[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10305-H10313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2264, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House,
I call up the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to the previous
order of the House, the conference report is considered as having been
read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
General Leave
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2264 and that they may include
tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring to the floor today the conference
report on fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies.
As is normally the case, in the recent past, this bill has been
through a long, torturous process from inception to the completion. The
bill was on the floor for over 40 hours, and we had an unprecedented
number of amendments offered. We have been almost 2 months in
conference.
I feel constrained to add, Mr. Speaker, that virtually all of the
issues that have delayed the timely consideration of this bill are
authorizing in nature and have nothing to do with the funding
activities of the departments and agencies covered by this bill. Our
work on dollar issues was completed long ago.
My experience over the last several years has given me a new
appreciation for the rules of the House that prohibit legislating on
appropriation bills, and the delay we faced speaks to the need to
enforce it more stringently.
Mr. Speaker, with that said, I want to outline the remarkable policy
initiatives we have achieved in this bill. The bill contains a revision
of the Hyde amendment to ensure that no Federal funds are used to
purchase health plans that pay for abortions except in the case of
rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the mother.
I am particularly proud that this signal achievement was accomplished
by negotiation among the parties rather than the rancorous and divisive
debates that have characterized this issue in the past and other issues
during consideration of this bill.
I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for their work on this issue, as
well as their staff members Howard Wolfson, Brad Close, and my own
staff member, Rob Bradner.
The conference report incorporates a revision of the Goodling
amendment negotiated by the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling]. I believe that he will be speaking
[[Page H10306]]
on the substance of this agreement, and I will leave the description of
it to him.
Goals 2000 State grants are funded at $464 million below last year's
level.
The conference report prohibits OSHA from issuing any standards on
ergonomics and prohibits the enforcement of any volunteer guideline
relating to ergonomics under the general duty. Again, this divisive
issue was resolved by negotiation within the committee. I want to
commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] and the ranking member
of both the subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for their work in resolving this issue.
The conference report prohibits the expenditure of any further
Federal funds for a new election for the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. The conference report prohibits the use of Federal funds for
needle exchange programs for 6 months and provides conditions for the
administration of such programs if the Secretary of Health and Human
Services permits them.
I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi and member of the
subcommittee [Mr. Wicker] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert] for their work on this issue. While not all who worked on
compromises are pleased with the final results, they all deserve our
thanks for their hard work.
The conference report freezes funding for the National Labor
Relations Board. In real terms, this funding level represents a cut in
funding below fiscal year 1997. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey] has been a particularly strong advocate in this area.
The conference report prohibits implementation of NLRB regulations
regarding single site bargaining units. If implemented, this regulation
would create a huge number of new organizing drives in small businesses
and service sectors.
{time} 1715
The conference report continues the shift of funding and emphasis
within OSHA away from enforcement and toward compliance assistance.
Compliance assistance increases by $6.4 million, or 17 percent, while
enforcement increases by $3 million, only 2.3 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the bill provides increases for programs that fund
Federal education mandates or Federal responsibilities. Special
education is increased by $775 million, an increase of 19 percent. This
funding helps offset the mandates Federal law has placed on local
school districts. The bill also provides $805 million for Impact Aid to
offset the additional costs and lost tax base resulting from Federal
installations.
High priority programs are funded. NIH is increased by $907 million,
an increase of 7.1 percent. This level will assure that the medical and
economic benefits of biomedical research will continue. Within this
funding level NIH will be able to increase funding for diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, cancer, coronary/heart disease, and others at
rates greater than the overall increase for NIH.
Other high priority items such as CDC, infectious disease control,
breast and cervical cancer screening, TRIO, programs to prevent
violence against women and health professionals training, are all
increased.
Pell grants, essentially a Federal voucher for college, are increased
to a maximum of $3,000 and the Secretary of Education is given
discretion to allow more independent students to qualify for student
aid. The conference report increases the income protection allowances
for all students receiving Federal financial aid.
The bill includes an absolute prohibition on the use of human embryos
in federally funded research, an initiative of the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
In addition, the conference report also includes the Student Loan
Consolidation Act. This bill passed the House October 21 as H.R. 2535.
The bill would allow the consolidation of both direct and guaranteed
loans and it exempts education tax credits from the calculation of
student aid.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other provisions in this conference
report that commend it to a broad spectrum of Members of the House.
Probably the factor that I am most proud of is that from its inception
to this very minute, this has been a bipartisan bill. I believe this
conference report shows the benefit of this House following the
instructions of the voters and putting aside partisan bickering and
getting on with the business of governing. Mr. Speaker, I would urge
the Members to support this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add at this point some additional personal
comments. The passage of this bill is never easy and the fact that we
are now about to complete action on it is testimony to the hard work of
many, many people.
As I mentioned during the passage of the bill in the House, this bill
has been supported, shaped and its progress furthered by the work of
the members of the subcommittee: the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], my ranking member, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], the chairman of the committee. I have only the highest
respect and admiration for them and for the work they accomplished in
fashioning this bill.
I want to spend a moment expressing my gratitude and that of the
committee for one of our very best staffers who is leaving after this
session to take another job. I am referring to Sue Quantius who is on
the floor with us today.
Sue is leaving the committee to take a position with the Association
of American Universities. She has been with the committee since 1989
and has been assigned to the Labor-HHS subcommittee the entire time.
Prior to that time she worked for the Senate Appropriations Committee
and for the Office of Management and Budget. She has served our country
with extreme dedication and distinction for all of this time.
With our subcommittee, her responsibilities have primarily been with
various health programs that we fund, including most especially the
National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. As Members know, I have had a particular interest in NIH
over the years. Since I have been chairman, Sue has been a great help
to me, especially with regard to NIH. Mr. Speaker, she has done
absolutely magnificent work. I just do not know how we are going to
replace her. We are all going to miss her very, very much. We wish her
the very best of everything as she undertakes her new responsibilities.
I hope that she will continue to stay in touch with all of us.
Finally, I want to express my thanks to the staff of the gentleman
from Wisconsin, including Cheryl Smith, Mark Mioduski and Scott Lilly,
his able staff director. As always, we have had the work of the full
committee staff, headed by Jim Dyer, that has been invaluable to us.
I want to express my appreciation in addition to Sue Quantius; to my
own subcommittee staff, Mike Myers, Bob Knisley, Tony McCann as well as
Julie Debolt and Dr. David Sander of my own staff. Without the
assistance of each of these individuals and their support and the
support of many more, we would not have been able to achieve this
conference report which will, I believe, be passed and signed into law
by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes. Before I get
into the bill, I would simply like to take a moment to also, from the
minority side of the aisle, extend our best wishes to Sue Quantius as
she leaves to pursue other opportunities in life. As the subcommittee
chairman indicated, Sue has been with our subcommittee for 9 years. She
has worked for four full committee chairmen during that time, including
myself and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. The gentleman
from Illinois kindly left out that Sue had the great misfortune to
begin her public service by serving as an intern on the Commission on
Administrative Review, which was a reform commission which I chaired.
We got half of our package through, the ethics package, but the other
half of the package, the administrative changes in the House, were
abruptly interrupted by a resounding ``no'' vote on the rule, and it
took about 10 years for
[[Page H10307]]
most of those recommendations to be adopted on a piecemeal basis. That
was an ignominious beginning to a distinguished career. I simply want
to say that her work on biomedical research, on health issues in
general and other issues has been superb. The public has been greatly
served. Sue is another one of those persons about whom the public never
hears much but without whom Government simply would not work. I
appreciate the work that she has done for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, one of my closest friends in politics is a man from
Ireland by the name of John Hume. John Hume has noted on many occasions
that politics is supposed to be the settlement of fiercely held
differences by peaceful means. As people know, I do not shrink from
political fights or arguments, and I do not shrink from fights on
substance. But I prefer not to have them. I think that we are all, or
we all ought to be, happiest on this House floor when we are pursuing
politics not as war but as a method by which we accomplish important
things for the people we represent.
This bill more than any other bill that the Congress passes does
that. This bill affects more human beings, more families in this
country than any other bill that we touch. I think it is worthy of note
to compare the atmosphere in which this bill was debated just 2 years
ago with the atmosphere in which it is being debated today. Two years
ago, this bill attempted to cut key programs for education and health
and worker protection by some $6 billion. Those efforts to cut programs
such as education and health and worker training were a principal
reason that the Government was shut down. Two years ago, education was
cut in this bill by $3.5 billion, worker protection by almost 15
percent, job training for unemployed workers by almost 30 percent.
Assistance to low-income folks in order to heat their homes in the dead
of winter was cut by about a third.
Today, in contrast, we do not have a Government shutdown. We do not
have partisan warfare on this bill. The gentleman from Illinois is
right. This bill has been pursued in a bipartisan way with a bipartisan
coalition producing very positive results. This bill is $5.8 billion
above last year for key programs in it. The National Institutes of
Health is increased by 7 percent. That means research that we do on all
of the diseases that human beings fear, whether it is cancer or heart
disease or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or you name it. We are trying to
make steady progress in attacking all of the diseases that plague
mankind. Education is up by 12 percent, over $3 billion. Pell grants
have a 24-percent increase. Pell grants are the major program outside
of student loans that help working-class kids get a decent education
beyond high school.
We have provided a $300 increase in the maximum grant for independent
students and for dependent students. Special education services for
disabled children, up by 18 percent in this bill. We have bilingual
education increased by 35 percent in this bill. We have the most
important education reform effort since title I, $150 million for
comprehensive school reform to give local schools the tools to do the
job locally in improving the operation of their schools so that they
can raise student performance to meet high standards.
{time} 1730
On education testing, we have a slightly different proposition from
the original committee proposition. The administration can proceed with
development of tests. It prevents field-testing in the first year,
which originally would have been allowed by the original committee
agreement. It prevents test administration for 1 year, in contrast to
the original committee bill that would have had a permanent prohibition
on testing without new authorization.
Worker protection, workers' rights to organize, to bargain for decent
wages, to work in decent working conditions are all protected in
contrast to the very sharp reductions made in those programs in past
years, at least the attempts that were made.
We have a needle exchange program in here that may be controversial,
but which will save lives, which may proceed after March 31 of next
year.
This bill repeals the $50 billion ripoff that was being provided in
the tax bill for the tobacco industry.
It provides a $100 million increase for low-income heating assistance
program, a 10-percent increase.
Cuts in family planning are fully restored.
Goals 2000, we reached a compromise at last year's freeze level.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this bill is worthy of the
tradition left to this House by people like Bill Natcher and Silvio
Conte who worked for years to make this a bipartisan product. It is, I
think, something that Members can be proud of because the fight in the
budget, after all, is not really about how much we spend, it is where
we spend it, and at least on this side of the aisle, and I think a good
many Members on that side of the aisle, as well, recognized that we
need to put more of our funds into education, into health, into jobs,
into job training, into worker protection.
That is what this bill does. It is, I think, a progressive effort to
meet the Nation's needs, and I make no apology for the funding that we
spend in it. It is spent on the people we represent for their most
important long-term needs as families, and I would urge Members to
support this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that this bill
represents the essence of what is good legislation and a great
legislative process. The fact is that we looked at this bill a very
long time ago, some 6 months ago, and could tell that there was no way
on God's Green Earth that this bill was going to pass without
bipartisan support. There were Members on both sides who had problems
with this bill, and there was a possibility that, if framed in an
inappropriate manner, that the bill would never get signed into law,
that we could end up in closure of government and repeat all the
mistakes that have been made in the past with respect to issues
involved in this bill.
Fact is we went through prolonged debate and through the incredible
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter],
and ranking minority member of the full committee and the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], we were able to wend through
the minefield of all of the obstacles and all of the hurdles that could
have imploded this bill and prevented our ability to be here today.
For our Members in the minority, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] has listed a number of items of great importance to members of
his party and to people throughout this country. In fact, there is lots
more money for medical research and for education preferences.
But for our conservative friends, let me say also that following the
allocation of money within the budget agreement, we were able to stop
national education testing in its tracks with an agreement negotiated
between President Clinton and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling]. We expanded the traditional Hyde language to make sure no
Federal funds were used to purchase health plans that would pay for
abortions. There are additional prohibitions on the needle distribution
exchange program so that the authorizers are able to get involved over
the next 6 months and take further action. There is a prohibition on
the use of human embryos for federally-funded research. There is a
prohibition on the expenditure of Federal funds for a new Teamsters
election. There is a prohibition on issuance of new OSHA standards on
ergonomics. There is a freeze on funding for the NLRB, the National
Labor Relations Board.
My conservative friends have had many objections about this bill, and
many of their objections have been answered and have been recognized
and codified into law in this bill.
Does it satisfy everybody? Of course not. But this is a bill which
spends tens of billions of dollars on important projects still
eliminates 7 programs that were unnecessary and concentrates the
resources on those areas where we need them. I commend the people that
have worked on this bill, and I urge the adoption of the conference
report.
[[Page H10308]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I was remiss in not also indicating my profound
appreciation for the way that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has handled this bill as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston]. We have certainly disagreed, sometimes vehemently, many
times on many issues, but we have always tried to keep in mind that our
obligation was in the end to bridge those differences, and in the case
of Mr. Porter we are dealing with a subcommittee chairman who not only
feels his strong sense of obligation, but knows this bill and knows the
programs in it, and that was always an invaluable help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 2264, and I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], and our ranking member, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for their leadership in producing this conference
agreement.
This measure represents the true spirit of bipartisan effort to craft
a workable compromise on fiscal year 1998 funding for this bill. For
example, the measure funds a youth opportunity areas initiative, which
is urgently needed to address the continuing double-digit unemployment
among our Nation's most disadvantaged youth. In many instances these
young people have given up on themselves. I strongly believe that we
must do all that we can to help ensure that all of our Nation's young
people are equipped with the knowledge and the skills that they need to
compete in and remain in the work force.
For undergraduate historically black colleges and universities, the
bill provides $118.5 million. The HBCU is a national resource, and this
investment would help to strengthen the infrastructure at these vital
institutions of higher education.
For the health professions education and training, the conference
measure provides $293 million. The funds are urgently needed to help
ensure an adequate supply of health care providers. I know that the
portion of the funds that are invested in training minorities and other
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds will help to address the
continuing shortage of health care providers in our Nation's inner
cities and rural communities, and it would help also to address the
continuing disparity in minority health.
Mr. Speaker, the $529.7 million provided for the trio programs and
the $7.3 billion in support of the Pell grant program would help to
ensure the students will not only enter college, but more importantly,
they will have access to support services they need in order to help
ensure their retention and graduation.
I am pleased that the conference report is not excessively
overburdened with major legislative provisions.
On the issue of national testing, I am encouraged that we have been
able to reach an interim position, and I look forward to working
closely with the authorizers on this very important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the
conference report on H.R. 2264.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding the time.
I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee as well as the
ranking member of this subcommittee for the hard work and negotiation
and the lengthy time that they put into this very important
legislation. I support it. I hope we have strong support from both
sides of the aisle for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the type of bill that I would have written had
I been writing it in a vacuum. It might not be a better bill if I wrote
it, but it would be a different bill. But just think about this, Mr.
Speaker, this is the first conference report on Labor HHS appropriation
that we have had in 3 years, and I think it is better for this House
and for the Senate and for the process to work its will rather than to
go with continuing resolutions and resolve the issues that way.
I think the leadership is to be commended for pushing this through
and for us finally getting to this stage for the first time in 3 years
of actually being able to have a conference committee report a bill and
for us to vote on it.
I commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and Mr.
Livingston spoke about the things that were achieved for conservatives.
I think members of my party should realize that Mr. Livingston is
himself a conservative, and he has worked hard for those issues that
are important on our side of the aisle.
It has already been mentioned that this bill before us today contains
the Goodling language that stops national testing. It contains an
expansion of the Hyde amendment; a moratorium for the first 6 months of
this fiscal year on needle exchange programs funded by taxpayer funds,
which will allow the Congress to work its will on an authorizing piece
of legislation next year; a prohibition on the use of human embryos for
federally-funded research, again a very important issue to
conservatives around this Nation.
The bill also contains important modifications in the law with regard
to OSHA to make sure that we protect American jobs at the same time
that we are protecting and looking out for workers' health and safety,
and in addition a freeze on funding for the National Labor Relations
Board and a host of other issues that are important to conservatives.
This is a contentious bill. Any time we talk about the Department of
Labor, the subgroups there, NLRB, OSHA, and then throw in HHS with
needle exchanges and the entire issues of Federal education policy, we
are going to have a contentious bill. But I commend the leadership for
moving us in the right direction. I commend the bill to conservatives,
and I hope on my side of the aisle we will have a tremendous vote in
favor of the bill.
And then let us not lose sight of the fact that we are doing
important things to prevent disease and to protect the health of
Americans in this legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
his leadership on this bill and for yielding me the time.
I rise in support of the Labor-HHS conference report. In particular I
commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for negotiating an excellent bipartisan bill, a
bill in which the subcommittee can take considerable pride.
This conference report is a refreshing change from last 2 years when
the bill had been the focus of deep ideological disputes and a vehicle
for sending objectionable legislative riders to the President.
Thankfully, thanks to the leadership also of our chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as well as
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], we have returned to the bipartisan tradition
which has historically characterized this bill. As our former chairman
Mr. Natcher would say, this is a good bill.
{time} 1745
While this is a good bill, it is good because of the excellent work
again, as I said, of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who fought very hard to forge this
bipartisan legislation. We were given many difficult challenges by the
Committee on the Budget, so that many problems that, ironically, it may
have forced this responsible bipartisan bill.
I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in particular
for doing such an excellent job in reflecting progressive values in
these negotiations.
With regard to labor programs, the bill makes significant investments
in job training, Job Corps, Job Youth and adult training. At the same
time, the bill adequately funds worker protection programs, and,
unlike, the last 2 years, does not include riders designed to weaken
the protection of American workers.
[[Page H10309]]
I am particularly pleased under an agreement negotiated by the
gentleman from Illinois [Chairman Porter] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], OSHA will be able to continue its important work
in developing an ergonomic standard and will be able to assist business
in the next year to adopt important changes in work environment
designed to prevent repetitive stress injuries.
With regard to health, the bill is a significant improvement over the
budget agreement. In addition, the bill provides huge increases in AIDS
drug assistance programs, and also will make a difference between life
and death for thousands of Americans living with HIV disease.
I am also particularly pleased with the compromise in the legislation
about the needle exchange program which the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] addressed in his remarks. This compromise, I think, will
enable the needle exchange programs which are part of a HIV prevention
program and which do not increase the use of drugs to proceed, and it
retains for the Secretary the discretion, unless Congress works its
will between now and next spring, to lift the prohibition on needle
exchange programs, as long as, as I say, they are part of a program to
prevent HIV and drug abuse.
With regard to education, I am pleased that so many of the
President's important education priorities have been accommodated in
this bill. I am particularly pleased with the funding for the bilingual
education and the investment and support services and professional
development to improve the quality of these programs. I am also pleased
with the high priority placed on direct financial assistance to
students for higher education.
For all these reasons, this is a great bill, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], the newest member of our
subcommittee team, who has done an absolutely outstanding job, the best
of any freshman I have ever seen.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
speak about this bill and to have served on this subcommittee. I want
to also thank the subcommittee chair and the ranking member and the
other members of the subcommittee that have worked so hard on this
bill.
Many of the benefits of this bill, the appropriations that we have
made, have been discussed previously, but I would just like to say that
one of the reasons this is such a tough bill is because education and
health are intrinsically different than anything else we spend our
money for.
It is one thing to be dispassionate about road construction or
military buildup, but it is impossible to be dispassionate about our
children. Moms and dads across this country feel passionately and
emotionally about the schools that their children attend and whether or
not they learn and how much they learn and whether they are prepared
for the future.
This world is changing. The world our children will know will be
different than the world that we have known, and they have to be
prepared in different ways and for different experiences. The way they
will be pioneers in their lives will be different than the way we are
pioneers in our lives. So as our schools are grappling with change, it
is difficult for their moms and dads and for all of us to pick the best
of what we have and make sure we continue that and prepare it in new
ways for new worlds.
We are also confused and not certain about what the Federal role is
going to be in an educational system that has largely heretofore been a
state responsibility and organization. Assuming that will continue and
that we will expect schools to succeed locally, we are looking for the
way that the best Federal investment can be made in our schools.
So I want to say that education is different. It is different than
road construction. The fact that there is an unpatched pothole is not
very emotional, but if your child goes to school and does not learn to
read, that is very emotional.
I want to in particular thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee
chairman, for your commitment to the blind community and the deaf
community. I have served very closely with the blind community in
Louisville. We happen to be the home for the American Printing House
for the Blind. My husband and I have been very involved in this
community, and we recognized here in this bill the importance of
continued access that the blind community needs to those services. So I
wanted to thank the gentlemen in particular for that.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the rest of the Members.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and to
congratulate and thank both the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter], with whom I have served on this committee for, I suppose,
all of my career on the committee, which is from 1983 to date, and also
to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. Speaker, in many ways this is a bill that is not difficult from
the standpoint that almost every member of Congress and the
overwhelming majority of Americans probably believe it is the most
important bill that we consider in this House on an annual basis as it
affects themselves, their families, their children, the education of
this Nation, as well as their children, the health care of themselves
and this Nation.
Our former chairman, Mr. Natcher, used to say that if you take care
of the health of your people and provide for the education of your
children, you will continue to live in the strongest and best nation on
Earth. He was correct. He said this was the People's House and that
this was the people's bill. He was also correct in that.
But it is also a very difficult bill, because the priorities within
the bill are agreed by all to be principal priorities, and, therefore,
the allocation of resources between them is difficult.
Both the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], are always under a
great deal of pressure, and the supplicants or the lobbyists or the
interests that are represented in this bill are all good, and,
therefore, it is very difficult to say no.
This bill, I think, represents a good piece of legislation, of which
the American public can be proud. It was forged in a bipartisan basis,
sometimes contentious, because there are strong differences on many
issues. But this bill as it relates to education, unlike, frankly, some
previous bills in previous Congresses, reflects a commitment to invest
in the future of our country by investing in our children.
Head Start is increased, critically important, to make sure that our
disadvantaged children have an opportunity to be competitive, both in
education and in the marketplace. It is important that they be partners
as America completes in the global marketplace.
Chapter I, that tries to ensure that those same children and others
who may have been disadvantaged in life will not be disadvantaged in
terms of the focus of this Congress and of the education establishment,
in making sure that we make a special effort to give them the capacity
to learn, to work and to compete.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this conference
report, which reflects a compromise, testing having been one of the
more difficult items, block grants as opposed to categorical
expenditures being another. But they were debated, sometimes hotly,
strongly held views, but ultimately, through the leadership of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], and I might also say the chairman of our committee, the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has done such an
outstanding job leading the Committee on Appropriations through this
difficult process, we have a bill of which we can all be proud and
which we can enthusiastically support.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the very able chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
[[Page H10310]]
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the chairman
and the ranking member, the subcommittee chairman, and all the
conferees for their hard work on a report that is always very
difficult. I am sure I helped make it even more difficult. The national
testing issue did not make it any easier for them. However, it was one
of the most important policy battles I think we have had to fight. We
all want quality education, high academic standards, for all of our
children, and we believe parents and local governments can best do
that.
I want to thank the 295 Members and particularly the Speaker and the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] for all of their help and
their support, and particularly the staffs, the staff of the
Appropriations Committee, the staff of my committee. If we had to pay
all the overtime that they would have earned, we would be out of money
for the rest of the year, I suppose.
I also want to talk just a little bit about some of the other good
things that are there as far as I am concerned. I want to thank the
gentleman from Illinois [Chairman Porter] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for keeping their commitment to increase funding
for special ed in the conference report. The agreement continues to
make great strides toward meeting our obligations to State and local
school districts through a near $700 million increase to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I am pleased the report provides increases to other high-priority
programs such as Even Start and Chapter 2 education and block grants to
the States.
I want to thank the appropriators for including the Emergency Student
Loan Consolidation Act, which will mean an awful lot to parents and
students.
Finally, the bill makes important changes to the need analysis
formula in the Higher Education Act, which ensures that students and
families who qualify for new higher education tax credits will not be
penalized in the Federal Government's determination of eligibility and
student financial aid.
I thank again all who put this appropriations bill together. It is a
very important bill, and I am sure it will receive overwhelming
support.
Mr. Speaker, I'd first like to thank the chairman, the ranking
member, and other conferees for their hard work on the conference
report. The Labor, HHS bill is never an easy task. And the national
testing issue did not make it any easier.
I am pleased to announce that, we have finally reached an agreement
on testing. I wish to thank the Chairman and Ranking member and many
other members of Congress for their input and hard work on this
important matter. It was truly a team effort.
Three months ago when members of the House decided to fight the
President's plan to give new federal tests to our school children, we
started with children in mind. From the beginning, we believed that a
new federal test would do nothing to help our children. If more testing
were the answer to the problems in our schools, testing would have
solved them a long time ago.
Everyone in this body supports high standards and accountability. No
question about that. But we all agree new federal tests created by
Washington bureaucrats are not the answer.
Most importantly the conference report stops the Department of
Education's plans for new national tests for one year. As a result,
this House--not the White House--now controls this issue.
This agreement stops the President's plan in its tracks for one year
by prohibiting pilot testing, field testing, implementation,
administration, and implementation of new national tests.
The White House acknowledges that Congress will now play a very large
role in deciding if, how, and when any new national tests will be
implemented, if at all.
The Administration recognizes that existing commercial tests now used
in the states may very well fit their purposes and provide the kind of
information we need to adequately assess our students. We have agreed
to have the National Academy of Sciences study this issue and report
back to us next fall.
A few other key points of the conference agreement are: The existing
test development contract entered into by the Department of Education
will be transferred out of the Department to the National Assessment
Governing Board; the National Academy of Sciences will study the
technical quality of the test items already developed by the Department
and recommend safeguards against tests being used in an inappropriate
manner; no student is required to take any national test in any subject
or grade; the Committee on Education and the Workforce will hold
several hearings on the National Assessment Governing Board and the
National Assessment of Educational Progress during the first half of
1998. At that time, the President will have an opportunity to have his
testing proposal fully debated, and Congress will have the opportunity
to work its will.
This is a clear victory. It affirms the 295-125 vote last month
prohibiting funds for new federal tests. I thank each of those 295
members who voted for the the Goodling Amendment and stood with us in
our negotiations with the White House.
On other matters, I want to thank Chairman Porter and Mr. Obey for
keeping their commitment to increase funding for special education in
this conference report. This agreement continues to make great strides
toward meeting our obligations to States and local school districts
through a nearly $700 million increase to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Grants to States.
Second, I am pleased that the conference report provides increases to
other high-priority programs, such as Even Start and Chapter 2
education block grants to States.
Third, I want to thank the appropriators for including the Emergency
Student Loan Consolidation Act. This bill passed the House by a voice
vote on October 21st, but stalled in the Senate until today. The bill
will help thousands of students who have been unable to obtain a
consolidation loan due to the Department of Education's shutdown of
their direct loan consolidation processing center.
Finally, this bill makes important changes to the need analysis
formula in the Higher Education Act which will ensure that students and
families who qualify for the new higher education tax credits will not
be penalized in the Federal Government's determination of eligibility
for student financial aid.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], also a member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this conference report. The
committee, under the strong leadership of the gentleman from Illinois,
Chairman Porter and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], along with our Senate colleagues, succeeded in producing a
bill which reflects our shared priorities.
We worked very hard on this bill, and this bill truly reflects a real
bipartisan effort. Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for creating the atmosphere and the commitment among all of us
to work together.
I also want to thank the staffs on both sides who have been so very
helpful and cooperative in reaching our goals.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report recognizes the clear need for an
increased investment in our children's education. I am pleased that we
were able to provide $3.2 billion more than last year in funds for
education. In particular, I am pleased that $40 million in new funds
have been provided to keep our schools open after hours in order to
provide a safe haven for our youth and to improve reading and other
academic skills.
We increased the maximum Pell grant by $300 per student and overall
Pell funding by $1.4 billion. The bill also includes language expanding
the eligibility of independent and dependent students for Pell grants.
In addition, we were able to restore funding to the SSIG student aid
program which helps so many young people get that education.
We made a number of significant increases in health programs. We were
able to provide the National Institutes of Health with a 7 percent
increase over last year. This will allow the National Institutes of
Health to increase funding for breast cancer research and other dreaded
diseases so that advances in prevention and treatment will continue.
Funding for AIDS drug assistance has been increased by $119 million
more than last year. This will help to provide life-sustaining medicine
to AIDS patients across the country.
I am also very pleased that we provided $268 million for job
training. In part, these funds will help to assist those on welfare so
they can better obtain decent-paying jobs.
[[Page H10311]]
While I am disappointed that the Hyde amendment restricting access to
abortion for low-income women is still in this bill, I am very pleased
that we were able to prevent a radical expansion of this prohibitive
restriction.
{time} 1800
The bill also repeals the $50 billion tuberculosis giveaway.
Of course, there are some programs that I wish we could have expanded
even more: Worker protection, title I education, and Centers for
Disease Control are among those programs. However, on balance, I
believe that this is a very good bill that meets so many of the
important needs of our constituents, and I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Souder].
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me
this time.
Compromise is probably not my greatest strength, and while there are
many good things in this bill, there are many things that I not only
dislike, I detest, but that is kind of the rule of how compromise
works, and I appreciate working with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], with the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and all of the others on this
committee.
When asked at the press conference today, ``It's not a disappointment
then, in the end?'', Mr. McCurry was asked about the national testing,
and he said, ``Well, I mean in a perfect world we would have gotten our
plan as it was designated by the Secretary of Education and the
President, but it's not a perfect world when you have a Republican
Congress, to say the very least.'' And that is an accurate statement
about how things work.
I appreciate the time we had to debate it and to air our differences.
I think we have made progress on some of the issues for the movement
conservatives, particularly on testing. We held a number of other
issues. I probably will not say this too many times in my career, but I
intend to vote for a Labor-HHS appropriations bill, and I appreciate
the process we went through. I think it is a reasonable compromise
given the differences we have between the House and the Senate and the
President, and I thank the leadership for that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker,, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], also a member of the
subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report, and I would like to thank Chairman Porter and Ranking Member
Obey for their hard work and their bipartisan spirit. I am pleased that
it contains a substantial increase for health research at the NIH, for
disease prevention work at the Centers for Disease Control, and for
important educational programs such as Head Start and IDEA.
I am especially proud that the conference report includes a
substantial increase in funding for quality care, child care for
children under the age of 3. New research has shown that the early
years are a critical time of intellectual, emotional, moral, and
physical development, which prepare a child to be healthy and
productive in later life. We cannot afford to waste these critical
learning years.
This conference report includes a $50 million increase in the child
care and development block grant for States to improve the quality of
care for our youngest children. It also includes $69 million more than
the President requested to expand the Early Start, zero to 3 program,
within Head Start. These funds will give thousands of additional
children an opportunity to have the very best start in life.
I am pleased that the bill includes funding to improve our schools
and hold our students to the highest standards, including the $200
million for whole school reform, to assist our least successful
students in meeting educational goals. I have the experience of New
Haven, CT and the Kolmer model of schools to point to as how whole
school reform can work and does work.
Throughout this process, we have at times faced the possibility that
the bipartisanship would be undermined by controversial riders
regarding abortion, parental consent for contraceptives, needle
exchange and other issues. I am glad to say that none of these
controversial riders are in this bill.
I am pleased to support this conference report, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I
agree, I think it is a very good compromise. When we look at the levels
of funding in this bill, it underscores that in a period of balancing
budgets and a decline in discretionary spending what some of the
priorities of the Government are, and I think this is a victory in many
areas.
In particular, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee and
the ranking member for the increase in the National Institutes of
Health funding by 7 percent. It was not too long ago in 1995 when this
House passed a budget that would have cut NIH funding by 5 percent in
real terms. So this is a step in the right direction.
Given the fact that the House may or may not in the next couple of
days take up the issue of trade, it is important that we continue to
put funds into biomedical research and what the NIH does, because that
is an area where America leads the world.
Second of all, from what I can tell from the bill, it does not make
the changes that were proposed in the immunization funding or that
would have affected the carryover funds. That is terribly important to
my State of Texas and my home city of Houston, which could have been
adversely affected by cutting back on the carryover funding that is
used a great deal in the City of Houston which has an expanding
immunization program, particularly for the indigent, and I appreciate
the fact that the committee was wise enough not to cut those funds
back.
I want to commend again the chairman and the ranking member. This is
a good bill. I intend to support it, and I hope my colleagues will do
so.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I see that Sue Quantius is back. As I said, the chairman and I have
been on this subcommittee I think just about the same time. I think he
has been on maybe a session before me. Sue Quantius, I am not sure how
long Sue has been with us, but I know she worked on the Senate side.
I mentioned the health care of our people, and I know it is a
particular interest of the chairman, and our expert on the committee is
Sue Quantius. She has done an outstanding job; she is one of the most
knowledgeable people in Washington on health care issues and
particularly on NIH funding and NIH resources, objectives, and
responsibilities. I want to rise, as I know the chairman has, and as I
know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has, in thanking her for
the service that she has given.
The American public and this House ought to be very proud of the
staff of the Committee on Appropriations. It is arguably the most
bipartisan, nonpartisan staff on Capitol Hill. To the great credit of
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], our chairman, when he
became chairman, most of the staff stayed because we all on both sides
of the aisle perceive them as very true professionals who know their
subject, who work hard, have great talent and great commitment to the
product of this committee and to this country.
Sue, on behalf of myself and all of us on this side of the aisle, and
I know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has already done that,
and I know our present chairman in office has done that, but I want to
join them and say thank you and to wish you Godspeed. Your next
endeavor, your next employer is a very fortunate entity indeed. Thank
you very much.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I met a young Army soldier in
my
[[Page H10312]]
district who had missed the birth of his first child because he was
serving our Nation in Desert Storm. He then missed the birth of his
second child because he was doing his duty, as his Nation called him to
do, in Bosnia.
There is nothing this Congress can do to make up for the sacrifice of
that young Army soldier. But what I am deeply grateful for is that
through the leadership of Chairman Porter and Ranking Member Obey, this
Nation has made a commitment through the Impact Aid Program to see that
that young soldier when he is serving thousands of miles away from his
family, serving his country, he or she can be sure that his or her sons
and daughters will receive a firstclass education. It seems to me that
that is a moral duty of this Congress. It is also the right thing to do
to ensure a strong national defense, because all of the technology in
the world, without the best and brightest soldiers and Marines and Navy
pilots and sailors, will not ensure our Nation's defense.
So I want to thank, not only for the whole effort of this tremendous
piece of legislation, but in particular, I want to thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
for their outstanding leadership and not forgetting those young
children and military families who may not ever see their parents at
graduation because their parents may end up giving the ultimate
sacrifice in time of war.
This is a great bill, and particularly on impact aid. I say thank
you.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me join my friend from Texas in
complimenting the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and our ranking
member the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I represent a district
that has Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard Wood, both of whom
are areas that are heavily impacted by the Federal Government, the
Federal reservations, and impact aid is so important for those
children. We have to take care of the families of the people in uniform
and this is a wonderful way to do it. So I join my friend from Texas
[Mr. Edwards] in complimenting them and thanking this committee for the
effort.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as we wind up this first session of the 105th Congress,
all of us I think are pretty well exhausted. We have had little sleep
night after night, especially during the last week. We have been in
intense negotiations for hours and hours on end. Nerves are frazzled.
We say things we may not mean. We make accusations that are perhaps
unfounded. We even raise questions about the processes of democracy so
that we can have things come out our way. It is a time when Republicans
sometimes are fighting it out with Democrats, the White House is
fighting it out with the Congress, the Senate is fighting it out with
the House, authorizers are opposite appropriators, committee chairmen
are against other committee chairmen, and often things get a bit out of
hand.
Several of the bills, there are four that remain, including this one,
have been subject to intense negotiations. This conference report has
certainly been one of them. But in the end, Mr. Speaker, all of us
believe in the processes of democracy that allow us to work with one
another and to find the middle, the place where the American people
are. Compromise in my judgment is not at all a bad word, it is exactly
what our Founders envisioned for us. It was their intent that we had to
cooperate with one another, work together as Americans, and find how we
can best reflect the values of the American people.
{time} 1815
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill truly does represent,
through bipartisan work, through true compromise, through honest
negotiation, exactly what the American people expect of us.
I am very proud that this year we have managed to work together and
managed to work through a very, very difficult process, and still come
out with great respect for one another. I have tremendous respect for
my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I think we do
work well together. That is a very positive thing.
I believe we have fashioned a bill that really does reflect the
values of this country, and have done so in a very strong, bipartisan
fashion, in the true traditions of the democracy of this great land we
all are privileged to live in and to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I would commend this bill to each of the Members. I
think we have done the best job that possibly could have been done. I
thank everyone for their willingness to work together.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to do two things. First of
all, the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter, was gracious enough
to mention the contributions made by all our staffers on both sides on
the committee.
I would also like to add, in addition to my staffers who have already
been cited by the chairman, I would also like to add Christina
Hamilton, from my personal office, who worked very hard on this bill.
I would also like to express our best wishes to a very dedicated
staffer who has worked for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]
for the past 10 years on this bill. Dr. Steve Morin is moving back to
San Francisco. We will miss his expertise on many health and labor
programs, most notably, his great work on the issues relating to AIDS,
and trying to minimize the terrible damage that that disease causes,
and giving researchers the resources they need to search for a cure.
I think this is a very progressive bill, and I would point out once
again, if I could have had my way, this bill would have at least $5
billion more in this devoted to education and health and worker
protection. But this bill is $900 million above the bill as it left the
House. That is not bad, under these circumstances.
I again congratulate each and every member of the subcommittee, and
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and all of the Members on my side of the
aisle, for working so hard to both define their views and to resolve
their differences.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to clarify an amendment
offered by Representative Carolyn McCarthy and myself that was included
in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The amendment added
$100,000 to the Department of Education's Program Administration
account so that the Department can expand its web site to include
information for all public and private scholarship and financial aid
programs.
It is my understanding that the committee report includes explicit
language stating that the conferees have agreed that the funds are
specifically included to enable the Department to expand its web site
to provide this information, pursuant to Section 409A(1) of the Higher
Education Act. This provision states that the Department of Education
shall award a contract to maintain a computerized database of all
private and public student financial assistance programs. Our amendment
is geared to help the Department fulfill this goal.
I thank the Committee chairmen and staff for working with us on this
matter to help ensure that the Department will receive the funding it
needs for this important project.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the fiscal
year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act
conference report contains several provisions regarding important rural
health programs which benefit rural communities across the nation, as
well as continued funding for the Ellender Fellowships. In addition,
this Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey],
the ranking member of both the full Committee and the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the Chairman of the Subcommittee,
for their work on these important issues.
Regarding rural health funding, this Member would like to
specifically mention two programs which this Member strongly supports
and has expressed this support together with other members of the House
Rural Health Care Coalition to the Subcommittee. These programs are
Rural Outreach Grants, and the National Health Service Corps.
[[Page H10313]]
This conference report includes $32.6 million for Rural Outreach
Grants, which is an increase of $4.8 million above the fiscal year 1997
level and $7.6 million above the amount requested by the President.
This important program support projects that provide health services to
rural populations not currently receiving them and that enhance access
to existing services.
The National Health Service Corps receives $115.4 million in this
conference report, which is equivalent to both the fiscal year 1997
level and the amount requested by the President. One of the top health
care concerns in rural America is the shortage of physicians and other
health professionals due to the difficulties rural areas have in
attracting and retaining primary health care professionals. The
National Health Service Corps program addresses this need by providing
scholarships to, and repays loans of, primary care professionals in
exchange for obligated services in a Health Professional Shortage Area.
The program also provides matching grants to states for a loan
repayment program. These incentives for health professionals and
physicians to serve in rural areas are greatly needed.
This Member is also pleased that this conference report includes $1.5
million for Ellender fellowships. Earlier this year, this Member
testified before the subcommittee regarding this important program.
This amount is the same as the fiscal year 1997 level, even though the
President's budget did not include any funds for the extraordinary
valuable citizen education program for American high school students.
The Ellender Fellowships are used to enable low-income students to
participate in the highly successful Washington Close Up program.
Each year the Close Up foundation awards thousands of Ellender
Fellowships, which included 3,942 students during the 1995-1996 school
year. Nationally, since 1971 over 480,000 students and teachers have
participated in the Washington Close Up Program. Almost 95,000 of those
participants received full or partial fellowships.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey],
the ranking member of both the full committee and the subcommittee, and
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for their
continued support of these important programs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 352,
nays 65, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 615]
YEAS--352
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
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
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
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
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
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
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
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
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)
NAYS--65
Aderholt
Archer
Bachus
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Blunt
Brady
Bryant
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Doolittle
Everett
Goode
Goodlatte
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Largent
Manzullo
McIntosh
Mica
Moran (KS)
Neumann
Norwood
Paul
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Snowbarger
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Blumenauer
Cubin
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Hoekstra
Klug
Leach
McCollum
McDermott
Quinn
Riley
Schiff
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 1839
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. McCollum against.
Messrs. BRYANT, BARTON of Texas, and EVERETT changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________