[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4055-H4077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4577.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pease) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1228


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health 
and Human Service, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, 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).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin the general debate, I want to 
acknowledge the wonderful work of our staff on our subcommittee. Tony 
McCann, the clerk and chief of staff has done a magnificent job for 
this subcommittee for the entire 6 years that I have been privileged to 
chair it; and he has been very ably assisted by a wonderful staff: 
Carol Murphy, Susan Firth, Geoff Kenyon, Tom Kelly, and Francine 
Salvador on our side and Mark Mioduski and Cheryl Smith on the minority 
side.

                              {time}  1230

  Every one of them is an expert. We rely greatly upon their counsel 
and advice, and we are fortunate to have professionals of this standard 
as our staff.
  I also want to thank the associate staff of the subcommittee. They 
work very hard for each of the Members; and I want to thank my staff, 
particularly Katharine Fisher, my administrative assistant, and Spencer 
Perlman, my legislative director.
  Let me add that it has been a tremendous privilege for me to serve 
for the last 21 years on the Committee on Appropriations and on this 
subcommittee, and it has been wonderful to be able to serve as one of 
the subcommittee chairmen under our full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). He does a magnificent job for our 
country, for this House of Representatives, and for our committee; and 
it has been an absolute joy to be a subcommittee chairman under his 
leadership.
  Let me also say that it has been a great privilege for me to serve 
with my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We work 
very well and closely together. People may not believe that after the 
debate we will probably have today; but we do. And I have learned a 
great deal from him. He is a very senior Member of the House, has been 
on this committee, interestingly enough, many years longer than I have; 
and I think our relationship is a very solid and good one. Both of us 
realize that, in the end, the process leads us to finding common ground 
and to making the right decisions for our country and for the programs 
that are under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee.
  Each of the subcommittee members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the gentlewoman from Kentucky 
(Mrs. Northup), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), on 
our side; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), of course; the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi); the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey); the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) on the minority side, they spend countless hours 
in hearings that last far longer than any other subcommittee. They are 
all very, very dedicated and hard-working Members that give a great 
deal of their time and effort to this process; and I want to thank each 
one of them. It has been for me a great privilege to have Members like 
this serving on this subcommittee, and I know that they will provide 
the institutional knowledge that will carry it forward long after I 
have departed.
  Let me also add that we work very, very closely with the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). He has provided the kind of 
leadership in the authorization of many of the programs that our 
subcommittee funds, and he has been the kind of authorizing chairman 
that appropriators salute because he has taken on the job of 
reauthorizing almost all of the education and some of the labor law 
that needs reauthorizing. He has not shirked one bit from that 
responsibility and has done a terrific job of reflecting the kind of 
philosophy that we believe gets results for people.
  That is, after all, what this bill and what all of our bills are all 
about, getting results for the American people. The entire tenor of 
Congress during the last 5 or 6 or 8 years has changed, as we look very 
hard at every single program to see whether it really works to changes 
people's lives and to do the right thing in terms of the expenditure of 
money and getting results.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the committee bill, despite what we may hear from 
now on, increases discretionary spending by $2.4 billion over last 
year. It contains a few cuts. A number of programs are level funded, 
but many are increased. The bill provides increased spending of $2.4 
billion to 98.6 billion and a total of $342 billion overall.
  The President, of course, requested $106.2 billion. That is easy to 
do when he is not responsible for the bottom line. With the extra 
funds, the President proposed dozens of new programs, many of them 
duplicative; hastily conceived, in our judgment; and aimed more at 
constituencies than at true national policy.
  Within our funding level, determined by a budget resolution adopted 
by the majority of both Houses of the Congress and that we have to live 
by, I have attempted to support high-priority programs while 
restraining the growth of other lower-priority programs. We did not 
fund any of the dozens of new small untested programs proposed by the 
President, almost all of which were unauthorized.
  We did fund the Job Corps at $1.4 billion, $7 million above the 
President's request. We did fund community health centers at $1.1 
billion, $31 million above the President's request. We funded graduate 
medical education payments to Children's Hospitals at $80 million, the 
request level.

  We funded Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief at $100 million. Ryan White, 
under our bill, is increased by $130 million to $1.725 billion, $5.5 
million above the President's request.
  TRIO was increased by $115 million, a very important program serving 
minority youngsters in our society. It is increased by $115 to $760 
million, $35 million above the President's request.
  Overall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is funded at 
$368

[[Page H4056]]

million above last year's level and $189 million above the President's 
request. This level includes both the regular account and the Public 
Health Emergency Fund. I have specifically included $145 million, $8 
million above the President's request, for the critical infrastructure 
needs of the CDC.
  Mr. Chairman, I funded the National Institutes of Health at the 
request level, $1 billion above last year. I believe this level is not 
sufficient, but it is all I could manage within our allocation. The 
bill has been written to assure that a 15 percent increase is part of 
the conference's consideration.
  For child care, the mark includes $2 billion for fiscal year 2002 for 
this normally advanced funded program, although there is a sequester in 
place should we breach the budget resolution. And for fiscal 2001, the 
mark provides an additional $400 million as a ramp up to the larger 
amount for fiscal year 2002. Child care is not shirked. We wish there 
were more funds; we are doing the best we can within the allocation.
  Head Start is funded at $5.7 billion, a 7.5 percent increase. 
Education Technology is funded at $905 million, $2 million above the 
President's request and $139 million above last year. After School 
centers are increased by almost $150 million and over a 30 percent 
increase to $600 million.
  The mark fully funds Impact Aid at $985 million, a $75 million 
increase and $215 million above the President's request. Special 
education is increased by $500 million to $6.25 billion. Pell Grants 
are increased by $200 and SEOG's and work studies are funded at the 
requested level.
  Because of the importance of the Administrative Account for the 
delivery of Social Security benefits, I have increased this account by 
almost $400 million. Most other programs are funded at last year's 
level.
  The bill includes the same language provisions as were included in 
previous years, including the Hyde language on abortions. It includes 
prohibition on needle exchange programs, national testing and embryo 
research, the same as last year. It includes the same language as last 
year on Title X, Family Planning, compliance with State laws and family 
involvement.
  It includes new language requiring filters on computers purchased 
with Federal funds to assure they cannot be used to access child 
pornography, obscene material, and other material harmful to children 
on the Internet.
  For 4 of the last 5 years this bill has been enacted without a normal 
conference because it failed to pass either the House or the Senate. 
Mr. Chairman, this is a failure of democracy which we should never 
allow to happen. This bill should be shaped by the entire body on the 
House floor. I am very pleased that this year the bill is coming to the 
floor early; that the body will have a chance to shape the bill in the 
way they wish to see it leave this body. I believe that we should never 
again allow the enactment of this or any other bill shaped in the 
normal process by the Members in open debate on the House floor under 
an open rule.
  I believe this bill does a very good job of funding high priorities 
for this country. Yes, we do not have an allocation as large as we 
might like, but we are operating under a budget resolution adopted by 
the majority of this House. And we are doing the best that we can to 
provide for the high-priority programs to serve people most at risk, to 
serve our children, to serve our elderly populations; and I believe 
that we have done the best we possibly can with the money that we have 
available.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to make a few comments on 
the stewardship of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  As he has indicated, he has served this House and his district and 
this country ably and with great distinction and great honor in all of 
the years that I have known him. He is truly a quality person, he is 
truly a quality legislator, he is infinitely fair, and I think he has 
more integrity than 90 percent of the Members I have ever served with.
  I would say that in a legislative body I understand that political 
conflict and intellectual conflict can be pretty intense. When we 
engage in that conflict, we take a good measure of both our allies and 
our adversaries. I am proud of the relationship that I have had with a 
variety of subcommittee chairs, full committee chairs, and ranking 
minority members in the years I have been in this place.
  I treasure the relationship that I had with Mickey Edwards when he 
ran the Republican side on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
Export Financing and Related Programs; and I chaired it. I treasure the 
relationship I had with Bob Livingston, both when he served as chairman 
of the committee and as my ranking member on foreign operations. I 
cherish the relationship I have with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of the committee, and I especially cherish the 
relationship that I have with the gentleman from Illinois. He is one of 
those persons of unquestioned integrity who always, in my view, does 
what he believes is the right thing for the country; and I do not think 
there is any higher compliment that can be paid any Member. We are all 
going to miss him, and I think the majority party has been well served, 
as has the country, by his stewardship.
  What I say about this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
respect and affection for the gentleman from Illinois. What I say about 
this bill is required because of my love of this country and my passion 
for what I believe this country ought to do to expand opportunities for 
all people in this society, not just the fortunate.
  This chart shows what is at the guts of the problem with this bill 
today because the majority party, in its budget resolution, has 
determined that it is going to, in piecemeal fashion, push through this 
House tax bill after tax bill which, when they are all added up 
together, will wind up, over a 10-year period, costing us over $700 
billion in lost revenue. Seventy-three percent of the tax cuts will go 
to that 1 percent that represents the wealthiest 1 percent of people in 
this society. Seventy-three percent will go to that one person. Twenty-
seven percent will be to the other 99 percent.

                              {time}  1245

  That is not my idea of a square deal.
  They will bring to the floor tomorrow a bill which, when fully 
operative, will provide tax cuts of $50 billion a year; and that will 
occur by relieving the estate tax on the wealthiest 2 percent of people 
in this society who are left to pay that tax. For that $50 billion 
going to the fat cats in this country, we could provide health care for 
every single uninsured American.
  So that is one option. Do you want to put the $50 billion in Mr. 
Moneybag's pocket, or do you want to put it in the pocket of every 
American unserved by health care? That is one choice.
  Another choice you could make is to respond to the fact that our high 
school enrollment is going to be going up between this year and the end 
of the decade. Between this year and the end of the decade, we are 
going to be adding about a million and a half more students in high 
school. We are not doing enough to respond to that challenge.
  Another thing we could do is to recognize that our higher education 
enrollment will be going up by almost 1.5 million people over the same 
10 years. And we are not doing enough to deal with that.
  Pell Grants. Pell Grants used to make up almost two-thirds of the 
cost of going to college in a public 4-year institution. Today they 
make up about a third. We could be doing something about that. But, 
instead, the money is going to be committed for these very large tax 
cuts.
  Now, I have no problem with tax cuts targeted to small farmers who 
need them, small businessmen who need them, middle-class taxpayers. But 
this bill, in the end, cuts 36 education programs below the President's 
request. It cuts 24 programs to protect workers and train workers below 
the President's request. It cuts 18 health programs below the 
President's request.
  Now, they will say, oh, these are not cuts, they are increases from 
the base. The fact is, this bill is frozen in time because it does not 
respond to the growing costs, growing pressures in our society, even 
though we have moved from an era of large deficits to large surpluses. 
And so it is simply a question of where you think we ought to

[[Page H4057]]

put our resources, and it is an honest difference of opinion.
  The folks on this side of the aisle put as their first priority 
providing over $700 billion in tax cuts. We have put as our first 
priority investing that money in Social Security and Medicare and 
education, in health care, in job training, in basic science to keep 
this economy going and to build opportunity.
  As great as this country is, it can be better. But to be better, we 
have to continue to make the right kind of public investments that have 
gotten us this glorious economic recovery.
  We are not going to do it under this bill. We are not going to do it 
under the science bill that came out of committee yesterday. We not 
going to do it out of the agriculture bill. At least not now.
  We will do it eventually. We will do it in September, because in 
September we will get to the get-real time part of this session, and 
that is when the majority will finally face up to the fact that this 
bill and most of the others are not going to be signed by the President 
of the United States unless additional resources are put in it. And if 
you say, ``Oh, they are not offset, you are just trying to spend 
money,'' every single one of the amendments that we want the committee 
to adopt can be paid for if the majority simply cuts back on the size 
of its tax package by about 20 percent.
  That is all it would take. It would still leave you room for 
significant tax cuts, and we will have one on the floor tomorrow that 
will demonstrate that, but it will not provide tax cuts that are so 
large that you get in the way of either deficit reduction or making the 
needed investments we need to make on our people.
  So that is what is at stake on this bill. I would urge Members at the 
end of the day to vote no because it simply does not measure up to what 
America is all about.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Granger).
  (Ms. GRANGER asked for and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. 
This legislation includes substantial increases for many important 
health, education, and job training programs.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) 
for the work he has done. I want to especially thank him for his 
commitment to increased funding for the National Institutes of Health. 
I am proud to be a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a 
Congress that have made quality health care a priority.
  From 1995 to 2001, Republicans have increased NIH funding by an 
average of 11 percent per year, 15 percent per year in the last 3 
years.
  I am also pleased to say we have provided a 33 percent increase in 
the amount of awards. This funding boosts hope and opportunity for 
patients across this Nation. With this money, we will continue to lead 
the world in our quest for cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
diabetes, cancer, and other diseases that wreck families and cause loss 
of quality of life for our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, as a woman, a mother, and a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I am pleased to be a part of this historic NIH 
increase. I think this is an important day for patients and, also, 
quality of care.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, at a time over the last few days when we 
have listened to such prominent leaders in our business community like 
Bill Gates at Microsoft and Andrew Groves at Intel and Carly Feorina at 
Hewlett-Packard say that we need to do more in terms of quality in 
education, we need to do more in terms of new ideas, we need to do more 
in terms of technology, we need to do more in terms of training our 
teachers to learn how to use the technology. This bill does less.
  At a time when we are facing a new economy with new challenges in the 
digital divide with some of our students, if they are black or 
Hispanic, not having equal access with this digital divide to the 
latest technology, we are doing less at a time when, according to the 
Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, schools are turning to temp 
agencies for substitute teachers, and it quotes the Kelly Services 
going out into the community to put substitute teachers into our 
schools.
  Now, I think the quality of teaching is the single biggest need in 
this country because we will need 2 million new teachers, but we have 
to make sure the current teachers can teach with the challenges of the 
technology that are before them. Temp agencies might be able to do some 
good things, but I am not sure that one of their strengths is putting 
qualified teachers in our schools.
  So what I would hope in this bill that I would recommend at this 
point a no vote on is that it falls short, particularly in the Title I 
area, where I offered an amendment on the authorization process to 
increase Title I by $1.5 billion, 39 Republicans voted with that 
amendment. This bill does not reflect that increase to $9.8 billion for 
Title I kids.
  So the Title I program does not come up to the funding that we even 
authorized with bipartisan support for some of the poorest of the poor 
children in some of the poorest school districts in the country.
  The second major reason to vote against this bill is the lack of 
professional development. Now, with the Teacher Empowerment Act not 
being authorized and with the Eisenhower Program not being funded in 
this bill, we have a huge gaping hole on one of the biggest needs in 
America today, and that is making sure we have quality teachers who can 
work with the technology, work with overcrowded schools, work in 
overcrowded classrooms, and teach effectively to 20 or 25 or 28 or 30 
kids.
  So Title I is underfunded for the poorest schools. Professional 
development, there is a huge gaping hole in this bill without an 
authorization process taking place. When we need to do more, we are 
doing less in education. I would encourage a no vote.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Porter) for the opportunity to speak in favor of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said earlier 
that we have this tax cut and if we did not have this tax cut we could 
spend more money on education.
  Well, there is a difference in philosophy here. We have overpaid the 
cost of government. I do believe that the taxpayers deserve a break. We 
could spend more, but let us look at what is included in this bill.
  In this bill, we have an overall increase of 7.6 percent. That 
exceeds inflation. But a portion of this is mandatory, and we have to 
increase it a certain amount. But if we look at the discretionary 
portion that we have the opportunity to either increase or decrease, 
the discretionary portion is increasing nearly 15 percent.
  Pell Grants, for example, are going from $2,300 in 1994 to $3,500 in 
this bill. It is over a 50-percent increase since 1994.
  We are doing some wonderful things in this bill. I think the body 
ought to take that into consideration. The priorities may be different, 
but it is a good bill and I urge its passage.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, but I do 
so with great sadness because I have such great respect for my friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), our chairman, who has been 
such an extraordinary leader in this House from his commitment and his 
passion to the NIH budget, to his initiative to produce better health 
outcomes for our kids, to

[[Page H4058]]

 increasing resources for the world-class CDC.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) represents the very best of 
this institution. His integrity, his commitment, his passion to do the 
right thing is an example for this institution and for this great 
Nation of ours. Without him, we will be a lesser House. But I have such 
great confidence that the gentleman will continue to make a major 
contribution in the field of his choice and to this great Nation. We 
are really going to miss him. He is a friend. He is a great colleague. 
I have the greatest respect for him.

                              {time}  1300

  I also wish, quite frankly, that our colleagues had seen their way to 
giving him a more fitting allocation in his final year. I serve on this 
subcommittee with such pride. It was the committee I chose. I wanted it 
so badly because of all the good things that this committee does. I 
believe so strongly that the Federal Government must be a partner in 
meeting the need to educate, keep healthy, protect the safety of our 
children, our workers, and our families. The chairman has made it very 
clear that he is not satisfied with the allocation our subcommittee has 
received, and I am ready to work with him and my colleagues to improve 
this bill so that at the end of the process we can pass a bill that we 
can be very, very proud of.
  But I also stand with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who has 
passionately and consistently made the case for a true appropriations 
process and for a real Labor-HHS bill. Americans deserve that and so 
does this House. This is the first time that I can recall that we have 
had a debate on a Labor-HHS bill since 1997. Unfortunately, we have not 
made much progress by bringing the bill to the floor. Members on both 
sides of the aisle have already conceded that the House bill is going 
nowhere. It is almost $3 billion below the President's request for the 
Department of Education, $1.7 billion below the President's request for 
the Department of Labor, $1.1 billion below the President's request for 
the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill did not even make 
it out of subcommittee without the White House issuing a veto threat.
  The bill contains major reductions in the President's budget for 
education, health care, and worker safety and training. It sidesteps 
once again our national crisis in school modernization. In the end, the 
bill before us is about $6 billion below the President's request and 
close to $8 billion below the Senate's level. Our Nation is growing. We 
have pressing needs in education, health, and training. Yet there are 
no funds provided to continue the class size reduction that the 
President has requested that will place 100,000 new teachers in our 
schools. There are, as I said, no funds to renovate the schools so they 
can perform urgently needed safety and health repairs.
  $1 billion is cut from teacher quality improvement and recruiting 
efforts. There are no funds to increase our effort to keep women safe 
during pregnancy, despite the terrible rate of maternal mortality and 
morbidity in this country. It level funds our critical domestic 
violence shelters program and the Hotline service. Compared to the 
President's request, the bill is a 40% cut in after-school programs, 
one of my top priorities, and a $600 million cut in Head Start. Despite 
the troubling trends of violence and alienation among our young people, 
no funds are provided for elementary school counselors.
  We have the resources now to address the changing needs of our 
workers, in the Internet economy, and of our students--many of whom are 
adults trying to build up their skills. We have the resources now to 
prepare a secure and healthier retirement for our seniors, and fund the 
world-class health prevention research that the United States is known 
for--but this bill does not take advantage of the extraordinary 
opportunity this tremendous economy has provided us. That's why I 
oppose this bill, and why I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), a member of the subcommittee who does a wonderful 
job for his constituents in Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. It has indeed been a pleasure for the past 6 
years to serve with such a distinguished Member who, unfortunately, is 
leaving us. One thing I do agree with my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, that we all feel very strong about the wonderful job and 
the leadership he has provided this committee over the years. It has 
been a real special honor for me to have that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this year's bill. One of the 
things I am most proud of in my service here is we have finally reached 
a day of having a balanced budget and a surplus. It is hard work to 
have a surplus in government. We have to have some real goals and be 
committed to a balanced budget concept. But now that we have a surplus, 
it seems so easy to say, let's spend more money, let's spend more 
money.
  Yes, there are some good things that we spend money on. A few decades 
ago, Everett Dirksen used to say, ``A billion here, a billion there, 
we're talking about real money pretty soon.'' This bill is $2.4 billion 
more in discretionary spending than last year. That is real money. 
There is an increase in spending in this bill. To say, oh, my gosh, the 
sky is falling, all these Chicken Little stories that things are 
falling apart. Hey, there is more money in this bill. We are funding 
the highest priority programs.
  One of the programs that I think, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) does, too, the crown jewel of the government is the National 
Institutes of Health, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, diabetes 
research, AIDS research; and thank goodness, under the gentleman from 
Illinois' leadership we have had a great increase in that spending.
  Look at this chart. Look at how it has grown back from when the 
Democrats controlled Congress. Now under Republican leadership, look at 
the rate of growth. Look at that growth rating that has been going on 
since the Republicans took over. We need to be proud of that, because 
that is a high priority. As a fiscal conservative and one that has a 
good record of saying we have got to restrain spending, I believe basic 
research is one area we should put our resources in and can be proud of 
that because that is something we should continue to support. This is a 
good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership on 
establishing budget priorities for our country which are in keeping 
with our national values.
  Mr. Chairman, in reviewing this bill that is before us today, I am 
reminded of the story of someone who said how come so many good 
mathaticians come out of MIT, and the answer is, because so many good 
mathematicians go into MIT. Why is this a very bad bill? Because very 
bad budget considerations went into this bill.
  This is a bad bill. Compared to the President's budget, it would cut 
$2.9 billion from education services, cut $1.7 billion from labor with 
cuts to workforce development and safety investments, and cut more than 
$1 billion from critical health programs. This is a bad bill also 
because it eliminates and cuts services for America's senior citizens 
and their families.
  And why? Why are we forced to vote on this bad bill? We are forced to 
vote on this bad bill because Republican House leadership passed a bad 
budget resolution that puts tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans above 
investments to promote America's education, workforce and health 
services. Their $175 billion tax cut exceeds the projected budget 
surplus and requires deep cuts in nondefense discretionary 
appropriations. The result was a Republican-designed budget resolution 
that was so bad that even the Republican chairman of this subcommittee 
opposed it.
  And soon we will be voting on a measure to repeal the estate tax. 
Within 24 hours, we will be cutting education and we will be repealing 
the estate tax. How could that be a proper statement of our national 
priorities? Repealing the estate tax will provide over $50 billion to 
the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. How much is enough? When will 
Republicans be satisfied with the amount of money they have given to 
the wealthy and turn their attention to the majority of

[[Page H4059]]

Americans who want a good education, a strong workforce, and a healthy 
future?
  I do not know if we will have an opportunity to offer amendments 
today. That is why I had hoped that the rule would go down because it 
did not protect the rights of the minority to offer amendments to this 
bill. One that I had in the full committee which failed would have 
added $1.7 billion to the National Institutes of Health which we cannot 
afford because the Republicans insist on giving a tax cut to 2 percent 
of the wealthiest Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time from the gentleman 
from Illinois. The gentleman from Illinois has done great, thankless 
work for so many years in trying to craft together one of the most 
controversial bills that comes before us each and every year. You could 
not find a finer gentleman whether you agree or disagree with him on 
different issues. He has handled himself very well and deserves our 
appreciation for that.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill at the same time represents some of the best 
things and some of the worst things in this Congress. I appreciate the 
bipartisan cooperation working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) on a couple of 
things that are in this bill. To say that when the Federal Government 
is purchasing computers that go in public schools and we are spending 
hundreds of millions of dollars for that, that we want to make sure 
that filters are on that so that they are not being exposed to Internet 
pornography through a computer paid for by taxpayers, that is a 
bipartisan effort. That is in here. That is good.
  We also have in here an expansion of the Federal programs trying to 
promote abstinence among teenagers. If you want to reduce out-of-
wedlock pregnancies and births, tell kids that they ought to be waiting 
until marriage. We have had hundreds of millions of dollars, billions 
of dollars in Federal money teaching a so-called safe sex message. It 
is about time we start promoting a message that promotes our values and 
the right decisions. That is in here, thanks to bipartisan support.
  Yet we hear people say, well, this bill is not spending enough. This 
bill is spending $12 billion more in optional spending than last year. 
I heard one speaker talk about a figure of a 15 percent increase. Yet 
some people say, oh, you're cutting this and you're cutting that, 
you're cutting things. Come on. Get real. If you want to say it is 
below the President's request, that is fine. That is honest. But to say 
that it is cutting, no, that is not.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill deserves our support. It spends more than 
many of us want to spend but for goodness sakes, do not claim it spends 
less.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill puts irresponsible 
tax breaks before critical funding for education. We need to invest in 
our schools so that our children receive the best education in the 
world and are prepared for working in a 21st century economy. We must 
expect the best from our schools, then give them the tools that they 
need to succeed. Smaller classes help students to get individualized 
attention, discipline, and the instruction that they need. But the 
Republican bill repeals efforts to hire new teachers to reduce those 
class sizes and will not make classrooms the places where our students 
can learn and our teachers can teach.
  The most important thing that we can do for our children's education 
is to make sure that teachers are highly qualified in their subjects 
and well trained in new technology. Yet this Republican bill cuts 
teacher training and recruitment by $1 billion. The bill cuts reading 
instruction and tutoring for 100,000 children and math improvement 
programs for another 650,000 youngsters. It cuts after-school programs 
by 40 percent; programs that serve 1.6 million children in more than 
3,000 schools across this country.
  By denying a $1.3 billion in funding for local school districts to 
make urgent and needed repairs to school buildings, this bill denies 
5,000 school districts the leverage that they need to fix leaky roofs, 
upgrade plumbing and bring schools into compliance with local safety 
codes. It cuts Head Start funding by $400 million, denying more than 
50,000 low-income children critical Head Start funding. And it 
eliminates college preparation for more than 640,000 high school 
seniors.
  Budgets are not numbers on a page. We bring to life our values and 
our priorities through our budgets and the bills that we pass in this 
people's House. This Republican leadership bill denies the opportunity 
to make sure our youngsters get the very, very best start in life. It 
does not reflect our values. It does not reflect our priorities as a 
Nation. It does not give education the proper place that it deserves in 
our society, that is, as a great equalizer to make sure that youngsters 
no matter where they come from, no matter what their background is, no 
matter what their gender is, be able to achieve according to the 
talents that they have been given by God in this country.
  It is a bad bill. We ought to turn it down.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), a valued member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that as a 
mother of six children, the issues of health and education are near and 
dear to all of our hearts, especially as we look at our children and 
the challenges they face. I want to thank the chairman for the 
leadership of this committee that addresses what the needs are of 
children and educational systems and health across this country. He has 
been supportive, he has been encouraging, and his manner of balancing 
the differing opinions have been really very inspirational.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I think of the story of the child who had a $5 
allowance and came in to see his dad and said, Dad, I really need a 
raise in my allowance. Can I have $10? The father said no, but I will 
give you a $7 allowance. He said, well, why are you cutting my 
allowance?
  This is what we see on the other side. People who think an increase 
is a decrease. When they talk about the quality of schools, I can tell 
my colleagues that there must have been a few classrooms across this 
country that they attended where the difference between addition and 
subtraction was not made clear.
  In this bill, we are adding money to education. But really, the bill 
and the debate here is very much at the crux of the difference between 
the minority party and the majority party. The fact is, we are 
listening to our schools. Our schools reflect what the challenges are 
that each school faces.
  It is no wonder that some people come to this Congress and say, we 
need to build more school buildings. Others say we need more teachers. 
Other say we need to be able to raise our teachers' salaries so that we 
attract more quality students into our classrooms. Other people come to 
Congress and say, no, we need to invest in technology. Because in every 
community, the challenges are different, what States have invested in 
already are different. Some States have made a tremendous investment in 
school buildings. But they are eager to raise the salary of their 
teachers so that they attract high-quality teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe that the money should go back to the 
schools, back to the communities where they decide what the critical 
needs are. I thank the Chairman for a bill that reflects their needs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I too congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for his 
leadership of this committee, but this bill does not represent the 
gentleman's leadership; and it ought not to be hung around his neck, 
because if he were in charge, this would not be his bill. These would 
not be his figures. This would not represent the depth of his

[[Page H4060]]

priorities. So let us not delude ourselves, I say to my friends.
  Newt Gingrich stood on this floor, and he talked to the perfectionist 
caucus on the Republican side of the aisle; and he pointed out that the 
American public sent a President, House Members, and Senate Members, 
and the real problem with why we have gridlock in Washington and why we 
have the absurd charade through which we are now going, and 
undercutting the American people's priorities, not just our priorities, 
is because there is one group that does not agree with most of the 
other groups; and it is, I say to my friends, the Republican Conference 
within the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of people stand up here and say 
oh, what you Democrats want to do. Do you not want the American public 
to know that what we want to do, our colleagues in the United States 
Senate have already done in their committee? Their figures are more 
than our figures, I say to my colleagues, not less. They too believe 
that our Republican colleagues are undercutting America's children and 
America's families and America's health; they too, our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate, not just those on this side of the aisle that 
you would like to say oh, look at how awful they are, and then show 
your charts about your spending. It is interesting, the red lines they 
put up showing more spending. What a different story you tell at home 
about how you are cutting spending. My colleagues cannot have it both 
ways. But they try; but they try.
  For instance, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) got up here 
and said this is a 14.6 percent increase. Hooey, hooey. It is a 3.8 
percent increase. Why? Because last year, my Republican colleagues 
played games and they pretended the 302(b) numbers were at $84 million, 
their figures. But guess what? They then added on a lot of money after 
that so the real spending was $96 billion. But it did not count on the 
302(b)s.
  Now, why are we here? The American public must wonder, why are we 
having this debate? Because we are discussing priorities.
  I am going to offer an amendment and talk about how many children and 
families are adversely affected by this bill as opposed to the 
priorities we are offering and the priorities they put forward across 
the Capitol in the United States Senate. But we are here because we are 
deciding between those large tax cuts that my colleagues do not like us 
to talk about. They lament and say, oh, these numbers are not good; but 
we had to do this because the budget makes us do it.
  However, nobody made us adopt the budget. Nobody made us adopt the 
large tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are going to 
shortchange children and families. I tell my friend from North 
Carolina, nobody made us do that. We did it ourselves. Not with my 
vote, but it was done. And as a result, we are going to talk about the 
number of children and families that will not be served, but that the 
Senate wants to serve on both sides of the aisle and that we want to 
serve. I hope my Republican colleagues will support my amendment.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that they 
are to refrain from characterizing positions taken by Members in the 
other body.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), a senior member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, first, for a moment, a word about the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), a member of this body who has the 
unmatched sense of caring, fairness and wisdom that will, when he is 
gone, be very difficult shoes to fill. He set an example here that I 
think has been respected for many years; and I think it is difficult 
for those who are trying to be critical of what this bill is 
representing this time to be critical of the gentleman from Illinois 
and his subcommittee. Because we all know, everybody in this body 
understands, on both the Democrat and Republican side, that he is truly 
a man who comes to work every day with a sense of caring for the people 
of this country and tries to do the right thing day in and day out 
without any political factors included.
  I say to the gentleman that he is a person who all of us respect 
tremendously in this body; and he will be sorely missed, and we will 
work hard to pass this last and final bill that he has put out of the 
subcommittee of which I have been a part of for my eighth year now and 
have learned so much under the gentleman's leadership; and I look 
forward to carrying on its legacies at some time in the future as a 
continuing member of this subcommittee.
  It is very difficult, I am sure, for a lot of the critics to step up 
here and say this is a bad bill and act like Chicken Little as though 
the sky is falling for supporting such a bill, because this is the 
People's bill. We have more money in this bill for such programs as 
education programs like TRIO, increasing that program by $115 million, 
$35 million more than the President requested; community health centers 
increased by $81 million, which is even $31 million more than the 
President requested; health professions up by $69 million, $113 million 
more than the President requested; biomedical research dollars, also a 
tremendous increase to 6 percent, we are trying to get it even higher, 
but on track. We are doubling the biomedical research funds for over a 
period of 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. This is a bill that provides a lot 
of services for a lot of people out there. Anyone who stands up and 
tries to oppose this bill should understand they are opposing people 
programs, education, biomedical research, all of these good programs 
that make a true difference in the community. We will also hear more 
today about a provision in this bill that saves the private sector from 
an onerous OSHA regulation involving ergonomics.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4577, the Departments 
of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Act.
  It seems that year after year, this bill attracts more and more 
rhetoric about how it will devastate American families, American 
workers, the elderly. . . . you name it. The truth is this bill is the 
People's bill and it will help the American people.
  This bill provides vital funding for important labor, health and 
education programs while maintaining the fiscal responsibility that the 
American people demand of us. We have made some tough decisions and 
have funded high priorities.
  The other side claims that we have cut health care, cut education, 
cut job training. Since when is a $4 billion increase a cut? Let me set 
the record straight.
  The bill increases funding for the community health centers program 
by $81 million, $31 million more than the President requested. This 
means that more uninsured Americans will have access to high quality 
health care in their communities.
  The bill increases funding for the health professions programs by $69 
million, $113 million more than the President requested. These programs 
provide vital training for health care professionals, many of whom go 
on to provide care to patients in medically underserved areas. The 
President's budget zeroed out funding for primary care physicians, 
dentists and gerontologists--denying opportunities to those students 
and denying health care to patients.
  The bill increases funding for the TRIO programs by $115 million, $35 
million more than the President requested. The TRIO program works to 
help low-income complete high school and go on to college.
  These are just a few examples of the priorities placed in this bill. 
As the American people watch this debate, I trust that they will listen 
to the sincerity of our efforts to try to help Americans in every 
neighborhood, in every city, in every state.
  I urge my colleagues to stop the rhetoric and pass this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that 
I appreciate the hard work that the distinguished chairman, ranking 
member, and other members of the subcommittee and subcommittee staff 
have done to get us here today.
  The Labor-H mark is woefully inadequate to address the profound needs 
of

[[Page H4061]]

the country, because this bill's allocation is economically short-
sighted. For some in America, the economy is booming and unemployment 
is at its lowest rate in the last 30 years; yet the economy is not 
booming for all Americans. In the Chicago metropolitan area, 
congressional districts on the North side of Chicago like the 
chairman's have more jobs than people. In my district, there are more 
people than jobs. Hence, the chairman and his political party who are 
Republicans want less government and less taxes.
  I am a Democrat who is progressive and, in the absence of a private 
sector in my congressional district, I need more government services; 
my constituents need them, to make a difference in the shortfalls in 
their lives. For example, in the last several years, the number of 
people in this country who are uninsured and underinsured has increased 
by several million in the Chicago metropolitan area that primarily 
finds itself on the South Side and the south suburbs that I represent. 
This bill could have provided an opportunity for us to leverage the 
benefits of this booming economy so that no American is left behind.
  I appreciate all of the competing interests that must be balanced in 
this bill. Unfortunately, the mark has been dealt by the chairman a bad 
hand and he has been given an allocation that cannot adequately improve 
the lives of all Americans.
  In title I of this bill, this mark cuts $322 million of the 
President's request for youth programs serving 72,000 fewer at-risk 
youth, compared to the fiscal year 2000 level when the House cut $75 
million, serving 34,000 fewer youth. As a result, efforts to ensure 
that today's youth have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs and 
can compete successfully in the growing economy will be thwarted, 
hurting not only young people, but also employers and the economy.
  The funding of four programs that are of particular interest to me 
are grossly underfunded. The mark slashes the youth opportunities 
initiative grants by over 50 percent. The mark cuts summer jobs and 
year-round job training for 12,575 disadvantaged youth. Over half of 
these jobs go to 15- and 14-year-olds who generally are not employed by 
the private sector.
  This mark cuts funding for the President's proposed reintegration of 
services for 15,300 young offenders. With approximately 500,000 people 
leaving prison each year, the Nation needs to provide positive 
alternatives and opportunities for unemployment to these individuals.
  The mark rejects expansion of the safe schools, healthy schools 
initiative. These programs, Mr. Chairman, are in serious trouble. At 
the very least, this bill should work to protect the most vulnerable in 
our society.


   Rejects Expansion of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative

  The House zeros out the President's request to provide $40 million to 
enable DOL to join the existing DOJ, ED, HHS partnership in supporting 
community-wide programs to prevent youth violence and drug abuse, and 
to expand the effort to address out-of-school youth. Without these 
funds, no new communities can join this very successful effort.
  These programs are in serious trouble. At the very least this bill 
should work to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The cuts to 
these programs below the President's recommended budget and the FY 2000 
levels will produce tragic results for this nation's most vulnerable 
youth.
  This bill could have provided an opportunity for us to leverage the 
benefits of this booming economy so that no American is left behind. I 
appreciate all of the competing interests that must be balanced in this 
bill. Unfortunately the Chairman has been dealt a bad hand and he has 
been given an allocation that cannot adequately improve the lives of 
all Americans.
  In Title I of this bill, this mark cuts $322 million out of the 
President's request for youth programs, serving 72,000 fewer at-risk 
youth. Compared to the FY 2000 level, the House cuts $75 million, 
serving 34,000 fewer youth. As a result, efforts to insure that today's 
youth have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs and can compete 
successfully in the growing economy will be thwarted, hurting not only 
young people, but also employers and the economy. The funding for four 
programs of particular interest to me are grossly underfunded.


     Slashes the Youth Opportunities Initiatives by over 50 percent

  Congress provided funds for the first 2 years of a 5 year commitment 
by the President to increase the long-term employment and educational 
attainment of youth living in 36 of the Nation's poorest urban 
neighborhoods and rural areas. The House mark cuts $200 million out of 
the President's $375 million request, eliminating the proposed 
expansion to 20 new communities and potentially reducing third year 
grants to the existing 36 communities. This will deny 40,000 of some of 
the most disadvantaged youth a bridge to the skills and opportunities 
of our strong economy and alternatives to welfare and crime--including 
15,000 youth in the existing projects. The demand for these funds is 
high--over 160 communities sought these limited resources and developed 
the broad partnerships and comprehensive plans as part of last year's 
grant process. These deserving communities and their young people will 
not get a second chance.


Cuts summer jobs and year-round training for 12,575 disadvantaged youth

  For Youth Activities (the program that combines Summer Jobs and Year-
Round Youth), the House mark provides only $1.001 billion, a decrease 
of $21 million, or 2% below the President's request level. This action 
reduces the estimated number of low income youth for FY 2001 in this 
program by 12,575 below the request. These cuts will compound the 
difficulties communities are experiencing this summer due to the 
structural changes in the program required by the Workforce Investment 
Act. This important program provides the first work experience for many 
at-risk youth, offering an important first step that can lead to a life 
of self-sufficiency and independence. Over half of these jobs go to 14-
15 year olds who generally are not employed by the private sector.


 Cuts funding for the President's proposed reintegration services for 
                         15,300 young offenders

  The House mark rejects the President's $61 million increase for a $75 
million initiative to bring young offenders into the workplace through 
job training, placement, and support services, and by creating new 
partnerships between the criminal justice system and the WIA workforce 
development system. With the approximately 500,000 people leaving 
prison each year, the Nation needs to provide positive alternatives and 
opportunities for employment of these individuals, which will also 
strengthen the future of our communities. With the strong economy, this 
is an excellent time to address their re-entry into the job market. 
Raising their employment rates can decrease recidivism, reduce long-
term costs to society, and increase the pool of available workers.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce my intent to 
vote for this bill and to thank the chairman for including report 
language encouraging the National Institutes of Health to fund 
appropriate research to further explore the findings of Dr. Wakefield 
at the Royal Free Hospital in London on the safety and possible side 
effects of the MMR vaccine.
  As a physician myself, I consider maintaining the safety and public 
confidence in our vaccine program to be of vital importance to the 
health of America's children; and I applaud the chairman, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for his interest in this area. I am looking 
forward to working with him in the months ahead on this issue, and I 
too congratulate him on his years of service to his constituents and 
this body.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank the chairman for all his efforts and for a great bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to spend over $342 billion on this bill. 
That is a lot of money in anybody's circles. I particularly appreciate 
the increase in impact aid for our school system, in Fayetteville and 
Cumberland County, North Carolina.
  It is very simple, the issue is trust. Mr. Chairman, I would say to 
my friends on the other side and my chairman, do we trust our parents 
and our citizens to spend their money more wisely, or do we trust 
government to take the money from our hard-working citizens and then 
let government make the decisions on how that money is going to be 
spent?
  I think our parents, our teachers, and our local citizens can do a 
better job using their money to make the choices on how to raise, 
educate, and empower their children.
  Again, I support the bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).

[[Page H4062]]

  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss a 
program that has been left out of the Labor-HHS-Education bill as it is 
currently drafted, the Rural Education Initiative Act, which I 
introduced and which the House passed as part of H.R. 2 last October.
  The Rural Education Initiative Act provides small rural school 
districts with additional funds and flexibility to help meet their 
unique challenges posed by the most current Federal formula grant 
programs. It would affect about 39 States, has wide bipartisan support, 
and it has been endorsed by over 80 education organizations.
  I am fully aware that enacting the Initiative Act would require 
authorizing on an appropriations bill, and I hope the ESEA will be 
reauthorized and we will not have to ask the appropriators for their 
support. If ESEA is not reauthorized, there are a lot of small rural 
schools out there that cannot wait another year for Congress to act. 
They need the flexibility and they need the assistance now.
  Although I choose not to offer an amendment at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, I hope that as we continue through the process Members would 
consider adding the provisions of the Act to the bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to praise the increased funding for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This bill provides 
over $6 billion in funding for IDEA for fiscal year 2012. This is a 
$500 million increase in funding from last year, $210 million more than 
the President requested.
  Congress finally comes one step closer to honoring the commitment 
made to the States and local school districts 24 years ago. In 1975, 
Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the average per pupil 
cost to assist States and local schools. This chart shows the funding 
first by the Democrats, very slowly, and later by the Republicans, and 
we can see we are trying, so $500 million is a good beginning.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Porter) for all the work he has done on this bill 
with the types of constraints we have this year. I think it is a shame 
that in his last year here in Congress we could not have made it easier 
for him, but I think he has worked real hard to fund important programs 
to improve the education, health, and well-being of all Americans.
  I commend him very much for the hard work that he has done to double 
NIH over the 5 years, increase funding for graduate medical education 
for children's hospitals, and in strengthening our Nation's community 
health centers.
  From one who represents a very poor area, a very rural area, the fact 
that he has been able to increase our community health centers by $81.3 
million is a huge boost to those people who are underserved in my area, 
who do not have access to affordable health care, and every dollar that 
we spend on community health centers will help the insured have much 
more health care than they presently have.
  I also want to just mention quickly the $200 million increase for 
impact aid funding. These help reimburse our localities for revenues 
lost. I can tell the Members, with so much public land in my district, 
this is going to be a very big boost.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I, too, want to congratulate the chairman on a very fine bill.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, I would like 
to discuss the provisions of H.R. 4577 that fund the social security 
programs.
  Social security touches nearly every American family. In 1999, the 
Social Security Administration paid social security and SSI benefits to 
more than 50 million beneficiaries. Without a doubt, continuing to 
provide timely, accurate benefits and world class service will remain 
Social Security's number one mission in the years ahead.
  This mission will become more complicated as the huge Baby Boom 
generation enters its peak disability years and then reaches retirement 
age starting in 2008. By 2010 Social Security retirement benefit claims 
are expected to rise by 16 percent and disability claims by 47 percent. 
For an agency facing a wave of retirements by its own workers and high 
expectations from customers, that's a great challenge.
  This is no idle concern. Although Social Security is widely regarded 
as among the best-administered federal programs, the need to improve 
public service was highlighted in a recent report by the bipartisan 
Social Security Advisory Board.
  This report concluded ``there is a significant gap between the level 
of services that the public needs and that which the Agency is 
providing. Moreover, this gap could grow to far larger proportions in 
the long term if it is not adequately addressed.''
  That's why I'm pleased that the amount of funding provided for the 
Social Security Administration is very close to the Administration's 
request. The Commissioner requested, and was denied, a further $200 
million increase by the President.
  Through this bill, the Social Security Administration's funding has 
increased by nearly half a billion dollars compared to last year. 
That's a 7 percent increase, substantial by most standards as we try to 
adhere to our overall spending blueprint.
  I, for one, am quite willing to add resources to the Social Security 
Administration to provide better service, increase productivity, combat 
waste, fraud, and abuse, and further modernize technology at the 
agency. House floor action is just the first step. The Senate expects 
to approve funding at a level slightly higher but close to ours. We 
will then have the opportunity to work with the Administration to 
arrive at agreeable funding levels.
  Unfortunately, this agency finds itself in the midst of a very 
unusual set of budgetary rules. Its administrative expenses paid 
directly from payroll tax receipts, all benefits are considered 
mandatory expenses, yet due to complex and unclear scoring rules the 
costs to run this agency are counted as part of the discretionary 
spending cap.
  With budget surpluses both in the Social Security and non-Social 
Security categories, it is time for Congress to clarify these 
antiquated and haphazardly drawn budget rules so the Social Security 
Administration can effectively prepare for the service delivery 
challenges of the baby boom retirement. Workers who finance this vital 
program with their hard-earned wages will expect nothing less.
  In the coming days, I will introduce legislation which frees the 
Social Security Administration from these outdated scorekeeping rules 
to ensure workers and their families receive the public service they 
paid for and so well deserve.
  Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to testify before the Labor-
HHS Subcommittee regarding to show my commitment to the goal of 
doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health. The breath-
taking pace of NIH-sponsored research being conducted by scientists 
nationwide is only dwarfed by the tremendous amount of very promising 
research that is not yet funded.
  I strongly support the $20.8B in funding for NIH, a $2.7B increase 
over the current year.
  I would also like to briefly highlight my support for several 
specific areas of NIH research funded in this bill for Alzheimer's 
Disease, Cancer, Alpha 1 (alpha-1-proteinase inhibitor deficiency) and 
Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD).
  I also support H.R. 4577 because it contains $70.4B in funding for 
Medicare and $93.5B for the federal share of Medicaid. Make no mistake 
about it--this Congress is keeping our promise to provide health care 
to the most vulnerable Americans--seniors, women and children.
  And speaking of our children, there is no more important issue than 
education. I am proud that H.R. 4577 contains an increase of $1.65B for 
education programs. Roughly $40B will dedicated to the education of our 
children next year and this education funding deserves our strong 
support. Let me say that I believe we all wish that we could provide a 
larger increase for education programs, however, we also have a 
fiduciary responsibility to our children and grandchildren, and this 
bill does a good job of balancing each of these important priorities.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4577. It is a good 
bill put together by an excellent Chairman, Mr. Porter. I thank Mr. 
Porter for his exemplary tenure, and wish him the best in his 
retirement.

[[Page H4063]]

  Mr. Chairman, we plan to offer some legislation in the next few days 
which will help us as the baby boomers get into this very important 
retirement program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to use this time to respond to a 
couple of claims made by our friends on the other side.
  One of the speakers said they have had a big increase in the National 
Institutes of Health budget. What they are trying to do is have it both 
ways. This bill pretends that it is appropriating $2.7 billion in 
additional money for the National Institutes of Health, but it has 
language tucked into the bill which says that only $1 billion of that 
can be spent. I do not regard that as real money.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) indicated that this bill is 
$12 billion above last year. That is because they are pretending that 
last year's bill cost $85 billion, when in fact it cost $96 billion. 
They hid billions of dollars in spending last year. In fact, when we 
take a look at all appropriation bills last year, they hid more than 
$45 billion, so they are pretending that we are above a let's-pretend 
level of last year, which is $45 billion higher than they are 
continuing to admit.
  On Pell grants, they brag about what they are doing for Pell grants. 
What a double game their party has played on that issue. Last year they 
passed an authorizing bill telling the country they were going to raise 
Pell grants by $400 for the maximum grant. They then proceeded to cut 
that back to $175 in the appropriation bill they passed just 2 months 
later.
  Their presidential candidate came to my State. I want to read from 
this quote. The headline says, ``Bush averse to more college grant 
funding.'' Here is what it says from the Eau Claire Leader Telegram:

       Texas Governor George W. Bush gave strong indications 
     Thursday he is not inclined to increase Federal spending to 
     give more grants for students to go to college. Bush, who 
     attended both Yale and Harvard, conceded that some people 
     have complained that those loans carry a repayment burden. 
     ``Too bad,'' he said. ``That is what a loan is.'' Then he 
     went on to say, ``There is a lot of money available to 
     students and families who are willing to go out and look for 
     it. Some of you are just going to have to pay it back. That 
     is just the way it is.''

  That attitude just does not reveal what he thinks about student aid. 
It shows that we have Richie Rich not understanding how the other half 
lives and not bothering to find out. I would suggest that we can do a 
little better than this bill is doing on Pell grants.
  Then we are told what a wonderful deal this bill is on special 
education for disabled children. I want to point out, this bar graph 
shows that just 36 days ago this House passed legislation, the IDEA 
Full Funding Act, which said we were going to put $7 billion into that 
program. What are they putting in? $5.5 billion. I do not regard that 
as full funding, and I do not regard that as fulfilling their promise.
  I guess the only points we are making is that when we get down to the 
bottom line, there are three basic differences between them and us. 
They think we ought to spend $3 billion less on education than we do, 
they think we ought to spend $1.7 billion less on worker protection and 
$1 billion less on health care.
  We respectfully disagree. That is why we are going to vote no.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the minority party controlled 
the House of Representatives, and most of that time the Senate as well. 
For all of those years, for 30 of those years, at least, they ran one 
deficit after another, some of them approaching $300 billion a year.
  In the 5 years that the majority party has controlled the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, we have reduced the deficits to zero. 
We now run surpluses, and we are engaged in arguments as to how that 
money should best be spent.
  I believe very strongly we should commit to doubling the funding for 
the National Institutes of Health over 5 years, and we have provided 15 
percent for the last 2 years. We intend and will do our best to provide 
an additional 15 percent this year to get us to that ultimate doubling 
in the 5-year period on a compounding basis.
  It is fascinating to me that the minority wants to make an issue of 
that. We agree on it. The only difference is we are having to operate 
within the constraints of a budget resolution, and it is very easy to 
criticize when there are no constraints whatsoever.
  Special education is a great case in point. When they controlled the 
Chamber, they got it up to 6 percent. In the last 5 years, we have it 
up to 13 percent. We have increased funding for special education by $3 
billion over that time period, and are doing a much better job toward 
getting us towards that goal of 40 percent, where we ought to be, than 
has ever been done before. Yet, no credit is given by our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  I believe within the constraints of fiscal responsibility we are 
doing the best that we can to address the needs of people of this 
country. I recommend Members to support this bill very strongly.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow, the leadership of this House will 
ask us to support an estate tax cut that benefits fewer than two 
percent of Americans. You might ask--how much will it cost to give a 
tax break to this tiny fraction of Americans? The answer is $104 
billion over ten years, and an explosion of $50 billion per year after 
that.
  Today, the leadership of this House gives us the choice between 
special education children and our neediest children receiving Title I 
assistance, the children of the armed services, families who need child 
care and college students who need Pell Grants.
  Why must we rob Peter to pay Paul? Why do we have to choose today 
between our children with special needs and Ryan White AIDS funding? Or 
the Centers for Disease Control? Or mental health block grants? Or 
after-school funding?
  Because the leadership of this House would prefer to spend $104 
billion giving tax cuts to the estates of the wealthiest one of every 
1,000 people who die.
  But what about special education? The bill in front of us includes 
$6.6 billion in funding for special education, $514 million over last 
year's funding but far short of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill 
the longstanding federal commitment to our most vulnerable children.
  This $104 billion tax cut could fully fund the federal government's 
share of special education costs for six and a half years. This seems 
strange, because today we in the House will vote again and again to add 
needed money to special education, but our only choice is to divert it 
from other programs that benefit people who don't have K Street 
lobbyists--our kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I unequivocally support increasing funding for special 
education--I have supported it again and again on the floor of this 
House. In fact, I cosponsored my colleague Mr. Vitter's bill that would 
fully fund special education in two years.
  But it is clear to me, as it should be clear to the American people, 
that funding special education is unfortunately not the real priority 
of the leadership of this House.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress is the promotion of 
livable communities; communities that are safe, healthy and 
economically secure. By definition, livable communities must have a 
top-notch school system and must protect the physical and mental well-
being of children, adults and seniors. The annual Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education Appropriations bills form the primary 
Federal contribution to meet these critical needs.
  Unfortunately, this year's Labor, Health and Education bill (H.R. 
4577) falls short and I must oppose it. H.R. 4577 cuts from the 
President's budget $1 billion in teacher quality and improvement 
programs and $38 million that would have ensured 1.6 million elderly 
and disabled Americans receive quality nursing care. The bill also 
leaves out $1.5 billion in payments for the education of disabled 
children, money that the House of Representatives has indicated, by 
vote, should be provided to local school districts. The list goes on.
  I am extremely discouraged that H.R. 4577 underfunds health and 
education programs

[[Page H4064]]

while at the same time Congress is setting a course for a broken 
budget. Overall FY 2001 spending will certainly mark an increase over 
FY 2000 spending. With a $21 billion increase in defense spending for 
FY 2001, it is not hard to guess the priorities of this Congress. We 
are preparing to spend $60 billion over the next 15 years on a national 
missile defense system that will not work, but spending little in 
today's bill to ensure our children will grow up prepared to work.
  Tomorrow, the House takes up an estate bill that offers enormous 
benefits to a few hundred of the wealthiest people in America, whose 
billions in unrealized capital gains will pass to their heirs without 
ever having been taxed. When fully realized, these estate tax changes 
will drain $50 billion a year from the Treasury. I am a champion of 
providing targeted estate tax relief to family farms and businesses, 
which we can do for relatively few dollars. But instead of a targeted 
estate tax bill, one that would leave enough revenue to insure the 11 
million American children who go without health coverage or help 
seniors buy prescription drugs, Congress is racing to pass a fiscally 
irresponsible tax cut for those who need it least.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that H.R. 4577 is, and should be, a work in 
progress. Unfortunately, not enough progress has been made. I am voting 
``no'' with the knowledge that H.R. 4577 will be back in the House at a 
later date and call on my colleagues to rethink our funding priorities.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against 
this ill-conceived legislation that hurts working American families.
  This legislation will prevent the Department of Labor from issuing 
common-sense, scientifically-based workplace safety standards.
  These reasonable standards will ensure that workplace safety 
guidelines are in place to prevent increasingly common workplace 
injuries.
  More than 647,000 Americans suffer serious injuries and illnesses due 
to musculo-skeletal disorders each year.
  There injuries are currently costing businesses $15 to $20 billion 
annually in workers' compensation costs.
  Tragically, these injuries disproportionately affect women workers.
  Although women make up 46 percent of the workforce and 33 percent of 
those injured, 63 percent of repetitive motion injuries happen to 
women.
  Women experience 70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome injuries that 
result in lost work time.
  This is unacceptable and we must act now to prevent these injuries.
  Americans who are willing to work hard each day to support themselves 
and their families deserve reasonable standards to prevent workplace 
injuries.
  Many of the workers who will be covered by these common sense 
guidelines often work more than one job just to make ends meet.
  They work long hours loading trucks, moving boxes, and delivering 
packages.
  Their jobs aren't easy, but they are willing to show up every day and 
do their best.
  The last thing these hard-working Americans want is to get hurt. 
These sensible standards will keep them on the job and prevent costly 
workplace injuries.
  Opponents of these common-sense guidelines claim that they will 
``regulate every ache and pain in the workplace''.
  This is simply not true. These standards will only ensure that 
companies make someone responsible for ergonomic standards and that 
employees are not afraid to report these injuries. This is hardly an 
overwhelming request. Lets eliminate this language today and give hard-
working Americans the chance to avoid these career threatening 
injuries.
  I would also like to register my support for the additional resources 
requested by the Administration for the National Labor Relations Board 
and OSHA.
  These agencies are doing everything possible to improve the health 
and safety of the workplace. We should support their efforts.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand with hard-working Americans and 
to oppose this harmful legislation.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman. I stand in strong opposition to the passage 
of the 2001 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill because it 
severely cuts programs that are extremely important to the education of 
our children and because it hurts displaced workers. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  The first problem with this GOP bill is that it severely shortchanges 
education--by $3.5 BILLION. This bill would end our commitment to hire 
100,000 new teachers and to reduce class sizes. I am concerned by the 
fact that this bill would eliminate Head Start for some 53,000 children 
and cut $1.3 BILLION for urgent repairs to schools across the country. 
These are critical issues for my district and for many districts across 
the country. This bill will also eliminate school counselors serving 
100,000 children. This action will deprive schools of the professionals 
they need to identify and help troubled children.
  This bill also does considerable injustice to Bilingual and Immigrant 
Education. The amount included in the bill for programs addressing 
these issues is $54 million below the budget request. The professional 
development of our bilingual education teachers is critically 
important. The Labor, HHS, and Education bill in its current form 
provides an amount that is $28.5 million below the budget request for 
the important programs of Bilingual Education Professional Development. 
The grants that are provided for the development of our teachers in 
bilingual education are needed to increase the pool of trained teachers 
and strengthen the skills of teachers who provide instruction to 
students who have limited English proficiency. These funds support the 
training and retraining of bilingual teachers. The disparities in 
minority education will be increased if this bill is passed.
  Secondly, this bill severely shortchanges programs that assist 
displaced workers. This is a major issue for my constituents in El 
Paso, as I know that it is for many of you in your home districts.
  In El Paso and in other areas along the U.S./Mexico border, NAFTA has 
created many displaced workers, and this bill does an injustice to 
programs that could help them. For example, the bill cuts assistance to 
over 215,000 dislocated workers and it cuts the dislocated worker 
program by $207 million below the 2000 level. These cuts will make it 
more difficult for these workers to find jobs. This bill also cuts 
adult job training for almost 40,000 adults. The cuts in adult training 
programs equal $93 million or 10 percent below the request and 2000 
levels.
  Finally, this bill provides only $9.6 million for employment 
assistance to another class of displaced workers: Our homeless 
veterans. There are over a quarter million homeless veterans in this 
country, and the provisions in this bill will deny employment 
assistance to thousands of these Americans who have faithfully served 
their country. This is unacceptable.
  The root of these problems is that in order to pay for the proposed 
Republican trillion-dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, we 
are attacking programs that are needed to educate our children and to 
assist displaced workers. Again, I stand in strong opposition to 
passage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
  The bill before the House is very damaging to our nation's schools.
  It is simply unconscionable to cut education funding at a time when 
school enrollment is exploding. In my own district, in Orange County, I 
have seen the effect that the years and overcrowding have taken on our 
schools and the safety of those within them.
  I remind my colleagues that Americans have told us--time and time 
again--that education should be at the top of our nation's list of 
priorities. No education matter can be more important than keeping our 
schools safe.
  This bill backs down on our promise to hire new teachers to keep 
classes small. When classes are too large, teachers can't watch for the 
warning signs of impending trouble.
  This bill refuses to help schools with emergency safety repairs to 
their buildings. School officials can't focus on safety when they're 
worried about leaking roofs and rotting pipes.
  And I remind my colleagues that this bill even cuts school counselors 
serving 100,000 children. We know we need trained professionals to help 
keep our schools safe, yet this legislation cuts funding for school 
counselors.
  With this bill, we'll lose after-school care, teacher training, 
assistance for low-income communities, and Head Start programs. It 
endangers our communities and our schools, rather than improve them or 
make them safer.
  I will vote against this bill, because I believe that failing to 
invest in our children is not in our nation's best interests.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education appropriations bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, thanks to research done through the National 
Institutes of Health, the United States is the world leader in 
biomedical research. I wish to express my support for funding of the 
NIH in this Labor, Health & Human Services and Education Appropriation 
bill. As we all know we are working towards doubling the NIH budget in 
five years. Although funding in this bill is not sufficient to continue 
that effort, but I know Chairman Young and subcommittee Chairman Porter 
will be working towards that goal as they work to finalize this bill, 
so I will be voting for the bill.
  The benefits derived from biomedical research have led to medical 
breakthroughs that not only save lives, but have dramatically increased 
the quality of life for disease sufferers by decreasing levels of 
disability and reducing pain and suffering. We have proven that 
diseases can be detected, managed, eliminated

[[Page H4065]]

and prevented more effectively through new medical procedures and 
therapies. Nearly completed research on the deciphering the human 
genome will literally transform the practice of medicine.
  Despite these extraordinary advances that have made to fight disease 
over the past century, serious health challenges still exist. Chronic 
diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, 
cancer and stroke still pose enormous social and economic burdens to 
families throughout the world. Researchers in the United States, 
working through the NIH, are on the verge of finding cures for many 
diseases that still affect millions of people, but the key is funding 
to unlock the knowledge we need to find these cures.
  The economic costs of illness in the United States alone are 
approximately three trillion dollars annually. This represents 31% of 
the nation's Gross Domestic Product. While this research has spawned 
the biotechnology revolution, the future of that industry is dependent 
upon the continued advances in biomedical research by the NIH. It is 
estimated that an investment of one billion dollars in NIH research 
saves approximately forty billion dollars in future health care costs. 
One single breakthrough can lead to spectacular financial savings for 
American families who face the burden of increasing health care costs.
  While past accomplishments are helping to find cures for the major 
illnesses of today, we must also look to the future challenges and 
benefits that increased funding for biomedical research will provide. 
It is estimated that by 2025, one out of every five Americans will be 
over the age of 65. Because most of the chronic diseases and 
disabilities we face are associated with aging, it is vital that we 
double our research efforts. We must make the investment in research 
now to plan for the anticipated increase in the population of older 
Americans and to contain health care costs. In addition, the cost of 
illness threatens to rise because these diseases are constantly 
evolving to combat our own advances. Dangerous bacteria are growing 
more resistant to every new round of antibiotics that our researchers 
can discover. We must keep increasing funding for NIH to keep pace with 
the evolving face of disease.

  Medical research represents the single most effective weapon we have 
to combat healthcare challenges today and in the future. We must build 
on the tremendous advances we have made in conquering and preventing 
disease by accelerating the momentum behind our medical research 
efforts. Therefore, increasing the funding for the National Institutes 
of Health should remain a top Congressional priority.
  Two years ago, Congress pledged to double the NIH budget over a five 
year period. Since then, Congress has increased the NIH budget by 15% 
each of the last two years. It is now time for Congress to take the 
third step by providing another 15% increase, continuing us on that 
path. This requires a $2.7 billion increase, which would bring the NIH 
budget to $20.5 billion in FY 2001. We must stay on track to double the 
NIH budget by 2003. This is an investment that will dramatically 
improve the lives of countless Americans now and for years to come.
  Through this third down payment towards doubling the NIH budget, we 
look forward to enhanced research in some of the areas that have been 
presented at briefings to the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, 
which I co-chair. In fact, the increased investments that have recently 
been made are already leading to fundamental breakthroughs in the fight 
against disease. One exciting illustration of the results of this new 
research comes from recent progress on the development of new ``gene-
chip'' technologies, which can be used to generate genetic fingerprints 
that measure what genes are turned on or turned off in certain types of 
cancers. In the past year, American scientists have used gene chip 
technology to discover that several cancers that were once 
indistinguishable with standard diagnostic methods can now be 
distinguished by their genetic fingerprints. In one striking case, a 
type of cancer with highly variable outcomes has suddenly been 
recognized to be two different diseases. One type is aggressive and 
quickly fatal, the other is slower with a likelihood of longer 
survival. Thus, it may now be possible to identify patients with these 
two types of cancer and treat them differently with more appropriate 
therapies.
  Similarly, substantial new investments in biological computing and a 
new area called bioinformatics are catalyzing the fusion of clinical 
medicine, genetics, and information science. This important work will 
help us understand how each of our unique genetic constitutions 
predisposes us to different diseases and clinical outcomes.
  A final example comes from new investment in bioengineering. 
Important new understanding of organ physiology, and cell growth is 
emerging rapidly. In the coming years, we expect that new research in 
these areas, stimulated by increased funding, will lead to the 
construction of new heart, liver, and pancreatic tissue for those who 
wait for transplants or tissue-based therapy.
  I will support this bill with the knowledge that this Congress will 
do everything in its power to continue the effort to double the 
investment in the NIH over the next five years.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, they say that in politics, where you stand 
depends on where you sit. But the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations 
bill the Republican leadership has brought to the floor looks bad from 
every seat in the House.
  The bill fails our kids. It would undo the progress we've made toward 
improving the quality of education for every child by eliminating 
funding for the President's plan to hire 100,000 teachers, a plan we 
made a bipartisan down payment on last year. It would also force our 
children and teachers to continue working in overcrowded schools with 
leaky roofs and crumbling buildings, because this bill provides no 
funding for the President's school construction initiative. Finally, it 
provides ten percent less funding than the President requested for Head 
Start, guaranteeing that we will not be able to provide preschool 
education to all children who need it.
  The bill fails families. The Baby Boomers are often called the 
``sandwich generation'' because they often have to care for their 
children and their elderly parents. This bill fails those caregivers at 
both ends. It denies funding for the Family Caregiver Program, which 
provides support for 250,000 Americans who care for elderly or disabled 
relatives at home. It also cuts in half the President's increase in 
funding for child care, which will prevent 80,000 eligible families 
from getting help with child care.
  The bill fails senior citizens. This bill short-changes important 
senior programs like Meals-on-Wheels. It also shows the Republican 
Party's true colors on Medicare and Social Security by slashing funding 
for the Social Security Administration and the Health Care Financing 
Administration. Those agencies make sure seniors get their Social 
Security checks on time and receive the health care they're entitled 
to. Cutting the budgets of agencies that do this important work puts 
all seniors at risk.
  The bill fails workers. This bill would, for the sixth year in a row, 
delay a Department of Labor regulation which would help to prevent 
300,000 workers from being injured at work. Neither does it provide 
enough funding to operate the Unemployment Insurance program, which 
protects workers who lose their jobs. It cuts funding for worker 
training programs that help people get better-paying jobs with 
benefits.
  The bill fails millions of Americans who suffer from deadly diseases. 
Over the past 3 years, Congress has made three installments on a 
bipartisan promise to double funding for the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), the primary source of medical research in the United 
States. This year's increase is only six percent, far less than the 
fifteen percent increase needed to reach our goal in five years.
  Finally, the bill fails the taxpayers. Over the past few years, the 
Department of Health and Human Services had dramatically reduced fraud 
and waste in the Medicare program. This bill slashes funding for HHS' 
anti-fraud activities.
  The supreme irony here is that while the Republican Party is denying 
necessary funding for education, medical research and seniors, they 
plan to bring a tax bill to the Floor tomorrow that showers hundreds of 
billions of dollars in tax cuts on the very richest people in America. 
What does this say about the Majority's priorities.
  This bill fails kids, families, seniors, workers, and taxpayers. It 
does not deserve the support of the House, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership has once again 
succeeded in bringing to the floor a Labor, Health and Education 
Appropriations bill designed to please only themselves and their right-
wing friends. H.R. 4577 fails to make needed investments in public 
education and the domestic workforce, and, as the result, would 
undermine American competitiveness in the 21st century. This bill has 
already received what has now become its customary and well-deserved 
veto threat from the Clinton administration. It is clearly going 
nowhere, and should be soundly defeated.
  This bill was doomed from its inception, because the economic premise 
upon which it is based is flawed. Earlier this year, before the 
appropriations process began, the Republican leadership decided to 
resume its efforts to push for big tax cuts for the rich. They attached 
hundreds of billions of dollars of these tax cuts to the minimum wage 
bill and the budget resolution. This decision to squander the surplus, 
rather than invest it, severely reduced the funds available to meet 
many of our Nation's critical needs.
  Overall, the bill provides $2.9 billion less than the President 
request for the Department of Education, and $1.7 billion less for the 
Department of Labor. As the result, education,

[[Page H4066]]

job training, workplace safety, and other programs are either frozen or 
cut, significantly reducing the level of services that can be provided.
  For example, the bill would slash Title I funding, forcing school 
districts to cut back on assistance to disadvantaged students. The 
Clinton/Clay class size reduction initiative is gutted, leaving school 
districts without the resources to hire and train 20,000 more top-
quality teachers. Adequate funding is denied for after-school and 
summer programs intended to improve student achievement and reduce 
juvenile crime. And no funds are provided to renovate crumbling and 
unsafe schools.
  At the same time efforts are ongoing in the Congress to erase limits 
on the immigration of foreign workers to fill high-tech jobs, this bill 
would make steep cuts in the funding of training programs aimed at 
helping domestic workers fill them and other positions. Dislocated 
workers and at-risk youth are particularly hard hit by these cuts, even 
though they are the ones most in need of skills training. By failing to 
adequately invest in our own workforce, the Republican leadership is 
jeopardizing American competitiveness and prosperity.
  This bill also jeopardizes worker health and safety by shortchanging 
OSHA and blocking issuance of the ergonomics rule intended to prevent 
about 300,000 workplace injuries a year. The Wilson amendment would add 
insult to injury by cutting $25 million more from OSHA.
  Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill is a disaster. It fails to 
adequately invest in education, and in the development and security of 
the Nation's workforce. I urge a no vote on H.R. 4577.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired. Pursuant to the rule, 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments printed in Part A of House Report 106-657 are adopted.
  The amendment printed in Part B of the report 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 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.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4577

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


                    training and employment services

       For necessary expenses of the Workforce Investment Act, 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and 
     other facilities, and the purchase of real property for 
     training centers as authorized by the Workforce Investment 
     Act; the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional 
     Occupations Act; and the National Skill Standards Act of 
     1994; $2,552,495,000 plus reimbursements, of which 
     $1,340,155,000 is available for obligation for the period 
     July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002; of which $1,175,965,000 
     is available for obligation for the period April 1, 2001 
     through June 30, 2002, including $1,000,965,000 to carry out 
     chapter 4 of the Workforce Investment Act and $175,000,000 to 
     carry out section 169 of such Act; and of which $20,375,000 
     is available for the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 
     2004 for necessary expenses of construction, rehabilitation, 
     and acquisition of Job Corps centers: Provided, That 
     $9,098,000 shall be for carrying out section 172 of the 
     Workforce Investment Act, and $3,500,000 shall be for 
     carrying out the National Skills Standards Act of 1994: 
     Provided further, That no funds from any other appropriation 
     shall be used to provide meal services at or for Job Corps 
     centers.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois:
       Page 2, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,026,078,000)''.
       Page 2, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $572,578,000)''.
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $453,500,000)''.
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $253,500,000)''.
       Page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 3, line 4, insert before the period the following:
     : Provided further, That funds provided to carry out section 
     171(d) of the Workforce Investment Act may be used for 
     demonstration projects that provide assistance to new 
     entrants in the workforce and incumbent workers
       Page 4, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $154,000,000)''.
       Page 4, line 16, after the second dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $154,000,000)''.
       Page 5, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 16, beginning on line 21, strike ``up to $7,241,000 
     for the President's Committee on Employment of People With 
     Disabilities, and including''.
       Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $14,361,000)''.
       Page 18, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,364,000)''.

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have a sound and sensible 
amendment that adds $1.25 billion to skills programs at the Department 
of Labor.
  Specifically, this amendment adds $93 million to restore the 
President's request for adult skills training.
  It adds $389 million to restore the President's request for 
dislocated worker assistance.
  It adds $200 million to restore the President's request for youth 
opportunity grants.
  It adds $254 million to restore cuts in the summer jobs program 
resulting from the implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.
  It adds $61 million to restore the President's request for 
reintegration of youth.
  It adds $30 million to restore the President's request for incumbent 
workers, $50 million to restore the President's request for employment 
services, $154 million to restore the President's request for one-stop 
career centers.
  It adds $5 million to restore the President's request for homeless 
veterans, and it adds an additional $14 million to restore the 
President's request for disability initiatives.
  At the dawn of a new century, Mr. Chairman, America must close the 
skill gaps and open the doors of opportunity.

                              {time}  1345

  This amendment invests in skills training that America's workers need 
to compete and succeed in the new economy. Some have argued that since 
the economy is so strong, we can afford not to invest in skills 
training programs.
  I would argue that we cannot afford not to invest in skills training 
programs. An essential ingredient to sustaining the strong economy is 
to provide the skilled workers that businesses need. As Robert Kuttner, 
the BusinessWeek economist stated in his May 15, 2000 column, ``what's 
holding back even faster economic growth is the low skill levels of 
millions of potential workers.''

[[Page H4067]]

  This strong economy gives us the rare opportunity to bring skills and 
jobs to individuals and communities that have for too long been left 
behind.
  The demand for skilled workers means that the 13 million Americans in 
the untapped pools of potential, young people, displaced workers, 
individuals with disabilities, veterans and people who want to get off 
of welfare, have a chance to get and keep good, family-supporting jobs.
  Since January 1993, the unemployment rate has fallen 7.3 percent to 
3.9 percent, its lowest level in 30 years. Over 21 million new jobs 
have been created. Employment-population rates are at record highs.
  Yet, all have not prospered. Many Americans are being left behind. 
Pockets of extremely high unemployment, pools of untapped, 
underutilized workers exist; and the risk of becoming a dislocated 
worker remains high.
  In April 2000, there existed 13 million untapped and underutilized 
Americans: 5.2 million who are unemployed, 4.4 million who are out of 
the labor force but want to work, and 3.0 million who work part time 
but want to work full time.
  The booming economy has led employers to say that their growing 
inability to find skilled workers that they need has generated upward 
pressure on wages, translating into higher consumer prices.
  Concern is mounting that the broad-based skills shortages are putting 
our boom in jeopardy. Furthermore, it is inconsistent for Congress to 
disinvest in American workers at the very same time that we are 
debating the expansion of the H1-B visa program to offer job 
opportunities to foreign workers.
  The workers we need to keep our economy growing are right here. They 
are in our cities and in our rural areas. They simply need us to invest 
more in skills training, as the President proposed, not less, as the 
House bill proposes.
  This Congress passed bipartisan legislation in 1998, the Workforce 
Investment Act, to establish a workforce system, with One-Stop Career 
Centers as its cornerstone, that would provide employers with skilled 
workers they need and provide information and assistance for jobs and 
people seeking those jobs.
  This is the first year of implementation of the new system and the 
House bill will gut the investments critical to implementation of WINA 
as envisioned by Congress and the administration.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, very specifically places top priority 
on developing the skills of American workers, raising the participation 
of people with disabilities, strengthening the skills of youth and 
former welfare recipients, providing income support and training for 
dislocated workers, reintegrating ex offenders into the mainstream, and 
removing barriers, for example, childcare, that make it difficult to 
hold a job.
  The bill before us today puts our expansion in jeopardy and will 
prevent unprecedented prosperity from being even more broadly shared.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. We have never been at a more crucial time for investing in 
the skills of all Americans. If we do not take advantage of the 
opportunities this economy is providing right now, not next week, but 
right now, then we will, indeed, undermine our own potential as a 
Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Illinois insist on his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the minority has talked about cuts in many places in 
the bill. Where there is cuts is in the Department of Labor and several 
of the programs are actual cuts from the previous year. For example, in 
adult job training there is a cut from $950 million to $857 million. 
For dislocated worker assistance, there is a cut from $1.58 billion to 
$1.382 billion. For youth opportunity grants, there is a grant from 
$250 million to $175 million. Those are the major accounts that are cut 
in the Department of Labor appropriation.
  If I understand correctly, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) 
is offering amendments to add $1.25 billion back to the bill. The 
gentleman does not offer any offset and it's simply an addition of 
funds that would put his amendment beyond the budget resolution.
  The subcommittee, in recommending funding for adult training, youth 
training now including summer jobs and for dislocated workers, we 
recommended $3.2 billion in the bill. That is a reduction, as I say, of 
$300 million for these programs.
  In addition, we recommended funding for youth opportunities grants 
$75 million less than the year 2000, as I have stated, and less than 
the President's request.
  These levels are recommended because of limited budget resources and, 
particularly, Mr. Chairman, because of the state of the economy.
  According to the Department of Labor, in their 1999 annual report, 
unemployment averaged 4.2 percent in 1999, the lowest rate since 1969, 
the lowest rate in 20 years. A greater percentage of the population 
aged 16 and over is employed now than at any other time in U.S. 
history.
  Minorities are making significant gains in employment, with 
unemployment among African Americans falling to 7.6 percent in May 
1999, the lowest rate ever recorded. Hispanic unemployment reaching a 
record low of 5.9 percent in March of 1999.
  The poverty rate has fallen to 12.7 percent in 1999, the lowest rate 
since 1979. The unemployment rate has been below 4.2 percent since 
October of 1999, and payroll employment has grown by 2.3 persons since 
that time.
  In other words, our economy is doing better than ever before, because 
there are more jobs than ever before. There is less unemployment than 
ever before. There is less unemployment among minorities in our country 
than ever before.
  The money for job training, for adult job training, for dislocated 
workers, for youth opportunities, that is important money, but there 
are fewer people that need to be served in this astounding economy than 
there have been previously. We believe that there is sufficient money 
to serve the people that need the funding to provide opportunities for 
them, and we believe that the cuts therefore, are justified.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding, and I want to just say at the very outset that I 
agree with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when he says that 
our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had 
been dealt a different hand in the budget debate, in the budget 
resolution, that we might indeed be looking at stronger investments in 
this area.
  Mr. Chairman, our concern today is something that is consistent with 
what something the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said, that our 
ability to sustain the current period of economic growth hinges on 
continued investment in the skills of American workers.
  But the gentleman rightfully acknowledged in title I there are 
significant cuts; is there anything we might be able to do to improve 
upon those cuts?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously, moving the 
bill at this point is part of a longer process. We will sit down with 
the Senate that marked up a bill at $5.5 billion higher than our 
allocation and perhaps there will be.
  But, again, I believe that this is an area, while it is of great 
importance and is needed, the demand for these funds is lower because 
of a high employment rate, a very low unemployment rate and even so 
among minorities.
  I certainly intend to do my very best within the funds that we have 
available ultimately to address these needs, as well as others. I think 
we have done a proper job in putting this at a fairly low priority 
because of the strength of our economy in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words,

[[Page H4068]]

and I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson).
  It is absolutely true that we have the lowest unemployment rate in 
generations. It is absolutely true that we have more jobs than ever in 
this economy, but you have heard the joke where a fellow is watching 
the politician on the television screen talking about all of the new 
jobs created, and he turns to his wife and says a lot of jobs are 
created, and I have got three of them.
  There are lots of people who are working at low-paid jobs. Just a 
couple of months ago I ran into a single mother in Rhinelander, 
Wisconsin. Her husband had walked out on her, working like crazy at 
three different jobs trying to keep her head above water and support a 
child.
  With all of the golden glow that we have on our economy, there is not 
yet enough to reach that woman, and hundreds of thousands just like her 
all over the country.
  Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve said this ``the rapidity of 
innovation and the unpredictability of the directions it may take imply 
a need for a considerable investment in human capital. Workers in many 
occupations are being asked to strengthen their cognitive skills, basic 
credentials by themselves are simply not enough to ensure success in 
the workplace. Workers must be equipped not simply with technical know-
how but also with the ability to create, analyze and transform 
information and to interact effectively with others. Moreover, that 
learning will increasingly be a lifelong activity. And it is not enough 
to create a job market that has enabled those with few skills to 
finally be able to grasp the first rung of the ladder of achievement.
  ``More generally, we must ensure that our whole population receives 
an education that will allow full and continuing participation in this 
dynamic period of the American economy.''
  That was said by one of those well-known fiscally irresponsible left-
wing radical's, Alan Greenspan.
  If you take a look at what this amendment is trying to do, I defy you 
to tell me it is not needed. This bill eliminates all funding for one 
stop career centers, America's labor market information system that the 
administration is trying to promote. It cuts assistance to $215,000 
dislocated workers. It eliminates assistance from 220,000 unemployment 
insurance claimants. It cuts adult job training for 37,000 adults. It 
eliminates the President's proposal to assist 80,000 noncustodial 
parents and low-income parents. It cuts employment assistance to 3,100 
homeless veterans, on and on and on and on.
  You can use any justification you want to explain the fact that this 
Congress apparently thinks more of providing tax cuts for the 
wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country than it does in 
providing a help up the job ladder for the poorest folks in our society 
or the least lucky in our society. But those are not our set of values 
on this side of the aisle, and I think the amendment offered by the 
gentleman demonstrates clearly what a preferable set of values would 
be.
  It just seems to me that if we can afford tomorrow to say to someone 
who is unfortunate enough to inherit $5 million, if we can afford to 
bleed all over the floor for that person, say, oh, you have such a 
burden, we are going to eliminate your taxes, then it seems to me we 
ought to be able to provide a few more nickels for people who need to 
upgrade their job skills.
  This bill is clearly not adequate on that score, and I recognize that 
we are in a Wizard of Oz situation here, an Alice in Wonderland 
situation, because we may be able to offer an occasional amendment but 
we will not be able to get a vote on it because the rules preclude us 
from getting a vote.
  This is the only way we have to try to identify what we think are the 
inadequacies of this bill. And it is the simple question, do you think 
the economy is going to be helped more by adequately equipping every 
single American worker or by giving those who already have so much some 
more? I think the answer to that ought to be obvious.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of 
order.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Again, I would like to remind Congress, for the 20 years I sat here 
in the minority, we saw job-training programs being proliferated one 
after another until we got to 166 job-training programs. All of them so 
small that they were worthless, spread out over every agency downtown, 
30 agencies as a matter of fact.
  It was not until 1998, as a matter of fact, when we finally got 
people to stop that nonsense and said, what one has to do now is 
combine these programs, eliminate the bad programs, keep the good 
programs, combine them, get them back to the local area where the 
people know better what jobs are available and what jobs will be 
available in the future.
  I would remind my colleagues that it is not until July 1 of this year 
when every State must have their workforce boards in place in order to 
meet the requirements of the Workforce Development Act, too early to 
call how well we have done because the real blow comes on July 1 when 
every workforce development board must be in place by those States.
  So, again, for all those years, we had a golden opportunity to 
provide quality job-training programs. But we chose not to think about 
quality, only about quantity.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) would be able to 
respond a little more specifically to the amendment and the request 
that we have in this amendment to add $93 million to the adult skills 
training program.
  If the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be kind enough to respond to 
our very simple question to increase the spending in this bill for $93 
million for just one of the programs that I outlined in the title 1 of 
the bill.
  Our goal, Mr. Chairman, is to increase, in light of what Chairman 
Alan Greenspan indicated that we need to invest more money in 
underskilled, underutilized workers. I understand the comments of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania a few moments ago, but I was hoping that he 
would respond more specifically to the thrust of this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, again, if I had all the money in the 
world, and I were in charge, my goal would be to take the quality 
programs, make them better, and spend as much money as you must spend 
in order then to make sure that we close that achievement gap, to make 
in order that we have improved the life of each American.
  But that is not what happened. For all of those years, we spent the 
money. Title I is a good example, $140 billion. It did not close the 
achievement gap one little iota. In fact, it may have even gotten 
worse, because no one cared whether it was a quality program. They only 
said more money will do the job. We will cover more children. Again, 
the disadvantaged suffered.
  For all of these years, the only argument I have ever heard on this 
floor, and will hear it a million times again today, the only argument 
to conceal the failure of well-meaning programs that no one would allow 
us to make them work is, oh, a tax cut for the rich. I have heard that 
over and over and over again.
  The problem is we have got to admit, as I told my committee over and 
over again, we have got to first admit the programs did not work. Then 
we have to be creative enough to make them work. That is what we have 
been trying to do in our committee.
  I think we are going to have some success. I will not be here to see 
the success, but I think we have made the progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) to know there are many of us on this side of the aisle who, 
for years,

[[Page H4069]]

shared his concern. But the issue, in my judgment, is how did we 
legislate excellence. The gentleman and I know it is very difficult. 
The challenge is, of course, to fund the programs that do work.
  I would like to say, as I will speak later on my own time, that I 
join with the gentleman in wanting to support these good programs that 
do work; and I would be delighted to work with him and his successors 
in figuring out, as I ask every time in every hearing, how do we 
legislate excellence.
  But the answer is not to cut back when there is so many people who 
need the education, they need the retraining, because not everyone is 
benefiting from this great economy.
  So I am sure my colleagues on this side of the aisle would be 
delighted to work with the gentleman's successors to make sure that 
these programs are delivering. That is the challenge to all of us. We 
do not want to fund everything.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) wish to 
continue to reserve the point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe to add to this debate a little bit, particularly 
when it was brought up to the issue of local groups that are using 
these programs and find them to be important in delivery of employment, 
I just would like to add into this.
  I have a letter here from a mayor, Paula DeLaney out of Gainesville. 
And she writes to me, ``Dear Representative Thurman: We have just 
learned that severe cuts in the Department of Labor's FY 2001 
appropriations are under consideration by both the House and Senate, 
and that these may eliminate or severely reduce funding for One-Stop 
Career Centers, Adult Employment and Training, Dislocated Workers 
Programs, and the Youth Opportunities Program. I am writing to tell you 
of the crucial importance of these threatened programs to Gainesville 
and to request your help in obtaining the resources needed to sustain 
our community's workforce investment system.'' Work force investment 
system.
  She goes on to say, ``The impact on Gainesville would include the 
following should these threatened cuts occur: To eliminate or reduce 
the One Stop Center Program would deny our local employers a single 
point of contact to list openings and find skilled workers.
  ``To cut Adult Employment and Training would deny many of our 
citizens the ability to obtain skills training needed for today's 
workplace.
  ``To reduce the Dislocated Workers Program would cause hardship to 
those citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves 
unemployed.
  ``To reduce the Youth Opportunities Program would create the most 
severe impact of all. While the national unemployment rate has remained 
low, teenagers still face very high unemployment. Even more significant 
would be the impact on the future of our African American youth, 
already documented as disadvantaged in the competition for employment.
  ``All of these programs are now used to train our workforce and to 
provide local employers with a pool of skilled workers. I urge you to 
see that funding for an employment training program is restored. These 
programs are essential to local governments and to the citizens they 
serve. Thank you for your consideration.
  Sincerely, Paula M. DeLaney, Mayor.''
  But even on another note, let me just say, we have had businesses in 
our offices for the last 6 months telling us they do not have enough 
workers. The unemployment is so low we do not have workers out there. 
We are all scrambling up here. How are we going to get high-tech 
workers? So we have the H1B program so we can bring over 200,000 
people.
  But you are cutting out of this bill an opportunity for hundreds of 
thousands of people to have an opportunity to participate. That is just 
flat wrong. Not to mention what about the nurses, teachers, the 
shortages that we have all been talking about. Every State legislature 
in this country is grappling with getting good teachers, nurse 
shortages, all of these areas that are critical to quality of life of 
our communities.
  Let us not shut down these issues for our communities to succeed and, 
most importantly, to have a skilled workforce that is desperately 
needed in a time of low unemployment. I commend the gentleman for 
bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, look what this Congress 
did just a few weeks ago in taking the lid off of Social Security 
income because employers all over the country were telling us there are 
not enough skilled workers. Look at what we are doing with additional 
visas to bring these foreign workers into this country because 
employers are telling us they cannot find enough skilled workers. All 
you have to do to understand why this amendment is necessary is open 
your eyes, open your ears, and read your mail.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have given hope to 
employers by having skilled workers. We all will hear from our 
communities about how important these issues are. Let us not shut out 
the very same people that you talked about giving these programs to now 
have gotten them developed, have done a good job, and then pull the rug 
out from underneath them.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just talk a little bit about some of the 
priorities that we have put in this bill that are very good that 
address the very needs that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are bringing up.
  But first I want to remind this body that, for nearly a generation 
under Democrats' control, this Congress continued to overspend the 
amount of money that was coming into the Federal Government. They 
continued to spend every penny of the Social Security surplus. They 
continued to spend every penny of the Medicare surplus.
  What was the money spent on? It was spent on too many programs that 
were too inefficient. Instead of stopping and looking at what we were 
doing to find out what works, what is the best investment in our 
dollars, we just continued to blindly throw money at the program, at 
different programs.
  I see this continuing now in some of the proposals. I have a chart 
here that talks about one of the high priorities in this bill. It is a 
program that works, and it works for the people who are in need of 
finding good programs or good jobs and in need of getting good skills, 
and that is the disadvantaged youth in America.
  This chart shows that, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 
1995, a slight increase in the job corps funding. But under Republican 
control, we put a priority in job corps funding because it works. It is 
a substantial investment in this job corps program.
  Now, this funding is part of the Federal effort to provide employment 
assistance to the disadvantaged youths between ages 16 and 24, those 
people who are just trying to develop their skills, trying to find 
their place in life. It is accomplished through programs that have a 
proven track record. Since 1995, over $300 million has been added to 
the job corps program, a nearly 30 percent increase over that time.
  Now, the investment in the job corps is an investment in a program 
that has been proven to work for specifically disadvantaged youths. I 
want to emphasize that point. A recent independent evaluation program 
found that job corps participation led to an increase in one full 
school year of time spent in education and training, training that 
focused on vocational skills.
  There was a substantial increase in student attainment of GED and 
vocational certification, an 11 percent earnings gain for job corps 
participants, and a reduction of 20 percent in arrests, convictions, 
and incarcerations of job corps participants.
  Under the appropriation, since 1995, 11 job corps centers have been 
added, including the fiscal year 2001 request before the House. From 
1989 to 1995, this period here on the left side of the chart, under the 
Democratic-controlled House, only four job corps centers were added in 
the national total.
  Now, some of the excuses for this blind deluge of more money into 
this

[[Page H4070]]

bill I think comes from the argument they say that there is this tax 
cut that has been threatened by the Republicans. Well, we have overpaid 
the cost of government, and we do want to return that change. When one 
goes to McDonald's and one orders $4.50 worth of food, one expects 50 
cents of change back.
  When one has the price of government being overfunded, the change 
ought to go back to the taxpayers, those people who work so hard.
  Well, we have overpaid the cost of government. There is room for tax 
relief. Still we are protecting every penny of Social Security surplus, 
every penny of Medicare surplus. This money that was in the past spent 
on programs that did not work, we have dedicated this money to Social 
Security, the surplus from Social Security, dedicated the surplus from 
Medicare to Medicare. Still there remains money coming in that is over 
and above the cost of government.
  So when we do look at what programs that we are going to fund, we 
ought to fund those that have a proven track record, eliminate those 
that are not very efficient and continue.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Maybe there is a little misunderstanding of my amendment because it 
keeps getting couched in Democratic and Republican terms, who controls 
the House, who does not control the House. I know the gentleman's 
strong advocacy for youth.
  My amendment specifically adds $200 million to restore the 
President's request for youth opportunity grants, and it adds an 
additional $61 million to restore the President's request for the 
reintegration of youth into the economic mainstream.
  Would the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) please comment on 
whether or not he supports that idea in his advocacy for the youth and 
whether or not he supports my amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would like to listen, I do 
support advocating for youth, especially disadvantaged youth, and I 
think we do so through this bill and the priorities that we have 
established through the job corps and other areas.
  I think the reason that we have brought in other issues is to respond 
to what has been brought up by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
and others.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tiahrt was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to welcome the gentleman 
aboard. I know it has been a long road on the road to Damascus, but I 
have been here long enough to remember when the majority party was 
singing hosannas because Ronald Reagan was trying to zero out the Job 
Corps and David Stockman said that it did not work, despite the fact 
that three studies from his own shop showed that it did. I also recall 
that just 3 short years ago the majority party tried to cut $100 
million out of the President's request for Job Corps.
  So I welcome the conversion. I wish it had come sooner, but Allah be 
praised; hosanna; thank God; alleluia; welcome aboard.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I guess we can expect 
the gentleman's support for this bill on final passage, now that we 
have agreed together that we have an emphasis on Job Corps. I thank the 
gentleman for his vote on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). He has put forth a number of 
propositions. Those propositions are that we have an outstanding 
economy; we have a surplus.
  Our colleagues differ on the reason for that. My view is that because 
of 1990's bill, which they largely voted against, and the 1993 economic 
program, which every one of them voted against, we have this economy 
and we have these surpluses. As a matter of fact, as they, I am sure, 
know, their own CBO just 2 years ago said that the reason we have the 
surplus is because of the 1993-94 Congress, which, of course, the 
Democrats controlled. And in the two Congresses subsequent to that, the 
Republicans added $12 billion to the debt, while we reduced it $142 
billion. So that is what the Republicans' CBO says.
  But that aside, this is a substantive important debate. It is about 
priorities. And I want to say to my friend, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for whom I have, as he knows, unbridled respect and 
affection, he got up initially in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois and said, look, we have the best economy that 
we have had in a very long period of time. We have 3.9 percent 
unemployment. And as a result of that, people are employed, people are 
working, and, therefore, they do not need the services and, therefore, 
we can cut, as he said, in real terms these programs.
  Now, I hope the chairman will listen to me, because while his general 
proposition may be true, it is not true for one of the specific cuts 
that I am going to speak on. This bill adds $14 million back into the 
bill through this amendment for those with disabilities.
  In 1990, in a very bipartisan way, we passed the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. George Bush signed that act on July 26, 1990. One of 
the titles in that bill was to get those with disabilities into the job 
force so that they could work, so that they could support themselves, 
so that they would have a substantial measure of self-respect.
  As the chairman well knows, there are only 29 percent of those with 
disabilities who are working in America today. Only 29 percent. Now, 
that means, without much math, that 71 percent of those with 
disabilities are not working. It is not 3.9 percent, 14 percent, 18 
percent, or 25 percent. It is 71 percent of those with disabilities who 
are not working. So Secretary Herman suggested to the President that we 
add some money into this bill, approximately $21 million, for the 
purposes of establishing an office that would reach out to those with 
disabilities, reach out to employers and bring them together so that 
they could be employed and have, as Mr. Gingrich so often referred to, 
an opportunity society. Well, it meant, as George Bush said, an 
opportunity society for those with disabilities.
  What the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is trying to do is to 
say that Secretary Herman and President Clinton were correct; that we 
need to make this effort, we need to make sure those with disabilities 
are brought into the workforce. And I would say to my friend that over 
three-quarters of those who are not working want to work. They want to 
work. What this initiative of the President, which the gentleman has 
cut out of his bill, is trying to do is to help those people work.
  We passed a welfare bill. It was controversial, but its premise was 
that in America if an individual can work, they should work to support 
themselves and to have a sense of self-worth and good feeling about 
themselves. We know that that expands the ability of human beings to 
feel good about themselves and be healthy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. We are trying to figure out exactly what the gentleman is 
referring to when he is talking about the disabled in the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. The Office on Disabilities is cut $14 million in the 
chairman's bill from the President's request of $21 million or $23 
million.
  Mr. PORTER. From the President's request. I see.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman that it is flat funded at $9 million. But this is a new 
initiative. So the entire thing is cut. This is a new initiative to 
switch from the commission into an office. And the premise of Secretary 
Herman was that we were not succeeding.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) said, well, if we are 
succeeding, do away with the program. If we are not succeeding, do away 
with the program.

[[Page H4071]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HOYER. So the Secretary's premise, Mr. Chairman, was to add this 
money, which the President included in his bill, $14 million, to reach 
out to those with disabilities.
  When George Bush, Republican President of the United States, signed 
the disabilities act on July 26, 1990, he said to all those with 
disabilities in America, 43 million people then, over 50 million now, 
he said to all those folks that we want to include them in; we want to 
give them the opportunity to work. But we have not succeeded. Why? 
Because we have not made the effort.
  We passed the bill. Very nice. As the American public knows, to say 
in a statute rhetoric that they are free or they can work or they are 
going to be educated is fine, but if we do not work to make that happen 
and it is not reality, our country loses, and those with disabilities 
lose.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to my colleague that, 
obviously, part of our problem is the allocation that we had to work 
under. We do consider this to be an important priority; and, of course, 
we will do our best when we go to conference to try to address this 
issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would hope we would, 
therefore, adopt the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) with employment of people, and I find it interesting to 
hear some descriptions, because I keep hearing from the White House and 
from the administration talk about the booming American economy. I know 
we had new figures in Oklahoma that show we have the lowest 
unemployment, which means the best employment, in decades; under 3 
percent.
  It may be different in the gentleman's district or in the gentleman's 
State, but right now businesses all over the country are saying that we 
have got to give them more visas to bring immigrants in from other 
countries to do the jobs because there are so many jobs available in 
the United States of America. And yet it sounds like the gentleman is 
saying, gosh, we have to help people find work.
  If we look at these programs, because I know some are like summer 
jobs initiatives, hundreds of millions of dollars proposed so that 
mayors in cities all over the country can put on these seminars and 
say, oh, this is the mayor's summer job fair for youth. And it happens 
in most every city in the country. How many people know that that is 
coming out of the Federal Treasury, so mayors all over the country can 
claim responsibility for kids working? Except a lot of those are, 
frankly, make work jobs. They are not really working. Some of them are 
sitting around listening to music but being paid for it.
  I realize that is not always the case, and I know that is not what 
the gentleman from Illinois intends. But when employment is up and 
unemployment is down, they say, well, the answer is we have to spend 
more on Federal job programs. And, of course, if employment is down and 
unemployment is up, they say, oh, that is another sign we need to spend 
more money on Federal job programs. Whether times are good, times are 
bad, times are indifferent there is only one answer we hear; we have to 
spend more. Why? Not because there is a real need. The need, as people 
see it, is political. They want to tell people if they want to work, 
they are going to be beholden to a politician, because we want their 
first, their first effort to be to turn to some sort of Federal job 
program so that a Congressman or a mayor or somebody else in politics 
can claim credit for getting them work.
  Well, let me tell my colleagues, the economy does not boom because 
government is out there with make-work programs or Federal work 
programs. It booms when we enable businesses, private individuals, to 
flourish and hire people. And believe me, there are tons of jobs out 
there for kids this summer and for adults as well. That is what we 
want. But is there not ever a moment of relief when we say we have had 
some success with getting the American economy going so there are 
opportunities for people if they are just willing to take them? We say, 
oh, no, no, we cannot do that. We have to have more Federal money 
instead.
  Why not relieve the tax burden on people, not have so many Federal 
programs, not teach them that they should be beholden to somebody in 
politics for the right to work? Teach them self-accountability, teach 
them the free enterprise system. We have tons of Federal job programs 
already, billions of dollars each year, and I do not think it is 
justified to say we should quit paying down the national debt so that, 
instead, we can add another $200 million to these spending programs. I 
do not think that is the way to go.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise first of all in strong support of the Jackson 
amendment. But before I get to why this amendment is so crucially 
important in our new economy, where we are involved in trade and worker 
dislocation and underskilled and unskilled workers, I want to join in 
the chorus of accolades for the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  There are a lot of great things we can say about the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and his devotion to education and his hard work 
in his district, in his independence in his voting record, fighting for 
what he believes in, but I want to state in one area of this bill, 
where he has fought to increase the National Institutes of Health 
spending, where I have children and young people in my district that 
get on a plane, oftentimes once a month to go from Indiana to 
Washington, DC., to get help at that National Institutes of Health, 
that that funding increase is saving lives all over the third district 
of Indiana, the State of Indiana, and the world, literally, and we 
thank the gentleman for his efforts in that area.
  On this Jackson amendment, I want to state my unequivocal support. 
The chairman knows that we are in a new world, with new challenges, and 
a new economy. And in this new world we have challenges, such as how do 
we help our workers get cradle-to-grave training in unskilled and 
underskilled areas?
  In my district, in the third district of Indiana, in the Midwest, the 
heart and soul of manufacturing in this country, we have many of our 
workers that are currently trying to move from the tool box to new 
technology and training. They are trying to move from how to work with 
a power drill and a hammer and a screwdriver to a robotic arm and a 
computer. This Jackson amendment helps the unskilled worker and the 
underskilled worker get those skills to move from the tool box to the 
technology of the future.
  The second reason I support the Jackson amendment is because it deals 
with dislocated workers. Now, we just had 237 people vote for the China 
trade bill, and we are going to have some dislocation in trade in the 
world. New Democrats, for one, believe that we need to follow up on our 
trade votes with investing in the workers of this country and making 
sure that they can survive in this new economy; that we can export 
products into China, not jobs into China.

                              {time}  1430

  So we need to make sure this dislocated worker that was in a foundry 
gets the new skill to go work in a chip manufacturing plant.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this Jackson amendment realizes the importance of 
investing in underskilled, investing in unskilled workers. This Jackson 
amendment understands the new economy and the challenges of trade. This 
Jackson amendment understands that we need, with our business community 
and our unions, one of the biggest challenges, new workers and more 
skilled and more productive workers. That is what we are investing in 
with the Jackson amendment, to make sure that skilled workers are a 
premium and that we do not just address the challenges of this economy 
by bringing in H-1B visa personnel from India and

[[Page H4072]]

China but we invest in our workers here in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Roemer was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is very, very specific. The activities 
covered for youth in this House bill is 599,400 youth will be covered 
under this bill. Our amendment moves that number to 739,000 youth. For 
youth opportunities, the House bill covers 40,700 Americans. Our bill 
moves that number to 84,600 Americans.
  For young offenders, it moves the House bill from 3,500 youth under 
the bill to 18,800 youth under the bill; adult activities from 342,800 
to 380,000.
  I want it thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his 
strong support of this amendment. This is a pro-American amendment, not 
a Democratic amendment, particularly at a time, as the gentleman 
pointed out, that our economy is doing so well. Let us spread the 
wealth.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is a pro-American 
amendment, it is a pro-worker amendment, and it is a pro-business 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson amendment and 
with great respect for our distinguished Chair, because I am sure that 
he would be willing to work with us to sit down and figure out a plan 
so we can help strengthen our workers and make sure that all of our 
citizens have the opportunity to succeed.
  This amendment invests in the adult, youth, and dislocated worker 
training that Americans need to compete and succeed in the new economy. 
Investing in training is not only good sense, it is good business. An 
essential ingredient to sustaining a strong economy is to ensure that 
we are training the skilled workers that this economy needs.
  Since January 1993, the unemployment rate has fallen, we have heard, 
from 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent, its lowest level in 30 years. And that 
is great. Over 21 million new jobs have been created. Employment 
population rates are at a record high. That is great news.
  But, unfortunately, many Americans have not shared in these benefits. 
They may live in areas of extremely high unemployment, areas where the 
industries are changing, workers are underutilized, where the risk of 
becoming a dislocated worker remains high. Americans are worried. In 
fact, last year 33 percent of workers surveyed said they were 
frequently concerned about being laid off. This figure exceeds, much to 
my surprise, comparable figures of 17 percent and 21 percent in 1979 
and 1989 at similar points in the business cycle and even exceeds the 
rate during the 1981-1982 recession.
  We cannot completely protect American industry and workers from the 
vast changes in our economy, but we can do something to address their 
concerns and their needs for retraining.
  To keep the good economy going, we need to intensify, not reduce, our 
efforts to increase access to broad-based skills training. Now is the 
time. The unprecedented strength of this economy gives us the rare 
opportunity to bring skills and jobs to individuals and communities 
that have for too long been left behind.
  There are approximately 13 million Americans, men and women, moving 
from welfare to work, young people who have dropped out of school, 
displaced workers, individuals with disabilities and veterans who need 
the training and the opportunity to get and keep good family-supporting 
jobs.
  I do not see my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Istook), 
on the floor, but I did want to address some of his comments. I agree 
with my colleagues who understand that we have to invest in the 
programs that do work and discontinue the programs that do not work. 
But there is a difference. Maybe there is a distinction between our 
sides of the aisle.
  I believe that we need better evaluation of programs that are not 
working. We have to make sure they are really training our young people 
for the jobs that exist, not cut them out.
  Now, there are some who would say, and I think the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) was saying that before, that if a program is not 
working, get rid of it. I see too many young people who need the 
training to get the new jobs. And as we were talking before, no matter 
which side they are on the recent trade debate, we are here asking for 
more visas to bring people in from India and China, more skilled 
workers in.
  There are too many people in our country who need that training to be 
part of the new economy. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment of 
my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  We have a responsibility at this time of prosperity to make sure that 
we are reaching out and giving every young person that opportunity to 
get the training so that they can succeed, and I think that is what 
this is all about.
  So I want to applaud the gentleman and support him. I know that our 
chairman will be happy to work with us later on in the process, and I 
hope we can continue to invest in these programs so we can train our 
workers that are being displaced.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, 
and I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order; 
and, without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), who was not here when the chairman of the full 
committee spoke, that we have, as the gentlewoman knows, recently 
eliminated over 150 job-training programs and consolidated those into a 
much, much smaller number. And, as he mentioned, evaluations are being 
conducted today to determine whether they are providing the kind of 
results we are looking for, for people or not. We do not yet have that 
data, but we believe that they are undoubtedly doing a much better job 
than all the little programs did in terms of getting results for 
people.
  I would also say to the gentlewoman that, since most of these 
programs are administered through the States where there are pockets of 
unemployment that are higher than in other areas, the States can direct 
their money to where it is most needed. So there is a flexibility 
enough in the programs to address needs that are particular at any one 
place.
  I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has left the floor, 
but he mentioned the need for support for workers that are displaced by 
trade. That is a mandatory program in the Department of Labor. It is 
funded at $94 million, and funds there should be ample to take care of 
people that might be displaced by reason of trade rather than for other 
reasons.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for his 
comments. I appreciate his efforts to provide for evaluation dollars to 
make sure these programs are effective.
  I would just say that where there may be some disagreement, and I am 
hoping that we can work together as we move towards the final product, 
that as we reevaluate the needs, the needs for the H-1B visas, that we 
can take this dollar amount into consideration; and there may be more 
need, as we are saying there is, for more investment in particular 
areas.
  That does not mean that what we are doing is not trying to establish 
the best programs and evaluate them and make sure they are succeeding. 
But I think we disagree, and we believe that there has to be even more 
investment because it is so critical at this time of displacement as a 
result of trade and other areas.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is certainly no 
difference between us in terms of our intent to provide the best 
possible opportunities for people who are outside

[[Page H4073]]

the workforce to be trained for jobs that can provide them a higher 
standard of living and to provide those protections for individuals 
that are needed in a very dynamic economy.
  We simply feel that by reason of the economy growing so fast and 
unemployment being so low and employment being so high that there is 
simply less demand than there is where the economy is not performing 
that way as it has sometimes in the past.
  So I do not think there is any real disagreement among us except that 
we feel that these are lower priorities than others in the bill given 
our need to choose priorities given this very, very strong economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think that those of us who serve in this 
Chamber need a reality check. I serve a county where the unemployment 
rate is 17.1 percent. I serve multiple counties that have double digit 
unemployment. That is why I rise today in strong support of the Jackson 
amendment to restore funding for programs that help jobless Americans.
  I guess some people think that things are so good that we do not have 
any dislocated workers to worry about. I would invite the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others to come to my district in 
southern Ohio and see the conditions there, come and talk with one of 
the 800 coal miners who are about to lose their jobs in a region that 
suffers 10.5 percent unemployment, miners who are awaiting word today 
on a job-training grant they view as their best hope for future 
employment.
  I would like for them to come and talk to one of the 550 union 
workers from the Goodyear plant who lost their jobs last summer and are 
now back in school thanks to a Federal dislocated workers grant. 
Without further education, how can they ever expect to land a job in a 
county with an unemployment rate over 11 percent?
  I would like for my colleagues here to come to southern Ohio and talk 
to some of the 619 union workers from Ironton Iron who lost their jobs 
in March and who just recently received word that there would be trade 
adjustment assistance for them.
  This community of just over 12,000 people has lost over 1,200 jobs in 
the last year and a half. Ten percent of the entire population is 
jobless. Tell them they do not deserve a second chance.
  I would like for my colleagues to come to southern Ohio and visit the 
Piketon uranium enrichment facility and talk to the enrichment workers 
who will lose their jobs next month because this Government chose to 
privatize their industry. Go tell them they are not a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation may be doing well; but there are people, and 
many of them are in my district, who are being left behind. This 
Congress should not be funding tax cuts for the wealthy and at the same 
time cutting funds for training jobless workers. It is unconscionable.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson 
amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really excited that the gentleman from southern 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland) came to the floor today to make the case for 
support of this amendment.
  Under the House bill, 215,800 fewer of the 3.3 million workers who 
lose their jobs through no fault of their own each year will be served 
under the President's request of $389 million for dislocated worker 
assistance, which my amendment, Mr. Chairman, restores to the Labor, 
HHS mark.
  Mr. Chairman, every time I come to this House floor and offer an 
amendment of the magnitude that we are talking about, someone 
inevitably says, minorities are doing better. I mean, here comes the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) to the House floor. He has got to 
be talking about minorities.
  The gentleman does not represent a district primarily of minorities, 
but he talked about counties where unemployment in his congressional 
district are as high as 17 percent.

                              {time}  1445

  I was hoping that the gentleman would please expound upon what the 
implications of this increase would do for his congressional district.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. My people who have lost their jobs through no fault 
of their own, these are salt of the earth people, people who want to 
work, who want to enjoy the American life as we enjoy it here in this 
Chamber. Yet they are being deprived oftentimes of getting the skills 
they need to enable them to go out and to compete. These are folks who 
have worked at steel foundries, they have worked at heavy manufacturing 
jobs. Those jobs are disappearing from my district. They need to go 
back; they need to learn how to become computer literate. They need new 
technological skills. Without them, they are destined to be jobless. We 
just simply cannot forget those people. I applaud the fact that we have 
a booming economy. I applaud the fact that in Redmond, Washington, I 
have heard some of the average salaries are at six figures. But I have 
got people who are struggling to survive. This Congress cannot forget 
those Americans. If we do, we are being negligent and we are failing. 
We are failing not only our individual constituents, but we are failing 
this country.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for his support of my 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson amendment to restore 
$1.25 billion for skill training programs at the Department of Labor. 
Last week, I joined over 200 young people from a coalition of 
Alternative Schools Network, CCA Academy, the Latino Alternative 
School, 200 young people who were marching and protesting. They were 
marching and protesting the reductions of millions of Federal dollars 
allocated to skilled training programs for at-risk youth. I, along with 
the 200 people there, tossed peanuts around to symbolize the small 
amount of money being allocated to skill training programs and the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  If this budget appropriations process was a poker game, we would have 
to say that Labor-HHS was dealt a weak hand but still had to play. 
Therefore, I believe that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 
done what he could with a faulty deck stacked against him.
  Mr. Chairman, these people were not protesting for the things that 
normal teenagers are often concerned about. Rather, these teenagers 
were protesting for the opportunity to learn. They were protesting for 
the opportunity to become well-trained workers and the opportunity to 
make contributions to this Nation. They were protesting so that we will 
not have to import workers from foreign countries to take care of 
skilled job opportunities that are needed.
  If we truly want to improve the environment of those less fortunate 
in this society, what we really need to do is provide the necessary 
funding this amendment calls for. We need to show our communities that 
we believe that education and job training are essential tools for 
success. We need to show that we understand what it means to a 
community when the businesses are downsizing, privatizing, and moving 
out of the community and in many instances out of the country, 
obviously displacing workers and increasing the need for training so 
that they can survive and participate.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in support of the Jackson 
amendment. If we had an adequately funded skill training program as 
well as an adequately funded Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we could 
truly fulfill our duty to help build a society where no sick person 
would go unattended, no hungry person would go unfed, no able-bodied 
person would go without adequate employment. Mr. Chairman, we need to 
ante up. We need to live up to our promise, live up to our duty, live 
up to our responsibility and vote yes to the Jackson amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

[[Page H4074]]

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act, we 
believed that we were making a statement about the importance of 
investing in the American worker. Because by investing in the American 
worker, we are investing in the future of America. We are investing in 
developing skills for American workers. We are investing in the hopes 
and dreams of American workers. We are investing in the hopes and 
dreams of those who are dislocated, those who are disabled, those who 
are young, those who are ex offenders, to those who want to fully 
participate in what we call the American dream. We are investing in 
assisting American business in helping to provide American business 
with a well-trained workforce. We are investing in the jobs of 
tomorrow.
  We all know that unemployment is low, but unemployment is low among 
trained workers. Everyone knows that. But unemployment remains a crisis 
among teenagers, minorities, and dislocated workers. I represent the 
State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland. Our manufacturing economy is 
in transition. Over the last year, we have seen representatives from 
the State of Ohio, from the State of Michigan, the State of Indiana, 
the State of Pennsylvania take to the floor of this House to talk about 
the impact of our trade policies on the steel industry.
  We sought protection for our steel industry because tens of thousands 
of jobs have been at risk because of dumping. But in some cases, the 
job loss was felt, and in manufacturing industry after manufacturing 
industry, we have seen a dislocated workforce with people hungry for 
retraining. We saw over 400,000 American jobs lost in NAFTA. We will 
see hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in our trade deal with China, 
where we have a $70 billion trade deficit. That job loss will not only 
be in manufacturing where we need people retrained, but that job loss 
will be in high-tech industries where people who are currently working 
in high-tech industries will need to be retrained.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. I would simply say to the gentleman that trade adjustment 
assistance is a mandatory account and it is fully funded obviously in 
the bill. So that part, no cuts have been made obviously.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. The point being that not only 
have we a challenge with respect to the existing workforce but the 
workforce of tomorrow is going to be severely impacted by policies 
which do not take a strong stand for worker retraining. The Workforce 
Investment Act called for one-stop shopping, for helping people make 
applications, getting them into a program, getting them into 
retraining. So we go from a one-stop system to a full-stop system.
  The legislation which we will be voting on absent the Jackson 
amendment cuts $21 million from job opportunities for young people. 
Now, I know there have been people on this floor talking about the 
summer jobs program just being some kind of a slush fund. How dare this 
House of Representatives attack opportunities for young people who 
otherwise would not have a job. It is the moral obligation of 
government to stand as a guarantor of employment for our young people 
if the private sector does not or cannot provide the jobs. It is our 
moral obligation. We need to show our young people that it pays to 
work. We need to develop in our young people the work ethic. We need to 
stand strong and to say that wherever we can provide more opportunities 
for our young, that we provide those opportunities. We need to make 
sure that we look at the implications of welfare reform here. We are 
taking people off welfare, and we are cutting job training programs. 
There is something wrong with this picture.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Ford, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. I would say the rhetoric is soaring here. If this is that 
high a priority, what is wrong with offering an amendment to move some 
funds out of another account of lower priority to this priority? This 
amendment is out of order because the gentleman has not sought any 
offsets. He just adds spending without any responsibility. If it is 
that high a priority, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio, offer an 
amendment to move money from a low priority account and let us consider 
it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, this is the tax break issue. We are 
going to get into that. Yes, there is no offset, but there are some who 
are being very insistent on passing tax cuts for the wealthy. If there 
was not this insistence, there would be money in the budget to invest 
in working families. We are told a rising tide lifts all boats. But 
what if people are not in the boat? What if they do not know how to 
swim?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his leadership 
and thank all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle for theirs as 
well on this important issue.
  We have heard it mentioned over and over again. We are indeed, I say 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of my full committee, at the 
zenith of our prosperity as a Nation. It is amazing. We have heard 
those in this Congress criticize this administration. We have heard 
those in this Congress try to take credit for the amazing growth that 
has taken place over the last 8 years.
  It is difficult, it is hard to imagine that we have come so far and 
that we have accomplished so much considering the rhetoric that goes 
back and forth. Eight years ago the Dow was at 3500. Today it is three 
times that. Eight years ago the unemployment rate was hovering at about 
8 percent. Now it is around 4 percent. Eight years ago there were only 
50 worldwide Web sites. Today there are more than 50 million.
  We are only at the beginning of this amazing revolution. Many of our 
companies, American companies are producing more wealth than many 
countries around the world. But in many communities, including my home 
of Memphis, talk about the growth of the Dow and even the NASDAQ is 
almost as foreign as international monetary policy.
  A few of us on this side had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to visit 
some of our high-tech leaders out in Silicon Valley over the recent 
break. We can read about it and listen to those talk about the amazing 
and wonderful things happening out there, but until you actually 
witness it, it is difficult to grasp, to see young people really at the 
start of a revolution helping to transform our entire economy and 
really everything that we enjoy and do in life really to produce a 
positive benefit.
  We had an opportunity to meet those who are sequencing the human 
genome. It is amazing in a few years we might be able to attack breast 
cancer and prostate cancer and catch those cells early on. I thank the 
gentleman from Illinois for all his work with the National Institutes 
of Health. But the common denominator in all that these leaders out 
there talked about was the need to close the skills deficit that is 
plaguing our domestic workforce.
  We will vote in a few weeks, perhaps in a few days on whether or not 
to raise the quota, and ``quota'' on that side of the aisle is often a 
profane word, but to raise the quota for H1-B visas to bring in workers 
to fill jobs here in America because we have not stepped up to the 
plate to train a new generation of workers.
  The one issue that came out of all the sessions that we had, Mr. 
Chairman, the one thing that could jeopardize our prosperity and 
continued growth is the lack of an investment in a qualified workforce 
for the future.

                              {time}  1500

  I support raising this quota in the short term, but it is foolish to 
believe for one moment that we are going to solve our domestic 
workforce challenges and problems by bringing in foreigners every year 
to fill the jobs which we should be training people to do here.

[[Page H4075]]

  With this vote on the Jackson amendment, we make this choice, I say 
to all of my colleagues: do we wish to continue to be a Nation of 
entrepreneurs and innovators and workers, or do we want to banish 
ourselves to a country of temporary workers and low-wage workers? My 
Republican colleagues have asked for offsets. I suggest that they cut 
their tax break, make some investments in children and young people 
throughout this Nation, not just for these young people, but for all of 
those leaders in industry. I am sure we could go home, and this is not 
a partisan issue back home, Republican businessmen, Democratic 
businessmen and business women all say the same thing, and that is that 
they are looking for more qualified workers.
  Mr. Chairman, I would close on this note, and perhaps I think the 
most exciting thing about what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson) is doing, restoring the money for youth opportunity grants and 
summers jobs programs for kids. The main reason I support summer jobs 
for kids is because I want your wallets to stay in your back pockets, I 
want your hub caps to stay on your cars, I want women's pocketbooks to 
stay on their shoulders.
  When we teach and train young people and expose them to the rigors 
and habits of work, good things happen, Mr. Chairman, good things 
happen, I say to Members on both sides of the aisle. Last week the 
application period for the Memphis summer jobs program closed, and 800 
teens will have jobs for the summer. That is wonderful. That is the 
good news. But the bad news, Mr. Chairman, is that 3,000 go home 
without jobs. We will find a way to arrest them if they do something 
wrong during the summer; we will find a way to process them; we will 
find a way to prosecute them; we will find a way to house them for a 
few days or a few weeks. But we cannot find the capacity, we cannot 
find the wherewithal, we cannot find a solution amidst all the 
rhetoric, to just give them a summer job, give them an opportunity.
  I am a little offended when I hear some of my colleagues brag about 
the job core center; I brag about it too, but they are two totally 
different programs we are talking about here. Sensible Members on that 
side understand that; sensible Members on this side understand that. 
Let us discontinue the name calling and the game playing. Instead of 
arresting these kids, let us give them a job and an opportunity and in 
the meantime help prepare them for the demands of this new marketplace.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk a little bit about summer jobs. I want to 
associate myself with the previous speaker. I think it certainly makes 
perfectly good sense to do what we can to make sure that the kids have 
a chance to work as opposed to giving them a chance to hang around a 
street corner. There is no question about it, if the kids are employed, 
working on and pursuing something tangible and something productive 
keeps them away from the street corners, keeps them away from the bad 
influences that could cause them to, frankly, at a turning point in 
their lives, either move towards a productive life or go down the other 
route.
  I believe that a short-term investment in summer jobs programs for 
kids, for teenage kids in disadvantaged communities is a long-term 
investment, not only in the next generation of Americans, but also in 
terms of protecting the taxpayers' pocketbook. Because if we put our 
money into the kids early enough and give them a chance to learn the 
habits of work, we are probably, in all likelihood, creating a 
workforce and a next generation of Americans that are going to value 
work and not hang around the street corner, not get arrested and not 
cost the taxpayers dollars that they ultimately pay to incarcerate them 
because at a turning point in their lives they have taken the wrong 
path.
  Mr. Chairman, studies show, studies show that early work experience 
increases somebody's earning potential by 10 to 12 percent. One year on 
a job during a summer means 2 years in college in terms of earning 
potential for the future. If we are going to be about pursuing the 
American dream and if we are going to be about building a better future 
for America, I can think of few things more important than $254 million 
in a multitrillion-dollar budget to restore the summer jobs programs to 
give disadvantaged teenagers a chance to not only get a job early, but 
also learn what it is like to work and develop the habits of work, 
because one does not just grow up being able to work; one learns those 
habits. One is not born as a worker; one is taught to work by the 
habits and the values that are instilled in us.
  One of the previous speakers on the other side suggested that the 
summer jobs programs are make-work programs. One of the previous 
speakers suggested that what we ought to do he said was, and if I am 
not quoting, I am paraphrasing, we ought to teach them accountability 
and teach them the free market. But in so many communities in our 
country, disadvantaged communities, be it in the inner cities or the 
poor rural areas, those kids do not know free enterprise; those kids do 
not know what it is like to be accountable. They learn that early in 
life. A summer jobs program gives them a chance to do that.
  The summer jobs programs we are talking about impacting kids at 14 
and 15 and 16. These are kids in areas that do not have access to the 
jobs that are available in this burgeoning economy that we live in in 
America today. For those kids the American dream is not a dream. For 
those kids, the American dream does not even exist. They live in an 
environment of hopelessness. We need to give them a chance to learn the 
habits of work early in life, and a $254 million investment to help 
fund those programs I think goes a long way in the long run to give 
them a better future and save taxpayer dollars in the long run.
  There has been discussion about the job core program. The job core 
program is a good program. We have funded that program. But one of the 
unintended consequences of that program is that it is taking money away 
from the summer jobs program; and in some cases, with the job core 
program, a kid can be in high school and we are rewarding a kid who 
drops out of high school and giving that kid a job; but we are doing 
nothing about a kid who is in school and needs to do something during 
the summer months when all of the opportunities to be mischievous and 
others are available.
  So I hope that we recognize the need to fund the summer jobs program 
and recognize the job core program does good things, but has, in some 
cases, hurt the summer jobs program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the job core program has proven over and 
over again a very effective program. Many of us think of our summer 
youth programs as the way they are in our cities, but there is clear 
evaluation that the summer youth program does nothing to increase job 
skills and provide greater access to the job market. It may keep kids 
out of trouble, but it does not do what the gentleman has been alluding 
to it is doing. In many cases, it is a make-work program that is a 
disgrace. In other cases, like our own area, it is a well-run program 
and does have benefits. But one of them is not obtaining job skills and 
getting greater access to a job or to the job market.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I am an exception to that. I had a summer 
jobs program, and I graduated from law school and my voters elected me 
to Congress. I would just submit to the gentleman that there are those 
of us who never attended the job core program, but had a few summer 
jobs here on the Hill and other places and moved right into the 
workforce. My voters think I am doing a good job, perhaps some here may 
not.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would say again the job core program is very effective. Some summer 
youth jobs programs are good; others are not good.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Blagojevich) has expired.

[[Page H4076]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blagojevich was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that if some are 
good and some are not good, I think it is well worth the investment to 
make sure that we make those that are good the rule and not the 
exception, and make the other ones that are not as good, make them 
work. But the principle still applies: providing opportunities for kids 
early on at 14, 15 and 16 is a good idea. It keeps them off the street; 
that is a good thing. And, secondly, it gives them a chance to learn 
work. If we can make those programs better, that is fine.
  Where I come from in Chicago, I have seen examples of how that works. 
There is a young man from the Robert Taylor Home named Paris Thompson 
who was 14 years old when he first had his chance to work under the Met 
program in Chicago. Today he is 27 years old, and today he is lobbying 
Congress. He began his early experience at the Robert Taylor Home 
learning the value of work in an environment where there are kids like 
him who did not have that experience, who are not doing the things that 
they ought to be doing, and in many cases are in the penitentiary.
  With that, I would simply say, let us take action on Jackson and 
support the Jackson amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say one word about summer jobs. I held 
recently in my community with about 140 young people, the issue was not 
summer jobs, but it was a youth violence conference to talk to young 
people about their own responsibility with regard to youth violence. 
Some of the kids came up to me afterward and they said to me, what is 
going on with this summer job effort? We were relying on that. Our 
families were relying on that. We want to try to participate. Can you 
help us try to get the resources that we need in order to be able to 
have summer jobs? They saw this as a part, again, of the responsibility 
in the context of youth violence.
  If we have young people who are working and who are off the streets 
and at the same time gathering some skills and in many instances, these 
young people are trying to provide their own families with some 
assistance, economic assistance at the same time. It is a very, very 
worthwhile investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my colleague and friend. The Department of 
Labor's request essentially was designed to ensure the success of 
America's workforce investment system and its programs, trying to serve 
American workers and their employers. The point of our speaking up here 
today and the point of this amendment by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) is that the bill that we have up on the floor here today 
seriously jeopardizes this goal. We have seen the employment rate in 
this Nation fall since January of 1993 from 7.3 percent to 3.9 percent. 
It has risen a little bit in the last month or so, but the long and the 
short of it is it is at its lowest level in 30 years. We have seen 21 
million new jobs that have been created, and employment population 
rates are at record highs. We understand that, and we are happy about 
that. But the fact of the matter is that not all have prospered.
  Earlier, a colleague on the floor said that we have all of these 
industries and businesses which have all of these jobs that are 
available and they do not have people to fill them. Well, they just 
proved the point of the Jackson amendment by saying that in fact what 
we do need to do is to train folks for those jobs, and we have the 
capacity to do it. But not all have responded because of this economic 
environment that we are in. So many Americans are being left behind. We 
have pockets of high unemployment, pools of untapped, underutilized 
workers who exist out there and who are at risk; and there are 
dislocated workers.
  I cite my own third district of the State of Connecticut, a State, I 
might add, that has been heavily dependent on defense and one that has 
been dependent on the insurance industry. Insurance in my State has 
downsized, dislocating a lot of workers. The defense industry has 
downsized, dislocating a tremendous amount of workers. Those workers 
wanted to continue at Sakorsky and at Pratt & Whitney and at the 
Stratford Army Engine plant, but they have nowhere to go today. These 
are people who have kids in college, who have mortgages to pay, and who 
are fighting for their lives in order to be able to meet their 
responsibilities and their obligations as parents and as breadwinners 
for their families.
  Mr. Chairman, we are leaving them high and dry, without the 
opportunity to get further skills training, to get the kind of training 
that they need to put them back into the economic mainstream once 
again. We have 90 million adult Americans who perform at low levels of 
literacy. These are individuals who are not well equipped to meet the 
challenges of the new economy. Yet, this bill slashes the kinds of 
programs that provide hard-working Americans with the skills that they 
need to compete in today's economy. That is the issue my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), is making. That is the one that 
we are trying to impress on people here today.
  Mr. Chairman, we want people to be able to realize their dreams in 
this country. That is why we deal with school-to-work programs, that is 
why we encourage people to work and to take on that responsibility. 
That is what this country is all about. That is a very deep-seated 
value in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, in April of 2000 there were 13 million untapped and 
underutilized Americans, 5.2 million who were unemployed, 4.4 million 
who were out of the labor force but wanted to work, and 3 million who 
worked part-time, but wanted full-time work. In March of 2000 there 
were 22 metropolitan areas with unemployment rates in excess of 7 
percent. The low skills of many of the poorest Americans reflect 
accumulated disadvantage. Poor families and neighborhoods in which they 
grow up and live, underfinanced, often ineffective schools that they 
attended, lack the access to jobs that provide meaningful training and 
opportunities for advancement. Any attempt, any attempt to improve 
their schools has got to address the barriers that they face.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot leave people behind in this country. That is 
not what this Nation is founded on. It is founded on responsibility, 
hard work. Let us train people to do it. Let us vote for the Jackson 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, 
and I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize something about 
the amendment that bears on all of this discussion. The reason this 
amendment is out of order is because the gentleman from Illinois has no 
offsets.
  Now, the majority, in accordance with a budget resolution adopted by 
the majority of both Houses of the Congress, has to live within its 
allocation.

                              {time}  1515

  It is easy to offer an amendment simply adding back money. That does 
not take any responsibility.
  The gentleman could have offered an amendment with offsets. The 
difficulty is that his side of the aisle it seems to me is unwilling to 
provide cuts anywhere; is always willing to add money, but unwilling to 
take the responsibility to say, this is a higher priority, this is a 
higher priority.
  We have to do that. We have to do that. That is our job. We have to 
be responsible for the bottom line.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget 
totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 7, 2000. That is House Report 106-
656. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

[[Page H4077]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the gentleman from Illinois has 
yielded back his pro forma amendment.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McHugh) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4577) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________