[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4044-H4054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 518 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 518
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor,
[[Page H4045]]
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendments printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on
page 44, line 4, through ``as amended'' on line 14. Where
points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. The amendment printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report and only at the
appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against the amendment printed in part B of the report
are waived. During consideration of the bill for further
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may : (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points
of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause
2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 515 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518 is an open rule to provide for
consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. Traditionally, this bill has
proven quite controversial, and this year is no exception. However,
this rule should not be controversial as it provides for an open and
fair debate of the many issues at hand.
Under the rule, there will be an hour of general debate divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The amendments printed in part A of the Committee on
Rules report will be considered as adopted, along with the rule.
I want to make a few facts clear about these amendments before the
rhetoric starts flying. Under the first amendment, the maximum Pell
Grant, which will reach the highest level in history under this bill,
will not be reduced. The second amendment provides a mechanism to
ensure that the House complies with the fiscal restraints dictated in
the budget resolution.
Now, specifically, the amendment provides an incentive for the House
to remain within the advanced appropriations cap set in the budget
resolution. While the amendment does use the child care and development
block grant to create this incentive, it also ensures that the child
care block grant will not be reduced beyond a certain level, a level
that provides for an increase above last year's spending.
After general debate, the bill will be open for amendment under the
5-minute rule, except that the amendment printed in part B of the
Committee on Rules report, to be offered by the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), will be debatable for 10 minutes. Members who
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record will
receive priority recognition. The rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule
XXI to protect Members' ability to offer certain amendments.
During consideration of the rule, the Chair will have the flexibility
to postpone votes and reduce voting time as a way to expedite
consideration of the bill and give due consideration to Members'
schedules.
Finally, the minority will have another opportunity to alter the bill
through the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, before my good friends and colleagues on the other side
of the aisle begin their expected protest of this legislation, I would
like to point out some facts as well as the merits of this bill.
{time} 1100
We will hear my Democratic colleagues claim that there is not
adequate funding in this measure, but the bill actually spends $4
billion more than last year.
I think in most people's mind, $4 billion is nothing to sneeze at,
and this funding will allow many worthwhile programs to see increased
spending under this legislation. This bill balances fiscal
responsibility and Government accountability with social
responsibility.
Making tough spending decisions and setting priorities is a part of
responsible governing that respects the trust and hard-earned dollars
of the taxpayer. This bill focuses on our priorities, including
education.
I am pleased that this legislation will provide almost $43 billion
for education programs, which is an added investment of $2 billion over
last year. This funding will assist students from preschool age through
college. Head Start will receive a $400 million increase. Elementary
and secondary education programs will receive $576 million more than
last year. And the maximum Pell Grant for college students will be
raised to $3,500, the highest level in history.
In addition, the bill addresses the educational needs of the
disabled. By injecting an extra $500 million in State special education
grants, this bill keeps our commitment to children with disabilities.
The Federal Government mandates that States provide a free public
education to disabled children, but we have not kept up our end of the
bargain in terms of sharing in the cost. This bill moves us one step
closer to keeping our promise.
By fulfilling this commitment, we will free up State and local
resources, which can then be devoted to education priorities set by the
State and local school districts who are closest to the children we are
trying to help.
This legislation further meets the needs of today's classrooms and
students by preparing them for jobs in a high-tech economy through an
increase in the Technology for Education program, bringing total
funding to more than $900 million.
Even more important than providing for an educated citizenry is
ensuring their good health. That is why this legislation invests an
additional $2.7 billion in discretionary health care spending. These
added resources will be pumped into community health centers that have
done such yeoman's work serving the poor and uninsured in our
communities.
The Ryan White AIDS Care Act programs will also see an increase over
last year's level and above the President's request. Perhaps most
importantly, this legislation gives hope to those who suffer from
incurable or untreatable diseases by making a significant investment of
almost $19 billion in biomedical research through the National
Institutes of Health, with a commitment to do more in the future.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter)
for his dedication to the goal of doubling funding for the NIH over 5
years. The chairman understands the great promise that this research
holds for saving lives and conquering diseases such as cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, and many others.
[[Page H4046]]
I am also encouraged by the progress made in the last couple of years
in the area of pediatric research through an appropriation for the
graduate medical education provided in children's hospitals. While the
$800 million this bill provides falls short of the full authorization,
it does represent progress, since it doubles last year's funding.
I hope to work with the chairman through the end of the process to
find a way to fully fund children's GME at a level of $285 million and
put freestanding children's hospitals on par with other teaching
institutions.
It is critical that we recognize the differences between adult and
child medicine and provide this support to those whom we trust with
caring for our most precious resources.
Mr. Speaker, I think the dedication this bill demonstrates towards
these priorities within the constraints dictated by fiscal
responsibility is to be congratulated.
The subcommittee did not face a simple task in crafting this bill,
but I believe it is a responsible approach; and I am proud of their
willingness to make tough decisions to keep our fiscal house in order
while making wise investments in the areas of greatest need.
Still, I am sure if each of my colleagues legislated alone, they
would look at the many worthwhile programs in this bill and prioritize
spending in 435 different ways. In recognition of the different views
among us, this legislation is being considered under an open process
which will allow every Member an opportunity to rework this legislation
to their will. So there is really no reason that every single one of my
colleagues should not support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the
rule, as well as the subcommittee's balanced approach to this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, this annual appropriations dance is growing staler than
the Macarena. Year after year, this leadership attempts to gut programs
critical to working families, and year after year they are publicly
shamed into finally passing adequate spending levels. Fiscal year 2001
is gearing up to be no different.
The rule for this underlying bill is a sham and deserves to be
defeated. In the dead of night, the Committee on Rules has rewritten
the underlying bill in the hopes it might survive a floor vote. No one
in this body has had an opportunity to adequately review this new
version, but I can share with my colleagues at least one little gem.
According to the new rule, any programs that are forward-funded in
the bill will trigger an automatic rescission. And did the majority
pick on someone their own size in choosing the program to target for
this rescission? Not in the least. The automatic rescission will cut
funds from the Child Care Development Block Grant, which funds child
care for the poorest children in our Nation.
Passing annual appropriations bills remains the most basic and
critical function that we perform in this body. This particular
spending bill funds some of our most essential programs, those that
keep Americans healthy, educate our children, and protect our workers.
But once again, the current leadership has skirted this responsibility
and is pushing a bill that it knows will be vetoed in its current form.
The original bill was narrowly adopted in the Committee on
Appropriations on a party-line vote 29-22, with every Democrat opposed.
Moreover, the committee version of the bill would delay any new worker
safety provisions, particularly those designed to protect workers from
repetitive motion injuries.
My colleagues and I have often marveled at the short-sighted vision
the current leadership holds for the Nation, and this year's Labor HHS
appears to be no exception.
The bill cuts education funding at a time when school enrollment is
exploding and education is at the top of our Nation's list of
priorities. Education is cut $3.5 billion below the President's
request, including the repeal of last year's bipartisan commitment to
hire 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class size and turning that
initiative into a block grant; denial of $1.3 billion to renovate 5,000
schools for urgently needed safety repairs; $1 billion cut from teacher
quality initiatives for recruitment and training; $400 million cut from
after-school care serving 1.6 million children; $416 million cut from
title I assistance, affecting up to 650,000 low-income children; $600
million cut from Head Start, denying early education to 53,000
children, elimination of funding for elementary school counselors.
The leadership's bill cuts funding to train and protect America's
workforce and contains a controversial rider which once again blocks
OSHA's regulation on ergonomics for the sixth consecutive year.
The bill cuts millions from worker protection initiatives, including
efforts to make the workplace safer, to promote equal pay, to protect
pensions, and to crack down on sweatshops.
The ergonomics rider prohibits the issuance of a new OSHA rule that
would prevent 300,000 debilitating ergonomics injuries per year. In
addition, the bill cuts over $1 billion for the training of adult and
dislocated workers and summer jobs for 72,000 at-risk youth.
Moreover, the underlying bill cuts funding to protect elderly
Americans. The bill eliminates family care support for 250,000
Americans with long-term care needs; cuts funds to enforce quality
nursing and family care for 1.6 million elderly and disabled people;
cuts mental health for seniors; cuts funds to eliminate Medicare waste,
fraud, and abuse.
In addition, the bill cuts funding for the battered women's shelters,
for family planning, and for health coverage for uninsured workers.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Committee on Rules had an
opportunity to correct these cuts by allowing full consideration of
amendments offered by my colleagues. We offered amendments to increase
funding for education and research. We offered amendments to protect
senior citizens and attack weak labor standards. All of these efforts
were defeated on a party-line vote.
Thusly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the subcommittee, who
crafted this very difficult legislation in a very fine manner.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), that the cuts she has described, are not
cuts. They are cuts from the President's budget. And the President's
budget, this President, has been particularly adept at drawing a
political document. All Presidents draw a political document, but this
President has taken it to an art form; and it is, basically, a document
that is not responsible.
Let us start the debate today by being very, very clear. When the
other side talks about cuts, they are talking about cuts from an
irresponsible President's budget. If we look at the Department of
Education, there are no cuts in programs. There is a $2.4 billion
increase in spending in this bill over last year in discretionary
programs.
If we look at the Department of Health and Human Services, there is a
$2.2 billion increase over last year.
There are cuts in some programs in the Department of Labor. But this
is an economy that is growing so fast, where we have almost full
employment, that the need for job training is less than in the past.
Such growth justifies a slowdown in spending.
So I would say to the gentlewoman, let us talk not about cuts. There
are not cuts except in certain areas where they are justified. There
are increases. They simply are not increases of the magnitude that the
President has suggested because the President's budget is not
responsible, I believe; and because we have a limited allocation.
[[Page H4047]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member on the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great colleague, my dear friend,
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know where their Committee on Rules was
last night around midnight at the witching hour? When everybody else
was nestled all snug in bed, the Committee on Rules was at work, under
the cover of darkness, rewriting the rule for the Labor, Health and
Human Services appropriations bill, where they once again put
children's programs on the chopping block.
Mr. Speaker, picking on children is becoming the pattern in the
Committee on Rules. Two weeks ago, the Committee on Rules killed an
amendment that would have sent American medicine and American food to
sick and starving children in North Korea and Sudan.
Then my Republican colleagues took money from the Women, Infants' and
Children's Nutrition Program, the WIC program, and handed it over to
the apple and potato growers.
Today, Mr. Speaker, they will put child care block grants at risk,
and all to please the Republican conservatives who fear using next
year's money to pay this year's bill because they themselves have
imposed impossible budget caps.
Mr. Speaker, children should not be the scapegoats of Republican
budget cuts just because they cannot fight back. And people will find
out what my Republican colleagues did even though it was late at night.
If my Republican colleagues really need to come up with some more
money, I think they should stop picking on children, pick on someone
their own size.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked for and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. I
thank my friend from Columbus, Ohio, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are proud to have a hard-
working Committee on Rules. I am glad that the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) was able to join us last night.
One of the challenges of dealing with a very recalcitrant minority
that wants to obstruct any kind of progress here in this House is that
we have to try to fashion rules that will get the majority to provide
full support; and, unfortunately, we have a difficult time working in a
bipartisan way.
We try our best to do it. We try to reach out to the other side. But
when we hear rhetoric like that that my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, just provided, it makes it really tough for us. Because,
in fact, in the area of child care development, we have a 33 percent
increase over last year.
{time} 1115
Now, one of the things that I was proud to have worked on earlier
this year, that unfortunately I fell short by eight votes of getting
the support on, was something called biennial budgeting. I know that
while one member of the Committee on Rules in the minority joined us in
support of this, my friend from Massachusetts opposed it.
We are talking here about all kinds of scenarios that are down the
road and that, frankly, future Congresses will be addressing. As we
look at this question of advance appropriations and forward funding, it
seems to me that if we were able to have a biennial budget process,
which it seems my friend is advocating here, it sounds like he is an
advocate of the biennial budgeting process, he should have joined with
us and voted in favor of that so we could have addressed this question
in what I believe would be a really more responsible way than going
through the annual process. But we have to deal with it as it is right
now.
I want to say that I believe that this is a very, very responsible
measure. My friend from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is going to be
presiding over the last labor, health and human services appropriations
bill before his retirement, is to be commended for his hard work. I
think that his words just a few moments ago put it right on target when
he said that all kinds of rhetoric is going to be out there trying to
claim that cuts are being made when, in fact, we are bringing about
responsible increases to address these issues. I commend him for his
very fine work.
There are a number of very important issues that are being addressed
in this measure. I want to particularly compliment him for the $900
million that is for technology, for education programs which will help
today's students have the potential to be competitive when it comes to
dealing with our global economy. We have a responsibility to ensure
that we pursue that. I think we have been right on target in doing
that.
There are a wide range of very good measures in this bill. What we
need to do is recognize that we are complying with the budget
resolution that passed, not, as the gentleman from Illinois said, the
very irresponsible budget package that was put forward by the President
of the United States. That is not what is providing us with direction
here. We are following the budget resolution that passed. We are
increasing responsibly in areas where need is taking place.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the other side of the aisle talk
about Draconian cuts. We went through this in the middle part of the
last decade right after we won the majority and they tried to claim
that we were cutting the school lunch program when we were increasing
it, they tried to claim that we were cutting programs for seniors. They
were trying to describe us as being somehow inhumane. Nothing could be
further from the truth. We are, in fact, responsibly dealing with
societal needs while at the same time dealing with the fiscal
constraints that are imposed with the budget process that we have.
I strongly support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support it and
the very important appropriations bill that we will be moving ahead
with.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democrat leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on this rule and
if it does pass, to vote no on this bill. Everyone in America knows
that the most important issue in front of us is education and training
children, the way we raise children. Go into any business in America
today and they will tell you they need trained people. They do not have
enough trained people to fill the jobs. We constantly are asked by
businesspeople for legitimate reasons to open up immigration rolls to
bring in trained people to fill the jobs that Americans are not
available to fill today.
Every family knows that raising a child today is more difficult in a
very busy and different world that we live in. Parents have less time
with children by about a third than they did 15 or 20 years ago. This
bill walks away from all of those concerns. There is not enough money
in it for the teachers that we need to teach our children in elementary
and secondary schools across the country. It zeros out the funds that
are supposed to be there for the 100,000 teachers that we should be
trying to help the local districts with. It provides no funds for the
effort to try to repair and rehabilitate and expand school building
structures, so we can get smaller class sizes to go with the teachers
that are all designed to get smaller class size. It guts the
President's proposal to improve teacher quality and insist on teacher
recruitment and school accountability.
Denying all of this funding is frankly inexcusable and unnecessary.
Part of the reason, I guess, that we are not able to put enough money
into these efforts is that tomorrow we have a bill to wipe out the
estate tax entirely. Everything that we do here is a choice. We have a
choice. We can wipe out the estate tax entirely or we can simply modify
it and make it more reasonable, thereby not spending as much money on
that effort and using those moneys that we do not use on that effort to
[[Page H4048]]
deal with schools and children and teachers and standards in public
schools.
We are making a choice this week that we want the top 10 percent of
the top 1 percent of Americans to get an incredible tax cut rather than
spending the money on our children, on our future, on our ability to
keep this economy which is white hot going in the right direction. That
is the choice we face today.
I urge Members to vote against this rule, to vote against this bill
so that we can make the right choice for America's most precious
resource which are our children.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, in about 6 months from now, I will be back in my medical
practice in Oklahoma. The one thing I will not miss is a lack of
integrity and straightforwardness about when we discuss these issues.
Everybody in this House knows that the funding in Labor-HHS bills
have climbed faster than in any other thing that we have funded in this
House under Republican control. We are $40 billion more under this
appropriation bill than we were in 1995. There is $14.3 billion more
for children, for health, for education to be available, to be spent in
2001 than was available last year. And for anyone to come to the House
floor and to say that there is a cut in programs, it is not only untrue
but it smirches the integrity of this entire House.
We have a bill that spends much more than I want to spend on many of
these programs because the accountability is not there, but we are
going to spend the money to fulfill the needs even though the
accountability is not there. It is important for us to make sure when
we talk about priorities that what we are really talking about is a
difference in the amount of increase in spending in priorities, not in
cutting any major program. My heart aches for my grandchildren, because
if we progress in this House with statements of untruth for political
demagoguery purposes, we do neither party any positive benefit and we
undermine the very value of this institution.
So I would beg that as we debate this bill the next 16 hours, to tell
the Members of the House and tell the people in the country the same
thing you would tell your grandchildren. Would you lie to your
grandchildren? Would you be untruthful about what is really going on?
We can have an honest debate about the differences in priorities. But I
beg you, do not undermine the integrity of this House by baseless
claims of cuts in spending.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk here today from
people who understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
When someone says that we do not have cuts in this bill for education
and health care and job training, what they ignore is what happens to
real people.
This budget is not the last budget for the Clinton administration.
This budget is the first budget for the next decade. We do not have a
society or a country frozen in time. We have a growing population. They
have growing needs. We are going to have over a million additional
students in college needing Pell grants, needing Work Study. We are
going to have about a million and a half additional students in high
school, needing title I and all the rest. We are going to have more
people needing medical services, because our population is growing
larger and it is aging. We are going to have about 25 million more
people in the coming decade. It would be kind of nice if the people's
bill, which this bill is, responds to those growing needs. But it does
not. That is why it cuts the President's educational request by $3
billion. It cuts worker training and other worker protection programs
by $1.7 billion. It cuts health care by $1 billion from the President's
request.
Why does it do that? Because we are moving into a new era. We have
been in an era of huge deficits. We are now moving into an era of large
surpluses. We have some choices. The choices are whether you use those
surpluses to cut taxes or to buy down debt or to invest in national
security, education, health care, science and the like or whether you
do a reasonable combination of all of them. What we are doing in this
bill today is making these cuts because the Republican majority in this
House has decided that rather than provide a prescription drug benefit
under Medicare, rather than invest larger amounts in teacher quality,
rather than investing larger amounts in smaller class size, rather than
strengthening job training, they want to provide $90 billion in tax
relief to people who make over $300,000 a year. That is why these cuts
are being made. I think that is wrong.
I have no objection to legitimate tax cuts aimed at farmers who are
on the edge or aimed at trying to help small businessmen provide health
care for their employees. But when those tax cuts are so large that
they prevent us from eliminating the debt and prevent us from making
needed additional investments in child care, in health care, in after-
school centers and in enforcement of international child labor
standards, then this bill is misguided and misbegotten.
This rule denies us the opportunity to offer 11 amendments to add
funding to restore teacher quality, school facility repair, early
childhood education, child care, after-school initiatives, better
nursing home care and all the items that I just mentioned. It tries to
hide it, but when you adopt this rule, you are also voting to cut by
over $800 million the child care block grant. You can deny it, but that
is the fact. All of the amendments we want to be made in order could be
financed by simply having the Republican majority in this House cut
back their planned tax cuts by 20 percent and you would have enough to
do all of the things we think that are necessary to move this society
into the 21st century and to respond to the growing population and the
growing need that accompanies that growing population.
This vote more than any other vote defines the differences between
the two parties. It tells us what your values are. It tells us whose
side you are really on. In our view, the majority party ought to scale
back its tax promises so that we can meet the education and health care
and job training responsibilities of this society.
{time} 1130
We did not get to have the greatest economy in the world by nickel-
nursing on these needed training programs.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to have 35 million more people knocking on
the doors of national parks over the next 10 years, we are going to
have 40 percent more commercial airline flights, we are going to have
millions of more kids in school. We need to respond to that. If we do
not provide these increases, then on a per-person basis and on a per-
family basis, we are cutting back the amount of help we are giving to
working families trying to share in the American dream.
This is the bill more than any other in the Congress that attempts to
do that. It is a sad commentary on the priorities of this place that we
are denied the opportunity to even offer the amendments, to even offer
the amendments. They provided protection in the rule for all kinds of
unauthorized programs that are in the bill itself, but they will not
provide that same protection under the rule for the amendments we seek
to offer. It is an unbalanced rule; it is an unfair bill. It should be
defeated.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend and colleague,
that he is going to offer all 11 amendments as we have agreed, and the
reason that the rule denies him the right to offer them is because none
of them have any offsets. They contain $10 billion of additional
spending that would, obviously, breach our allocation and therefore
violate the budget that was adopted by the majority of this House. The
amendments are irresponsible.
Sure, we would like to add $10 billion of spending to this bill. It
has very important priorities. But somebody has to be responsible for
the bottom line
[[Page H4049]]
and put some restraint on adding spending at any level to our bill or
any other bill. So it seems to me that the gentleman is going to have
an adequate opportunity to offer the amendments. We will make a point
of order because they do not have offsets as our rules require. This
does define the difference between the two parties. We are responsible
for the bottom line.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response that yes, we
can offer the amendments, we just cannot get votes on them. That does
not help a whole lot.
Secondly, they are offset. We suggest that we pay for them by cutting
back tax plans by 20 percent. If we cut the outlays on the tax plans by
$2.4 billion, we can pay for every single one of the amendments we
would like to have votes on.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be in the well
supporting the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I am very proud to
be here supporting him for the last 4 years. I will tell the minority
leader why you are going to bring in 200,000 people from other
countries. For 20 years I sat here in the minority, and the only thing
I ever heard from the majority was quantity, quantity. No quality. No
quality. The only thing they ever talked about was quantity. If we can
just cover more children, if we can just have more programs, if we just
spend more money. Nobody ever went out to see whether they were doing
any good, so we spent $140 billion in title I.
So what do we have now? Do you close the achievement gap? No, Mr.
Minority Leader, you did not close the achievement gap one bit. In
fact, it has increased. So for the first time in the last 4 or 5 years
we have been talking about quality, not quantity. We have been talking
about results, not process. Every time they would come and say we need
more money, and I would say, for what, they would say, to cover more
children, and I say, with what, mediocrity? You are not helping them.
So yes, now we have the highest Pell grants; and yes, now we have the
lowest interest rates. Yes, now we have more money for college work
study, all of these things. We also took 166 job-training programs
spread out over every agency doing nothing to prepare our people,
because there was so little money and so many programs. But again, it
was the same mindset: more programs, more programs, and somehow or
other, all of our problems will go away.
Well, we have changed this. We are now moving toward quality, not
quantity. We are now moving toward results, not process; and we are
going to see a big difference.
So again, I am proud to be here supporting the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) in this effort. We want to close that achievement
gap. More money for Even Start, more money for Head Start; but we
reformed Head Start. For 10 years we heard, more money for Head Start,
more money, but nobody said, are we accomplishing anything? Lo and
behold, we discovered all over this country we were accomplishing very
little to get them reading-ready to go to school. Now we have changed
that, and so the word is quality. The word is also family literacy. For
the first time we are now talking about if we are going to break the
cycle, we deal with the entire family.
So again, we are on the right road, and thanks to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the last several years we have been moving in
the right direction. The whole emphasis is on quality, not quantity;
results, not process.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, we should reject this appropriations bill
which turns its back on our children and our veterans. It demonstrates
a lack of commitment to our Nation's veterans which we should not stand
for, but maybe even more troubling is the degree to which this grossly
underfunds Federal education programs.
The Republican bill is a giant step backward for American education.
It eliminates funding for two programs that are critical for giving
students the tools they need to flourish: the class size reduction
initiative and the Elementary School Counselors Demonstration Act. Over
the next 10 years, we will need 2.2 million new teachers nationwide to
keep pace with enrollment. The Republicans want to play politics with
children and slash the Democratic initiative to hire 100,000 additional
teachers. This will jeopardize more than 1,000 teachers already hired
in my home State of Illinois; it will leave kids packed in overcrowded
classrooms.
The elimination of the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration
program will deny counseling services to more than 100,000 elementary
students. These essential services help troubled students overcome
problems, promoting the mental health of our students and the safety of
our schools. In April, I was joined by over 80 Members in calling for
the funding of the school counselor program at $100 million in fiscal
year 2001. In addition, the bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence
recommended that we fund school counselor programs to help reduce
school violence. Despite the support and to the detriment of the school
safety and our children's well-being, no funding was provided for this
initiative.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include the Working Group's report
and the letter to the appropriators for the Record.
Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence--Final Report--November 17,
1999
Members of the Bi-Partisan Working Group on Youth Violence:
Republicans: Jennifer Dunn, Chair, Zach Wamp, Vice-Chair,
Heather Wilson, Jim Greenwood, Mark Souder, Sue Kelly, Marge
Roukema, Judy Biggert, Buck McKeon, Bob Barr, Tom Tancredo,
and Rob Portman.
Democrats: Martin Frost, Co-Chair, Robert Menendez, Vice-
Chair, Bud Cramer, William Delahunt, Sander Levin, Bobby
Scott, Bart Stupak, Bob Etheridge, Ruben Hinojosa, Patsy
Mink, Tim Roemer, and Sheila Jackson-Lee.
V. schools.
Findings
C. Often one adult can make a difference by taking an
interest in a child and nurturing him or her. This might be a
teacher, an administrator, a counselor, or others.
Students with behavior disorders account for a majority of
problems encountered in schools today. Additional resource
staff in our schools, such as counselors, school
psychologists, and social workers are needed, not only to
help identify these troubled youth, but to work on
development skill building. (Emphasis added.)
There is no real infrastructure of support for our kids
when it comes to mental health services in our schools and no
national models for how best to structure school community
mental health programs. Currently, there are only 90,000
school counselors for approximately 41.4 million students in
our public schools--roughly 1 counselor for every 513
students. In California, there is only one counselor for more
than 1,000 students. That is simply not enough. As Mr. Porter
stated during this presentation, current school counselors
are unable to address students' mental health needs since
they are responsible for such large numbers of students.
Instead, their role is relegated to administrative,
scheduling, and career counseling
Additional resource staff is needed to address specifically
the personal, family, peer level, emotional, and
developmental needs of students. By focusing on these mental
health needs, these staff members will pick up early warning
signs of troubled youth and improve student interaction and
school safety.
The resource staff can also provide consultation with
teachers and parents about student learning, behavior and
emotional problems. They can develop and implement prevention
programs, deal with substance abuse, set up peer mediation,
and enhance problem-solving skills in schools. In short,
resource staff can provide important support services to
students, parents, and teachers.
There are a number of different ways to enhance the
availability of emotional support and mental health services
in schools. Schools can partner with community-based mental
health organizations or enhance staff training by providing
more opportunities at school for the development of informal
adult-child mentoring relationships. We expect that there are
a number of models that may vary in effectiveness at
different schools and age levels. The federal government
should initially support the development of research-based
models for school mental health programs that could then be
built upon.
Furthermore, schools and communities should incorporate
programs that encourage parents to become involved in their
child's educaiton. Improving parenting skills through
federally-funded programs like WAC, TANF, Food Stamps,
Medicaid, public health clinics, teen parenting, child
welfare, juvenile delinquency and homeless programs may be an
effective way to reduce juvenile violence in the long term.
Finally, teacher quality has been shown to have a profound
impact on the success of a
[[Page H4050]]
child. Because teachers are on the front line, there is a
great need to help them understand how to identify and
intervene in the life of a troubled child. Studies indicate
that by the school year 2008-2009, we will need an additional
two million teachers in our schools. We can ensure that we
have quality teachers in the future by creating incentives
for educators to continue teaching and by encouraging people
to begin teaching after careers in other professions through
such programs which help mid-career professionals become
teachers.
Recommendations:
Congress should provide grants to States and local
educational agencies to recruit, train, and hire school-based
resource staff, such as school counselors, school
psychologists, and social workers. (Emphasis added.)
Congress should authorize the Department of Health and
Human Services to work with schools and the mental health
community in developing models that enhance the availability
of mental health services in schools. (Emphasis added.)
Congress should encourage local educational agencies to
implement professional development activities designed to
assist teachers in identifying and assisting at-risk youths.
(Emphasis added.)
Congress should authorize the Departments of Health and
Human Services and Education to develop a public awareness
campaign aimed toward parental involvement in schools.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2000.
Hon. John Porter,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education, Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education, Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Porter and Congressman Obey: We write to
request funding for the Elementary School Counseling
Demonstration Act (ESCDA) under Title X of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act at $100 million in FY 2001.
At a time when our communities are experiencing surges in
school violence, we have an obligation to do all that we can
to provide communities with the resources they need to keep
their schools and students safe. School counselors are an
integral part of this effort.
School counselors, school psychologists, and school social
workers provide some of the most effective prevention and
guidance services available to our nation's children. These
highly trained professionals help improve students' academic
achievement, provide students with essential mental health
services and intervention, and help students cope with the
stresses of youth.
Across the country, school counseling professionals are
stretched thin and students are not getting the help they
desperately need. Studies indicate that, although 7.5 million
children under the age of 18 require mental health services,
only 20 percent receive necessary counseling. This lack of
access to counseling services is having detrimental effects
on both the students and the community. Of those students who
most need, but do not receive, mental health services, 48
percent drop out of school. Of those who drop out of school,
73 percent are arrested within five years of leaving school.
America's schools are in desperate need of qualified school
counselors. The current national average student-to-counselor
ratio in our elementary and secondary schools is 561 students
to every school counselor. According to the American
Counseling Association and the American School Health
Association, the maximum recommended ratio is 250:1. Every
state in the nation exceeds this recommended student-to-
counselor ratio.
Congress can ease the pressing shortage of school
counselors by investing in this important initiative. The
Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act (ESCDA)--
expected to soon be expanded to the Elementary and Secondary
School Counseling Program--enhances schools' ability to
provide much needed counseling and mental health services.
ESCDA is a small program that awards funds through a
competitive grant process to only those schools most in need
of counseling services.
And the best news yet--this worthy initiative gets results.
Under the model ESCDA program, Smoother Sailing, counseling
services have proven to decrease the use of force, weapons,
and threats against others; decrease school suspensions;
decrease the number of referrals to the principal's office by
nearly half; and make students feel safer. Further, school
counseling and mental health services improve students'
academic achievement and reduce classroom disturbances.
Studies on the effects of small group counseling for failing
elementary school students found that 83 percent of
participating students showed improved grades.
In FY 2000, ESCDA was funded at $20 million. This funding
will only provide grants to approximately 60 of our nation's
14,000 public school districts. We believe that we must do
better and increase funding for elementary and secondary
school counseling services under ESCDA to $100 million for
fiscal year 2001.
We understand that you are under considerable pressure to
manage requests for the FY 2001 Education Appropriations.
However, we urge you to give serious consideration to this
important request.
Sincerely,
Lane Evans; Nancy Pelosi; Lynn Woolsey; Nancy L. Johnson;
Connie Morella; Bernard Sanders; Lois Capps; Sherrod
Brown; Debbie Stabenow; Harold Ford, Jr.; Steve
Rothman; Elijah E. Cummings; Nick Rahall; Carolyn B.
Maloney; Patrick J. Kennedy; Dennis J. Kucinich; John
Spratt; Eliot L. Engel; Diana DeGette; Edolphus Towns;
Adam Smith; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Anthony Weiner; Earl
Pomeroy; Melvin L. Watt; John D. Dingell; Corrine
Brown; David Wu; Earl Blumenauer; Carlos Romero-
Barcelo; Grace F. Napolitano; John Conyers; James
McGovern; Marcy Kaptur; Tom Lantos; David Price; John
E. Baldacci; Ike Skelton; George Miller; Cynthia
McKinney; Jerry Costello; Michael Doyle; Robert T.
Matsui; Julia Carson; Bennie Thompson; James L.
Oberstar; Alcee L. Hastings; Jerrold Nadler; Barbara
Lee; Jan Schakowsky; Donald M. Payne; Michael E.
Capuano; James H. Maloney; Karen L. Thurman; Danny K.
Davis; Gene Green; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Sam
Gejdenson; Henry A. Waxman; Joseph Crowley; Robert
Wise; Dale E. Kildee; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Martin Frost;
Thomas Allen; Bob Clement; Leonard L. Boswell; Mark
Udall; Chaka Fattah; Fortney Pete Stark; Collin C.
Peterson; Bruce R. Vento; Joe Baca; Brian Baird; Tom
Sawyer; Robert Menendez; Juanita Millender-McDonald;
Jim Davis; Ted Strickland; John Larson; Ciro D.
Rodriguez; Peter Deutsch.
Mr. Speaker, all in all, this bill fails our students and does not
reflect the priorities that Americans place on investing in quality
education. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to the other side talking about cuts
in this bill, it is really very hard for me to fathom this. This is
like hearing that black is white, that up is down. I think George
Orwell would find this rhetoric very, very familiar.
I would suggest that my colleagues turn to page 277 of the committee
report. It simply says, it shows quite clearly that in fiscal year 2001
the program administrators, the people actually spending this money,
are going to have $12.3 billion more money to spend than they had in
fiscal year 2000; $12.3 billion. That is an increase. The 2001 number
is bigger than the 2000 number. It is not just a little bit bigger. It
is 14.5 percent bigger. That is three times the rate at which the
economy is growing. It is about five times the rate of inflation. But
what we are hearing from the other side is that even that increase is
not enough. Frankly, I think it is too high, but it is consistent with
the budget resolution that we passed in this Chamber and in the other
Chamber, and I am going to support it. But to hear the other side
complaining about cuts is shocking to me.
Now, if the other side really finds programs that they feel need more
funding, which no doubt they do, they are free to offer amendments to
reshuffle this money around, to transfer from one account to another;
but they cannot do that to their satisfaction, even with a 14.5 percent
increase in the money that is available.
I think what is clear here, the difference between the two parties is
that there is no amount of money that is enough. We have a record high
level of spending, record high discretionary spending. This bill is at
a record high level, and we have record high taxes. Despite that, they
want more money and more spending.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule, which
simply keeps the bill consistent with the budget resolution and then
vote yes on final passage.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
This bill cuts the heart out of opportunities for education, for
health, and for the well-being of our families in order to be able to
provide for, in the long run, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in
this Nation.
Let me give my colleagues one example of one area of cuts. It
dramatically will cut the Child Care Development Block Grant. It
specifically singles out child care funding to be the first on the
chopping block. Our Nation's children on the chopping block.
Not long ago, a group of Members, 120, wrote to the committee urging
an
[[Page H4051]]
increase of funding for this critical program. They were a bipartisan
group of Members, I might add. Now we have to stand here today, and we
have to stand and oppose a proposed cut in funding. How can this be?
The Child Care Development Block Grant provides access to quality child
care to thousands of working families. It allows parents and in many
cases single working mothers as they leave home each day to be able to
support their families, to be able to make sure that their children
have child care.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow working families, but most importantly,
the children of these families, to fall through the cracks. Even the
current funding levels serving only one in 10 eligible children are
completely inadequate. Studies show that serious problems with child
care quality persists, leaving children at risk of important
development and school failure.
Mr. Speaker, children are our Nation's most precious resource; they
are our future. In these times of great economic prosperity, how can we
leave these youngsters behind? Where is our commitment to child care in
our country if we ignore the needs of children zero to 3, we ignore the
needs of children 3 to 5, we ignore the needs of working families in
this bill? Let me just tell my colleagues that budgets, in fact, are
not just numbers on a piece of paper. Budgets are a reflection of our
values and our priorities as a Nation. Defeat this rule and defeat this
bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how the people on the other
side of the aisle can continue to come forth with such statements that
Republicans are cruel to children. Most of these education programs are
actually being increased in spending, so I do not understand where the
rhetoric is coming from.
The reason I am here today is to advise that last April I invited the
OSHA administrator to visit Zenith Cutter in my district. Zenith Cutter
is a small manufacturer of industrial knives and has about 175
employees. Mr. Jeffress saw firsthand, with Cedric Blazer, the owners,
what industry is already doing in the area of ergonomics without any
government mandates. It makes no sense to finalize the ergonomics rule
by the end of this year, because nobody at OSHA understands the rule.
In fact, we held a hearing in our congressional district the day
after a blizzard. Over 100 people showed up from small to large
industries. The OSHA people came in from Chicago, and as well-
intentioned and as kind as they were, they could not adequately
describe exactly what these ergonomic rules are or the standards that
would be promulgated with the resulting rules.
So I therefore support the decision of the Committee on
Appropriations to hold off any action on the proposed ergonomic rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
{time} 1145
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in Austin, Texas, working families of over
2,000 children rely on Federal assistance to cover part of the cost of
their child care. Unfortunately, almost as many families cannot get
child care assistance and are on a waiting list. Countless others never
apply because they know the wait is so long. For those working
families, this vote does not represent a tough choice; it is the wrong
choice. It says these families will have to wait a little longer.
Child care that is safe, affordable, and of high quality is essential
for our families, and it is essential for our Nation. This bill makes
the wrong choice on this vital need.
For older children, working parents know that the period after school
and before they return home from work is a critical time. It is prime
time for juvenile crime, and a top need for constructive, after-school
care. The cuts in this bill to after-school care are not a tough
choice, they are the wrong choice for those students as well as their
neighbors.
For students who advance all the way through school and who deserve
to be able to get all of the educational opportunity for which they are
willing to work, college student financial assistance in the form of
Pell grants is essential. The cuts to Pell grants in this bill are not
a tough choice, they are a wrong choice for our students and their hope
for the future.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these wrong choices being forced on the
House today are not by accident; they are directly related to the next
bill that this House will take up. That is a bill to cut the taxes for
poor old Steve Forbes, for poor old Ross Perot. Seventy-three percent
of this huge, Republican-proposed tax cut would go to the wealthiest 17
percent of taxpayers. In order to give this huge tax cut to the very
richest people in this country, they propose their so-called tough
choice, which is the wrong choice on child care, the wrong choice for
after-school care, and the wrong choice on grants for college
education.
The two bills are closely intertwined. And they are wrong on both. We
ought not to cut Ross Perot and Steve Forbes' taxes in order to inflict
so many cuts on the working families of this country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to
this bill. The committee unfortunately included a prohibition on the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, this is hard to believe,
to stop OSHA from implementing protections against repetitive stress
disorder, carpal tunnel syndrome, and the litany of physical injuries
workers sustain every day because of the dangerous design of their jobs
and workplace.
Many of these workers are women. They are our mothers, our aunts, our
sisters, and our daughters. Each year, according to the AFL-CIO,
400,000 women workers suffer injuries from dangerously designed jobs.
Sixty-nine percent of all workers who suffer from carpal tunnel
syndrome, and I think everyone knows this, are women.
The bill therefore represents a betrayal of promises made to the
women of America. In fiscal year 1998, the Committee on Appropriations
report stated that ``the committee will refrain from any further
restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation, or issuance
of an ergonomic standard following the fiscal year 1998.''
In the following year, Chairman Livingston and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) signed and sent a letter reiterating Congress'
promise. The letter stated, ``It is in no way our intent to block or
delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.''
So why does the bill before us prohibit OSHA from protecting women
workers who are hurting and being crippled by dangerous workplace? A
promise was broken, and Congress is on the verge of leaving America's
working people, the vast majority of our citizens, unprotected from
dangerous workplaces.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule, and
I am also in strong opposition to the provision in this bill which
would bar OSHA from implementing its ergonomic standard. This standard
would protect hundreds of thousands of American workers suffering from
musculoskeletal disorders every year. As a public health nurse, I know
the debilitating effects these disorders can have. They are the most
prevalent, expensive, and preventable workplace injuries, accounting
for more than one-third of all occupational injuries and illnesses
serious enough to result in days away from work, affecting more than a
half a million workers each year, and costing businesses over $15
billion.
Congress has prevented OSHA from issuing an ergonomic standard since
1995. So many medical and professional organizations have strongly
encouraged OSHA to act without further delay on this ergonomics rule.
Medical and professional organizations have strongly encouraged OSHA
to act without further delay on this ergonomics rule. These groups
include: The American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American
Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American Occupational
[[Page H4052]]
Therapy Association, the American Nurses Association, the American
Public Health Association, and the AFL-CIO and all of their affiliated
unions.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this appropriations process has
once again become the means by which we leave our workers without the
safety protections they deserve. I believe it is irresponsible to
prohibit OSHA from acting in the best interests of American workers. I
object to the rider on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a wasted opportunity. H.R. 4577 is
a bad bill, and we should have a rule that would include an amendment
to guarantee every one of our students and all of their schools the
resources and the assistance they need to perform at the very, very
highest standards.
Instead, we have a bill that repeals last year's bipartisan agreement
to hire 100,000 new teachers. This bill rejects the funds needed to
make urgent safety and health repairs to 5,000 schools. It denies
after-school services to more than 1 million students, and actually
eliminates Head Start for 53,000 children.
The one amendment that does bring funding to education does it by
taking funds now used to keep American workers safe on their jobs.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and insist
on a new rule that allows the House to vote for education funds so that
our students and schools will not be left behind.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and see a bill
that would do little for the educational system of our country. This is
a result of the budget that the Republican majority has given us. It
emphasizes cutting taxes, but it hurts the future of our Nation.
This bill does not provide for the President's plan for school
modernization, and ensures our children will continue to suffer from
substandard school facilities.
In my home State of Texas, where my wife teaches high school algebra,
we have 4 million students in almost 7,000 schools. Of these schools,
76 percent need repairs or upgrades to reach good condition; 46 percent
need repairs in building features such as plumbing, electrical,
heating, or cooling; 60 percent have at least one environmental
problem, air quality, ventilation, or lighting; and the student ratio
to computers stands at 11 to 1.
Over the next decade it will get worse, not only in Texas but across
the country. Over the next decade, the number of Texas students in
elementary and secondary schools will increase by 8 percent.
What we need to do is not underfund $1 billion in teacher quality
improvement and recruiting, as this bill does, cut 40 percent of after-
school programs, underfund Head Start. We need to provide for the
future of our Nation.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a
member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about national defense, and it is an
issue on which we can be a little more bipartisan. But, unfortunately,
today is a day when we have to put on our partisan hats. My friends
from both sides of the aisle have seen this happen already today.
Let me just take this time, as a member of the subcommittee, to thank
someone, my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter), and also the full authorizing committee chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), two people who are retiring
this year, for working and trying to work on a bipartisan basis for
education and for health care over the last 5 years. We have a good
record to show. We have a record of a 46 percent increase over 5 years
in education.
We will today put on our partisan hats and define the differences in
the parties. We have had references to the American dream, and
certainly the American dream is embodied in this very fine piece of
legislation today. The American dream includes a good education. I
mentioned the 46 percent increase that we have had over the last 5
years of Republican governance in this House of Representatives.
The American dream means good health care. The American dream means
good jobs and good job training. I am proud of everything we have done
in that respect.
The American dream, Mr. Speaker, also means a sound economy. It means
being fiscally responsible and living within our budget, and giving the
people of America back just a little bit of their hard-earned income in
the form of a tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the President's budget being
slashed. It is easy for the President of the United States to float a
figure out there when he knows that this House of Representatives and
this Congress has got to live within a budget, and at the end of the
day we are going to live within the bottom line.
It is easy to say, yes, the President had a budget and we have cut
numbers from the budget, but look what the President did and his party
did when they had it all to themselves. This is spending for special
education, cumulative growth in funding. Look what happened in 1993,
1994, in fiscal year 1995, when the President and his party had it all
to themselves. Then look at the increase in special education,
cumulative growth funding since Republicans have been in office and in
the majority in this House. We have a record. These are real figures
for real people. I am proud of our record in special education growth.
With regard to Job Corps funding, again part of the American dream,
the figures are right here for us. Look at the increases that the
Democrats had when they were in control, when they ran the Committee on
Rules, when they had vast majorities in this House of Representatives.
These were the small increases in Job Corps training. This is what a
Republican Congress has done on the other side of the page. The numbers
speak for themselves.
Vote for the rule. Vote for fiscal responsibility and vote for a
continuation of the American dream.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, two exemplary students apply to
the school of their dreams. Both are accepted. Both are overjoyed. But
one will not be attending this institution of higher learning for one
reason and one reason only: He or she did not receive enough financial
aid.
Who is going to tell this well-deserving student, I am sorry but the
money just is not available, even though we now live in the greatest
fiscal times in our history?
I will vote against this rule, and one of the reasons is because of
the example of the reduction of Pell grant money by $48 million. Do we
even know how many children's lives this would affect? We are cutting
funding to students who otherwise would not be able to go to college,
many of whom are our summer interns.
This grant provides an opportunity. It provides for a future for
students who otherwise would not have the resources to attend college.
We tell our children that education is a means of success and a better
way of life. If we take away the funding that Pell grants provide, we
are taking away students' chances for a better life. We should increase
these opportunities, not take them away.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
I just want to tell the gentleman who just spoke that Pell grants in
the bill are increased by $200 to the requested level, and the only
reason that there is an adjustment in the amount of money spent for the
Pell grants is that there is estimated to be less demand for them in
the next fiscal year.
There is increase in the Pell grants. We are not cutting them, we are
increasing them, exactly as the President put in his budget.
[[Page H4053]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, all of us say we have education as a
priority, and we understand education is a priority of the American
citizens, but when we come to appropriations, it does not seem that
way. Maybe it is just in North Carolina. My State tells me we will lose
almost $92 million. Please, Mr. Speaker, I beg for people to correct
me, to say that this is not true. I want to make sure that that is not
true.
They say we will lose $1.4 million in adult training; in youth
training, again, $1.2 million; in disabled workers, again we will lose;
just down the line; Head Start, $11 million; development block grants,
another $11 million plus; and Title I, Title I, even there, it is
$39,000; ESEA Title I migrant programs, more than $1 million; again,
the Eisenhower/Teach to High Standards grant, $15 million; class size
reduction, and we all know smaller classes mean indeed that we are able
to teach better, $36 million.
I must vote against this rule, and I urge my colleagues, please
allocate those resources for those children we say we love.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as you visited local schools, and talked
to teachers, students and school administrators during our most recent
recess, you heard their cry for additional teachers, more training and
smaller class sizes. They shared with you the challenges they face
daily to accommodate the ever increasing enrollments.
We must provide adequate funding to hire 100,000 new teachers to meet
the enrollment needs. This is especially important for our nation's
poor, minority and rural community children.
I don't know if you had an opportunity to analyze the effects of this
bill on your state.
Our state would be facing devastating reductions in:
Dollars
Adult Training...............................................-1,401,000
Youth Training...............................................-1,298,000
Dislocated Workers...........................................-4,134,000
Re-employment Services.......................................-1,557,000
Unemployment Insurance.......................................-1,967,000
Head Start..................................................-11,935,503
Child Care and Development Block Grant......................-11,439,157
ESEA Title I LEA Grants..........................................39,586
ESEA Title I Migrant Grants..................................-1,030,448
Eisenhower/Teach to High Standards Grants...................-15,225,126
Class Size Reduction........................................-36,217,944
Vocational Education Tech-Prep Grants........................-5,771,250
Leveraging Educational Assistance (LEAP).......................-868,140
Preparing Teachers to Use Technology..................................?
21st Century Community Learning Center................................?
Passing this bill in its current state could be devastating to the
state of North Carolina, netting more than a $92,000,000 loss for the
state. North Carolina would receive no support under this bill. It
doesn't assist the state improve its dilapidated schools or poor
performing schools.
Ninety-two million dollars is a lot of money and could make a major
difference in improving education in our state.
This bill seems to me to say, it's okay if we continue to ignore the
needs of our children.
My colleagues, I urge you to fully fund the President's proposal.
Because of the tremendous lack of support and vision for education
and health of children and teachers, I must vote ``no'' on this bill.
{time} 1200
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, we have seen a
systematic attack by this House on public investments that make this
economy the flourishing growing economy that it is today. Just
yesterday in the committee, we put together a bill which cut deeply
into the President's request for National Science Foundation funding.
That is the basic scientific research that underlies all the advances
we eventually make in health care through the National Institutes of
Health, in developing new technologies, such as the Internet, which was
developed through an investment by the Defense Department and the
National Science Foundation.
This bill itself says that it wants to have a 15 percent increase in
the National Institutes of Health, but then it has a language provision
in the bill which prevents that money from actually being spent. This
bill ignores the fact that we have growing school populations and
growing senior populations who need added services, not less.
This bill denies us the opportunity to support the President's
program to strengthen teacher training. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) for years has said do not just put money into class
size, put money into quality teachers. The gentleman is right, and that
is why we have tried to do both in the amendments that we wanted to
offer but are being denied the opportunity to get a vote on in the rule
today.
So I would suggest there are all kinds of reasons why, if you care
about the future economic strength of this country, if you care about
equal educational opportunity, if you think people ought to get health
care without begging for it, there are all kinds of reasons to vote
against this bill.
This bill makes all of these reductions in order to finance your huge
tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country; 73 percent of the
benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent. That is a high price to pay to
give those folks a bonus.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues again that this is an open
rule. The bill before us will be debated under an open process that
will allow Members who disagree with the bill's priorities to change
them. Also, despite my colleagues warnings of dire consequences, this
bill actually increases spending to the tune of $4 billion over last
year.
The extra investment will allow for increases, not cuts, but
increases in many priority programs including National Institutes for
Health, Job Corps, Community Health Centers, Ryan White AIDS Care
programs, the Centers for Disease Control, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health programs, Services Administration, Low Income Home Energy
Assistance, Childcare and Development Block Grant, Head Start, the
Technology for Education Program, Special Education, Impact Aid and
Student Financial Assistance, and that is just to name a few.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, this bill is responsible, balancing
the need to fund worthwhile programs while keeping our budget balanced.
It is this kind of responsible governing, where priorities are set,
waste is eliminated, and fiscal prudence is maintained that will keep
our Nation's economy on track.
I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule as well as
the underlying legislation.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule
because it is a stealth attempt to reduce funding for Pell Grants for
education by $48 million. This is ridiculous, particularly at a time
when our nation and our world is moving at warp speed with new
technologies, globalization, and innovations and change. Changes which
affect how we live, how we work, how we learn.
It is a quality education that has allowed America to master these
rapid changes and move forward in this new economy.
Education has helped us move forward from the days of the horse and
buggy to the information superhighway.
It is education that has allowed us to move from horse stables into
stable careers and success in the new economy. And, for millions of
Americans the Pell Grant has made education possible.
We know that our continued economic prosperity depends on two
things--businesses getting the skilled workers they need for our
growing economy, and workers getting the skills and training they need
to keep working smarter. If this backwards rule passes, we will have
turned our backs on both the American public and American businesses
who depend upon a highly trained, well educated workforce.
By voting to slash Pell Grants, Congress will be saying ``no'' to
millions of students trying to gain the skills necessary to move
forward, and compete in the 21st century. And, ``no'' to the businesses
that tell us everyday how desperate they are for a highly skilled and
well educated workers.
During this period of economic prosperity and budget surplus, we
should be seizing the opportunity to advance the well being of our
citizens by training and educating our students and workers instead of
shortchanging them.
Let's not say ``no'' to the 67 percent of our high school graduates
who are now going on to college, and struggling to pay college tuition.
[[Page H4054]]
Vote against this rule (bill) and in favor of needy students across
this country, and in favor of American businesses who desperately need
a well educated workforce. Let's keep our American economy growing.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule for H.R. 4577,
the FY 2001 Department of Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act,
to offer my strong objection and concern with the addition of another
amendment to part A of the Rules Committee report, providing for a
rescission from the child care and development block grant (CCDBG) of
any funds appropriated in excess of the $23.5 billion advanced
appropriation cap contained in the FY 2001 concurrent budget
resolution.
The child care development block grant (CCDBG) is a major source of
child care assistance for low and moderate working families. Usually
out of necessity, not choice, mothers are working outside the home in
greater numbers than ever before. Moreover, with many employers having
difficulty finding the workers they need, due to a 30-year low in
unemployment; and the continued demand generated by welfare reform. It
is imperative now more than ever that the availability of affordable
and quality child care services exist.
Accordingly, now is not the time from Congress to limit the amount of
funding available for CCDBG.
Regretably, as I read the language found in the Rules Committee
report it is essentially placing a marker which states that the House
of Representatives does not support the need for this important
program.
While, I will vote for the rule as I believe it is important that the
House have the opportunity to debate the important provisions in the
Labor, HHS appropriations bill, I strongly oppose the Rules Committee
report language on the CCDBG. And I intend to work for additional
funding for this necessary, beneficial program.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 204, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Clay
Danner
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Gejdenson
Greenwood
Houghton
Klink
Markey
Meeks (NY)
Myrick
Smith (MI)
Vento
{time} 1224
Mr. PALLONE and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay''.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________