[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.
____________________