[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.

                          ____________________