[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4194-H4215]
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 further consideration of the bill, H.R.
4577.
{time} 1930
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 further consideration of
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,
with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday,
June 8, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 19, line
21.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to
enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who is standing in
for our distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter).
Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) prepared to
enter into that colloquy with me?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
answer is affirmative.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman
from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for his outstanding leadership of the
subcommittee and because we have the unique opportunity of having the
chairman of the full committee here, I also want to thank him for his
leadership of the full committee.
Mr. Chairman, this is not in the colloquy, but I want to say with
great assurance there is not a fairer, more thoughtful chairman of any
standing committee in the Congress of the United States than the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who chairs the Committee on
Appropriations.
It is with great affection and great respect that I rise and thank
him for participating in this colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the funding level for the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention of childhood immunizations. The
operations and infrastructure account, which provides grants to States
for outreach and education on immunization, has, Mr. Chairman, as you
know, decreased from $271 million in 1995 to $139 million in 2000,
almost cut in half.
While this bill increases funding for the operations and
infrastructure account by $15 million this year, it is my hope that
this funding would increase by an additional $60 million for a total of
$75 million.
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the vaccine purchase account
within the Childhood Immunization Program at CDC. The President
requested, as you know, an increase of $10 million this year and
funding has remained level. I would like to see funding in this account
increased by the $10 million President Clinton requested, plus an
additional $10 million on top of that.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his
hard work on this bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter), in his absence, for his hard work on this bill.
Given the constraints of the budget resolution, the gentleman from
Illinois and the gentleman from Florida have done an outstanding job of
writing what has proved to be a difficult bill for Members on both
sides of the budget debate.
It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we may work together on this
account in conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both
appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on
this issue.
As the gentleman knows, our allocation was not nearly as high as we
had hoped, and we prepared the best bill that we could while under the
current budget constraints.
With that said, I agree that the operations on infrastructure portion
of the
[[Page H4195]]
program provides the important funding for State immunization
initiatives, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both
would be very happy to work with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) on this issue as we move forward in the process.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Green), a very good friend of
mine and someone who has been tireless in working towards increased
funding for immunizations.
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) for organizing this colloquy this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your pledge to work to increase
funding for section 317, the immunization program.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have introduced
the resolution calling for an increase in section 317 funds for
children's immunizations, and I am pleased that thanks to the efforts
of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), this
year's Labor, HHS bill does include a slight increase in section 317
funding. However, much more is needed.
While immunization rates in most States are improving, we are not
doing as much as we could do if one of four American children are not
receiving the immunizations that he or she needs. In Houston, which I
represent, and Chicago over 44 percent of the children are not getting
one or more of the immunizations.
Section 317 infrastructure funds are used by the States and cities to
identify needs, conduct community outreach, establish registries, open
clinics, deal with disease outbreaks, and undertake educational and
tracking efforts, among other things.
These infrastructure funds have been reduced rather dramatically, as
my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), mentioned in the
past 5 years from 271 million to 139 million.
The need for increased infrastructure funding is particularly
important in light of the recent Journal of the American Medical
Association survey that shows over 50 percent of American children are
either under or overvaccinated.
The JAMA study shows that 21 percent of toddlers receive at least one
extra immunization, while 31 percent missed at least one. In other
words, close to 50 percent of American children are receiving too few
or too many vaccinations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again, section 317 funding increase is supported
by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and this increase
is also supported by the Association of Maternal and Child Health
Programs, Every Child by Two, the Association of State and Territorial
Health Officers, and the Association of County and City Health
Officials.
Most important, an increase in the 317 funds, Mr. Chairman, is
supported by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and our
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and my
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Again, I want to thank the chairman for his support; and hopefully in
conference committee we will get that additional funding if we can see
the allocations increase.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green) for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I also want to
thank him and congratulate him for his work on this subject.
Obviously, we have talked a lot about in the previous decade,
previous century about prevention, about how health care would be much
cheaper if we prevented illness as opposed to treating illness. Nothing
has been so successful, I think, in that regard as has childhood
immunization.
We have, in effect, eliminated some diseases that have afflicted
children and human beings for centuries really; and, therefore, this
investment in immunizations plays an incredible dividend. It is
probably as good an investment as we can possibly make, so not only is
it the right thing to do to keep children healthy and to protect them
from diseases, but it is also, from a financial standpoint, a very
worthwhile investment that saves us a very geometric savings for every
dollar invested.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership and would be glad to yield
to him for any comment he might have.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) for yielding. I see our colleague, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) from Chicago, and knowing that both Houston and
Chicago, 44 percent of our children are either getting more or less the
immunizations they need.
I know in my own district in Houston, our population turns so quick,
that we may do a great immunization program 2 or 3 years ago, but we
have so many new children who are coming in to urban areas in our
country that this money, this infrastructure money will help create a
registry so we will know that a child does not overimmunize or
hopefully not underimmunize, and we will get those immunizations and
the registry will help the States.
I know the State of Texas is supporting this, and State health
commissioners and, of course, our cities to provide that registry so we
will spend a dime today and save us a dollar tomorrow.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman
makes a very cogent observation. I had the opportunity to meet just
within the last 30 days with the Secretary of the Department of Health
in Maryland, and he made that exact point, needing such a registry. So
that not only would it assist school officials and health officials,
but it would preclude children from being overimmunized, as well as
making sure that children who are not get that which they need. So that
it has both sanguine effects from that standpoint.
I appreciate the gentleman's observations.
Does the gentleman from Texas want additional time?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland
for his efforts on the committee, and, again, I thank the chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
for the efforts and the commitment to try and have more money during
conference process.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I had the opportunity to
meet a little earlier today with representatives of PerkinElmer, a
corporation which is a high-technology company based in Wellesley,
Massachusetts; and we talked about neonatal screening for treatable,
inherited disorders.
I mention that only in the respect that, again, we were talking about
prevention and early intervention. These dollars, as the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Porter) have pointed out, are dollars well spent; and the only reason,
as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) pointed out that they
have not been included in this bill at this point in time is because
the budget numbers were so very tight.
I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) as well
for their willingness to work with us over the next few months to try
to increase substantially the numbers dedicated to the immunization
program so that we can make sure that every child in America receives
the shots and immunizations that he or she needs to ensure at least to
the safety that we can accord with those immunization shots.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
bill through page 31, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the
Record, and opened to amendment at any point.
[[Page H4196]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 20, line 1 through page 31, line 14 is
as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration
health resources and services
For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX,
and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of
the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and
section 1820 of the Social Security Act, the Health Care
Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, and the Native
Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, $4,684,232,000,
of which $25,000,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding
section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be
available for carrying out the Medicare rural hospital
flexibility grants program under section 1820 of such Act:
Provided, That the Division of Federal Occupational Health
may utilize personal services contracting to employ
professional management/administrative and occupational
health professionals: Provided further, That of the funds
made available under this heading, $250,000 shall be
available until expended for facilities renovations at the
Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further,
That in addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the
Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be
collected for the full disclosure of information under the
Act sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the
National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available
until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That
for the collection of fees authorized by section 1128E(d)(2)
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 for the full disclosure of information under the Act
sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the
Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank, and shall
remain available until expended to carry out that Act:
Provided further, That no more than $5,000,000 is available
for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73:
Provided further, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $238,932,000 shall be for the program under title X
of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary
family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts
provided to said projects under such title shall not be
expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall
be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended
for any activity (including the publication or distribution
of literature) that in any way tends to promote public
support or opposition to any legislative proposal or
candidate for public office: Provided further, That
$554,000,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs
authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of
the Social Security Act, not to exceed $109,148,000 is
available for carrying out special projects of regional and
national significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such
Act.
For special projects of regional and national significance
under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act,
$30,000,000, which shall become available on October 1, 2001,
and shall remain available until September 30, 2002:
Provided, That such amount shall not be counted toward
compliance with the allocation required in section 502(a)(1)
of such Act: Provided further, That such amount shall be used
only for making competitive grants to provide abstinence
education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) of such Act) to
adolescents and for evaluations (including longitudinal
evaluations) of activities under the grants and for Federal
costs of administering the grants: Provided further, That
grants shall be made only to public and private entities
which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to whom the
entities provide abstinence education under such grant, the
entities will not provide to that adolescent any other
education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the case
of an entity expressly required by law to provide health
information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded
from seeking health information or services from the entity
in a different setting than the setting in which the
abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That the
funds expended for such evaluations may not exceed 3.5
percent of such amount.
health education assistance loans program
Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of
the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the
Public Health Service Act, $3,679,000.
vaccine injury compensation program trust fund
For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims
associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect
to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant
to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That for
necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $2,992,000
shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
disease control, research, and training
To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, and
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102,
103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance
of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $3,290,369,000, of
which $145,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and
in addition, such sums as may be derived from authorized user
fees, which shall be credited to this account: Provided, That
in addition to amounts provided herein, up to $71,690,000
shall be available from amounts available under section 241
of the Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National
Center for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available for injury prevention and
control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control: Provided further,
That the Director may redirect the total amount made
available under authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3,
dated November 3, 1990, to activities the Director may so
designate: Provided further, That the Congress is to be
notified promptly of any such transfer: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for the development and
construction of laboratory building 18 may be employed which
collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the
clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18:
Provided further, That not to exceed $10,000,000 may be
available for making grants under section 1509 of the Public
Health Service Act to not more than 10 States.
National Institutes of Health
national cancer institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $3,793,587,000.
national heart, lung, and blood institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and
blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,321,320,000.
national institute of dental and craniofacial research
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to dental disease,
$309,007,000.
national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and
kidney disease, $1,315,530,000.
national institute of neurological disorders and stroke
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and
stroke, $1,185,767,000.
national institute of allergy and infectious diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious
diseases, $2,062,126,000.
national institute of general medical sciences
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences,
$1,548,313,000.
national institute of child health and human development
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to child health and human
development, $984,300,000.
national eye institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual
disorders, $514,673,000.
national institute of environmental health sciences
For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the
Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental
health sciences, $506,730,000.
national institute on aging
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to aging, $790,299,000.
national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and
musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $400,025,000.
national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other
communication disorders, $301,787,000.
national institute of nursing research
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to nursing research,
$102,312,000.
[[Page H4197]]
national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and
alcoholism, $349,216,000.
national institute on drug abuse
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $788,201,000.
national institute of mental health
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to mental health,
$1,114,638,000.
national human genome research institute
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to human genome research,
$386,410,000.
national center for research resources
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to research resources and
general research support grants, $832,027,000: Provided, That
none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the
general research support grants program any amount for
indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided
further, That $75,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities
construction grants.
john e. fogarty international center
For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty
International Center, $50,299,000.
national library of medicine
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to health information
communications, $256,281,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be
available until expended for improvement of information
systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2001, the Library may
enter into personal services contracts for the provision of
services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under
the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.
national center for complementary and alternative medicine
For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public
Health Service Act with respect to complementary and
alternative medicine, $78,880,000.
office of the director
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the
Director, National Institutes of Health, $342,307,000, of
which $48,271,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research:
Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of
not to exceed 20 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1
percent of the total amount made available in this or any
other Act to all National Institutes of Health appropriations
to activities the Director may so designate: Provided
further, That no such appropriation shall be decreased by
more than 1 percent by any such transfers and that the
Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: Provided
further, That the National Institutes of Health is authorized
to collect third party payments for the cost of clinical
services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health
research facilities and that such payments shall be credited
to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund:
Provided further, That all funds credited to the National
Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain available
for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are
deposited: Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be
available to carry out section 499 of the Public Health
Service Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
499(k)(10) of the Public Health Service Act, funds from the
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health may be
transferred to the National Institutes of Health.
buildings and facilities
For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of
equipment for, facilities of or used by the National
Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real
property, $178,700,000, to remain available until expended,
of which $47,300,000 shall be for the National Neuroscience
Research Center: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a single contract or related contracts for
the development and construction of the first phase of the
National Neuroscience Research Center may be employed which
collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided
further, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the
clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Pelosi
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 11.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the
designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman most certainly is.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved under the order of June 8.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Pelosi:
Page 31, after line 23, insert the following:
In addition, $600,000,000 for such purposes: Provided, That
such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided
further, That such amount shall be available only to the
extent that an official budget request, that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8,
2000, the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Pelosi) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for allowing me to be the designee on this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this amendment, which would
increase funding $600 million to reduce the demand for drugs here in
America. Specifically, it would fund State and local drug treatment and
prevention activities.
It recognizes that if America's drug controlled policy is to succeed,
our policy must not focus only on supply reduction. We must balance our
policy by including domestic efforts by including demand reduction
services. We must address America's enormous drug treatment and
prevention needs.
More than 5.7 million Americans are in severe need of substance abuse
treatment, and 3.6 million lack needed treatment; 5.7, 3.6, just over 2
million Americans are receiving the substance abuse treatment, have
access to treatment. And I am not even saying they have all that they
need, but 3.6 have none.
Just 2 months ago, I offered a drug treatment amendment during the
supplemental appropriations bill consideration. I tried to offer my
amendment on the House floor for a straight up and down vote. At the
time the chairman of the committee said this amendment should go
through the regular process and not be dealt with on the supplemental.
It was said to wait for the appropriation subcommittee and the
committee markups. They offered to work with me at the time through the
appropriate process to fund domestic demand reduction strategies;
however, this is the regular process. We had no success at the
subcommittee/full committee and now is the time, the amendment is
before this committee. I look for your support.
{time} 1945
Please know that treatment and prevention are more effective than any
other drug control options. A Rand Corporation study sponsored by the
United States Army and the Office of Drug Control Policy determined
that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in drug treatment,
drug treatment, were 23 times more effective than source country
control. In addition, this is 11 times more effective, drug treatment
and prevention, is 11 times more effective than interdiction at the
border, and 7 times more effective than even law enforcement.
Certainly we want to reduce the supply and we want to interdict at
the border and we must have a balance between treatment and
incarceration, but this Rand Commission study says that treatment is 23
times more effective. In other words, if you wanted to reduce demand in
the U.S. by 1 percent, you could spend $24 million by having treatment
on demand in the U.S., or you could spend over $700 million in the
source country in order to reduce demand by 1 percent in the U.S.
My amendment increases funding $600 million for the substance abuse
block grant and community treatment services, it invests $400 million
for the block grants and $200 million for local treatment services via
competitive grants. It provides treatment for an additional 150,000
addicted individuals and proven prevention services to an estimated
690,000 youths. It expands existing service infrastructure.
This investment leverages additional local and State funds, it
strengthens State and local coordination and helps integrate service
delivery. The amendment focuses on youth, while allowing
[[Page H4198]]
communities to invest these funds according to local priorities. It
helps our youth avoid a life of drugs and helps current drug users to
turn their lives around. We must reduce domestic drug use and increase
funding for drug treatment and prevention.
In September of 1999, America's drug czar, General McCaffrey, wrote
an op-ed stating, ``It is a sad time when the number of incarcerated
Americans exceeds the active duty strength of the Armed Forces. A Rand
Corporation study,'' the one I referenced, and this is the McCaffrey
quote, ``found that increasing drug treatment was the single-most cost-
effective way to reduce domestic drug consumption.''
We know treatment and prevention are more effective than any other
options. How cost effective is this? Each $1 invested in drug abuse
prevention saves $15 in reduced health, justice and other societal
costs. Each $1 invested in drug prevention will save communities $4 to
$5 in costs for drug abuse counseling and treatment. The National
Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study evaluated SAMSHA's substantive
abuse treatment services and found significant and lasting benefits,
including 50 percent decrease in drug and alcohol use 1 year after
completing treatment, 43 percent decrease in homelessness, and 19
percent increase in employment.
Mr. Chairman, I contend this is a dollar well spent, and certainly an
investment we should make. It is a small step. We still will have
millions of people in our country not receiving the substance abuse
treatment that they need, but it is a step in the right direction, and,
as we consider giving all kinds of military assistance to Colombia in
order to reduce drug consumption in the U.S., we must consider that $1
is worth $23 spent that way, $1 spent on treatment in the United
States. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young), the Clerk will read the subsequent paragraph which is
being amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
substance abuse and mental health services
For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health
services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill
Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health
Service Act with respect to program management,
$2,727,626,000.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to our colleagues that this amendment
was offered in the full committee and it was debated at great length
followed by a recorded vote. The amendment was not agreed to. It was
not so much that we did not agree with what the gentlewoman would like
to accomplish, but we did not have the money. The budget approved by
this House and by the other body put a severe restriction on the funds
available. If the gentlewoman would have offered some way to pay for
this or offered an offset somewhere else in the bill, we might be more
friendly toward the amendment, but, unfortunately, that is not the
case.
I would like to point out also for the benefit of our colleagues,
this bill provides the President's budget request for the Substance
Abuse Block Grant, $31 million more than last year's level. I know it
is not as much as the gentlewoman would like. It is not as much as I
would like, but it was the best we could do, given the allocation that
we had.
Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations, to speak to this amendment, and
would say to our distinguished chairman that if we did not have to have
a very expensive tax cut, we would have enough money to meet the
treatment needs in our country to reduce demand for drugs.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to refresh our memories as to
what is going on here. What is happening is that we are offering a
series of amendments, but under the rule under which this bill is being
debated we will not be able to get votes on those amendments. The
reason we will not is because the majority party, in order to squeeze
out enough room in the budget for their huge tax packages, they have
scaled back substantially on virtually every domestic appropriation
bill that we will bring to this floor. That is why this bill is $3
billion below the President on education, almost $2 billion below on
worker protection and job training, and over $1 billion below on health
care.
Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do with this and other amendments
is to illustrate that we think there ought to be a different set of
priorities than those which are guiding the majority party. Last week
the majority party passed a tax bill which, over the next 10 years,
will give over $200 billion in tax relief to the richest 400 Americans
in this society. I have nothing against those folks, but it seems to me
that it is a much higher priority for this country to meet its
education obligations, its health care obligations and its job training
obligations.
What the Pelosi amendment is trying to illustrate is that this
Congress and the administration are apparently both supporting an
expensive new proposition to fight a drug war in South America, but
that this Congress is refusing to add funding to the budget to deal
with drug treatment here at home. When we have only 37 percent of the
Americans who are presently in need of drug treatment able to get
treatment because of insufficient drug treatment slots, it seems to me
that we have a terrible imbalance in our Congressional priorities.
So I recognize this amendment is not going anywhere, because we
cannot even get a vote on it under the rule, but I think this is just
another example of the price we pay in terms of increased crime, in
terms of increased drug addiction, because this Congress is hell-bent
on providing some huge tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this
society, while it is ignoring our needs to deal with the concrete
problems that affect and afflict virtually every community in the
country.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
balance of my time be managed by the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Members for being late, but my plane
was delayed. As I came over here and passed one of the television
screens, I heard the gentlewoman from California saying that she could
not offer this, she was told, in full committee markup, but that she
could offer it here on the floor because this was regular order. But I
suggest to the gentlewoman that if you do not offer an offset, it is
not regular order. It is not fiscally responsible.
I just heard the gentleman from Wisconsin saying that we refused to
add money. We funded this account, which is a very important account,
at exactly the level the President of the United States requested. So I
would ask the gentlewoman, she is adding $600 million. Where did that
figure come from?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the $600 million relates to what we think
we could hopefully get passed here. If I just may say, with the
gentleman's yielding, just to clarify what is here on the floor, when I
offered this amendment at the time of the emergency supplemental, when
no offset would have been required, it was rejected by the majority in
the full committee saying that we should go through the regular
[[Page H4199]]
order, even though drug use in America is an emergency, and that is why
we were having an emergency supplemental to send military assistance to
Colombia. It was declared an emergency.
So then when they said go the regular order, we go to full committee
and were defeated, and are now bringing it to the floor to point out
the imbalance in our values, where we will give a tax cut instead of
giving drug treatment to reduce drug consumption in America. So the
$600 million relates to that.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman knows
very well we are not in the process here of moving money from tax cuts
to spending. That is not the regular order. The order here is that if
you have an amendment to offer, you have to find an offset, because we
live within limits.
Mr. Chairman, I very much agree with the gentlewoman that the
President of the United States was wrong in allocating $1.6 billion to
drug interdiction and crop eradication in Colombia. That money would
have been better spent on treatment programs or prevention programs
here at home.
The difficulty is that the gentlewoman is never willing to take the
money from a lower priority and allocate it to a higher priority. It
seems to me that the great flaw in the argument coming from the other
side, on all of these amendments, is that you simply want to add money,
without the responsibility for the bottom line of living within some
standard. The standard is not what we need. We need a lot more in a lot
of programs. The standard is that we have to live within a budget, and
that is what we have to do. So we have to make the tough decisions over
here, and over on that side you simply say, ``Let's add money to this,
let's add money to that, let's add money to other program.'' There is a
need; of course there is a need. But somebody has to be responsible
that we do not go off the graph in spending.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say we tried to provide this funding on
the same footing that the funding was provided for the drug war in
South America. We were told by the majority party at that time, come
back and deal with it on the regular bill. The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) said that, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said
that, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) said that, and several
others.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may say to the
gentleman, the gentleman did not do that. The gentleman had the
opportunity, but he did not.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we
did try to do it. We have tried on numerous occasions to cut back the
amount of money that you are providing for your tax cuts, including the
budget resolution we brought to the floor. All you would have to do to
be able to fund this and every other amendment is to cut back your tax
cuts by 20 percent.
Now, the rules of this House prevented us from getting a vote on that
proposition, but that does not mean that we do not have an obligation
and conscience to bring it up to demonstrate what we believe to be the
skewed priorities of the majority.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman made that
point over and over again, and I might agree with the point, but this
is not the regular order. Regular order is to be responsible and to cut
something if you want to increase something.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, in
fairness to the gentleman, since he is being so generous with his time,
I want to use the first phase of my time from him to praise him for his
leadership as chair of our subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. Maybe that is all
the time I will yield.
Ms. PELOSI. No, I was going to say so much more about the gentleman,
but I have another amendment, so I will spend some time then, because
we have been very pleased by his leadership on the committee.
So great a leader is the gentleman that he was very clever in this
bill, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be instructive to the Members
of this House to know that in this bill there is money allocated for
different programs, that the entire amount is designated to be
emergency requirements pursuant to Section 251(b).
{time} 2000
That says that one must adjust the caps if the President includes
designation of the term as an emergency request.
Mr. PORTER. Let me reclaim my time.
Ms. PELOSI. This is an emergency request.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reclaim my time and reserve it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) controls the
time. He must yield time.
Mr. PORTER. The gentlewoman can get the time from the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have other speakers on my side. In fact, the
gentlewoman better yield some time to us now.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a very valued member of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this $600 million amendment
adds $400 million to States through the substance abuse block grant
program. It adds $200 million to local communities through competitive
grants for critical substance abuse treatment services in collaboration
with the States. That is what this amendment is about. It is very, very
clear that these resources are necessary.
Now, what is also a bit confusing is that during the emergency
supplemental markup the President of the United States requested of
that committee $1.6 billion for the Colombian aid package. We sought
during that hearing to add a comparable amount of money, not just on
the supply side of the narcotics problem, but also on the demand side,
because we know that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in
drug treatment were 23 times more likely and more effective than source
country control, that they were 11 times more effective than
interdiction and 7 times more effective than law enforcement in
reducing cocaine consumption. So we sought to match that on this side.
Now during the course of that discussion, the majority added money
for agricultural products, $4 billion, several billion in increased
defense spending above the $300 billion appropriation, more than the
Defense Department was even asking for, and the emergency supplemental
for $1 billion on crop eradication in Colombia became a $14 billion
bill in emergency supplemental that I believe is still stuck in the
Senate.
Mr. Chairman, all we have sought to do under regular order, which the
chairman of the full committee asked us to do, was to offer an
amendment on the demand side of the problem in our own country. That
amendment was flatly rejected by the full committee; and we are here
today, Mr. Chairman, raising similar concerns to show the American
people, but also to show the full committee, Mr. Chairman, that there
are Members of Congress who want to do something not only on the supply
side but also on the demand side.
I congratulate the gentlewoman for offering her amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we went through this drill in the
subcommittee, the same 10 amendments, the same increase in every single
one of them, just to show that Republicans want to cut.
We have increased, including Head Start, education $2 billion,
increased over last year.
Let me give a good idea. One of these amendments increases special
education. When the Democrats had control of this House, they promised
to increase special education up to 40 percent of the funding. The
maximum they ever funded was 6 percent. Republicans, in 5 years, have
doubled that spending for special education. This bill increases
special education funding
[[Page H4200]]
$500 million; but yet we will see an amendment come forward to spend
another billion dollars without any offsets, just to say that
Republicans are cutting special education. That is the logic that they
use.
Why? Every single one of these bills is brought forward just for the
election coming up in November, to show how those mean Republicans want
to cut education and cut the other socialized programs.
Well, there is a party with fiscal responsibility. There is a party
also that wants to tax and spend and spend and spend, just like they
did when they were in the majority.
Let us take a look at it. Look at education. It was a disaster when
they left office. Education construction was destroyed. The
infrastructure is terrible. We are last in math and science, because
they put more money into it, just kept pouring more money, more money,
more money, without any quality or responsibility into it.
We have changed that. Look over the 5 years, test scores are starting
to go up but at the same time those that are entering colleges are
still having to take remedial education. That is wrong. We need to do
more in education. I agree with my colleagues on that. We have
increased it $2 billion.
Now, how did they plan on paying for this? We will hear tax breaks
for the rich, tax breaks for the rich. Well, I want to say, any tax
relief limits the amount that they spend on these social programs. It
will only be for the rich. We will never find them supporting tax
relief. Every single bill. The same liberals fought against the
balanced budget because it limited their amount of spending. They
fought against welfare reform because it limited their amount of
spending. They fought against the Social Security lock box because when
they were in the majority for 30 years they took every dime out of the
Social Security trust fund and put it up here for new spending, and
then they increased taxes every year so that they could pass more for
increased bureaucracy.
Now every one of these amendments we are going to see they want more,
they want more, they want more. Every single appropriations bill,
except for defense, they will increase. They will cut defense also to
pay for more socialized spending.
Excuse me. I know I am not supposed to have this on the floor, but
God says he does not want this amendment. I am sorry.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the Member from California that
personal electronic devices may not be used on the floor of the House
and should be disabled when they are brought into the Chamber.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In 1993, they had the highest tax possible. They
stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund, even the gas
tax. Does one think they put it in a transportation fund? Absolutely
not. They put it in the general fund so they could spend more money.
There was no hope of a balanced budget. Debts were destined to go up.
The budget went beyond $200 billion every single year, but yet we will
see the exercise here tonight from my colleagues on the other side to
spend more money. Reject the amendments.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), a champion fighting against substance abuse in
our country.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment
to increase drug treatment funding by $600 million. This Nation has a
problem with drug addiction, and we cannot continue to incarcerate our
way out of this health crisis. With less than 5 percent of the world's
population, the United States has one quarter of the world's prisoners.
The rapid expansion of the U.S. prison industrial complex has been
fueled by the so-called war on drugs. While all of our communities are
suffering, inner city, rural, black, white, Asian, Native American,
name it, we have a problem.
I am stunned and outraged by a report that was released last week by
the Human Rights Watch which said that African American men are
imprisoned for drug crimes at 13 times the rate of white men even
though black and white rates of drug use are similar, with overall far
more white than black users.
This is an American problem. In our Federal system, 60 percent of the
prisoners are drug law violators with no violent criminal history.
According to the latest Bureau of Justice statistics, 55 percent of
convicted jail inmates are using drugs in the month before the offense.
Let us stop politicizing this. Let us do something about it. Support
the Pelosi amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi). We must focus our health and drug control
policy on drug use prevention and drug treatment. The fact is that
millions and millions of Americans are in severe need of substance
abuse treatment. We can start now. We can focus not only on supply
reduction but also on demand reduction. To do this, we must focus on
prevention and treatment. The funding provided by the Pelosi amendment
will help our youth avoid a life of drugs, and it will help those that
are currently drug users turn their lives around.
This investment will leverage additional local and State funds for
important health services and will strengthen State and local
coordination. This crucial amendment focuses on youth while allowing
communities to act according to their own local policies. For each
dollar invested in drug use prevention, we will save those communities
4 or 5 dollars. That is the offset we should account for.
Effective prevention programs engage youth interactively. I urge all
my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member of the committee.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) for allowing me to speak on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), in
offering this amendment, correctly states that drugs are a huge problem
in the United States. They destroy lives. They destroy lives of people
who voluntarily get involved with drugs. I would hope that we would put
some emphasis on self-responsibility into any debate such as this.
I know that the gentlewoman is wanting to give assistance through
drug treatment programs to help people that have gotten themselves
caught in drugs to get out of it. That is good, but it is not as though
we are not doing anything. Among the multiple billions and billions of
dollars of tax money that is spent to combat drugs, on top of the
private plans and the private money that goes to combat them, but one
part of the tax money that we already have is $2.7 billion for the very
program to which the gentlewoman wants to add another $600 million. Yet
to hear some people talk, one would think that we are not doing
anything and that somehow the people who are not using drugs are
responsible for those who are using drugs.
Now, we want to help them. We want to help them get out of that
cycle, but it is not done by trying to say it is penny-pinching
Republicans that somehow are at fault. No. It is the people who use
drugs that are at fault, and we are trying to help them. We are trying
to help society. We have a $2.7 billion substance abuse treatment
program already. So let us not pretend that nothing is being done. For
goodness' sakes, let us have some priorities. We have an overall budget
of the amount to spend because one of the other things that has drained
so much from this country is when we have had these massive Federal
deficits that obscenely push debt on to our kids and our grandkids and
destroy their futures, just as drugs destroy them. One of the drugs is
addiction to Federal spending.
When we have had deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars each
year, it is because people offer amendments that say let us just spend
another $600 million; I do not know where it will come from, but let us
just spend it.
They say, well, our proposal is do not lower anyone's taxes. We had a
vote on lowering taxes in this House last week. It received bipartisan
support; two-thirds of the House, on the estate tax,
[[Page H4201]]
on the death tax. That is one of many tax proposals. I know some people
say look, do not give relief to people that have been supporting the
highest level of taxes since World War II. We have an addiction here in
Washington that many people have to spending and just spend and spend
and spend.
{time} 2015
That is every bit as damaging to this country as the addiction of
people that are on drugs. We have got to break both of those habits. So
we are funding substance abuse programs. We are funding huge amounts of
it. But let us also make sure that we set an example and not have
Washington politicians that are addicted to spending and say, to stop
one addiction, we will feed another. That is not going to work.
This amendment, if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wants
to offer a cut someplace else to offset that spending, that might be in
order. I cannot support the adoption of this amendment. I urge a no
vote.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a Congresswoman who has
worked very hard to fight substance abuse in our country.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, of course, we have to be careful how we
spend money, but it is not just how much, it is how wisely we spend the
money. We might as well put our money on programs that we know work. We
know that treatment and prevention are more cost effective than other
options. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention saves $15 in
reduced health and social and criminal justice and other societal
costs. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention will save
communities $4 to $5 for drug abuse, counseling, and treatment.
Recent studies show that substance abuse treatment services have
lasting and significant benefits; 50 percent decrease in drug and
alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment; 43 percent decrease in
homelessness; 19 percent increase in employment.
We can win a war on drugs. We know how to spend money. It is not with
helicopters in Colombia, but it is with the Pelosi amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 30
seconds remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who is a former prosecutor, member
of the freshman class, who knows of what she speaks on this substance
abuse challenge in our country.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California for yielding me this time. It is important that we invest
money in treatment. Having served as a judge for 10 years and a
prosecutor for 8 years, I have seen how treatment works.
We spend a lot of money building jails to keep people in jail and
spend no money for treatment. People go to jail with an addiction. They
come out of jail with an addiction. It is important that we as a
country recognize the need for treatment, the demand for treatment, and
put money in treatment. That is where it works. We know it works. We
spend money building jails. Let us spend some money on treatment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have very eloquently pointed out what a
good investment that treatment on demand and prevention are to our
people in need of substance abuse treatment in our country. They have
also pointed out that it is a wise investment, that it saves money,
that it is 23 times more effective than a source country control that
we are proposing that is being proposed in the supplemental bill.
But I want to make another point, Mr. Chairman; and that is that this
Committee of the Whole could make this $600 million investment and save
us a great deal of money in the short and long run.
We could follow the lead of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter),
our distinguished chairman. In this bill, he has reported out of the
committee $500 million worth of spending that has been designated
emergency, that has not required any offset as long as there is a
request of an emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
So this is not going afield. It is following the example. If the
Republicans could find this emergency standing for their priorities,
why cannot we do it for people who need help in our country on the
substance abuse side?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we can agree about the importance of drug treatment and
drug prevention; and for that reason, we funded this account at the
exact amount that the President asked us in his budget to fund it.
Someone said a minute ago, we are spending no money on drug
treatment. We are spending $1.631 billion on drug treatment. It is a
lot of money. I would readily admit there is more need there, but we
are funding at the level the President requested. We are acting within
our responsibility. That is our job. That is what we are doing.
Point of Order
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) is correct on his point of order. The Republican majority
has not allowed us to bring this bill, this amendment, to the floor in
the same fashion that other priorities that the gentleman put in the
bill coming out of full committee received protection under emergency
standing.
This $600 million for treatment in demand is at least as important as
the priorities that received that emergency status coming out of the
full committee. So the idea that this should not apply, we should not
be able to bring this here because we do not have an offset we just
want to be treated like the Republican priorities. By that, I do not
mean the Republican priority of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1
percent of our people, giving a $200 billion tax cut to 400 Americans,
to 400 Americans when we have 3.5 million people in our country who
need substance abuse.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) will
confine her remarks to the point of order.
Ms. PELOSI. Further to the point of order, there is a lot of money in
the supplemental bill, if that ever sees the light of day, for treating
the drug abuse problem in our country by sending military assistance to
Colombia. We think this is a better way.
So I wish that it were in order. But I have to concede that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is correct. The Republicans
protect the tax cut, they protect their own spending priorities, but
they do not protect that.
Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all,
acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking
member, for his kindness and hard work on this issue along with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the committee.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) knows that I testified in
front of the subcommittee on the issue of mental health services for
children. So I had intended during this process, this appropriations
process, to offer an amendment to do more than what the administration
has done. Frankly, I do not think it is enough.
The administration asked for $86 million, and I know that the bill
has funded children's mental health services at $86 million, but let me
explain why I have come to suggest that we need to do more. We will
look forward to working with the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), who is ably a member of the Subcommittee on Labor,
[[Page H4202]]
Health and Human Services, and Education, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has done a phenomenal job as it relates to
mental health across the board on expressing the consternation about
dealing with mental health, period, in this Nation.
First all, we have the question of parity and stigma. So I want to
raise the issue of what is happening to our children. I fully believe
that Columbine and Jonesboro, the 6-year-old little boy that shot his
6-year-old classmate, the 13-year-old boy that shot his teacher, the
little boy in Pontiac, Michigan, who shot someone at age 11, and the
tragedy that has happened in my own 18th Congressional District where,
just yesterday, on Sunday, a 14-year-old girl shot and killed a 16-
year-old boy tends to, not only the issue of guns, but it deals with
the holistic approach to children.
We need better mental health services for our children. My amendment
was to add $10 million more to mental health services for children. It
is because of articles like this on the front cover of Ebony, ``Out of
the Closet, the Mental Health Crisis in Black America.'' It comes to
the hearing that was held in my district with Senator Paul Wellstone,
``Panel told of mental health ills,'' when over 30 witnesses talked
about the crisis that they feel in their own families, with their own
children, or setting the National Congress for Hispanic Mental Health,
and the Hispanic community is crying out for more resources, or the
Mental Health Awareness Campaign that shows that we need to do
something about people in crisis.
Today more than 13.7 million children suffer from mental health
problems. The National Mental Health Association reports that people
who commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most common
is depression.
Although one in five children in adolescence has a diagnosable
mental, emotional, or behavioral problem that could lead to school
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide, 75 to 80 percent of
these children do not receive any services in the form of specialty
treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
That is why we must increase the funding for comprehensive children's
mental health services to reach the 75 to 80 percent of children
suffering from mental illness.
Both the National Mental Health Association and the Federation of
Families for Children Mental Health Services support increased funding
for children's mental health and agree that we need to focus this
Nation's attention and intervention measures so that we can prevent
tragedies like Columbine, Paducah, Littleton, and Jonesboro.
I, too, believe that there can be relief for those who need some form
of tax relief. But I do believe that we are, if you will, harvesting
dollars for big tax cuts, rather than looking at the basic quality-of-
life needs of our children.
The grant programs funded under the Comprehensive Community Mental
Health Services programs are critical to ensure that children with
mental health problems and their families have access to a full array
of quality and appropriate care in their communities. They simply do
not have it.
Some of the testimony that came was the frustration of parents that
said I do not know where to go. I cannot leave out of my apartment or
my rental house and go down the street to a community health clinic and
get the kind of mental health services that I need. That stifles the
opportunity to heal and to cure these children who need us to listen
and need us to protect them and need us to heal them. To date, there
have not been sufficient funds to award grants to communities in all of
the States.
The story of Kip Kinkle, the 15-year-old student who shot his parents
and went to school to kill several others, is tragic, yet illuminating.
For 3 years before this horrendous event, Kip suffered from psychosis
and he heard voices. Yet, no one did anything to address this
situation. No teacher sent him to the nurse, and no one asked his
parents to take him to a doctor to find out what was wrong.
When they did, what they talked about was that he was using profanity
in class. He was, but he was responding to the voices in his head.
Kip Kinkle needed help. He needed help in his school. He needed help
at home. This is not to blame the parents. It is to provide the kind of
resources that are necessary.
I have worked diligently to bring attention to this most devastating
problem.
As I indicated, I want to applaud the leadership of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his forward-thinking leadership in years
past. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that, again, I am gaveled down
on a important issue; but I am gratified to have the opportunity to
make the case.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this Amendment to increase the
funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration by $10 million dollars by decreasing the funding for the
Chronic and Environmental Disease Prevention under the CDC.
For technical reasons, I realize that this Amendment does not
specifically earmark the funds for comprehensive children's mental
health services, but that is the intent of the Amendment. Children's
Mental Health needs to be a national priority in this country today.
Currently, we spend 10 times the amount on research into childhood
cancer, than on children's mental health, yet one of five children is
affected by some sort of mental illness.
Today, more than 13.7 million children suffer from mental health
problems. The National Mental Health Association reports that most
people who commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most
common is depression.
Although one in five children and adolescents has a diagnosable
mental, emotional, or behavioral problem that can lead to school
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide, 75 to 80 percent of
these children do not receive any services in the form of specialty
treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
This is why we must increase the funding for comprehensive children's
mental health services to reach this 75 to 80 percent of children
suffering from mental illness.
Both the National Mental Health Association and the Federation of
Families for Children's Mental Health Services support increased
funding for children's mental health and agree that we need to focus
this nation's attention on intervention measures so that we can prevent
tragedies like Columbine, Paducah, Littleton and Jonesboro.
The grant programs funded under the comprehensive community mental
health services program are critical to insure that children with
mental health problems and their families have access to a full array
of quality and appropriate care in their communities. To date, there
have not been sufficient funds to award grants to communities in all
the states.
The story of Kip Kinkle, the fifteen year-old student who shot his
parents and went to school to kill several other students is tragic,
yet illuminating.
For three years before this horrendous event, Kip suffered from
psychosis and heard voices, yet no one did anything to address this
situation. No teacher sent him to the nurse and no one asked his
parents to take him to a doctor to find out what was wrong.
I have worked diligently to bring attention to this most devastating
problem in our society by holding not one, but two hearings on
children's mental health. The first was through the Congressional
Children's Caucus and the second, in my district in Houston along with
Senator Paul Wellstone.
At the joint hearing in Houston we had over 30 witnesses to speak on
the need to increased diagnostic services for children's mental health.
Additionally, we discussed the link between suicide and mental health
disorders.
According to the 1999 Report of the U.S. Surgeon General, for young
people 15-24 years old, suicide is the third leading cause of death
behind intentional injury and homicide.
Persons under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides
in 1997. Between 1980 and 1997, suicide rates for those 15-19 years old
increased 11 percent and for those between the ages of 10-14, the
suicide rates increased 99 percent since 1980.
Within every 1 hour and 57 minutes, a person under the age of 25
completes suicide. The fact that 8 out of 10 suicidal persons give some
sign of their intentions also begs the question, why do we not make
children's mental health a national priority.
We know that more teenagers died from suicide than from cancer, heart
disease, AIDS, birth defects, strokes, influenza and chronic lung
disease combined.
Because childhood depression is so very prevalent, we must recognize
the dire need for increased services to treat our youth. Almost 12
young people between between the ages of 15-24 die everyday by suicide.
Nationwide, 20.5 percent of high school students have stated on self-
report surveys that they have seriously considered attempting suicide
during the preceding 12 months. These are just some of the alarming
statistics related to children's mental health.
[[Page H4203]]
Last week's killing of a Florida teacher by a 13-year-old honor
student is just a most recent attempt in a series of increasingly
violent attacks perpetrated by adolescents in the past few years.
Columbine, Littleton, and Paducah are just a few indicators that the
possible lack of access to mental health services has resulted in an
increase of children becoming involved in criminal activity and
becoming involved in the juvenile justice or child protective systems.
Our children need to be listened to . . . they need to be heard.
Children are complex human beings. Although they are young, they send
us signals when they are troubled; the real tragedy occurs when adults
do not listen to those signals or provide them with the help that they
need. Effective mental health resources in our communities and schools
can help in many instances prevent these acts of violence and suicide
among our youth.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides the
additional funding necessary to address mental illness so that our
children will not continue to suffer needlessly because of a lack of
mental health resources.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the Houston Chronicle article
entitled ``Panel Told of Mental Health Ills,'' as follows:
Panel Told of Mental Health Ills
suicide attempts by children cited
(By Janette Rodrigues)
Alma Cobb trembled with nervous tension Thursday as she
told a roomful of strangers the ways her 14-year-old son,
David, has tried to commit suicide since his first attempt at
age 5.
But her voice was surprisingly firm.
``He tried to hang himself, stab himself and electrocute
himself,'' Cobb testified during a hearing Thursday on
children's mental health needs called by U.S. Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee, D-Houston.
A transcript of the hearing will go into the congressional
record. Jackson Lee and Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who
also attended the hearing, hope to use the transcript in
getting Congress to pass legislation improving children's
mental health services.
Studies estimate that 13.7 million American school children
suffer from mental health, emotional or behavioral problems.
In the Houston area alone, more than 178,000 will need mental
health care during their school years.
Suicide and entry into the juvenile criminal justice system
are by-products, advocates say, of a society that shuns the
issue and hasn't exerted the political will to address
preventable problems.
Cobb's story and that of other such parents, services
providers and mental health professionals was compelling, and
sometimes moving.
But what Cobb has experienced is startling.
Her daughter, Clara, 14, also suffers from emotional and
behavioral disorders. She first tried to kill herself at age
7. She and her brother have been absent from school because
of their diagnosed mental illness and numerous
hospitalizations related to suicide attempts.
Despite documentation of that fact, Cobb said later, the
district where her children attend school considered her
children truants, not sick, and fined her more than $3,000
and took her to court.
``Sometimes, my children can't attend school because of
their mental illness and suicide attempts, but schools don't
understand it,'' Cobb said, ``They just understand their
regulations.''
Regina Hicks, deputy director of child and adolescent
services for the Harris County Mental Health/Mental
Retardation Authority, is familiar with the Cobb family's
story. The children receive services through the agency.
Hicks said their struggle with the school district is
unusual but, unfortunately, not unheard of in cases involving
children.
Studies show that at least one in five children and teens
in America has a mental illness that may lead to school
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide.
Most such schoolchildren don't receive adequate help
because of the stigma attached to their condition, the lack
of early intervention and scarce resources, mental health
care professionals and service providers told the hearing.
Speaker after speaker voiced the need for increased
funding.
``In Texas, we must be particularly concerned that the
state budget for children's mental health services has
remained virtually flat since 1993, despite growth in both
population and need,'' said Betty Schwartz, executive
director of the Mental Health Association of Greater Houston.
``Current budget discussions offer little hope for
improvement in the coming legislative session.''
Harris County Juvenile Court Associate Judge Veronica
Morgan-Price said the piece of MHMRA's budgetary pie for
juveniles is small.
She and others spoke of their frustration that the juvenile
justice system has become a surrogate for mental health
facilities.
Many said it's the norm in Harris County for mentally ill
juveniles to get adequate help only after they commit an act
that ends with them in a detention facility.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
through page 37, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 32, line l through page 37, line 12 is
as follows:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
healthcare research and quality
For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health
Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act, $123,669,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom
of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency
agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section
926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed
$99,980,000.
Health Care Financing Administration
grants to states for medicaid
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI
and XIX of the Social Security Act, $93,586,251,000, to
remain available until expended.
For making, after May 31, 2001, payments to States under
title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of
fiscal year 2001 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making payments to States or in the case of section
1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002,
$36,207,551,000, to remain available until expended.
Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with
respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during
such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and
approved in that or any subsequent quarter.
payments to health care trust funds
For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as
provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social
Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social
Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to
section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $70,381,600,000.
program management
For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI,
XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII
and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed
$1,866,302,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital
Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social
Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance
with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and such
sums as may be collected from authorized user fees and the
sale of data, which shall remain available until expended,
and together with administrative fees collected relative to
Medicare overpayment recovery activities, which shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That all funds derived in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from organizations established
under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act shall be
credited to and available for carrying out the purposes of
this appropriation: Provided further, That $18,000,000
appropriated under this heading for the managed care system
redesign shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Health and Human Services is
directed to collect fees in fiscal year 2001 from
Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2)
of the Social Security Act and from eligible organizations
with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 of that Act
pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act: Provided
further, That, for the current fiscal year, not more that
$630,000,000 may be made available under section 1817(k)(4)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(4)) from the
Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to carry out the Medicare
Integrity Program under section 1893 of such Act.
health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund
For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of
the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the
Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under
title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available
without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding
obligations. During fiscal year 2001, no commitments for
direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.
Administration for Children and Families
payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
programs
For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities
under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social
Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9),
$2,473,800,000, to remain available until expended; and for
such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002,
$1,000,000,000.
For making payments to each State for carrying out the
program of Aid to Families
[[Page H4204]]
with Dependent Children under title IV-A of the Social
Security Act before the effective date of the program of
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) with respect to
such State, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, That the
sum of the amounts available to a State with respect to
expenditures under such title IV-A in fiscal year 1997 under
this appropriation and under such title IV-A as amended by
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the limitations
under section 116(b) of such Act.
For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year,
payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles
I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and
the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3
months of the current year for unanticipated costs, incurred
for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
low income home energy assistance
For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,100,000,000, to be available
for obligation in the period October 1, 2001 through
September 30, 2002.
For making payments under title XXVI of such Act,
$300,000,000: Provided, That these funds are hereby
designated by Congress to be emergency requirements pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That these
funds shall be made available only after submission to
Congress of a formal budget request by the President that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
refugee and entrant assistance
For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance
activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $423,109,000:
Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act for fiscal year 2001
shall be available for the costs of assistance provided and
other activities through September 30, 2003.
For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $10,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
payments to states for the child care and development block grant
For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990), in addition to amounts
already appropriated for fiscal year 2001, $400,000,000; and
to become available on October 1, 2001 and remain available
through September 30, 2002, $2,000,000,000: Provided, That of
the funds appropriated for each of fiscal years 2001 and
2002, $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource
and referral and school-aged child care activities: Provided
further, That of the funds provided for fiscal year 2002,
$172,672,000 shall be reserved by the States for activities
authorized under section 658G of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990), such funds to be in addition to the
amounts required to be reserved by the States under section
658G.
Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12 as the designee of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hoyer:
Page 37, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $417,328,000)''.
Page 39, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $600,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $600,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $400,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment
of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that, under the unanimous
consent agreement propounded by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) on June 8, all points of order against each of the designated
amendments to be offered by Rep. Obey or his designee shall be
considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, if I may advise the
Chair; but I simply want to reserve the point in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
{time} 2030
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $416 million to the bill for title
I grants, $600 million to the bill for Head Start, $400 million to the
bill for the 21st Century After School Centers, and adds $417 million
to the bill for child care development block grants.
Mr. Chairman, before I start, I want to respond to a couple of the
allegations that have been made from the other side. First of all, that
somehow we are forced to do this. I want to say first to the chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who
rises on the floor and says, gee whiz, we are forced to do that, and if
the rest of us are responsible we will have to live within these
limits. Let me tell my colleague something I learned a long time ago,
and that is to not accept the premise of those who are arguing against
me.
The premise of the gentleman is incorrect, Mr. Chairman. It is
irresponsible to accept the parameters that have been placed on this
bill. It is irresponsible to the children that I am going to talk about
and the families that I am going to talk about to live within the
parameters of the bill.
Why do we have those parameters? Not because they are in a rule, not
because they were given to us by some extrinsic force, they are in the
rule because of the majority party's tax cut. Now, they may not like
that, but that is the fact. That is the fact.
Now, let me tell my colleague from California, who talks about fiscal
responsibility. A, I support defense; B, I supported the welfare
reform; and, C, as the gentleman knows, I supported the balanced budget
amendment. But the fact of the matter is I did so with the premise that
we would keep sufficient revenues to meet our responsibilities.
The most fiscally irresponsible administration in the history of this
country was under Ronald Reagan. Hear me now. Here are the facts. Back
in 1950, 125 percent of GDP we were in debt. That came down. It came
down to less than 23 percent, 24 percent. It flattened out for a few
years and then, guess what happened on Ronald Reagan's watch? It went
through the ceiling, and added $4 trillion to the debt.
Do not preach to this side of the aisle about fiscal
responsibilities, my colleagues. At no time did we have the votes to
stop a Ronald Reagan veto of spending. At no time. This is Ronald
Reagan's spending. It was not a question of fiscal responsibility, it
was what he wanted to spend the money on. He wanted to spend the money
on defense. I happened to think he was right.
Where he was not right was doing the same thing my colleagues are
doing this year. He wanted to cut and did cut revenues precipitously.
But he did not have the courage of his tax-cutting convictions, because
the courage of his tax-cutting convictions would have been to cut
spending. But he did not want to do that because he may have paid a
political price for it.
Now, let me tell my colleagues what this amendment does, quickly. We
add, as I said, $416 million for title I. The conference agreement on
the Republican budget resolution requires $7 billion in cuts, or 6
percent below the fiscal year 2000 level, last year's level. Premising
large tax cuts on unrealistic spending cuts makes the conference
agreement a fiscally unsound and risky budget plan.
That is why we are here, Mr. Chairman. I am offering an amendment
today to fix a few of the problems. We do not have offsets within this
bill because the offset premise that the gentleman from Illinois wants
us to accept would be incorrect for us to do, because it is
irresponsible for the gentleman to have forged, well, the gentleman did
not do it, he did not vote for it, and we admire the gentleman for
that, but the fact of the matter is many of the gentleman's colleagues
did. They fashioned these numbers. My amendment, as I said, adds a
total of $1.8 billion.
[[Page H4205]]
Now, that sounds like a lot of money. But let it not surprise anybody
that that figure is approximately the figure that has already been
adopted by the Republican majority in the Senate. So if we are
irresponsible, I guess our colleagues in the Senate over there are as
well.
We ask for increases for title I funding. Head Start, 21st Century
After School Centers and the child care and development block grant.
The four parts to my amendment do this: Adds $416 million, as I said,
to title I.
Now, that $416 million means that 650,000 children in America who
qualify for services, and who are not now getting it, 650,000
disadvantaged children, will get services if my amendment passes. That
is not paper, that is not rhetoric, those are real kids from real
families who need help to compete in this world economy. Is the tax cut
more important than those 650,000 kids?
We add $600 million to Head Start, a program everybody says works,
making the total increase for fiscal year 2001 equal to $1 billion.
That is an additional 50,000 low-income children who will be served and
3,000 infants and toddlers who will be served. That is 53,000 children.
This is not about rhetoric and numbers, this is about real kids.
We add $400 million to the 21st Century After School Centers. We all
know that crime is up after school. Why? Because kids do not have
families at home. This amendment will allow 900 additional communities
above the gentleman's bill to establish 3,000 centers serving 1 million
children. Is that irresponsible, I ask my chairman? Is it fiscally
responsible to tell those 1 million kids to get out on the street; that
we do not have enough money in the richest Nation on the face of the
Earth to provide them with those centers? Those children, 1.6 million
children, will be denied service because of the Republican tax cut.
Lastly, we add $417 million for the bill for child care and
development block grant for 2001 funding. Eighty thousand more children
will be served if we pass this amendment.
My colleagues, we are talking about real kids here and programs that
work. The chairman says and said in the committee when we marked this
bill up that he thought this funding is okay. He told me that I was
probably right, that we probably need to do this, but that we cannot do
it because of the constraints. Those constraints are self-imposed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized
for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I was kind of surprised. I
thought there was an overwhelming Democrat majority during the Reagan
years. We cannot blame him for vetoing, because he vetoed very few
bills. So there is no argument about we did not have the votes to
override his veto.
But I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), since he has become the chairman
of this subcommittee. When I think of the amount of money that has been
spent prior to his coming on as chairman, and the fact that no one paid
any attention about whether it was a quality program or was not, my
hats are off to him.
Let us talk about a couple of the areas. Child care and development
block grant, $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2001. That is a $400 million
increase over last year. Let us talk a little bit about Head Start and
how we denied children for 12 years any opportunity of getting a head
start because the only thing my colleagues wanted to talk about was
that we must cover more, we must cover more. No one paid any attention
to whether there was any quality in the program. What a tragedy.
It was not until 1994 that we were able to get anybody to think about
quality. I was able to get 25 percent of any new money at that time
toward quality. But it was not until 1998 that we really got serious
about it. Yet every study, every study told us over and over again that
the children are not getting a head start. Why? It became a jobs
poverty program. It became a baby-sitting program. What a tragedy,
because we could have done something to help them. Many of them would
not be in special education today because they would have had the
reading readiness programs that they should have had at that time.
But, again, it was not until 1998, until we seriously thought about
quality rather than quantity. And I want to thank this Secretary,
because she is the first Secretary who has shut down 100 Head Start
programs. I could not get anybody to do that. Thank goodness. Rather
than coming up, as she was instructed to do, she was to come up every
time and say we must cover more, we must cover more, we must cover
more, she did not say that. Because every time I would say, we need to
talk about quality, and she would say, that is correct.
So, again, we put a lot of money into Head Start, and the chairman
again is increasing Head Start. It will be up to $5.7 billion. And
finally, hopefully, they will be quality programs.
Then technology in the 21st Century Community Learning Center
program. Again, we have seven technology programs on the books, five of
which are funded. When we just had a reauthorization program, they
offered amendment after amendment to add a couple more technology
programs. No one paid any attention to the fact that having five spread
over every agency we were accomplishing very little.
So if we get the other body to act, we will be talking about one
technology program. So if they need to improve the preparation of the
teacher to use the technology, they can do that. If they need hardware,
they can do that. If they need software, they can do that. But instead
of spreading them out over five different programs, spread over every
agency downtown, we are going to make a real difference.
But, again, we are looking at a $2 million increase, $2 million above
the President's request, in the area of technology.
Then, when we talk about 21st Century Community Learning Centers,
funded at $600 million, $147 million above last year, we need to
understand that, more importantly, this program just started in 1995
and it was at $750,000. Now we are at $905 million.
We just had a hearing, and in that hearing all sorts of questions
were being raised as to whether as a matter of fact they are using the
money the way the Congress intended it to be used. So, again, I cannot
compliment the chairman enough for his efforts not only to bring more
money to all of these programs but to insist that there are quality in
those programs.
Title I, same story. Child after child after child denied an
opportunity to get a part of the American Dream because, again, no one
paid any attention to quality. One of the largest school districts,
maybe the largest, used 55 percent of their title I money for teacher
aides. And guess what? Sixty-some percent of those did not even have a
high school diploma. To make matters worse, they were teaching without
any supervision. So we have tried to change and redirect that.
So, again, hats off to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). He
has done an outstanding job to not only give us more money but to give
us quality in programming.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) to remind me who was in charge of the Department of Education
from 1981, as he was lamenting that nobody cared about quality and that
nobody cared about whether these were operating effectively on behalf
of children. Who was in charge of the Department of Education,
Department of Human Services from 1981 to 1993?
Congress was not in charge. We did not run them. The fact of the
matter is, as the gentleman pointed out, the first Secretary to tell a
Head Start program it could not operate because it was not doing what
we wanted for children was Donna Shalala. The gentleman was correct on
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii
(Mrs. Mink).
[[Page H4206]]
{time} 2045
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from
Maryland. We have given so much lip service and a lot of discussion
nationwide about the importance of education. For years this has been
the national dialogue coming from the grassroots. But in those days
when we were talking about education, it was always there is a deficit,
we cannot possibly add to the funding for education.
Finally, we now have a surplus. And what do we do? We come to the
floor with a self-inflicted strait jacket ordained from somewhere that
we cannot spend this money as the national electorate would want us to
spend it.
Certainly we are for quality education. Certainly we are for quality
Head Start and all the other programs. But quality costs money. It
seems to me that it is absolutely tragic and reprehensible that the
appropriators come to the floor and discuss to cut $1.8 billion from
the President's request. It means thousands of people are going to be
denied the opportunity to have help in Head Start, in child-care
programs, in after-school programs, in math instruction and reading,
all the things that will narrow the divide between the poor and the
rich children of this society.
We always talk about equal educational opportunity. The place to do
it is for the poor children in the early-education programs and in
child care.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valued member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my subcommittee chairman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this is really an amendment about four important
programs: to add money to title I, grants to LEAS, to Head Start, 21st
Century After-School Centers, and child care CCDBG for fiscal year
2001.
But as with most of these amendments, from my Democratic colleagues,
it turns out to be an opportunity for discussion about Republican tax
cuts. And for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), just
a few moments ago, it turned out to be an opportunity to denounce the
record of President Ronald Reagan, who did lead this Congress in 1981
to cut taxes on the American people so that they could keep a little
more of their money.
My friend from Maryland suggests, and I believe I am quoting him
correctly, that President Reagan was willing to do without revenues, to
cut back on revenues, so that he could cut taxes.
Well, I have here in my hand a document entitled Table B-80, Federal
Receipts and Outlays. It is for the past 60 past years, 1940 to the
year 2000. And it shows very clearly, when we talk about total revenue
to the Nation, that, back in 1981, when President Reagan persuaded a
Democrat House to go along with the Senate of the United States in
cutting taxes, that revenues then were $678.2 billion per year.
This document, put out by the Department of the Treasury and the
Office of Management and Budget, and I defy any Member of this House of
Representatives to show me that it is incorrect, shows that, under the
Reagan years after those tax cuts, revenues went up each and every year
after these tax cuts that had been denounced by my friend from
Maryland.
In 1982, revenues went up from $678 billion to $745 billion dollars.
They went up in 1983. They went up in 1984. Until in 1989, the last
year of the Reagan administration, revenues, not spending, but revenues
to the Federal Government, even after these substantial tax cuts, had
virtually doubled to $1.143 trillion. And this is even after the tax
cuts that Democrats supported and that Republicans supported in 1981.
What it shows, and what it has shown every time is that when we have
cut taxes on the people of America, that they have used the money
wisely, that the economy has grown. It happened again in 1997. It
happened as far back as the 1960s, when President Kennedy cut taxes.
Every time we cut taxes, there is an enhancement of economic activity
and revenue increases.
Now, also, another point that my friend, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), made is that President Reagan had an opportunity to veto
the spending that occurred during his term in office. And that is true.
But I will tell my colleagues one thing that President Reagan did not
have an opportunity to veto is the increase in entitlement spending
that went on from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1989.
And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) well knows, that is
where the growth in Federal expenditures came, not in appropriation
bills that President Reagan could or could not have vetoed, but in
entitlement spending.
So I will just say to my friends that, while we are hearing tonight
and we heard last week, we can and undoubtedly we will hear again
tomorrow before this bill is passed and probably we will hear on every
appropriation bill, that we are having to cut back on important
programs because Republicans want to cut taxes, actually the opposite
is true. Every time we have cut taxes under Democrat Presidents, under
Republican Presidents and even under this Democrat President, there has
been more economic activity, there has been more revenue to spend, and
the American people have been the beneficiaries thereof.
I defy anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle to dispute the
fact that revenues went up during the Reagan administration.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about bipartisanship in terms of the
estate tax. And indeed that is what happened. But how about some
partisanship in terms of the education of our children? We cannot
balance the budget on the backs of kids who cannot defend themselves.
I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to significantly
increase funding for our Nation's children.
Many of my colleagues have emphasized on both sides of the aisle that
this amendment could be a lifeline perhaps. It will ensure that our
children have a chance for a better education and growth opportunities.
In my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, we have seen the tangible
benefits of so many of the programs. These are not puristic victories.
These are victories of substance with children who would have no other
means of support in the classroom.
Our Head Start and after-school programs have brought thousands of
children into nurturing environments. In an age of unprecedented wealth
and the lowest peacetime unemployment rate, cities like Paterson and
Passaic still have double-digit unemployment.
I understand tomorrow we even introduce an amendment to cut the
after-school programs that are already in existence. This is
unconscionable.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke that the
amendment of the gentleman makes additions in four different line
items; items we have increased over the last year by almost a billion
dollars.
There are no cuts here, none at all. They are important accounts. We
gave them substantial increases, except in one case, $947 million of
increases. I think we have done the very best we can within fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Hoyer amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I only have a short amount of time, but I think there is
something we should talk about very seriously.
After-school programs do work. Unfortunately, we are going to see
cuts in New York State alone. I was in my schools this morning. And I
know our schools want it, our parents want it, and certainly our
children want it.
We are seeing more and more children being left alone after school.
We can take that time, and we can use that time to make sure our
children are enriched with academic programs, making sure they are in a
safe environment, and certainly raising their intellect on everything
else.
Why am I doing this? Why am I supporting this? Because I happen to
think
[[Page H4207]]
that is one way of reducing crime, because I happen to think that is
one way of making sure our young people do not go into drugs and
alcohol and then violence.
This is a program that can work, it should work, and certainly we
should be supporting this.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just re-edify that this
bill increases education, if we include Head Start, $2 billion. There
is no one wanting to take education away from kids. It increases it $2
billion over last year if we include Head Start.
If we take a look, it increases special education $500 million, not
cut, but $500 million. Impact aid, which the President zeroed out, is
increased under this bill, which is very important to Native Americans
and also to the military.
Plus, the Ed Flex bill that we passed last year with bipartisan
support gives the schools the ability to use the dollars as they see
fit, not as Washington rules down the mandates which ties up the
schools. That is one of the reasons the charter school movement that we
pushed for years is so important.
So we have not cut education, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak to one part of the Hoyer
amendment which deals with the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
The Hoyer amendment would provide an additional $418 million for this
program. This is flexible funds to our States to provide for child care
for our children.
The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and
Means has held a hearing, and we found that affordable quality day-care
is not available to too many children in our country. Only five States
set the eligibility for the funds at the maximum allowed under Federal
law, 85 percent of the median income.
Forty-five States are below that. My own State of Maryland set it at
40 percent. Only one out of every 10 children who are eligible today
for the funds can get the money because of the lack of Federal funds.
The Hoyer amendment provides help for 80,000 children in this
category. We should be supporting this amendment today.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, what we are arguing about here is not crime, is not
child care, is not education. What we are arguing is how much of an
increase the House mark increases funding for all these programs.
What the Democrats are trying to do with the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) is increase it further.
We certainly support after-school child care. We certainly support
the block grants. We are a strong supporter of Head Start. That is why
it has increased every year under Republican leadership.
But the Hoyer amendment fails to make the case as to why these
funding levels were picked. Could he explain why he decided that when
we go from $600 million on the 21st Century After-School Centers he
goes to a thousand, why that level?
{time} 2100
Was there scientific? Was there research? Was there testimony to that
effect? No, there was not. All the Democrats are trying to do is
increase our increase to show that they measure compassion by dollars
spent. It is not going to do the job.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, if we can pass a defense appropriations
bill that is $20 billion more than last year, if we can find the money
for nuclear weapons, if we can find funding for a misguided missile
defense system, surely, surely, we can pass the Hoyer amendment to help
our most vulnerable children.
As I look at the provisions in this bill, I ask myself, who is taking
care of our children? Where will our children go after school? Where
will our children find the guidance they need? Who will help poor
children prepare to enter school? The Hoyer amendment restores some of
the most damaging cuts in H.R. 4577, cuts that deny nearly 2.4 million
children the help that they need to get a better start in life.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), whose predecessor I might say, Mr.
Chairman, Louis Stokes, was one of the great leaders on our committee.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. Let me say this. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) said that the studies have shown that Head Start does not
work so we should not give any more money to Head Start. The studies
have shown that jail does not work so why do we keep building jails? If
I adopt his perspective of spending more money on jails, then let us at
least spend the same amount of money that we spend on child care and
day care and Head Start, because Head Start works and our children
ought to have at least the benefit of a great education in the
beginning and hopefully they do not end up in jail.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
will close as I began. First of all, I do not adopt the premise it was
an irresponsible budget that was adopted. The gentleman from Illinois
has acknowledged that these expenditures are good. Secondly, the
gentleman from Georgia asked, where do these numbers come from? Frankly
they came from the President, adopted by the United States Senate, as
well, and I think they ought to be adopted by us. Thirdly, I would say
to my colleagues, this is about real children, disadvantaged children,
2.4 million children who will be served if this amendment passes that
will not be served at the level you suggest.
Now, maybe you think there are not 2.4 million children in America
who need help. Maybe you think like, as the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi) said, that it is those 400 people who are going to get
$200 billion under the tax cut that are more important than those 2.4
million children. That is quite a balance; 400 very rich people getting
$200 billion while we cut $1.8 billion in this amendment for 2.4
million children. What kind of Nation has that kind of priority? It is
a Nation that will not long succeed. It is a Nation whose children will
not compete effectively in world markets. It is a Nation who will see
itself increasingly becoming a Nation of the rich and the poor. Let us
adopt this amendment. Let us set our priorities straight. Let us act to
help those 2.4 million children.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say once again, the gentleman says that it is irresponsible
not to adopt these amendments. The fact is the amendment are in
violation of the budget resolution. The budget resolution was adopted
by the majority of both Houses of the Congress. We have to live within
it even though the gentleman does not feel bound by it.
Let me add that the gentleman could have offered responsible
amendments that have offsets within the limits of that budget
resolution and within the limits of our allocation but the gentleman
chose not to. In fact, it is crystal clear year after year that nobody
on that side of the aisle is willing ever to cut anything, but always
add.
We have to operate within a budget resolution that is fiscally
responsible. We have added $947 million, almost $1 billion to these
four line items. We are doing the best we can. They are important
priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland will state his point of
order.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois has made a
point. Mr. Chairman, would I have been in order to offer an amendment
to add $1.883 billion to serve those 2.4 million
[[Page H4208]]
by reducing the tax cut that is proposed?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not entertain a hypothetical question.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order with reference
to whether I would be in order to offer such an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not address a hypothetical question.
Mr. HOYER. Shall I offer the amendment and then have it ruled on?
Point of Order
Mr. PORTER. 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 8, 2000,
House Report 106-660. 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.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to address the point of order?
Mr. HOYER. Yes, I do wish to address the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I asked the point of order. I offered an amendment. The
amendment under consideration by the Chair now as to whether or not it
is in order is an amendment to add $1.883 billion to the bill for the
purposes of including 2.4 million children within the ambit of the
bill. This bill deals at its base with individuals who are getting
child care services, getting Head Start services, getting educational
services generally, getting before- and after-care at school. This
would expand that.
Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinarily relevant to the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the point
of order, if I may suggest.
Mr. HOYER. I am addressing the substance of the bill and the
relevancy of my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed.
Mr. HOYER. I am about to say that but for the tax cut, there would be
revenues available to have paid for this amendment. I understand the
Chair is going to rule it out of order because the Committee on Rules
has not protected it and therefore has dictated the ruling of the
Chair. I regret that, but more importantly than that, the 2.4 million
children of America who will not be served regret that.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members that wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand on this
point of order, though, and make it abundantly clear to all Members of
the House that if this amendment had offsets to make up for these
additional massive spending increases by simply taking the dollars and
reducing them elsewhere in the bill, this amendment would, in fact, be
in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not address hypothetical questions.
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an
amendment providing a net increase in new discretionary budget
authority greater than $1 million would cause a breach of the pertinent
allocation of such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on
its face proposes to increase the level of new discretionary budget
authority in the bill by greater than $1 million. As such, the
amendment would violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois
as to what his intention is with respect to proceeding with this bill
at this point. As he knows, in the discussion which occurred that was
attendant to the approval of the unanimous consent request last week,
when he propounded that unanimous consent request, I would read from
page H4106 in the Congressional Record. When the gentleman asked
unanimous consent that the agreement be approved under which we are now
operating, I said as follows:
Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply would
note under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, that I have no
objection to this arrangement, with the understanding that
when the House returns to this bill, it will not be at a time
when Members are still flying back to Washington on their
airplanes, and that it will not be debated in the dead of
night.
I did that because this is the major priorities debate for the
session. We feel very strongly on this side of the aisle that if we
cannot get votes on amendments, at least we ought to be able to debate
them at a time when Members are here and someone is at least paying
attention to the debate. And we offered to have other appropriation
bills on the floor tonight rather than this one so that that could be
accommodated and we could still finish the scheduled work this week. We
had been told this morning that it was understood on the majority side
of the aisle under those conditions this bill would come up this
evening but that we would not proceed past 9 o'clock.
So I am asking the gentleman at this point what his intention is with
respect to proceeding with the bill beyond this point since it is now
9:12.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. It is my understanding that we have pending to be
completed this week in addition to this piece of legislation the
appropriations for the Department of Interior and the appropriations
for the Department of Agriculture, and that we also have pending a
conference report on military construction. As the gentleman well
knows, tomorrow morning we have in full committee the Commerce-Justice-
State appropriation. There is a great deal of work to do. I do not know
where we are going to get the time to get it accomplished unless we are
willing to work to some reasonable hour. I would suggest to the
gentleman that it would be appropriate if we would continue longer this
evening and try to complete some of these additional amendments if we
possibly could so that we can complete this bill by tomorrow, if
possible.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply then observe, Mr. Chairman, that the
unanimous consent agreement was agreed to with the understanding that
is stipulated in the Record. There is no question about being willing
to work, but it is not the fault of the minority that the majority
party went home Friday without even getting a rule out of the Committee
on Rules for the Interior bill, for instance, which could have easily
been on the floor tonight.
I think what is going on here, not certainly on the part of the
gentleman because I think in his heart of hearts he agrees with me, but
I think what is going on here is a determination by the majority party
to debate this bill at a time of day when it will be the least noticed
of any major appropriation bill before the House. If we cannot rely on
each other's word around here, and I am certainly not speaking about
the gentleman from Illinois, but if we cannot rely on each other's word
around here, then we do not have any civility at all left in this
place.
Preferential Motion: Offered By Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
{time} 2115
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the
Committee divided, and there were ayes 15, noes 17.
Recorded Vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 202, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
AYES--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
[[Page H4209]]
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--202
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--45
Andrews
Baker
Bateman
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeLauro
DeMint
Dooley
Ewing
Fattah
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Hansen
Hoeffel
Kasich
Largent
Lazio
Linder
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Metcalf
Myrick
Ney
Owens
Payne
Pickett
Sabo
Shuster
Stark
Toomey
Towns
Vento
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
{time} 2136
Mr. CANNON and Mr. BRADY of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Obey:
Page 37, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000)''.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am in the process of offering an amendment
to the child care section of this bill. It is my understanding that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wanted to have a colloquy. Did the
gentleman want to have that before I offered the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Young is recognized for 5 minutes on a pro forma amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word so
we can have this colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have been
discussing the order of business for the balance of the evening and for
the completion of this bill. I would like to say that this is the first
time in 3 years that this bill has come to the floor as a separate
independent individual piece of legislation, and I think it is
important that we deal with it expeditiously.
Mr. Chairman, there are a substantial number of amendments that have
been printed in the Record. I am satisfied that Members who have had
them printed would probably want to offer them. I think it would not be
a bad idea if Members would let their respective subcommittee leaders
know whether or not they intend to offer those amendments.
I make this suggestion for this purpose: I understand that the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and many Members would like for the
committee to rise and continue our work tomorrow. It is extremely
important that we complete this bill tomorrow. Otherwise the rest of
our appropriations schedule will fall considerably behind, and I do not
think any of us want that to happen. So the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) and I have been discussing how do we get out of here at a
reasonable time tonight and also be able to complete this bill
tomorrow?
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for his
comments on this subject.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this: On this side of the aisle,
because this bill has not been on the floor for 3 years, we want to see
this bill voted on. Speaking very frankly, politically, we would be
delighted to finally see this House vote on this bill, and
substantively we would also be delighted to see us vote on the bill and
would like to see it done tomorrow.
We are operating under a unanimous consent agreement under which some
11 Democratic amendments have been laid out in the unanimous consent
request with time limits attached to them. We would be very happy to
attach time limits to all remaining amendments. We believe that 80
percent of the amendments on the Democratic side will not be offered.
Of those that will be offered, our understanding from talking to most
of the Members is that they will be offered and withdrawn after an
explanation of what the Member was trying to do for 5 minutes. I know
of only two or three amendments on our side that do not fit that
category and on which we need to do further work, but we are willing to
work out time limits on all of those.
The problem as we see it is that there is a significant number of
amendments that on our list are tentatively listed to be offered by
Members on your side of the aisle. We do not have the capacity to work
with your Members to work out time agreements. We are happy to agree to
time limits on those as well, but we cannot do the work on the majority
side with your Members. Your leadership staff and you need to do that.
All we want is what I said when I agreed to the unanimous consent
request on Friday, that when this bill is debated, it not be debated in
the dead
[[Page H4210]]
of night, because it has been 3 years since this bill has been on the
floor.
{time} 2145
So I want to assure what I honestly believe would be best is if we
could rise on this bill tonight, I do not know what the gentleman has
scheduled for the remainder of the week in terms of the order but it
seems to me that overnight your leadership staff, your committee staff
ought to be able to get together with your members and reach an
understanding so before we come back on this bill tomorrow we can enter
into a unanimous consent request which we can both agree to, which
would enable us to finish the bill tomorrow. That would be our goal as
well, but if we waste 4 hours' time we are not going to get past this
point in the bill tonight, I assure you. That does not do anybody any
good, and I think the time would be better spent simply consulting with
Members to see how much time they think they need on their amendment
and whether they, in fact, need to offer it at all, that is
legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, let me suggest to the
gentleman that the unanimous consent agreement that the gentleman and I
developed last week, had a time limit on the specific amendments but
there was no time limit on when the House would complete its business
today.
Secondly, the time that we spent last week on this bill, and today,
has been on amendments from your side of the aisle. There are a
substantial number of amendments that will probably be offered from our
side of the aisle that have already been printed in the Record, and
certainly each Member has the option to offer those amendments. Now my
suggestion would be that we take up the next amendment and during that
time we sit down and see if we can develop another unanimous consent
request to propound that would be agreeable to the House; that would
put some time limits on the rest of the amendments as we did on the
first series of amendments, and guarantee the Members that we will
complete action on this bill by tomorrow night.
Also, tonight we would like to appoint conferees on the military
construction bill, which would also become a vehicle for a large
portion of the supplemental that the House passed very early in the
year, which is important to very many Members who are serving here in
the House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I simply want to
repeat, and I am reading from page H4106 of the Congressional Record of
June 8, when the unanimous consent request was propounded at that time
under which we agreed to a time limit on the 11 amendments that we are
now operating on, I said the following: I said, ``Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, I would note that I have no objection to
this arrangement with the understanding that when the House returns to
this bill it will not be at a time when Members are still flying back
to Washington on their airplanes and that it will not be debated in the
dead of night.''
We were then assured today that we would be out of here on this bill
at least by 9:00 tonight. Now I am told something else and if that is
the case, then as the gentleman knows, this unanimous consent request
was offered because we had 160 amendments to the bill. If we are not
going to stick to the agreement we had, we are going to offer all 160
amendments.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman
to read the next line and see who responded from our side to agree to
the 9:00 adjournment tonight.
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman full well knows what conversations took place
both publicly and privately. If we cannot count on the majority to keep
their word, then we might as well know it now.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is what I am asking the gentleman, who
agreed on our side to the 9:00 adjournment tonight?
Mr. OBEY. Your leadership staff told us today.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It was not part of the Record that you just
read, is that correct?
Mr. OBEY. You asked for a unanimous consent agreement. I told you
under which conditions I would give it, and I told you both privately
and we did it in the Record, as you well know.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Is the gentleman willing to try to work out a
unanimous consent agreement that would complete consideration of this
bill by tomorrow night, whatever time it might be?
Mr. OBEY. I told you, I am perfectly willing to put limits on every
amendment, but I cannot control which amendments are going to be
offered on your side of the aisle. We have done our work on this side
of the aisle and identified Members who were going to offer amendments
and they have largely agreed not to offer them.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I understand what the gentleman is saying
and, as I said earlier, all of the time so far on this bill has been
spent on the amendments from your side. So there would obviously be
time required on our side to offer amendments, but I am prepared to
make a recommendation to my side of the aisle on a time limitation in
order to complete this bill by tomorrow night, if you are willing to
sit down and to try to reach an agreement on that.
Mr. OBEY. All I can tell the gentleman is that I want to finish
tomorrow night, but I have no way of guaranteeing we are going to
finish tomorrow night until I know what the plans are on the
gentleman's side of the aisle with respect to amendments.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If we get a unanimous consent agreement, a
unanimous consent agreement is binding.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, the pro forma
amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) proceeding without
objection, and now the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) may proceed
for 5 minutes on amendment No. 24.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the first of 160 amendments that we
intend to offer to this bill. This amendment adds $1,000 to the Child
Care and Development Block Grant. I am offering this amendment because
it is the only way under the rule under which this bill is being
considered that we can have a discussion about the effect of the
majority party's tax cuts on each and every individual program that
delivers services to the people that we represent. The majority party
has decided in the last 2 months to do the following: They have passed
a minimum wage bill that provided $11 billion worth of benefits to
minimum wage workers but they required, as the price for passage, that
we also add $90 billion worth of tax benefits to people who make over
$300,000 a year.
They took a tax bill which they called the marriage penalty and under
the guise of providing relief for the so-called marriage penalty they
produced a tax bill which gave 73 percent of those benefits to people
who made over $100,000 a year. Then last week, the majority passed
through this House an inheritance tax package that gave over $200
billion in potential tax relief to the wealthiest 400 people in this
country.
Yet we are prevented, because of the budget resolution and the limits
imposed by that resolution, we are prevented in the appropriations
process from trying to make our case by demonstrating on a program by
program basis what they have had to squeeze in order to do that.
What they have done on child care is to cut the President's request
by 400-and-some million dollars. Now they say, well, that is not really
a very deep cut in the President's budget, and it is no cut at all
because of what we provided last year. They forget the fact that we are
only providing child care to about 1 out of every 10 children who are
presently eligible for assistance under Federal law.
I can only offer an amendment to add a thousand dollars to this.
The $417 million cut in the President's program means that 80,000
fewer children will be served. Under the rules, I can only offer an
amendment raising this amount by a nominal amount, and I do so simply
because at this point that is the only way that we can make our point
about the misplaced priorities in the majority party's budget
resolution.
[[Page H4211]]
I would have preferred that we go through this in a systematic
fashion, have a short 30-minute debate on each of the major items in
the bill at a time of day when we are not being buried, after this bill
has been hidden from public view for more than 3 years, but that is not
to be. So I guess instead of having the orderly subject by subject
discussion that I had hoped we would have, we are going to have to
offer a series of amendments to every line of this bill. In that way we
will indicate our strong objection to what the majority party has done
and our profound belief that their priorities are fundamentally
misguided and misbegotten. It seems to me that child care, it seems to
me that education, it seems to me that health care, it seems to me that
job training are more important to the country than to provide giant
tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country.
I am all for targeted tax cuts, targeted at those who need it the
worst, those who need it the most but certainly the 400 richest
Americans are not among them and that is one of the points we are
trying to debate and illustrate in comparative priorities this evening.
{time} 2200
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to add $1,000 to this
particular item, Child Care and Development Block Grant.
I rise in support of this meager amount because we need to show a
sign that we are willing to support the children of this Nation. At a
time when we have a $179 billion surplus, we are cutting programs for
children and families.
It seems to me in this well-performing economy where we are creating
more and more millionaires day in and day out, we would be willing to
support children and families. At a time when we can have Members wax
eloquently about getting people off of welfare, it seems to me we would
support families for safe and secure child care so that parents and
single mothers in particular could go to work, could seek out
additional educational opportunities, and feel comfortable that their
children are being taken care of in safe environments. If we cannot
support a meager $1,000 increase, then I think that we cannot be
credible as we talk about trying to pass this appropriation from the
floor of Congress.
It is important that we understand that most eligible children are
denied assistance. Nationally, only one of 10 children who is eligible
for child care assistance under Federal law receives any help.
No State is currently serving all eligible families. States are
severely limiting access to assistance. Only five States set their
income eligibility guidelines at the maximum level allowable under
Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income in 22 States; a
family of three earning $25,000 a year does not qualify for help. In
three States, Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina, a family of three
earning $18,000 a year, 130 percent of poverty, cannot qualify for
help.
It is unconscionable that we cannot agree from both sides of the
aisle to do what we know we could do in this budget for children. Let
me just add that, in addition to this cut, this denial of care for
children in this block grant, the idea that we cannot support the
President's budget for Head Start is appalling to me.
I worked in Head Start prior to coming to Congress. I served first as
an assistant teacher and went on to become the supervisor of Parent
Involvement and Volunteer Services. Head Start is the best thing that
ever happened to this country. We empower children and families.
Last Friday, when I left here, I went to the 26th anniversary of one
of the Head Start programs in my district, training and research.
Ninety percent of the parents whose children were enrolled in the
program that I attended last Friday were enrolled in school themselves.
They were inspired by their involvement in Head Start to get back into
school and to get an education so that they cannot only determine their
children's educational destiny, but that they could better themselves
and their families.
Head Start has been excellent for America. We have children who have
had an opportunity for early childhood development who never would have
had an opportunity. At one time in this country, early childhood
education was only for the rich and the well off. For us not to support
the President's budget on Head Start is again unconscionable.
This $1,000 amendment will show us for what we are if we do not
support it. I am sorry that we have to be in a protracted debate about
supporting child care and education and health care for children. This
is America. This is an America that is doing extremely well.
I would ask all of my colleagues to please support this amendment in
an indication that they care about children.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for members of the committee to
realize what is going on tonight. It is hard to imagine that the author
of the amendment is serious about adding a mere $1,000 to this very
important program. But it does give Members on both sides of the aisle
an opportunity to get up and talk about a program which both the
majority and the minority in this House of Representatives feel very
strongly about; that is the Child Care Block Grant.
But it also gives the minority party in this committee an opportunity
to get up and say that there has been a substantial cut in child care
appropriation when, actually, that is the farthest thing from the
truth. The truth of the matter is that the Child Care Block Grant under
this very bill that we are debating tonight has been increased by $400
million over the expenditure of last year.
Now, it is true that the President in his budget came up with an
increase of over $800 million requested in his budget, and it is easy
to request money in the national budget. But the fact of the matter is
that this committee, in a responsible manner, provided a substantial
increase to Child Care Block Grants. It is incorrect to come before
this body and say that those funds have been cut; $400 million more
than last year is an increase.
Now, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the previous
speaker, also mentioned a very valuable program, Head Start. It is a
program that is dear to my heart. It has been supported by Members of
both parties. It has been supported by administrations of both parties.
But it is inaccurate to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this committee
has cut Head Start. Indeed, we did not give the President all of the
money he requested. But the fact of the matter is that this bill that
we are debating, although it does not touch on this amendment, this
bill that we are debating increases Head Start again by $400 million.
$400 million more for Head Start in this bill, $400 million more for
child care in this bill. That is hardly a cut. I just wish that we
could get the facts straight and not be suggesting things that are not
part of the bill.
I oppose the amendment because I do not believe it is offered
seriously, but I hope that no one in this House or no one in this
committee will be under the mistaken impression that these two programs
have been cut. Indeed, they have received substantial increases thanks
to the leadership of this subcommittee.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), our ranking member, for bringing this amendment up because, not
that I disagree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker),
because there are some increases in this legislation, the problem is
that when we see the need that we have, the increases that they have
are still not meeting the needs of our communities.
This is a great example of this one little amendment talking for
$1,000 increase in child care grants that talk about where our
priorities are here on this House floor. I am not faulting the
Committee on Appropriations. I understand they have the rules they live
by. We gave them those rules with the budget resolution that had the
wrong priorities, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H4212]]
Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is here is to talk about
child care, and I will go into that. But let us talk about some of the
other priorities that our appropriations process is leaving out, again
not to fault the members of the committee or the chairman, because they
are doing the best they can with the guidelines that we gave them.
Expanded educational opportunity. Trying to fix the infrastructure of
our schools in our country. Prescription drugs for seniors may be a
part of this, we do not know. Expanded health care for our children.
Congress made an effort in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act, for the CHIPs
program. We still have a long way to go.
Following the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the Head
Start, granted there is more funding in this appropriations bill for
Head Start, but it still falls very short of the need in my own
district in Houston, Texas, and I am sure everywhere else in the
country. There are so many children who are Head Start qualified that
the money is not there because we are not willing to put our money
where our mouth is.
That is just to talk about a few of the human needs, Mr. Chairman.
Let us talk about other issues that we need to address: defense of our
Nation, protection of our borders, continue to see our crime rate drop
needs to continue the community policing that we hopefully will see in
the appropriations bills that come.
The problem is our priorities are wrong. We spent last Friday talking
about an estate tax cut which only benefits 2 percent of the people in
this country, and then the amendments rejected that will take that down
to 1 percent.
So that is why our priorities are wrong. That is what is wrong. That
is why I am glad our ranking member came up with this amendment that
talks about the new investment in child care that is needed.
States now cannot keep up with the need of child care assistance even
with our TANF funds, and I know that from my own experience again in
Texas. Most eligible children are denied assistance. Nationally, only
one out of 10 children who are eligible for child care assistance under
Federal law receives any help.
No State is currently serving all eligible families with child care.
States have severely limited access to assistance. Only five States set
their income eligibility guidelines at the maximum allowable under
Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income. In nearly half
the States, 24 States, a family earning $25,000 a year does not
qualify. In three States, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, a family
of three earning $18,000, 130 percent of poverty cannot qualify for
help.
Even with low eligibility cut-offs, States have long waiting lists.
California has 200,000 families that are waiting. In Texas, we have
36,000 families that are waiting for child care assistance.
That is why this amendment is so important. It gives us the
opportunity to talk about our priorities. We need to put our priorities
in the needs of our country, because those children that need that
child care, Mr. Chairman, those are the ones hopefully that will be
serving here someday. We need to prepare them for that. All of us were
prepared when we were growing up.
Today's children need even extra help with what we do, whether it is
child care, whether it is Head Start, whether it is quality education.
Again, most of the funding comes from the local level, but we can help
our local communities and provide assistance and smaller class sizes
and building reconstruction.
The limited resources lead to inadequate policies and force parents
to have to make really difficult choices. Assistance policies keep
quality care out of the reach of low-income children. Nearly one-third
of our States are paying rates based on out-of-date market surveys,
making it unaffordable for programs serving low-income children that
invest in quality.
When one thinks about it, despite expert recommendations, over a
third of our States, of our parents, pay 10 percent of their income.
When one says 10 percent, that does not sound like much. But if one has
a poor family, how much of that is housing? How much of that is health
care? How much of that is utilities? How much of that is transportation
hopefully to get to that job from the welfare reform bill that we
passed on this floor.
Basic health and safety protections are lacking in many States. Only
10 States meet the national recommendation for child-staff ratios in
their licensing requirements.
{time} 2215
And only 10 States require all family child care providers to meet
any requirements and regulations.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, consider the case of Sue and Dan Williams. I am going
to change the name a little bit, but they are real people. Sue was on
welfare for several years, trapped in the hopeless welfare cycle and
then during welfare, because of welfare reform, decided, okay, it is
time to get a job. And she was a little scared about it, but she got a
job and needed to have some child care. And that is a mother's primary
concern, which it should be. And we all admire mothers for that. That
is why in the welfare reform bill there was $20 billion in child care
for people like Sue and Dan Williams for their children, $20 billion.
In addition to that, when the senior citizens and their family have
to live with them, there is dependent care, a tax credit for families
like that. There is social services, block grants. There is child care
to States and entitlement programs to the tune of $8.8 billion in
Federal support for the child care programs through the year 2001.
These programs are strongly, strongly supported by Congress on both
sides of the aisle, programs such as Head Start, Even Start, the
Campus-Based Child Care, IDEA Services for Preschoolers and Infant
Programs for after school.
Mr. Chairman, I have been to some of these after-school programs.
These children are learning things. They are learning life skills. They
are learning to work with each other. They are learning play acting and
things that build their self-esteem. These are very good programs.
The chairman of this committee has worked hard to support this stuff.
He has gone out in the field. He has not stayed in the ivory tower of
Washington and waited for the White House to hand down some
irresponsible number, some risky scheme from the Gore-Clinton
administration. He has gone out and said, how do these programs
actually work? How do they affect real people?
This is not a matter of political rhetoric. This is not a matter of,
well, we are going to spend more money than them. It is a matter of Sue
and Dan Williams and their children and their parents and caring for
them. I think the committee and the chairman of the committee have done
the right thing on this.
What I would say to my colleagues across the aisle, we keep hearing
how, well, if we have to have more money, well, maybe we do, but maybe
we ought to look at the efficiency of these programs, as well. Is it
possible under the Clinton-Gore model that too much of the money is
being squandered by wasteful Washington bureaucrats? Is it possible
that a lot of that money never leaves Washington, D.C., and if we go
down to HUD or if we go down to some of these Federal Government
agencies we can find the money on the sixth floor, third office down to
our right because it never gets out of that bureaucrat's hands and to
the streets where it can help the children of the Williams.
That is what the committee mark is all about. The committee has made
a significant commitment in this and will continue to. Think about Head
Start alone increased by $400 million, 8 percent above last year's in
order to serve an additional 20,000 kids. Think about the level. It is
the highest in the 35-year history. That is very, very significant. The
Child Care Development Block Grant is increased by $400 million, 34
percent.
The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) has gone out and
reviewed these programs. He has asked the bureaucracies to be more
efficient. But he has also said we have got to help as many children as
possible and he has done it in the best interest of America's kids.
[[Page H4213]]
It is sad to me that people would come up with arbitrary numbers to
irresponsibly use children as a pawn in some political chess game. It
upsets me. Because they know in their heart of hearts this money comes
from Social Security, it does not come from some other area. If they
want to spend this money irresponsibly, they have to go home and tell
our seniors, well, do you know what we did? We did what we did for 40
straight years, we dipped back into that Social Security Trust Fund.
And they should not be doing that, Mr. Chairman, because Social
Security should be handled on a bipartisan basis.
It is not a matter of Democrat versus Republican. It is a matter of
putting our seniors first. That is why I do not think we should just
irresponsibly and arbitrarily come up with numbers to increase programs
for political purposes. We have to do what is best for children. We
have to do what is best for seniors.
That is why I support the mark of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) on this and I think we should reject, respectfully reject, the
Obey amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the old adage over and over
again about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and
pretty soon we are talking about real money.
This amendment is a real amendment because we are talking about a
thousand dollars to people that in three States, a family of three
making $18,000 a year, cannot qualify for help to get child care for
their family.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members in this body are listening
because I am sure that people out in the country are listening. A
thousand dollars to them, when they are making $18,000 a year and they
are working sometimes two and three jobs and the most important thing
in the world to them is their children, this amendment is important.
Yes, it is important because we are talking about differences in
priorities tonight at 10:20 Washington, D.C., time. And maybe we will
be here until 2:20 and maybe we will be here all day tomorrow talking
about education. I hope we are. This is the most important issue to me
and the single most important reason why I picked the Committee on
Education and the Workforce to serve on in this body.
A thousand dollars to a family of three making $18,000 a year in
three States where they cannot qualify for any help to get child care
to take care of their children while they work, this idea behind this
amendment can help some real people with real problems address their
dire need for quality and affordable child care.
We have heard some people on the other side of the aisle talk about,
oh, this bill does not cut anything, it does not cut programs that make
a difference for working people or people concerned about getting their
children educated.
Let us talk about some real cuts. The adult job training program is
cut by $93 million below last year's appropriated level. The dislocated
workers, $207 million cut below last year's appropriated level. That is
$300 million, Mr. Chairman, when we are in a world economy today where
we are engaging in trade, where we all know that we are going through
the information and knowledge revolution in America today, where
businesses are all saying the most important thing we can do in
Washington is help them with doing more in education, and where our
workers, whether they be underskilled or unskilled or whether they be
dislocated because of trade, that we do something to help these workers
make sure that, as we engage in trade with Mexico and China and other
countries, that we make sure we help our working families get trained
for new jobs if they are dislocated from an old one.
That is fairness. That is help in education in the new economy.
Now, I also hear Mr. Chairman, and I think the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) is absolutely with us on this point, that we need
more resources if we are going to get more accountability and quality
in our education programs.
I was a fighter for more charter schools, and we did that. I fought
for more public choice in education, and we are doing that. I fought
and authored the bill last year for education flexibility to give our
local schools more choice over what they do with Federal money. We are
doing many of these things, giving the local school more quality
programs to pick from but they choose what they want to do.
Why can we not deliver more resources for dislocated workers,
underskilled workers, who need to move from a toolbox to a robotic arm
in a computer. Let us help these workers out in this new economy with
these new challenges and this new workplace that we are creating. Let
us help our children in inner-city schools and rural schools in
Indiana. As we improve accountability, as we improve the quality of
these programs, let us get more resources for our local schools to
determine whether they want to use that money for school construction,
whether they want to use that money for new curriculum ideas, whether
they want to use that money to try to develop more professional
training programs to get their teachers skilled on the technology of
the future.
So we are hopeful that we can work with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), who I think wants more resources for these education
programs, to fight for these programs.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we should first realize that this amendment is not an
amendment that has an offset. The only amount involved here is a
thousand dollars. And the reason it is offered is simply to gain time
to make the points that the minority wishes to make. The reason the
amendment is in order is that there is a small amount of unobligated
budget authority and outlays from which to draw these small amendments.
The point that the minority continues to make is that we are not
spending enough money on matters that they think are priorities. I
simply want to take this time, Mr. Chairman, to point out all of the
ways where we are meeting needs by making very substantial increases in
many programs that we think are very, very important.
Let me begin with community health centers, which we have funded at
$1.1 billion dollars. That is $31 million above the President's
request. The Job Corps at $1.4 billion. That is $7 million above the
President's request. Graduate medical education we have doubled to $80
million. We have funded Ricky Ray Hemophilia at $100 million, a 33-
percent increase. We have funded Ryan White AIDS at $1.725 billion.
That is $130 million above last year and also above the President's
request.
We funded the CDC at $3.3 billion. That is $189 million above the
President's request and $369 million greater than last year. We have
funded infrastructure needs at CDC at $145 million. That is above the
President's request. We funded Head Start at $5.7 billion, a $400-
million increase, or 7.5 percent increase this year. We funded special
education at $6.255 billion. That is a half-billion-dollar increase
over last year.
{time} 2230
We funded Pell Grants at the President's requested level, a $200
increase to the maximum grant, to $3500. We have increased after school
centers by $146 million to $600 million. We have funded Impact Aid at
$215 million above the President's request and $78 million above last
year. We have increased child care $400 million over last year, at $2
billion in forward funding subject to a sequester to stay within the
budget cap. We have increased the National Institutes of Health by $1
billion over last year and funded it at the President's request.
The point that the minority is making that we are underfunding
accounts is simply not a valid point. There are not any cuts in the
bill. If there are, they are very small ones. In almost all cases there
are increases, and in some cases that I have just described substantial
increases over the amounts that the President has requested.
preferential motion offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
[[Page H4214]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 196, not voting 56, as follows:
[Roll No. 256]
AYES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--196
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--56
Andrews
Archer
Baker
Bateman
Boehner
Campbell
Coburn
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeLauro
DeMint
Dingell
Dooley
Emerson
Fattah
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hefley
Hoeffel
Kasich
Linder
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McIntosh
Metcalf
Myrick
Ney
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Pitts
Roukema
Sabo
Shuster
Stark
Stearns
Toomey
Towns
Vento
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
{time} 2327
Mr. HUTCHINSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 256,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the majority and minority have come to an agreement on
the further course of this bill. At the appropriate point, I will move
that the Committee rise. The debate will begin tomorrow morning. Under
that agreement, there should be no further votes this evening and the
intention of both sides is that we proceed until the bill is completed
sometime tomorrow.
{time} 2330
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at which point it is appropriate
for me to withdraw the amendment now pending.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) ask
unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the deep cuts that
this bill makes in Medicare contractor management. The funding is not
just inadequate, it is grossly inadequate, so inadequate that it is
bound to impair the quality of service delivered to millions of elderly
and disabled Americans--many of whom rely solely on Medicare for their
health insurance.
Although the Administration requested $1.3 billion for contractor
management, an increase just over 4%, the committee rejected any
increase and instead cut funding by 6%. In years past, when there were
funding cutbacks and shortfalls, HCFA ordered Medicare contractors to
cut service to beneficiaries. Medicare payments for patient care were
delayed. HCFA told its contractors to cut back human contact and make
more use of voice mail. Voice mail menus are frustrating for everybody,
but imagine how exasperating they are for an elderly person who wants a
knowledgeable, caring person to answer a question about Medicare or
solve a problem.
The demands placed upon contractors will only be aggravated by
elderly and disabled Americans who are the victims of the managed care
companies pulling out of Medicare + Choice. In just one Medicare +
Choice company that recently announced its pullout, there are over
100,000 elderly and disabled Americans. They will have no choice but to
move back to the fee-for-service program, and this will increase the
work load for Medicare contractors far more than anyone previously
predicted.
In making its budget request, the Administration assumed a 3.5%
increase in claims. The pull-out of Medicare + Choice firms will add to
that; and if funding is cut by 6%, the cuts cannot help but strain the
Medicare contractors, who are already stretched out, and degrade the
services they provide to elderly and disabled Americans and their
healthcare providers. This cut in funding will:
Curtail beneficiary and provider outreach programs that educate and
answer questions. Delay responses to telephone calls, written
inquiries, and reviews of ``medical necessity.'' Postpone waste, fraud,
and abuse investigations. Make it difficult for contractors to respond
to HCFA initiatives.
As a consequence, elderly and disabled Americans will not receive the
level of customer service they expect and deserve. More providers who
participate in Medicare but are increasingly vocal in their
dissatisfaction will leave the program. And if Medicare contractors,
who pride themselves on their business and want to deliver a good
product and good
[[Page H4215]]
service do not have the resources to administer the program, they too
will exit the business. Many of them already have, and more of them
will if this cut in funding goes through.
For all these reasons, we should meet the President's modest request
for Medicare contractor management, and undo these self-defeating cuts.
If their purpose is to impair Medicare fee-for-service, and make
beneficiaries cynical about Medicare and seek another program, they may
achieve that effect. But if our purpose is to give the elderly and
disabled a Medicare program with the care, service, and attention they
need, these cuts should be reversed, and the President's request should
be filled.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I will get to the point, who could not
support Head Start, a program that provides comprehensive developmental
services for America's low-income children--ages birth to five years?
Research has told us time and again that this is the most critical
stage of a child's mental and emotional development. Adding $600
million would provide additional services to 53,000 additional low-
income children.
I represent the third-fastest growing metropolitan statistical area
in the U.S. and yet, we have one of the highest rates of poverty, and a
very young population.
For almost 30 years, I have been involved with education issues. This
experience has taught me that children, regardless of income level or
race, have the same potential for high achievement and healthy
development. We must give them that chance.
Head Start has successfully served 17 million children and their
families since 1965 * * * Lets's not jeopardize that.
To my colleagues who say no to Head Start: I say is that your final
answer? I hope not.
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
requested for the Department of Education, and $1.7 billion less for
the Department of Labor. As the result, education, 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 one 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 appropriations 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.
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.
LaHood) 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.
____________________