rather than scattershot fixes that research shows don't work, 
this amendment would spread funds around to schools whether they are 
reforming their practices or not.
  I agree with my colleague that we have serious problems in many 
schools. I agree with my colleague that dramatic improvements are 
needed. But I disagree that a knee-jerk effort to block grant funds to 
the State and local level, with no accountability, is the solution. I 
urge my colleagues to demand accountability for high standards from our 
public schools. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hoekstra 
amendment that will eliminate 28 targeted education programs and 
transfer $2.75 billion in funding into the title VI of Elementary and 
Secondary School Act. This essential block grant is a direct hit at 
some of the most effective programs we have developed to encourage 
education reform in our communities. By terminating these programs

[[Page H7390]]

we are sending a message to States and localities that programs such as 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools, school-to-work, educational technology 
grants, Goals 2000, and bilingual and immigrant education are not 
important and do not serve our students well. It also sends the message 
that as congressional representatives have no knowledge of the crucial 
roles these programs play in our schools and communities. However, most 
importantly the children who will be punished by this amendment are 
those who rely on these programs the most. These children reside in 
low-income urban and rural areas.
  Targeted assistance and formulas carefully crafted to ensure the 
equitable distribution of Federal funding to our school districts in 
all States will be terminated by the passage of this amendment. This 
will result in millions of children to be underserved by one of the 
only vehicles available to them to improve their lives--our education 
system. Passage of this amendment will be a true crime against low-
income children in this country and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the Hoekstra amendment. Thank you.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Hoekstra education block grant amendment to H.R. 2264. There is not 
a shred of doubt in my mind that this amendment is nothing more than 
what the Republicans wanted to do with the Department of Education in 
the last Congress--to abolish it. This is nothing more than a piecemeal 
attempt by Mr. Hoekstra to cut Federal funding for our Nation's 
educational programs; to cut funding of Federal educational programs 
that the Republicans have been attacking for years.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have previously sought cuts in such 
programs as Safe and Drug Free Schools, school-to-work, Goals 2000 
School Reform, Eisenhower teacher training, and bilingual and immigrant 
education. Now, by the subterfuge of this amendment, by creating block 
grants, Republicans can succeed in ending these programs.
  As we all know, block granting funds for education eliminates all 
accountability for the use of Federal education funds. If this 
amendment passes, all education funds could be diverted for 
noneducational purposes. With the limited amount of Federal funds being 
spent on education, it is absolutely necessary that funds that are 
intended by Congress to be spent on specific educational programs, are, 
in fact, spent on those programs. Congress has identified education as 
a national priority and without the focus of these programs, funds 
would not be targeted to the neediest schools and districts.
  This arbitrary consolidation of Federal funds into block grants has 
to be stopped, lest we rob our most needy students of the programs that 
have proven themselves in the past. We must reject any attempts to undo 
40 years of bipartisan Federal investment in our children's future. We 
must not back away from our commitment to education now, in its time of 
vital need.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hoekstra amendment 
that would merge a majority of the current Federal education programs 
into block grants to local school districts.
  This amendment would essentially eliminate all accountability for the 
use of Federal funds in our public education system. I, too, believe in 
driving dollars to the classroom, and I believe that local education 
agencies must be afforded a certain amount of flexibility to use 
Federal funds in accordance with the needs of the local education 
community. Under this amendment, however, the Federal Government would 
hand over funds to local school systems and indicate that they may use 
the money in any way they please, without any standards of 
accountability.
  I believe that the education of our children should be a top 
priority. An investment in education is essential to our Nation's 
future. Under the Hoekstra amendment Federal education funds could be 
used by local agencies for noneducation purposes. The amount that we 
appropriate for education is always short of what is needed to be fully 
effective. The Federal Government contributes only 6 percent to 
elementary and secondary education. As the Washington Post pointed out 
this week, Federal funds fill in the gaps and provide programs for 
lower income students who would be underserved without Federal efforts. 
We simply cannot afford to allow the small amount of money that we 
appropriate for education to be used for other purposes.
  This amendment would unravel years of progress that we have made in 
providing equality of education for girls and minorities. It would 
remove all of the Federal civil rights protections for race, gender, 
and disabilities contained in the elementary and secondary education 
laws. All of the hard work by the Congressional Caucus for Women's 
Issues during the 103d Congress to incorporate gender equity through 
the funding of elementary and secondary education programs would be 
undone. These programs have made our schools more gender-neutral, which 
improves education for all students.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in the House to reject this effort 
to put at-risk four decades of bipartisan efforts to develop and define 
the Federal role in public education. I urge a no vote on the Hoekstra 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Shadegg

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       Page 102, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 516. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with a person or entity that 
     is the subject of a criminal, civil, or administrative 
     proceeding commenced by the Federal Government and alleging 
     fraud.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to change existing law 
and constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The amendment would require the agencies funded in this bill to 
undertake new duties. These agencies would be required to determine 
whether entities are the subject of Federal proceedings alleging fraud 
before any contracts could be awarded. Fraud would only have to be 
alleged, not proven. I do not care if the President of the United 
States is the person making the accusation, people are entitled to the 
presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Even average citizens. 
These departments currently do not have to make such determinations. 
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arizona wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding from the other side of the aisle was 
we had reached an agreement under which I would offer the amendment, 
the point of order would be reserved, and I would have a chance to 
explain why I feel the amendment is appropriate, and then at the 
conclusion of that I would withdraw the amendment. That does not appear 
to be what has happened, so let me make my arguments with regard to the 
amendment.
  What the amendment says is that the funds appropriated under this 
bill shall not be used to enter into or pay for either a contract or 
salary to a person or an entity which is the subject of a criminal, 
civil, or administrative proceeding in which the Federal Government has 
alleged fraud. That means, Mr. Chairman, that it would only apply not 
where there was a mere investigation of fraud, but, rather, where there 
was an allegation which had been formalized by the filing of a civil or 
criminal or administrative complaint; and not a civil or administrative 
complaint by anyone, but, rather, by the Federal Government. If we 
cannot protect under the laws of this Nation the expenditure of 
taxpayer funds to entities which are currently being prosecuted for 
fraud, then I would say we are in deep trouble.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. The gentleman is not 
discussing the point of order. I do not intend to debate the amendment, 
and I do not expect anyone else is allowed to under the rules.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct.
  Does the gentleman from Arizona have an observation pursuant to the 
point of order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin which claimed 
that the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it does violate it. I 
believe it is, in fact, consistent because it applies only to actions 
that have been filed, and therefore there would be no investigation 
required.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona would appear to

[[Page H7391]]

require an investigation of each person or entity entering into a 
contract with funds under this act as to their being the subject of a 
criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding by the Federal Government 
with the specific allegation of fraud. In the absence of a citation to 
an existing law requiring this inquiry, the Chair believes the 
amendment imposes a new duty on executive officials not required by 
existing law in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The Chair therefore 
sustains the point of order.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The purpose of the amendment which I just offered, which I would like 
to address, which is of grave concern to me, is that, in fact, we have 
a situation under this legislation and elsewhere, but particularly 
under this legislation, where millions of dollars, indeed tens of 
millions of dollars, are spent by the Federal Government and can be 
paid to contractors and individuals currently subject to a fraud 
prosecution by the Federal Government.
  It seems to me if we have a department of the Government called the 
Justice Department, and if we have inspectors general offices within 
HHS and a variety of other agencies which are charged with the duty of 
auditing the expenditure of carefully collected taxpayer dollars and 
assuring that those dollars are spent pursuant to law and spent in a 
proper fashion and not fraudulently, then we ought to recognize that 
there is no right inherent in anyone to get a Federal contract and to 
be paid Federal moneys under that contract. Indeed, we ought to say 
that, well, of course there is a presumption of innocence in the 
criminal law in this Nation. There is no presumption of a right to be 
paid Federal moneys.
  Let me give my colleagues some examples. There was a foundation 
created in 1994 to implement school-to-work grants. It was awarded 
$1.05 million. Following the first year, the inspector general called 
into question more than 73 percent of the claimed expenses of that 
foundation, alleging fraud. However, even while those practices were 
being challenged by the inspector general, the foundation was awarded 
an extension of its contract and an additional $1.43 million.
  It seems to me that we are indeed charged as the stewards of 
taxpayers' money with looking after the proper expenditure of those 
funds. And if we have entities such as the inspector general's Office, 
such as the Attorney General, to investigate fraud and to charge fraud, 
and we make them comply with statutes in bringing those allegations, 
then indeed we have a duty not to at the same time give away taxpayer 
dollars to them while they are accused in a civil or criminal 
proceeding with fraud in the action itself. For those who object to 
that, I wonder what their motives are. It does concern me.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we can look throughout the Federal 
Government. There are dozens of incidents, hundreds of incidents, 
thousands of incidents. Let me pick one from the Medicare field. A 
physician improperly billed $350,000 over a 2-year period for 
comprehensive physical exams of residents of a home care institution 
without ever seeing a single resident. He was charged with fraud. 
Should he have had the right under the presumption of innocence not 
just to contest his guilt or innocence on that question, but to get a 
new contract; to get yet an additional contract so we pay him more 
money not to see people while we litigate the issue of his fraud under 
the prior contract? I suggest that if we are properly stewarding the 
taxpayers' dollars, we should not do that.
  A psychotherapist working in a nursing facility manipulated Medicare 
billing codes to charge for 3 hours of therapy to each resident, when, 
in fact, he spent only a few minutes with each resident. Again, a 
charge or an allegation administratively of fraud was brought, yet we 
renew the contract to this psychotherapist.
  We have a duty to steward these moneys. We can raise points of order, 
we can hang ourselves on technicalities if we want, but, Mr. Chairman, 
I assert that we have a duty to protect taxpayers' funds. The 
presumption of innocence does not extend to the right to have a 
contract with the Federal Government to get even more money when your 
practices have been seriously called into question.
  Some argue that this ought to go to any entity under investigation 
for fraud, and that was one of the issues brought to me. I rejected 
that proposal, because indeed if you are simply under an investigation 
for fraud, no formal charge has been brought, perhaps it would not be 
fair to turn you down, because you could have an abuse of the 
investigative power. But once an entity of the Federal Government, the 
inspector general or the Attorney General, actually charges fraud, it 
seems to me that taxpayers have a right to say, until that matter is 
resolved, we are going to suspend further contracts and further 
payments to that individual.
  Let me conclude by saying after surfacing this amendment, individuals 
at each of the agencies which would have been affected under the Labor-
HHS bill contacted my office and said they would love to have this kind 
of tool to put a cold bar in place and to ensure that where there has 
been a proceeding, criminal, civil, or administrative, already filed 
alleging fraud, they would like to be able to deny the funds.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I learned the hard way a long time ago when I was in 
the State legislature and the Republican floor leader of our 
legislature lost his seat because a Democratic attorney general falsely 
accused him of breaking the law. He was indicted. He was convicted. And 
his conviction was overturned, justifiably so, by a State supreme 
court. That decision taught me the hard way that no matter how high up 
the power is, no person ought to be able to cause another person 
economic injury or personal reputation injury without having it proven. 
That is my motivation in taking this action.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material 
for the Record:
         

[[Page H7392]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.000
     


[[Page H7393]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.001
     


[[Page H7394]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.002
     


[[Page H7395]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.003
     


[[Page H7396]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.004
     


[[Page H7397]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.005
     


[[Page H7398]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.006
     


[[Page H7399]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.007
     


[[Page H7400]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.008
     


[[Page H7401]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.009
     


[[Page H7402]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.010
     


[[Page H7403]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.011
     


[[Page H7404]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.012
     


[[Page H7405]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.013
     


[[Page H7406]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.014
     


[[Page H7407]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.015
     


[[Page H7408]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.016
     


[[Page H7409]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.017
     


[[Page H7410]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.018
     


[[Page H7411]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.019
     


[[Page H7412]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.020
     


[[Page H7413]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.021
     


[[Page H7414]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.022
     


[[Page H7415]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.023
     


[[Page H7416]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.024
     


[[Page H7417]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.025
     


[[Page H7418]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.026
     


[[Page H7419]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.027
     


[[Page H7420]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.028
     


[[Page H7421]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.029
     


[[Page H7422]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.030
     


[[Page H7423]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.031
     


[[Page H7424]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.032
     


[[Page H7425]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.033
     


[[Page H7426]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.034
     


[[Page H7427]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.035
     


[[Page H7428]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.036
     


[[Page H7429]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.037
     


[[Page H7430]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.038
     


[[Page H7431]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.039
     


[[Page H7432]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.040
     


[[Page H7433]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.041
     


[[Page H7434]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.042
     


[[Page H7435]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.043
     


[[Page H7436]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.044
     


[[Page H7437]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.045
     


[[Page H7438]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.046
     


[[Page H7439]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.047
     


[[Page H7440]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.048
     


[[Page H7441]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.049
     


[[Page H7442]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.050
     


[[Page H7443]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.051
     


[[Page H7444]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.052
     


[[Page H7445]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.053
     


[[Page H7446]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.054
     


[[Page H7447]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.055
     


[[Page H7448]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.056
     


[[Page H7449]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.057
     


[[Page H7450]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.058
     


[[Page H7451]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17SE97.059
     


[[Page H7452]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, there are many elements of this 
legislation that are very favorable and deserving of our support, such 
as additional funding for Pell grants, Head Start, and other education 
programs. However, I reluctantly must oppose the bill due to the 
adoption of the Goodling amendment prohibiting the Department of 
Education from developing national standards for reading and 
mathematics.
  Education of our Nation's young people, the future workers and 
leaders of this country, must be our highest priority. If America is to 
remain competitive in the global economy, we must have the best 
educated and best trained work force in the world. In order to ensure 
this, it is incumbent on the Federal Government to ensure that children 
across America are receiving adequate instruction, particularly in the 
core subjects of reading and math. The Goodling amendment will prevent 
this and may allow many students to fall through the cracks and deny 
them the education that is critical for their own success and for 
America's prosperity.
  I am hopeful that the conference committee will delete the Goodling 
amendment from the conference report, and that we are ultimately 
presented with an appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education that provides adequate funding 
for the educational needs of our young people, and ensures that these 
resources are actually utilized to prepare them for their future.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no further amendments, under 
the order of the House of Thursday, July 31, 1997, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Collins) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman pro tempore 
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, pursuant to the 
previous order of the House of Thursday, July 31, 1997, he reported the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gross.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 346, 
nays 80, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                               YEAS--346

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--80

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burton
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Largent
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Condit
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Kasich
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  1404

  Messrs. WAMP, ADERHOLT, COX of California, BACHUS, and TAYLOR of 
Mississippi changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ, and Messrs. HILLIARD, SUNUNU, PORTMAN, and Ms. CARSON 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________