Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 73 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4231-H4310]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in
opposition?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of
course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments.
I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would
very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase
that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best
spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over
a 5-year period. Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do
so.
We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the
President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and
comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15
percent that we favor.
However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a
number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman
she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that
the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low
priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority
party has put it at a very, very high priority.
Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases
for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over
the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to

[[Page H4232]]

double its level in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are
committed, within the fiscal responsibility, to making the third
payment this year.
We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are
committed to making that third payment this year.
I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a
bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I
know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there
are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to
cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease,
forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than
it ever has been before.
We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but
we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to
allow us to do it at this point.
I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that
point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads
us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a
political clash.
I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are
committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding
can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help.
It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American
people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best
spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care
costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that
we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year
period.
In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have
increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year,
we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe
that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is
something that all of us are committed to accomplishing.
We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will
make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of
in the end.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate
is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has
certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has
approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in
the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last
year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of
bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people,
improving their health.
Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown
their support in terms of the dollars indicated there.

{time} 1115

I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I
understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money
proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct?
Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then
the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual
appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee
and through the Congress of the United States for the National
Institutes of Health?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases
are almost double those requested by the President of the United
States?
Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with
regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably
low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton
in his budget this year for NIH and health research?
Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the
President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year.
We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase,
but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to
limit that amount to the President's request.
Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the
President requested; is that correct?
Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question
regarding his chart?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read
it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct?
Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or
does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would
that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as
adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5
percent?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect.
They are only advisory. These are appropriations.
Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget
allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman
raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does
not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and
we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as
passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent
reduction in NIH in real terms.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only
jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending
numbers. The rest is advisory.
Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the
subcommittee.
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows
to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater
commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during
this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to
stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an
outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment
and dedication in this area.
I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have
enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I
certainly rise to salute the gentleman.
Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in
Congress for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts
that were offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we
had here from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the
appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be
looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double
resources as consistent with our 5-year objective.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical
research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the
3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight
years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to
double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on
track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for
fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it
away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the
administration's request.
Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot
afford to invest additional resources in these

[[Page H4233]]

programs; but now that we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have
that excuse. All we need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale
back the size of the tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can
leave the middle-class tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for
the individuals at the top 1 percent; and we can do just that.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on
Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before
she came to the Congress.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi
amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes
of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that
has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by
providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year.
But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off
our 5-year track.
Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not
feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the
auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my
daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she
could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming
down the pike through NIH.
So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that
is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real
life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research,
Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this
country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a
wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and
stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on
track to double its budget by 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in
which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some
treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been
the NIH.
NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent
diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human
genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for
research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our
efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will
learn to cure diseases now untreatable.
We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5
years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart
disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that
goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this
planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny
medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget
restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget
resolution.
In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives
will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its
adoption.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the
House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I
was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this
year we just could not do it.
It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill
because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a
comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the
United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do
not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the
budget.
How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not
provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget
fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to
mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it.
But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution
that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do
the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move
forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures
to the American people, because we know we can do it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of
the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on
health policy.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a
strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is
that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I
am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the
person behind the statistics.
We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many
other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the
funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to
fall short of that goal this year?
All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the
$1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year,
and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only
benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health,
the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded
away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only
benefit the wealthiest.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong
supporter of NIH and biomedical research.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a
champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a
perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is
going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer.
I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking
you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.''
I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I
would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can
add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this.
Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these
amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the
ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together
on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add
these particular dollars down the line.
In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would
say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now,
because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we
have never had before? Women had no markers in this.
I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing
he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an
apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about
when we talk about NIH funding.

{time} 1130

If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it.
She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility
down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national
debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a
day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future
for the Americans for education,

[[Page H4234]]

for crimefighting, for NIH, just by keeping our fiscal house in
constraint.
The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax
break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security
tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out
of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at
the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax
break for the rich.
My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax
break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after
saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not
so.
Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if
there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this
particular issue.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of
our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment.
Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman
from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have
made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget.
Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding
job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them
to fund good science.
We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for
biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or
heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding
and treatment.
My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What
politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can
have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health,
and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of
us.
We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face
the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us
do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished
ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the
National Institutes of Health.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President
did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to
do in the next decade.
This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National
Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which
says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both
ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this
piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other
pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the
budget down.
The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current
services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants
that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's,
diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent.
In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of
people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the
second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to
try to fix this.
What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well,
at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking
the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal
responsibility.
Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a
number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had
occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able
to recover from those strokes because of new medical research.
My question to them and my question to the Members today is this:
What is more important to this country, to have more success stories
like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority
party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70
percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in
this society?
Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to
people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could
finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment
on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back
what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the
middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are
providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they
can meet all of these needs.
It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last
year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We
have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical
discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack
off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this
amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very
respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our
chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible
funding levels for the National Institutes of Health.
We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health,
that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional
$1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH
budget in 5 years.
Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their
children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research.
There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are
politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we
cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political.
The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If
we did not have the tax cut, we could afford the NIH funding. It is
that simple. That kind of decision is what people send us to Congress
to make. We must recollect the values of the American people, which say
that it is a good investment to invest in basic biomedical research. It
saves lives. It adds to the productivity and the quality of our lives.
This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest
further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create
jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by
having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work
days by people who become sick or disabled.
I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the
additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that
this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to
raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am
sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political
point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well.
The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years.
During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President
Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for
increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time
and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in
control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed
this at a far higher priority.

[[Page H4235]]

To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be
raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost
importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is
among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue
to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it.
However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have
responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to
spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say,
``here is what we ought to do.''
We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority
party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a
budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress.
So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the
best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the
bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do
that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and
hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we
ought to spend more money in this area.
This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15
percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for
the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal
restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the
very best that we can within it.
I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very
strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and
providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my
good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment
increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding
level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it
decided to double the NIH budget within five years.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In
1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the
National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the
NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this
appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise.
Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget.
According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week,
15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were
developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded
research.
If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill
mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman,
my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in
the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving
at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the
groundbreaking work they are doing.
The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater.
Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens
are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In
today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health
Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are
mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that
are failing to respond to treatment.
Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned

. . . that the world could be plunged back into the
preantibiotic era when people commonly died of diseases that
in modern times have been easily treated with antibiotics.

A WHO official said,

The world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use
of many of the medicines presently available to stop
infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time
to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide, before
the disease wears the drugs down first.

Mr. Chairman, we need NIH to join in this battle before time runs
out.
And speaking of time running out, the number of Americans over age 65
will double in the next 30 years. What are we going to do to fight the
diseases of the elderly? Also, the threat of bioterrorism--once
remote--is now a probability.
Mr. Chairman, our purpose for a sustained funding track for NIH was
so that the multi-year process for NIH grantmaking was well planned and
spent federal funds efficiently. This amendment by my colleague, Nancy
Pelosi, achieves that objective.
More importantly, the Pelosi amendment keeps a congressional promise.
Last March, over 108 Members on both sides of the aisle signed a letter
urging a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. The Pelosi amendment
would provide that increase. It is the third installment on a
bipartisan plan to double the NIH budget by 2003.
I thank my colleague, Nancy Pelosi, for offering this amendment, and
I compliment her on her leadership and her tireless efforts to improve
the health of this country. I urge my colleagues to join her and
support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment.

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's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
I would ask a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is
recognized.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point
of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On
that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the
expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of
Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made
in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill.
In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the
same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill?
As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate
$500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done
for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given
peace to the American people that their health and that the research to
ensure it to be protected.
Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for
the wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members
have to make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all
want to be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution
had this $1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible.
Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said
he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of
the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a
lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure.

{time} 1145

Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path
then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the
American people for that.
Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest
1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I
concede the point of order.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of
order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman
that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an
amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower
priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire.
She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of
fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any
offset, which is clearly out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized
my remarks, if I may?
The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may
respond.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I
had

[[Page H4236]]

no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am saying
is give this the same treatment as has been given to other Republican
priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this can be
afforded in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has
conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is
authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget,
pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing
any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a
breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by
proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority,
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in
order.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 49, after line 12, insert the following new section:
Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Office of the
Secretary--general departmental management'', and increasing
the amount made available for ``Health Resources and Services
Administration--health resources and services'' (to be used
for a block grant to the Inner City Cardiac Satellite
Demonstration Project operated by the State of New Jersey,
including creation of a heart clinic in southern New Jersey),
by $40,000,000.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) for the fair and even-handed way in which they handled this
matter procedurally. Those of us who wish to offer these amendments
very much appreciate the expansiveness of the time agreement, the
fairness of it, and I wanted to say that for the record this morning.
Let me also say the purpose of this amendment is a commendation and a
challenge. In the area of commendation, it is to commend the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
and all the members of this subcommittee for the attention they have
paid and the commitment they have made to the health care of the people
of this country, in particular, the issue of our struggling urban
hospitals.
I represent the City of Camden, New Jersey, which by just about any
measure is one of the poorest cities in the United States of America.
We are fortunate to have a number of health care institutions in the
City of Camden which remain, despite very difficult economic
conditions. One of the consequences of their continued commitment to a
poor urban area is that they carry a disproportionate share of the
burden of caring for the uninsured or for those whose care is not fully
compensated by Medicaid or other public programs.
In New Jersey, we have undertaken a rather creative and progressive
way to try to address this imbalance. New Jersey has decided to create
a special opportunity for urban hospitals to operate heart hospitals or
heart clinics, cardiac services, in more affluent suburban areas. The
strategy is rather wise and simple. The revenues that would be gained
from operating these heart facilities in more affluent areas would
recapture dollars which could then be used to help offset and subsidize
the cost of providing care for the uninsured and for persons for whom
the compensation is not sufficient in the poor urban areas. It is a
wise strategy.
The challenge that I would offer, however, is what comes to what I
believe is New Jersey's incomplete execution of this strategy. The
original plan in our State was that there be two of these demonstration
projects, one in the northern part of our State and one in the southern
part of the State, which I am privileged to represent. For reasons
which are not clear to me, and not clear to the health care
institutions in southern New Jersey, only one of these pilot programs
has gone forward. I believe that this is a mistake.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide a Federal opportunity, a
Federal subsidy, for this pilot program to go forward both in the
southern part of our State and in the northern part of our State.
I believe that the problems in our part of New Jersey are at least as
acute, at least as difficult, as those of our northern neighbors and
the proper position for our State health department is to provide for a
second pilot project in the southern part of our State.
The purpose of this amendment is to offer an idea for a Federal share
or a Federal partnership in making that pilot program succeed.
Now having said that, because the committee has been so progressive
and wise in promoting the interests of urban hospitals, it is my
intention to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment after my
colleagues have had a chance to comment on it.
Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, after making this statement, I would
reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule
XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not be in order as an
amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and
I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment?
Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I
wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter).
The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the
last word?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10
million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer
that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of
funding this program.
Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to
dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care.
I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor,
Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2
million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program.
I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in
conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for
this program.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.

[[Page H4237]]

Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives
Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in
conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more
kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to
providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive
steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even
more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports
increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive
alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in
finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives
Program.

Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 189 offered by Mr. Stearns:
Page 49, after line 12, insert the following section:
Sec. 214. Amounts made available in this title for carrying
out the activities of the National Institutes of Health are
available for a report under section 403 of the Public Health
Service for the following purposes:
(1) To identify the amounts expended under section 402(g)
of such Act to enhance the competitiveness of entities that
are seeking funds from such Institutes to conduct biomedical
or behavioral research.
(2) To identify the entities for which such amounts have
been expended, including a separate statement regarding
expenditures under section 402(g)(2) of such Act for
individuals who have not previously served as principal
researchers of projects supported by such Institutes.
(3) To identify the extent to which such entities and
individuals receive funds under programs through which such
Institutes support projects of biomedical or behavioral
research, and to provide the underlying reasons for such
funding decisions.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional
Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My
amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH
to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and
corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We
have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable
to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money.
They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or
corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my
amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given
to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the
individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who
received it and then we would like to see some justification for why
the NIH gave this money.
Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort
of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I
would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research
Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution
that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the
world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and
continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever-
increasing appropriations.
As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all
likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my
amendment does.
It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more
transparency.
I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported
the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of
universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and
Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a
great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars
here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from
grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money
provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants.
So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from
doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding
and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no
answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we
just need to have much more transparency there.
Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how
these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be
taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move
in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several
areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and
decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be
spent.
First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the
agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential?
Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically-
based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I
urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody.
Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like
to see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its
planning and budgeting reporting process more open.
In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of
Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific
Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues
that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process.
So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be
more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information
known.
I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited
and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more
transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who
the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in
the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr.
Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency
concept I envision.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would
require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance
competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to
conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the
entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on
expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as
principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3)
to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the
National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct
biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section
403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes
of carrying out such a report.
First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I
know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body
has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The
NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation.
In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget
over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that
effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that
benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of
Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being
said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the
difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These
are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we
are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this
important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral
research in their chosen fields.
We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not
having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must
ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their
talents to work in

[[Page H4238]]

research efforts being conducted by the federal government.
There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I
learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are
made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I
discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review
process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when
assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how
research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer-
review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the
greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an
electronically-based grant application and award system. This would
certainly be beneficial.
Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to
see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its
planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report
was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of
Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving
Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health.
This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by
NIH, including its peer review process.

As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was
created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee
recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input,
including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members
selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee
members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH
Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient
protections, health research related to diverse populations, health
disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to
the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a
life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's
policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public
input, and input to the public.
The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During
these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget
process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills,
and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most
directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the
funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young
researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program
and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important
crisis.
My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an
explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking
research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to
ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars
necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good
to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon
Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are
involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about
this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this
did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences
brought these issues to light.

{time} 1200

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) claims the
time in opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Illinois continue to reserve a point of
order?
Mr. PORTER. Mr chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
that who receives grants of NIH funding and the amount of those grants
and the purpose for which the grants are made is public knowledge. That
is readily available and can be provided to the gentleman, or anyone
else, at any time he would like to have it.
The peer review process is a process that has developed over a long,
long period of time. It is set forth in Federal regulation. It is easy
to understand the process and to see it at work. Is it perfect?
Certainly nothing is perfect. It needs to be reviewed and made more
responsive.
Ask the scientific community, generally, whether this is a good
system that is competitive and separates good science from bad science,
I think there is, overwhelmingly, a general consensus that it works
quite well to separate good science from bad, to bring the best science
to the top and to fund only that which has great potential and is well
conceived.
With respect to electronic grant applications, NIH is working on that
right now. I think it is a very good point that the gentleman makes and
ought to be followed up on; but it is already being done, and we expect
that the system will be perfected and brought on-line very soon.
So I would simply say to the gentleman that he makes good points, but
I think that there is great progress being made with respect to each
one.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
his comments. Dr. Harold Varmus was the former NIH director, and he
sort of confirmed what my amendment intends. He recommended steps to
make the agency more welcoming to the public and available and
transparent, including what he called a Council of Public
Representatives, COPR. There were 20 members that he selected, put this
together; and he had a meeting in April 1999.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, those councils are up and running, yes.
Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had
was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I
urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to
continue this peer review and the process of making this more
transparent.

Point of Order

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

education reform

For carrying out activities authorized by sections 3122,
3132, 3136, and 3141, parts B and C of title III, and part I
of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, $1,505,000,000, of which $119,500,000 shall be for
section 3122: Provided, That up to one-half of 1 percent of
the amount available under section 3132 shall be set aside
for the outlying areas, to be distributed on the basis of
their relative need as determined by the Secretary in
accordance with the purposes of the program: Provided
further, That if any State educational agency does not apply
for a grant under section 3132, that State's allotment under
section 3131 shall be reserved by the Secretary for grants to
local educational agencies in that State that apply directly
to the Secretary according to the terms and conditions
published by the Secretary in the Federal Register.

Amendment No. 14 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. 14 offered by Mr. Obey:
Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.
Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''.
Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts,
insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''.
Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert
the following:
: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000
shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965,

[[Page H4239]]

notwithstanding any other provision of law, for State formula
grants and other competitive grants subject to such terms and
conditions as the Secretary of Education shall establish to
improve the knowledge and skills of such individuals as early
childhood educators, teachers, principals, and
superintendents, and for teacher recruitment and retention
activities: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which
$1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the
early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve
educational achievement for regular and special needs
children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, last year during the debate on education issues,
Democrats focused primarily on the need to reduce classroom size. On
the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Goodling) said, and he made a good point, he said, look, it
does not do any good to have smaller classrooms if the teachers in
those classrooms are not well trained to teach. I happen to agree with
that.
So this year, President Clinton added $1.1 billion in his budget for
teacher training and $1.7 billion to reduce classroom size.
In my view, there ought to be room in this budget for both Republican
and Democratic priorities. This amendment adds a little over $1 billion
to teacher-training programs and to teacher-retention programs. It
strikes the action that the committee has taken in block granting
teacher training funds into a solid single block grant rather than
identifiable programs.
Why do we do that? Because we have seen what happened before. What
happens with this Congress is that, if they take individual programs
and block grant them, then the next time down the road, they cut them.
They do not have to take the heat for cutting the individual programs
because the effect of those cuts on those programs are masked. So we
want that to remain visible.
Secondly, I offer it because one out of every 10 teachers in this
country is teaching a subject that they are not trained to teach. We
are about to lose 20 percent of the teachers that we do have in the
country to retirement.
When parents get up in the morning and they send their kid to school,
it seems to me they have got a right to know four things: first of all,
that their child is going to spend that day with a well-trained
teacher; secondly, it is going to be in a decent school; thirdly, that
school is going to be equipped with modern 21st century technology;
and, fourth, the class size is going to be small enough so that you
have got enough discipline so that the kid can learn. I think that is
what they are entitled to.
Now, we have heard a lot of talk about the need for special
education. I agree with that. What we have to recognize is that these
funds that we are trying to add today help teachers prepare themselves
to be able to deal with children with disabilities who are mainstreamed
in regular classrooms.
As this chart demonstrates, we are going to see an increase in the
number of students in high schools from a little less than 15 million
children to a little over 16 million children over the next decade.
This budget needs to respond to that increase, and we are not doing it.
I would suggest that, if our schools work, that our society will
work. I happen to have the old-fashioned belief that, if our churches
are able to function, if our schools are able to function well, that
everything else in society will take care of itself. Then if our
schools do not work, nothing will eventually work in this society.
Our schools cannot work without well-trained teachers. Our schools
cannot work without having the resources to put an additional 100,000
and even more teachers in the classrooms, every one of them well
trained.
So that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to double,
essentially, the Eisenhower training programs. We are trying to
increase technology training so teachers know how to use technology in
educating, and we are trying to put an additional $270 million in to
help the highest poverty schools in the country to recruit, to train,
and to mentor qualified teachers.
We will not be able to get a vote on this amendment today because of
the rule under which it is being debated. The issue to me is very
simple. Do my colleagues think it is more important to respond to this
coming challenge in the classroom, or is it more important to give away
$90 billion in tax cuts to people who made over $300,000 last year?
That is the choice. I think my colleagues ought to be on the side of
the kids.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), 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 want to make sure that I
do not think there is any Member of Congress that does not understand
that if we can reduce class size in the early grades, and if we have a
quality teacher in that classroom, children will probably do better.
The problem is the quality of the teacher has not been the driving
force.
Now, when we think about 100,000 teachers, that is a sound bite.
Somebody did a poll, and somebody said, ``Boy, that is sexy. Let us get
that out there.'' Why is it kind of silly? Well, it is kind of silly
because there are 15,000 public school districts. There are a million
classrooms, 100,000 teachers, a million classrooms. So my colleagues
know very well it is a sound bite issue more than anything else.
I pleaded with the President when he started it not to indicate that
that is the direction to go, but to indicate whatever one needs in the
local district. If one can reduce class size, fine. If one can prepare
teachers who one already has who have potential, that is even better.
The very day last year when we finished negotiating the 100,000
teacher business, the New York newspaper whole front page said,
``Parents, 50 percent of your teachers are not qualified.''
Now, probably many of those 50 percent might have had potential, but
of course no, no, no, one just hired. What did they do with the first
group that we allowed the President to hire? Thirty-three percent had
no qualifications whatsoever. They did this in California, spent $2
billion, and ended up again where they needed the most qualified in Los
Angeles, for instance, over 30 some percent were totally unqualified.
Now, I do not know where the 18 came from, this magic number that
somehow or other 18 will really give one quality education. Every piece
of research that I have ever read has indicated that, if one cannot get
class size down to 12 or 13, one is probably not making much
difference. However, the important thing is that, even if one has five
and the teacher is unqualified, one has not done anything to help the
students.
That is why it is so wrong to move away from the Teacher Empowerment
Act. The Teacher Empowerment Act is a bipartisan effort. What do we do
in the Teacher Empowerment Act? We reform teacher certification. We
have mentoring programs to help retain beginning teachers. We have
expanding alternative groups to teacher certification. We work with
teachers to reform tenure systems so we can reward those who do well.
We support initiatives to use technology to deliver professional
development. We support partnerships between high-need schools, higher
education institutions, businesses, and other groups to promote and
deliver high quality professional development programming.
In our Teacher Empowerment Act, hiring much-needed special education
teachers is allowed, providing professional development for math and
science teachers, implementing projects to promote the retention of

[[Page H4240]]

highly qualified teachers, and attracting professionals from other
areas to teach.
All of these things are in the Teacher Empowerment Act. In other
words, we are trying to make very, very sure that we are talking about
quality, and this is the way to go. As I said, it was a bipartisan
effort just passed last year. If we get the other body to move, we will
finally get around to this business of saying, not only can we reduce
class size, which we now allow, and that is part of the Teacher
Empowerment Act, part of the money must go to reduce class size; but we
say we will only do that if one replaces a teacher that is there with a
quality teacher, or any new teacher is a quality teacher.
I mention, again, we are dealing with education technology. I
indicated yesterday, we have seven programs on the books, five are
funded, spread out over every agency downtown. The amounts are so small
that no one can do anything worthwhile.
What we say again in our reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act is we will combine it. If one needs equipment,
one will get equipment. If one needs to better prepare one's teachers
to use technology, use one's funds for that. If one needs software, do
that. If one needs hardware, do that.
But let us not proliferate existing programs and even add more
programs so that, again, we spread the money so thinly that it does not
help anybody anywhere.
Now, again, our teacher program makes very, very sure in a bipartisan
way that we prepare teachers for the 21st century, that they are
quality teachers. We realize that reducing class size means nothing
unless there is a quality teacher in that classroom.
Now, last year, the Secretary mentioned three or four superintendents
who were so pleased to get this amount of money to reduce class size. I
called each one of those superintendents. Do my colleagues know what
each one said? Thank you for the money. We appreciate the money.
However, had we been able to use the money to help all of our children,
these are the ways we would have used it.

{time} 1215

One said they would have improved their homework hot line; another
said I would have had in-depth professional training.
We have to get away from this program of where we meet in an
afternoon or we meet in the evening and somehow or other we are going
to improve the quality of teaching. They need in-depth summer programs;
they need in-depth semester programs. All of these things we do in TEA.
So I would say let us reject this amendment and let us move on with
the IDEA reauthorization.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me this time.
I hope that all Members of the House heard the words of the Chair of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He said that there is
absolutely no doubt that if you lower class size and improve the
quality of the teacher that the children will learn better. That is
exactly what we are talking about today.
The gentleman makes reference to what the committee reported out in
terms of improved conditions for our teachers and the quality of their
service, but he forgets to tell us that we are talking about an
authorization bill. My colleagues, today is the time to put those words
into reality and to provide the money. That is what this amendment is
all about. We are trying to improve the conditions upon which our
children are now faced with in thousands of classrooms across this
country.
In one of my schools, we have 120 children with four teachers; a
ratio of 30 to 1. By the acts of this Congress, I got two teachers into
that school for this third grade. It immediately lowered the classroom
ratio to 20. There is absolutely no doubt that those children will be
better educated because of the funding priority of this Congress.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I cannot believe that any Member would support a bill that would
repeal last year's bipartisan agreement to hire 100,000 new teachers in
this country. Communities all across America had faith in that
agreement. They hired new teachers to give their youngest students
smaller classes. Almost 3 million children could be denied the benefits
of smaller classrooms unless we pass the Obey amendment.
And what about our teachers? H.R. 4577 cuts funding for improving
teacher quality, and it also cuts the funding for recruitment of new
qualified teachers. The Obey amendment will put top quality teachers in
small classrooms. Our students will get the assistance they need to
perform at the very highest standards.
The Obey amendment is a wise investment in this Nation's future and
it deserves a vote.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to clarify what we have done, we have taken the $1.3
billion that is in class size and we have added it to the $335 million
in Eisenhower Professional Development. We have added other small
programs to reach a total of $1.75 billion; and we have appropriated
that for the Teacher Empowerment Act, pending its enactment into law.
As the chairman just said, the Teacher Empowerment Act strikes a
balance between hiring more teachers to reduce class size and
recruiting, and retraining quality teachers. It also empowers teachers
to choose the training that best meets their classroom needs. It
encourages States and localities to implement innovative strategies,
such as tenure reform, merit-based performance plans, alternative
routes to certification, and differential and pay bonus for teachers.
Ninety-five percent of the funds would go directly to the local level.
The President has eliminated funding for Eisenhower Professional
Development in his budget and then proposed a number of new national
programs related to teachers, as well as consolidations and
restructuring of existing teacher training programs. What he has added
is a number of different programs with nice sounding names; all
unauthorized, while zeroing out the money for an authorized program,
the Eisenhower Professional Development.
We have met the President's request for teacher training and quality
teachers in the classroom. We believe this is a very, very high
priority. It is very much a part of our education agenda. Our
difference here is that we are operating within the constraints of a
budget resolution while the amendment, of course, does not and simply
adds another billion dollars.
I believe that this amendment simply is another politically motivated
amendment that tries to create an issue over teacher training. We agree
on the importance of teacher training and development. We believe that
the Teacher Empowerment Act will do that far better than the number of
categorical programs that are unauthorized, as the President has
suggested, and far better than his 100,000 teachers sound bite. We are
hopeful that the Teacher Empowerment Act will be enacted into law and
we can fund it fully, as the President has requested.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
All I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the Senate has brought out its
authorization bill and it has not included the Teacher Empowerment Act.
So that may be false hope.
Secondly, with respect to block granting, what the majority has done
with the social service block grant, which was at $2.4 billion 2 years
ago, they cut it to $1.7 billion under the TEA-21 legislation. Then the
Senate cut it in the labor-health bill this year to another $600
million. It has become the incredible shrinking block grant, and we are
afraid we are going to do the same thing to education by first blocking
them and then shrinking them.
Thirdly, I would point out that it is incorrect to say that the
President is zeroing out the Eisenhower Teacher Training program. He is
doubling that

[[Page H4241]]

program essentially from $335 million to $690 million, and then adding
some features that strengthen it as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair of the time
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time.
It gets awfully tiresome on this side of the aisle to listen to the
fact that we may have constraints in the budget when, in fact, the
architects of the budgets are the ones who have tied themselves in
knots and now are leaving us without the proper amount of money to fund
both the quality of our teachers as well as the size of our classrooms.
I was one of the people who worked in a bipartisan manner with the
chairman on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and understand
full well that the best, the optimum situation is to have a qualified
teacher teaching a class of proper proportion so that the job gets
done. By underfunding both aspects of that, we are not getting it done.
Making it conditional on the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act,
particularly in light of the Senate's action leaving out part of that
equation, is the wrong way to do. We need to make sure we can fund both
the teacher quality aspects of this and the size aspect of it.
There are 533 new teachers in Massachusetts because of the classroom
size initiative that the President put in place with the help of this
Congress. To jeopardize that is unfair to those children and those
parents as well as the teachers and the principals and superintendents.
That is the direction to go. Fund this. Stop giving us this stuff
about how we are constrained by the budget when my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are, in fact, the architects of a bad piece of
work.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Class sizes are way too large and we all know that, but it is not
right to pit teacher training against class size reduction or any other
education priority. The reason that we cannot do both class size
reduction and teacher quality enhancement, and all of our other
education priorities, is because of the trillion dollar tax cuts which
have been proposed in this House. If we jettisoned these irresponsible
trillion dollar tax cuts, we could do both class size reduction and
teacher quality enhancement and all of our other educational
priorities.
We need to take a more common sense approach to our budget to achieve
our education priorities: Reducing class size and enhancing teacher
quality. These are all things that can be done if we jettison these
irresponsible tax cut proposals.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the other
side. They are doing an outstanding job of sticking to the political
line. There is no question about that.
I did want to mention block grant. Those are two words that the other
side despises more than any other words. But who built title I? My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Do my colleagues know what
title I is and was? The biggest block grant that ever came from the
Congress of the United States.
Do my colleagues know what did not happen? We have not closed the
achievement gap after $140 billion. So I would hope we would put that
argument to rest.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the recent remarks of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, why would we then go from one block grant program that he
feels has failed our American children and move to another block grant
philosophy with a variety of other programs if they are not, in fact,
working?
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise
in support of the Obey amendment. We know now that, other than the
active involvement of parents in their own child's education, the next
most important determinant of how well kids are going to perform in the
classroom is the quality of the teacher and whether that teacher has a
manageable class size in which to work. That is exactly what the Obey
amendment addresses, and we know that this is working.
In our own State of Wisconsin, we have a very successful SAGE program
of class size reduction and teacher training with reports and studies
coming out to show student achievement in this area. Down in the State
of Tennessee we have the STAR program as well, which is working very
effectively.
We had hearings in the Committee on Education and the Workforce
showing the importance of class size reduction. But over the next 10
years, we are going to have a 2.2 million teacher turnover. That
presents both an opportunity and a challenge, a challenge that we can
address here today with the Obey amendment to make sure that there are
the professional development funds to get quality teachers in the
classroom come see students succeed in those classrooms.
That is why we need to stress teacher quality when authorizing
teacher training and professional development programs. That is why we
need to demand accountability to the federal investment in public
education. And that is why so many of us here believe in the commitment
to class size reduction, which is thwarted by the majorities' bill.
And that is why my own State of Wisconsin started a program in 1995
designed specifically to improve the achievement levels of students in
grades K- through 3 in disadvantaged schools. The program, known as the
Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or S.A.G.E., incorporates
four components into a comprehensive effort at raising student
performance: class size reduction, teacher professional development,
challenging curriculum, and community involvement.
In 1998, a study by the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee
discovered dramatic improvements in student test scores from those
schools participating in the S.A.G.E. program S.A.G.E. has been so
successful that it has been expanded statewide and has secured
significant funding increases by the state's legislature. This focus on
reduced class size and teacher quality not only works, but is extremely
popular among participating students, teachers and parents.
Wisconsin is not alone in working to reduce class size in order to
improve student scores. In Tennessee, the STAR and Challenge projects
have produced good data indicating a general educational advantage for
students in smaller classes. Similar programs in North Carolina,
Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, as well as initiatives either started or
planned in at least 20 other states show clear indication that a focus
on reducing class size helps students, particularly those in areas of
higher need, achieve greater performance goals and standards.
I am profoundly disappointed that this underlying bill does not
maintain a solid Federal commitment to class size reduction and teacher
quality. The Federal role in education is to provide targeted
assistance to those students and schools with high economic need, and
to identify and address issues of national significance. In terms of
class size reduction, this bill is simply another attempt to turn the
Federal commitment to education into a new form of general revenue to
State Governors.
This bill is anything but education friendly. The Majority has
squandered a unique opportunity to address the pressing needs of our
Nation's schools and leverage wise investments in our children's
learning environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey
amendment. It's time we approach our commitment to education seriously.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this. There are few
things that we can point to that have more of an effect on a student's
performance than personal attention from teachers, and this is
critically important.
I have with me here today in Washington representatives of school
boards

[[Page H4242]]

from across central New Jersey, and they have pointed out again and
again, wherever I go, whenever I visit schools, that class size is
getting the better of them. They want, help and we should be helping
them. This is important across the country and we must do It.

{time} 1230

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we should be making a national priority today reducing
class size, and we ought to take the lead to provide some support to
our local school districts that want to do this.
Anyone who has visited elementary schools today knows that one of the
most fundamentally important things we can do is to support the teacher
in developing that personal relationship with the student to really
excite and engage them about learning.
We face major challenges ahead. We are having a problem now retaining
a lot of people who have chosen to go into the teaching profession. And
what do teachers need and want more than anything? They want control
back in their classroom. And we can give control of the classroom back
to them by giving them a workable class size, around 20 students per
teacher to teach.
The third thing we need to keep in mind is we have to hire over 2.2
million new teachers over the next decade, just 7,000 alone in my home,
the Tampa Bay area. We are not going to be able to attract the type of
teachers we need and keep them unless we can give them a manageable
class size and invest in professional development to give them the
tools they need to use technology and the curriculum to excite kids
about learning.
That is why we need to adopt the Obey amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I am astounded to hear the
majority say that our proposal for 100,000 teachers to reduce class
size is nothing more than a sound bite. They cannot tell the students
in my school that have two teachers in the third grade that reducing
the class size from 30 to one to 20 to one is a sound bite. This is a
reality.
It has not only improved the educational opportunities for the
children that got the two new teachers, but it improved the classroom
quality, also, of the remaining three classes.
So this is an amazing statement that the chairman of our Committee on
Education and the Workforce has propounded today. The 30,000 teachers
that have been spread across the country have dramatically improved the
educational opportunities of these youngsters.
Let us not just talk about what we are going to do for education. If
title I is a block grant, wonderful. It was block granted for the poor
children in this country based upon a very precise formula. That is
what we are doing here today. We are asking this Congress to
appropriate money to reduce class size and improve teacher quality.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Post-
Secondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning of the authorizing
committee.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, the 100,000 teachers sounds like a great idea, and it
may be a great idea. But a Federal 100,000-teacher mandate does cause
problems in the local area.
We set out last year in a bipartisan way to really find out how our
committee could help do a better job of education across the country.
We held hearings across the country, and we listened to people. We
listened to parents. We listened to teachers. We listened to school
board members, superintendents. We asked them, what is the most
important thing in education? And they said, first of all, the parent;
and, secondly, a qualified teacher.
Now, I have six children. I have 19 grandchildren. It is important to
me that they have a good education. When our children were going to
school and my wife was active, she was PTA president. She was very
active in the local schools, most of the parents know who the best
teachers in the schools are. Most of the parents know which teachers
are the most qualified and which can help their students learn the
most. And they try to get their students into the classroom with the
best qualified teacher.
Now, it is very important, it is very popular right now to talk about
reducing class size. And in California, our governor did this a few
years ago. He cut all class sizes from K through three down to 18. We
thought would be very helpful. But the problem was we did not have
enough qualified teachers available to be hired, just as there is not
100,000 qualified teachers right now to be hired. And so it resulted in
over 30,000 underqualified teachers in the classroom in California to
get that class size down to 18.
I asked parents, I said, if they had a choice of having their child
in a classroom of 15 students with a brand new teacher just out of
school, maybe not quite as seasoned, quite as qualified as some that
had been around a little longer, or if they had their chance to have
the very best teacher in that school of a class size of 25, where would
they have their child go? And every time they say, I would take the
class with the best qualified teacher even if we had 25 students.
The thing is, with the Teacher Empowerment Act, we do not have to
make that kind of decision. We could have both. We say in the Teacher
Empowerment Act, use this money for class size reduction. If they
cannot get enough qualified teachers, then they can use that money to
help their teachers become better qualified. They can give them a
voucher. They can let them go get the training that they need.
In one of our hearings here in Washington, D.C., we had a young
African American teacher that had been teaching just a few years; and
he told us that he was hired to teach reading in the third grade and he
was very frustrated. His first year he had not had a class in how to
teach reading. But he was told that he knew how to read, he can teach
reading. He said he was very frustrated. He was not able to teach. His
students were not learning. He was ready to give up the teaching
profession.
Fortunately, he had an administrator that helped him get the teaching
that he needed so that he was able to adequately teach his students.
But it took a few years of preparation. He said now he felt better
about what he was doing, his students were learning, and he was able to
progress.
That is what we do with the Teacher Empowerment Act. We help teachers
become better teachers so that they are qualified and able to really
help young children learn, which is what we are all trying to achieve.
But instead of having a mandate out of Washington saying they have to
hire 100,000 teachers, we give the local jurisdictions the opportunity
to make the best use of that money.
I oppose this amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to do so.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I swear that the previous speaker has not read this
amendment. This amendment says, instead of spending $700 billion
dollars on tax cuts, instead of spending $90 billion in tax cuts for
people who make more than $300,000 a year, instead of giving $200
billion in tax cuts to the richest 400 people in this country, instead,
do two things: provide an increased number of teachers so you can have
smaller classes and it says provide more teacher training.
The gentleman who just spoke acts as though we do not have anything
in here for teacher training.
Under the law, under the 100,000 new teachers effort which the
President is trying to move forward, 25 percent of that can be used for
training; and if you reached 18 kids per classroom, you can use it all
for teacher training.
This amendment that we are trying to add would add 1 billion
additional dollars for teacher training, not for class size, for
teacher training. We add $690 million to help upgrade existing teachers
in the classroom, and we use the other money to help recruit and
retrain new teachers in high-poverty areas. That is what it does.

[[Page H4243]]

We are taking the criticisms from that side of the aisle last year
and responding to them. We are saying, do not just do smaller class
size, do both smaller class size and additional teacher training.
The question really is, when you blow the smoke away, are you trying
to save this money for your high-roller friends on their tax cut, or
are you willing to put it into the classroom, recognizing we have got a
million more kids that we have to teach and we need the best teachers
in the country to do it?
So it is a choice between your high-rollers and your kids, and I
think you know what side you ought to come down on.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman
of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me remind everyone that
that amendment says nothing about tax cuts. So I do not know what that
discussion is all about.
But let me say again to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), yes,
I want to repeat, it was positively a political sound bite; 100,000
teachers, 15,000 school districts, one million classrooms, and they
talk about class size reduction. But they got embarrassed because the
President never once mentioned quality when he started that. I pleaded
with him to talk about quality. And then they got embarrassed because
of the first 20,000 hired, 33 percent were totally unqualified.
Now, was that not something to do to children, stick them in a
classroom with fewer people with a totally unqualified teacher. Shame.
Shame. Shame.
And so, we say in the Teacher Empowerment Act, we are not interested
in this quantity business that we have talked about for all these
years; we are only interested in quality.
In 1970, yes, I reduced class size in the early grades as a
superintendent. I did not come to Washington. I went to my school
board. That is where I went. And, yes, I did not put any in there until
there was a quality teacher to put in there to reduce class size.
Let us stick with the Teacher Empowerment Act. Get the most for your
money. Get quality. Get class size reduction. Get everything that is
needed to improve instruction in the classroom. That is what we are all
about.

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 it changes existing law.''
The amendment directly amends existing law. I would ask for a ruling
from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) raises a point
of order against the Obey amendment.
Does any Member wish to be heard?
Mr. OBEY. Yes. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule, we are not able to offer an
amendment that adds to the funding level assigned to this subcommittee
through the budget resolution because the budget resolution set aside a
huge amount of money for tax cuts, which the majority party would
prefer to see instead of funding for programs like this and Social
Security and Medicare and all the rest.
That means that all we can do is offer these amendments, but we
cannot get a vote on it. It is a pretty strange way to run a railroad,
but that is the way we are going to be railroaded, I guess. And so, I
reluctantly concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) makes a point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) proposes
to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The amendment in pertinent part includes a provision directly waiving
``any other provision of law.'' By seeking to waive any other provision
of law, the amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill
in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, a complaint was filed with the
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR)
because of discriminatory practices against limited English speaking
persons as well as hearing impaired clients who applied for TANF and
Medicaid benefits.
In October 1999, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) found the New York City Human Resources Administration, the New
York State Department of Health, the New York State Office of Temporary
and Disability Assistance, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties guilty of
discriminatory practices against limited English speaking and hearing-
impaired persons.
These local, county, and state entities were found in violation of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as well as the Americans With
Disabilities Act.
Those who already are challenged with navigating a massive
bureaucracy should not have to be penalized further because they do not
speak the language and dared to ask for help. This is appalling.
The Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and Human
Services came to some very troubling revelations. Limited English-
speaking clients were asked to bring their own language interpreters.
This pattern of misconduct was so prevalent and well known to the
community that clients seeking assistance made arrangements to bring
their own interpreters before going to a public assistance office.
Bilingual staff people were limited or non-existent, and staff were
often not aware they were required to provide such assistance. This is
unacceptable.
Investigators from HHS found that public assistance offices failed to
provide necessary assistance and services to hearing-impaired clients
and staff members lacked the ability to ensure effective communication
with hearing-impaired clients.
The basic conclusion of the Office of Civil Rights was that clients
were denied access to federal funds. Specifically, they were denied
access to Medicaid and TANF funds.
The Office of Civil Rights required the Human Resources
Administration to submit a corrective plan of action.
To add insult to injury, the plan submitted by the agency was totally
devoid of any serious intent to correct its conduct. The plan submitted
was so inadequate, that the Office of Civil Rights rejected it. The
Office of Civil Rights then drafted a plan for the agency which the
agency has yet to agree to.
As the Representative of one of the largest Hispanic constituencies
in New York City, one of the largest Asian populations nationally, and
the largest number of Eastern European immigrants in Brooklyn, I am
very concerned that my constituents are being denied their rights.
New York City is not an island unto itself. I dare to think, how
prevalent such behavior may be on a national level. We have a
responsibility to ensure that funds which we deem as necessary for the
well-being of our constituents reaches them.
In a nation that is founded upon the diversity of its people, this
conduct cannot be tolerated. Because of this, our capacity for
tolerance and understanding of all people should be a foregone
conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, it is for this reason that I ask that you consider the
inclusion of language in the Committee Report to urge the Department of
Health and Human Services to examine this matter on a national level.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read, as follows:

education for the disadvantaged

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, $8,816,986,000, of which
$2,569,823,000 shall become available on July 1, 2001, and
shall remain available through September 30, 2002, and of
which $6,204,763,000 shall become available on October 1,
2001 and shall remain available through September 30, 2002,
for academic year 2001-2002: Provided, That $6,783,000,000
shall be available for basic grants under section 1124:
Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall
be available to the Secretary on October 1, 2000, to obtain
updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data
from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That
$1,158,397,000 shall be available for concentration grants
under section 1124A: Provided further, That $8,900,000 shall
be available for evaluations under section 1501 and not more
than $8,500,000 shall be reserved for section 1308, of which
not more than $3,000,000 shall be reserved for section
1308(d): Provided further, That $190,000,000 shall be
available

[[Page H4244]]

under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective approaches
to comprehensive school reform to be allocated and expended
in accordance with the instructions relating to this activity
in the statement of the managers on the conference report
accompanying Public Law 105-78 and in the statement of the
managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law
105-277: Provided further, That in carrying out this
initiative, the Secretary and the States shall support only
approaches that show the most promise of enabling children
served by title I to meet challenging State content standards
and challenging State student performance standards based on
reliable research and effective practices, and include an
emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement.

{time} 1245

Amendment No. 192 Offered by Mr. Vitter

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 192 offered by Mr. Vitter:
Page 50, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $116,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 21, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $78,548,000)''.
Page 52, line 12, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $158,450,000)''.
Page 53, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $30,765,000)''.
Page 53, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $1,419,597,000)''.
Page 54, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $900,000)''.
Page 54, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $5,849,000)''.
Page 55, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $3,420,000)''.
Page 55, line 10, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $36,850,000)''.
Page 56, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $823,283,000)''.
Page 57, line 14, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $158,502,000)''.
Page 58, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $7,030,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12,
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I bring before the House today an amendment to fully
support over time our Federal commitment to IDEA, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. This has been a long-running frustration in
the education community and across our country, Mr. Chairman, the fact
that since 1975, the Federal Government has created an enormous burden
and mandate with IDEA but has not kept its commitment to adequately
fund that mandate.
In 1975, IDEA was passed, and part of that passage was the notion
that the Federal Government would fully fund over time that additional
mandate on local government by funding 40 percent of the national per-
pupil expenditure for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, we
have never come close to that mark.
Now, recently, just about a month ago, we took an important vote on
H.R. 4055 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I was a
cosponsor of that measure. That measure, which passed overwhelmingly,
421-3, said that over the next 10 years, we would increase IDEA funding
by $2 billion per year, and, therefore, over that 10-year period, we
would get to our full Federal commitment on the issue of IDEA,
something we have promised to do but have failed to do since 1975. That
was just a month ago. 421-3.
Also this year, we passed a budget resolution, the fiscal year 2001
budget resolution. That committed us to the same thing, an increase in
$2 billion per year to, over a reasonable amount of time, get us to our
full funding commitment. In fact, that budget resolution went further.
It said that we would commit ourselves to fully funding special
education before appropriating funds for new Federal education
initiatives.
My amendment, which I bring before the House today, lives up to that
promise, lives up to the promise of the budget resolution that we
passed recently and lives up to the promise of H.R. 4055 which we
passed recently by an overwhelming margin.
It is really quite simple. It would take any increases in funding on
education initiatives and shift those increases, only increases in
funding over last year, to IDEA, and that would fully fund our $2
billion per year commitment so that we will stay on track to get to
full Federal funding of our Federal commitment over 10 years.
Now, I know some of these increases in other areas are very
warranted, are very popular. But we need to keep this fundamental
Federal commitment which we have just restated this year twice through
both the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the
fiscal year 2001 budget resolution before we move on to new programs
and to new spending in existing programs. My amendment will do that.
In summation, Mr. Chairman, there are many good reasons to pass this
amendment. Number one, we should keep our commitment, a commitment
restated twice this year. Number two, we should support Federal
education initiatives and our special education students. Number three,
and perhaps even most importantly, we should give local systems
additional flexibility, because every time we give them more special
education dollars to keep our Federal commitment, we free up local and
State money, and that gives more flexibility, more power to the local
level where it belongs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is no one in this House who would like to see funding rise for
special education more than I would. I have a nephew that benefits from
special education. But this amendment is a Johnny-one-note approach to
education, and it ought to be defeated.
We will be offering an amendment later on in the process which
attempts to add a billion and a half dollars to special education by
asking the majority to consider cutting back its tax cuts by about 20
percent in size. That is the best way, in my view, under present
circumstances to strengthen special education.
This amendment is opposed by the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, it is opposed by the National PTA, it
is opposed by the American Association of School Administrators, the
National Education Association, and the National Education of Federally
Impacted Schools. Why? Because it cuts the maximum Pell grant award for
every working-class kid trying to go to college $275 below last year's
level. It cuts education for the poorest kids in this country who are
having the most trouble getting an education, the disadvantaged, by
$116 million. That means 178,000 fewer kids will be served. It cuts the
increases in this bill for Even Start literacy services, comprehensive
school reform and high school equivalency and college assistance for
migrant students. It cuts services to the deaf and blind students at
Gallaudet and at the Printing House for the Blind and at the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf. It cuts Impact Aid by $78 million.
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education says
as follows:
``While we support full funding for IDEA and welcome increases in
funding that take us toward that goal, we are concerned that these
increases are the result of cuts in proposed spending on Federal
education programs that also serve the needs of children with
disabilities, including title I, 21st century community learning
centers, and vocational education. As a result, taking money from one
education program and putting it into special education will not
increase the total amount of funding available to support children with
special needs. These proposed amendments demonstrate the fundamental
problem with this appropriations bill. It lacks sufficient funding and
support for education programs across the board. This deficiency will

[[Page H4245]]

not be fixed by moving dollars from one program to another.''
I could not have said it better myself. I would urge rejection of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time. I would like to say to the gentleman from
Louisiana, he has got the right idea, he is just taking it out of the
wrong pot of money.
What we are trying to do with this debate in education today and
yesterday and last week is say that the majority budget where they have
put so much money, a trillion dollars, aside for a tax cut, we need to
make sure that some of that money can go toward new ideas with
accountability, with good quality, for education. Nothing is more
important than the title I program for the poorest of the poor.
This bill funds it at about $8.5 or $8.6 billion. I offered an
amendment with 39 Republicans on the authorization process that
increased title I by $1.5 billion. This does not increase it by $1.5
billion. This amendment takes money away from the poorest kids, puts it
into a good account, but we should not be forced to take it from poor
kids to put it in special education programs. We should be able to do
both.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing on this side, I want to make two fundamental points. First
of all, this amendment only involves cuts by the Washington definition
of the term. In the real world, across the country, people know what a
cut is, and they know the difference between a cut and a lack of
increase in spending. This keeps our same level of spending on other
vital education programs as last year, and it only moves what would be
new and additional spending dollars to special education. So it is not
a cut except in the old, stale Washington definition and Washington
sense of the term.
We do this in the amendment, we move that money, those additional new
funds to special education for a very good and compelling reason,
because we voted twice this year, in the bill of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) by an overwhelming margin and in the fiscal
year 2001 budget resolution to put special education and meeting our
Federal commitment to special education at the top of the priority
list. It is time we did that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no enterprise that is more important and no
responsibility that is greater for any public official than to see to
it that our public schools are our first priority, not just for some
kids but for all kids. That means kids who need special education; that
means kids from wealthy families. It means kids from middle-class and
poor families.
The only thing you have got when you start out in life is
opportunity. The question is how much you are going to be given by your
society as you grow or how much is going to be taken away. This
amendment seeks to give additional opportunity for some kids at the
expense of others.
That is not the way we ought to be doing things in this country. We
should not be making it more difficult for 178,000 kids who are most at
risk of failing in education to lose help under Federal education
programs. We should not be taking funding away for the National
Technical Institute for the Deaf. We should not be taking it away for
Gallaudet, the university for deaf and deaf/blind. We ought to be able
to find a way. And sooner or later before this year is over, we will.
Before this year is over, the majority will have to recognize that more
money is going to have to go into this bill for education. It is $3.5
billion below the President's request.
If you want to fix this bill, take care of that and you will fix most
of the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 202 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 202 offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
Page 50, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $116,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 21, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $78,548,000)''.
Page 52, line 12, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $158,450,000)''.
Page 53, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $30,765,000)''.
Page 53, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $383,263,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12,
2000, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities
Act in 1975, the Federal Government made a commitment to pay 40 percent
of the special education budget and required States to pay the other 60
percent. The Federal Government, however, currently only pays roughly
12.6 percent toward the IDEA budget, and the States are forced to make
up the rest of what is an unfunded mandate.
This amendment takes a more targeted approach by eliminating
increases in four programs and moving the money into funding for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This amendment would move
about $383 million in funding, still far short of the $2 billion in
increase necessary to move IDEA funding to the target that was outlined
in the budget resolution. The amendment is not a criticism of the
programs where we are taking the money out of. Rather, it is a transfer
of funding to a program which Congress has said should be our number
one funding priority. This is consistent with the budget resolution. It
is also consistent with the resolution that passed the House of
Representatives identifying IDEA as our most important funding
priority.

{time} 1300

It is also very consistent with what educators, school
administrators, and parents have said at the local level as we have
gone around the country, because what this mandate does, without fully
funding it, is it saps resources from local school budgets.
Governor George Ryan in Illinois: ``The support of increased Federal
funding is a key element in assuring successful compliance with IDEA in
the future.'' Representative Alice Seagren told us this last week in
Minnesota: ``One of the most positive things Congress could do is to
fund the Federal Special Education mandates before you consider any new
programs.'' Bob Selly who is superintendent of the East Yuma County
School District in Colorado: ``My suggestion, if it is going to be
mandated by the Federal Government, figure out what is it is going to
cost the schools and fully fund the Federal mandate.''
Eric Smith, superintendent of the Charlotte Schools in Charlotte,
North Carolina: ``Based on a lack of funding, there are systemwide
struggles which directly affect the quality of service we can provide
to our students.'' From a parent in Pennsylvania: ``I believe that a
lack of funding is a major detriment to fulfilling the promise of IDEA
giving children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate
education in the least restrictive environment.''
This amendment seeks to move us in the direction that the budget
resolution has said we should go, that this House has said we should
go, and that Congress in 1975 said that we should go by funding 40
percent of the mandate that we imposed on some State and local schools.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, the choice we face is this, both parties want to
increase support for special education.

[[Page H4246]]

The question is, are we going to do that by scaling back by just a tiny
amount the size of the tax cuts that the majority party is pushing
through this place, or are we going to do that by cutting back on
funding for disadvantaged children? Are you going to do that by cutting
back on Impact Aid to local school districts?
Are you going to do that by cutting out increases for charter schools
in this bill and the increases for education for homeless children? Are
you going to really cut $31 million from Indian Education, 29 percent
below the House bill and 33 percent below the request?
I do not know how many times you have had the occasion to have Native
American children either in your office or just talking to them at
home. So often we see that they lack confidence. They are not sure of
themselves. They do not want to speak up.
They have not been treated very well in this society, and this
amendment provides that that treatment is going to be just a little bit
worse.
I do not think that it makes sense fiscally. I do not think it makes
sense in terms of human values. This amendment is opposed by the
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the very
people that it purports to help. And it is also opposed by the Easter
Seals Society. It says Easter Seals does not support amendments that
propose to reduce funding of Federal general education programs in
order to provide an increase for special education. Every child in
America benefits when all educational programs are adequately funded.
Moreover, Easter Seals is working to ensure that students with
disabilities have the opportunity to benefit from general education
programs, including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, GEAR-
UP, and title I.
Mr. Chairman, we know in the end this bill is going to have to
provide more funding for special education and for a lot of other
education programs. That, unfortunately, is not going to happen today,
because of the rule under which this bill is being brought to the
floor, but this is not a vote that you want to cast. This is not a vote
you want to go home and explain to your constituents.
We should not be picking on the most defenseless and most troubled
children in this society in order to help other defenseless and
troubled children. I would urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Hoekstra) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to take a look at the funding and the
taking away from different groups to fund others. Title I since 1998
increased 19 percent. Impact Aid since 1998 increased 22 percent.
Indian Education since 1998, an increase of 80 percent. School
improvement programs since 1998, an increase of 110 percent.
What we are saying is these programs have been funded and increased
over the last 3 years, but let us meet and fulfill the commitment that
this House said, which was special education funding is our number one
priority. Let us fully meet our commitment as we fully met our
commitment, then let us take a look at the other programs. But these
other programs have been receiving increases. What we are saying this
year is let us take a focused approach, and let us put our money where
our promises and our commitments were.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time and would simply state that, I believe, while
well-intentioned, this amendment might jeopardize the $30 million
increase that we have worked so hard for a program that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and I have had hearings on; that we both
agree should be supported at a higher level of funding, and that is
charter schools.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who I have the deepest of
respect for, we work together on the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, have
had a hearing, an extensive hearing on what a wonderful innovation is
being brought forward on charter schools in this country.
They are accountable. They are innovative and creative. They allow us
to do new things at the community level with parental involvement. We
need more funding. And we hear from the business community and the
high-tech community that starting a new charter school, the upstart
costs are one of the most difficult barriers to get them going, so we
have a $30 million increase; the Senate has this at $210 million. Let
us keep that in the bill; let us not threaten that with taking money
away from that charter school program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said that
special education should be our highest priority. I agree that special
education, teacher training and small class size all ought to be our
top priorities, but I do not believe that special education ought to be
our only priority; and I do not think it ought to be funded by dealing
another heavy blow to other children who in some cases are even more
disadvantaged than some of the children who need special education.
It seems to me in the end we will recognize what we all have to do,
that will not happen until conference; but this approach is a beggar-
thy-neighbor approach, and I do not think it would be well received by
the public; and I urge its rejection.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) a
designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for 5 minutes.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I had previously intended to offer an amendment to this
bill, which would increase the Star Schools Program up to last year's
funding level of about $51 million. My amendment would have increased
this program a little over $5\1/2\ million with offsets proposed for
administrative costs in the Department of Education.
I have decided not to offer the amendment formally, but to enter into
a colloquy with the chairman of our subcommittee to get some assurance
that this issue will be considered in conference. The purpose of the
Star Schools Program is to capitalize on new interactive communication
technologies which allow educators to improve instruction in
mathematics, in science, foreign languages, adult literacy and other
subjects, especially to traditionally underserved students.
The Stars Schools Program was first authorized in 1988 and was
reauthorized most recently under title III of the Improving America's
Schools Act. The program allows the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement to make grants for a duration of 5 years, allows the
authority to make awards to special statewide projects and special
local projects.
The program has been really a very effective program in my district,
the east side of the State of Washington. It

[[Page H4247]]

has provided services to more than 6,000 schools in every State, the
District of Columbia, and several territories.
About 1.6 million learners have participated in the student staff
development parental and community-based activities produced under the
Stars Schools Program. I visited the STEP Star Program in Spokane,
Washington, which is the Star Schools Program offered by Educational
Service District 101 in my 5th Congressional District of Washington.
The program is tremendously impressive, and I must say we held a town
hall meeting with several schools in rural communities outside of the
Spokane area, and it was very effective. I especially commend the work
of ESD 101 Superintendent Terry Munther and Government Affairs manager
Steve Witter.
We could have interactive communication and discussion of not only
issues of the day, but the opportunity for students in local, rural
communities to have the same opportunities to learn as students in
urban communities.
It is a very great program. It is well operated. It services children
as it should, regardless of geographic location. So I am delighted that
the chairman of the subcommittee is willing to enter into this colloquy
and to talk a little bit about this, and allow me to say a few words in
support of the program, because I think if we had a vote on it, we
would have a good chance of passage; but I do respect the process here
of trying to make sure we stay within our budget limitations, but also
try to solve the funding issues that affect very serious programs like
this one in the conference.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the assurance of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) that we will seek to increase funding for the
Stars Schools Program up to the level of last year to the extent that
we can during the conference with the other body.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt) for bringing this good program to the attention of the
subcommittee, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter), gives his assurance that he will work to
increase the line item for this particular program, the Stars Schools
Program in conference.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

impact aid

For carrying out programs of financial assistance to
federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $985,000,000,
of which $780,000,000 shall be for basic support payments
under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be for payments for
children with disabilities under section 8003(d),
$82,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
payments under section 8003(f), $25,000,000 shall be for
construction under section 8007, $40,000,000 shall be for
Federal property payments under section 8002, and $8,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for facilities
maintenance under section 8008.

school improvement programs

For carrying out school improvement activities authorized
by titles IV, V-A and B, VI, IX, X, and XIII of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA'');
the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; and part B of title VIII of the Higher
Education Act of 1965; $3,165,334,000, of which
$1,073,500,000 shall become available on July 1, 2001, and
remain available through September 30, 2002, and of which
$1,515,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2001 and
shall remain available through September 30, 2002 for
academic year 2001-2002: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated, $1,750,000,000 shall be for the Teacher
Empowerment Act, if such legislation is enacted.

Amendment No. 185 Offered by Mr. Roemer

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 185 offered by Mr. Roemer:
Page 52, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 52, line 19, strike the period and insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for programs under this heading, $25,000,000
shall be made available for teacher transition programs
described under section 306.''
Page 59, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(decreased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 64, after line 6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 306. (a) Purpose of Teacher Transition.--The purpose
of this section is to address the need of high-need local
educational agencies for highly qualified teachers in
particular subject areas, such as mathematics, science,
foreign languages, bilingual education, and special
education, needed by those agencies, following the model of
the successful teachers placement program known as the
`Troops-to-Teachers program', by recruiting, preparing,
placing, and supporting career-changing professionals who
have knowledge and experience that will help them become such
teachers.
(b) Program Authorized.--
(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to use funds
appropriated under paragraph (2) for each fiscal year to
award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
institutions of higher education and public and private
nonprofit agencies or organizations to carry out programs
authorized by this section.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as
may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
(c) Application.--Each applicant that desires an award
under subsection (b)(1) shall submit an application to the
Secretary containing such information as the Secretary
requires, including--
(1) a description of the target group of career-changing
professionals upon which the applicant will focus its
recruitment efforts in carrying out its program under this
section, including a description of the characteristics of
that target group that shows how the knowledge and experience
of its members are relevant to meeting the purpose of this
section;
(2) a description of the training that program participants
will receive and how that training will relate to their
certification as teachers;
(3) a description of how the applicant will collaborate, as
needed, with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
to recruit, train, place, support, and provide teacher
induction programs to program participants under this
section, including evidence of the commitment of those
institutions, agencies, or organizations to the applicant's
program;
(4) a description of how the applicant will evaluate the
progress and effectiveness of its program, including--
(A) the program's goals and objectives;
(B) the performance indicators the applicant will use to
measure the program's progress; and
(C) the outcome measures that will be used to determine the
program's effectiveness; and
(5) such other information and assurances as the Secretary
may require.
(d) Uses of Funds and Period of Service.--
(1) Authorized activities.--Funds under this section may be
used for--
(A) recruiting program participants, including informing
them of opportunities under the program and putting them in
contact with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
that would train, place, and support them;
(B) training stipends and other financial incentives for
program participants, not to exceed $5,000 per participant;
(C) assisting institutions of higher education or other
providers of teacher training to tailor their training to
meet the particular needs of professionals who are changing
their careers to teaching;
(D) placement activities, including identifying high-need
local educational agencies with a need for the particular
skills and characteristics of the newly trained program
participants and assisting those participants to obtain
employment in those local educational agencies; and
(E) post-placement induction or support activities for
program participants.
(2) Period of service.--A program participant in a program
under this section who completes his or her training shall
serve in a high-need local educational agency for at least 3
years.
(3) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate to
ensure that program participants who receive a training
stipend or other financial incentive under paragraph (1)(B),
but fail to complete their service obligation under paragraph
(2), repay all or a portion of such stipend or other
incentive.
(e) Equitable Distribution.--To the extent practicable, the
Secretary shall make awards under this section that support
programs in different geographic regions of the Nation.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term `high-need local educational agency' has the
meaning given such term in section 2061.
(2) The term `program participants' means career-changing
professionals who--
(A) hold at least a baccalaureate degree;
(B) demonstrate interest in, and commitment to, becoming a
teacher; and
(C) have knowledge and experience that are relevant to
teaching a high-need subject area in a high-need local
educational agency.

[[Page H4248]]

(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment offered by
myself, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, (Mr. Davis), and my
good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). I also rise to
offer an amendment that is offset, $25 million towards the transition
to teaching, to bring new people in second careers into teaching, in
math and science and technology, three of the real concerns that we
have for improvement in the quality of teaching today.
It is offset. It is offset by a $25 million cut from the fund for the
improvement of education.

{time} 1315

So I do not know what the majority's opposition to this is. It is a
brand new program based on a successful program that is currently
working called Troops-to-Teachers. The Troops-to-Teachers idea was to
help people move from the military to the teaching profession. Right
now that 1994 program has 3,300 former military people teaching in
schools, and 83 percent of them have stayed in inner-city school or
rural school hard-to-teach areas.
What is the difficulty? It is a bipartisan amendment. It is offset.
It is based on a successful idea to bring new people into the teaching
profession.
Now, we might hear from the majority that this is legislating on an
appropriations bill. Only in Washington do you hear such terminology,
``legislating on an appropriations bill,'' which means a bipartisan
bill with a good idea and a solid track record might not even get a
vote on it.
So I am exasperated. I cannot figure out why an education
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations would rule out of order
an innovative, creative idea, with such promise for quality in the
teaching profession.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla) continue to reserve his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) wish to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is
not going to claim the time in opposition, then I will claim the time
in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. I very
much support where the gentleman wants to put this money, but I do not
agree with where he wants to get it. I think the same problem lies with
this as it lies with other amendments. So, at the proper time, if it is
pursued to a vote, I would have to urge the House to oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and neighbor,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Hoosier colleague and friend for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to the gentleman's amendment.
I agree with the offset, and I believe it is commendable that the
gentleman has an offset. But I also think that there are few issues
that are of importance to our education system as much as where we are
going to get the math, science and technology teachers for the next
generation.
We do job training through the Federal Government, we do transitions'
training through the Federal Government, and we do teacher training
through the Federal Government. This crosses all different categories.
This is not a new innovation.
I hope that if we cannot get it done today, we can move it through
the authorizing committee. I think it is a great idea. Our only hope
really to address this question is how we can get people moving from
the private sector, many of whom have made their money in the private
sector and may be willing to come back and teach our young people, or
we will not able to compete worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
the State of Florida (Mr. Davis), who has worked so hard on this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we face, over the next 10 years,
a need to hire over 2.2 million new teachers in this country. In my
home, the Tampa Bay area, 7,000 new teachers we will need over the next
10 years. The problem is there is already a cut. School districts
around the country are already starting to experience a lot of
difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.
Well, today we can adopt a solution to that. We can adopt an
amendment that is a Transition to Teaching Act, that will allow people
who aspire to be teachers to go back to school to qualify for up to a
$5,000 grant to cover their tuition and fees. In return, they must meet
the same high standards that anyone else would need to be certified in
their particular State, and they must spend at least 3 years teaching
in a school with a high level of poverty, the schools having the
greatest difficulty attracting the teachers we need today.
Most importantly, we are finding that around the country people that
are prepared to move from the boardroom to the classroom, from the
police station on Main Street to the school on Main Street, are
valuable teachers. They are using their life experience to reach out to
kids, to help them get excited and engaged in learning.
This amendment adopts the President's budget proposal of $25 million
to start this program. It has bipartisan support. It has passed
unanimously in both the House and the Senate. This is something we can
do today to begin to equip our school districts and States to deal with
this teacher shortage problem; not just to replace teachers, but also
to bring more quality in the classroom by allowing these professionals
to use their life experience to succeed as teachers.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is
recognized for 3 minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
as well as his hospitality on that issue.
Mr. Chairman, the issue I close on in this bipartisan debate is we
are trying to be innovative, and we are piggybacking on a successful
idea called Troops-to-Teachers that has transitioned thousands of
people from the military sector into the teaching sector. Now we are
trying to transition people, from accountants, police officers, people
in high technology jobs, into the teaching profession. It is a
bipartisan idea, supported by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder),
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis), and me. It has an offset, so it is fiscally responsible.
I would like to ask somebody on the Republican side to tell me
substantively why they disagree with this issue? I would be happy to
yield the next 10 seconds to them to disagree with it.
Nobody rises on the Republican side to show any opposition to this
amendment, which we have worked on, which the House has passed, which
the Senate has passed, which we are trying to get

[[Page H4249]]

through procedural obstacles and distractions, some way of bringing a
good idea from the floor of the House to the American people.
We would hope that there would be some kind of bipartisan support
between Republicans and Democrats, since both support this idea, that
we could get this bill on the suspension calendar or as a separate
piece of legislation through this body to help the critical need for
more teachers in America.
We have a digital divide, Mr. Chairman, with too many poor kids not
having access to technology. We have a teaching divide in this country,
where so many teachers may not get access to technology, or, when they
get a donation of a brand new computer, they do not know how to use it.
They are not equipped with the software and the skills to teach that
technology to young people in inner-city or rural areas. This amendment
deals with that shortage and that paucity, but, because of obstacles by
the majority side, we cannot get this amendment voted on today.
So I would hope in the future when we have an education idea that is
bipartisan, that is based on a successful idea that is working, that
has been passed by the House and the Senate, I would hope that we could
get some cooperation to support this legislation in the future.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wanted somebody to stand up
in opposition. I could not get any time. My problem is the gentleman is
authorizing on an appropriations bill. The gentleman helped us create
TEA. Get the gentleman's two Members of the other body to move, and all
of these things that the gentleman wants to do here are included in
that, and then it will be done properly.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes in part a good idea.
It wants to take the concept of using retired military people in the
classroom and add to that the concept of also using retired civilians
in the classroom, especially to deal with problems like math and
science. That is a terrific idea, and we ought to do it. The amendment
that we will be offering later in the bill will do it; it just will not
do it by damaging some of the programs that would be damaged if we
funded that increase by reducing the programs the gentleman is trying
to reduce.
I understand that the gentleman is forced to do that because of the
rule under which we are operating. That is not his fault. But
eventually we are going to have to do it the right way, and at that
point I will look forward to the gentleman's full support, because I
think the gentleman will be happy with the product that we produce
after the President eventually is able to convince the majority party
that they are not going to go home until they restore the money which
they have cut from his education budget. I will predict that will
include initiatives such as this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
reserved a point of order. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on
the 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.''
This does that.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, with your patience and diligence, only in
Washington, D.C., can you have a point of order on legislation on an
appropriations bill on a bipartisan amendment that is on a successful
idea that has an offset and does not take money and harm other
programs.
I reluctantly, very reluctantly, concede the point of order on a
technical Washington, D.C. term.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

reading excellence

For necessary expenses to carry out the Reading Excellence
Act, $65,000,000, which shall become available on July 1,
2001 and shall remain available through September 30, 2002
and $195,000,000 which shall become available on October 1,
2001 and remain available through September 30, 2002.

indian education

For expenses necessary to carry out, to the extent not
otherwise provided, title IX, part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $107,765,000.

bilingual and immigrant education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
bilingual, foreign language and immigrant education
activities authorized by parts A and C and section 7203 of
title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, without regard to section 7103(b), $406,000,000:
Provided, That State educational agencies may use all, or any
part of, their part C allocation for competitive grants to
local educational agencies.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 15 as the designee of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
Page 53, after line 14, insert the following:

school renovation

For grants and loans to carry out school renovation under
title XII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, $1,300,000,000, which shall become available on July 1,
2001 and shall remain available until expended, of which (1)
$50,000,000 shall be for grants to local educational agencies
(as defined in section 8013(9) of such Act) in which the
number of children determined under section 8003(a)(1)(C) of
such Act constituted at least 50 percent of the number of
children who were in average daily attendance in the schools
of such agency during the preceding school year; (2)
$125,000,000 shall be for grants to local educational
agencies (other than those eligible under paragraph (1)); and
(3) $1,125,000,000 shall be for the costs of direct loans to
local educational agencies: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $7,000,000,000: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any provision of titles XII and XIV of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the
Secretary of Education shall make these grants and loans
subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall
establish.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

{time} 1330

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to include a package of $1.3
billion in grants and loans for urgently needed repair and
modernization at our Nation's crumbling schools.
The desperate need to repair America's school schools is not a new
issue for any of us. Four years ago, I conducted a survey of New York
City schools and discovered that one in every four schools holds
classes in areas such as hallways, gyms, bathrooms, janitors' closets.
Two-thirds of these schools had substandard critical building features
such as roofs, walls, floors.
This is an outrage. This is a disgrace. In response to that shocking
study, I worked with the administration to author the very first school
modernization bill in 1996. It is now 4 years later. School enrollment
is skyrocketing.
High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a
luxury. We have kids in the United States of America attending classes
in rooms with asbestos-filled ceilings and in rooms heated with coal
stoves. It would be laughable if it was not so disgraceful and
potentially tragic.

[[Page H4250]]

Some of my colleagues will say this is not a Federal responsibility
but the fact is that the States are doing the best they can. They need
a partnership. They need Federal dollars to fill in the holes. In fact,
the National Education Association estimates that the unmet school
modernization need in America's schools totals over $300 billion, and
that is on top of what school districts and States are already
spending.
The problem is simply too big for local and State officials to handle
alone. Simply stated, the need for school modernization is a national
problem that demands a national response.
The Federal government, in my judgment, has a responsibility to
ensure that public education is more than a promise, and our students
cannot learn when the walls are literally crumbling around them. That
is why we just should not end this session, Mr. Chairman, without
providing at least this proposal for emergency school repair.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue where we will either pay now
or we are going to pay later. If we do not provide the resources even
for this targeted emergency assistance, we will continue to undermine
our students and teachers as they struggle to meet standards and
achieve academically.
We can spend the money now, targeted at the most urgent repairs
first, and its reach will be broad. Through loans and grants, $1.3
billion would be leveraged with local dollars to provide $7 billion for
approximately 8,300 school projects. The funding will go to high-need
school districts for critical repairs such as ceilings, leaky roofs,
and removing asbestos.
Pay now, or pay later in lower student achievement, even more
burdened teachers, and potentially, even accident or injury in
crumbling schoolrooms.
America's children need us to make the right choice now, to use this
opportunity we have in this time of unprecedented prosperity to rebuild
their schools and lift up the quality of their education. If we fail as
a Congress once again to take action to meet our school modernization
needs, it is wrong and we are going to pay.
I urge my colleagues to join me, acknowledge the shameful physical
condition of our schools, give some relief to our States and
localities. We cannot give our students a 21st century education in
19th century schools.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the order of the
House, points of order are reserved.
Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) wish to claim the time
in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for at least 212 years of our Republic the schools in
our country, the public schools, have managed to handle their own
construction. They have done a pretty good job of it. It has never ever
been a Federal responsibility, nor should it be.
As the gentlewoman points out, there is an estimate of over $300
billion in unmet needs. I do not doubt the needs at all. The needs are
there. The question is, who should be funding it? I think, as
throughout our entire history, our local school districts, aided by the
States, should provide for this need.
If we had an allocation of $300 billion more, Members might be able
to make an argument that there are sufficient funds to do this right
now. But we do not have an allocation anywhere near that. To get the
Federal government into this area of responsibility would undermine
local control of public education. Local control is at the heart of our
educational system in America. This is not another area where the
Federal government ought to go in.
One of the things that was done in the last Congress was to pass the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. This Act included the national
public school construction initiative. This initiative would have made
permanent changes in bond rules so that State and local governments
issuing public school construction bonds could take increased advantage
of arbitrage rebate rules to help finance school construction and
renovation.
Unfortunately, the President of the United States vetoed that
legislation when it was laid on his desk.
I cannot see the possibility of the Federal government undertaking
the kind of spending responsibility contemplated in this amendment. The
States are doing very well. The economy is performing very well. State
coffers are overflowing. The money is actually being spent by many of
our States to support this State responsibility and to improve the
condition of the schools, as it should be.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this matter is a responsibility of
another level of government, not a Federal responsibility. It will be
undertaken properly and carried out by States and localities. We should
not get the Federal government into yet another area of local control.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but briefly, as the gentleman
well knows, after World War II, the United States did respond to the
tremendous demand for schools and we built schools. We understood at
that time that education was a priority.
All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a tremendous problem
in this country. Two hundred years ago we did not have computers in
every classroom. Pencils and pens were adequate. We need to wire our
schools. We need to provide computers. We need to ensure that every
youngster has the best education they can.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 90 seconds to my good
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey
amendment. Our local school districts cannot raise sufficient funds to
do all that is needed, desperately needed school construction funds to
repair schools and to improve the overcrowding situation.
The city of Santa Maria lies in the heart of my Central Coast
district. It has some of the worst overcrowding problems in the
country. They have tried repeatedly to raise bonds, funds for this, and
were not able to do it.
I recently visited Oakley School in Santa Maria, a school built
originally for 400 students with an enrollment now of over 900. The
school is forced to use precious playground space for 14 portable
classrooms, which requires them to hold three different lunch periods.
The first lunch period starts at 10:30 in the morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am so disappointed that we have done nothing in this
106th Congress to address the overcrowding and needed repairs in our
schools across the country. The families of the Central Coast of
California have told me again and again that school construction
funding is their number one priority.
Just this morning I met with some middle school students from Santa
Lucia school in Cambria where they carved up their multipurpose
building into classrooms, and they have used their library for
classrooms. I myself as a school nurse know what it is like to do
vision and hearing screening in the janitors' closets.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this Congress has to treat school
construction in a manner that reflects the importance of our schools
and of our education in society and in our communities today. I ask
Members to show their support for schools and students in need. Support
the Lowey amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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, I am a little confused as to where the
administration stands on school construction.
Back in 1995, we had a rescission of the funding that was already
appropriated, and then in the President's 1996 budget he put no money
in for any kind of construction. We got out of his language in that
budget request, ``The construction and renovation of school

[[Page H4251]]

facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local
governments financed primarily by local taxpayers,'' and now, this is
the administration I am quoting, not me, ``primarily by local
taxpayers. We are opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant
program for school construction. No funds are requested for this
program in 1996. For the reasons explained above, the administration
opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for school
construction.''
That is the administration doing the talking here. Then, of course,
we passed legislation that would have made permanent changes to bond
rules, so that State and local governments issuing public school
construction bonds could more easily comply with the arbitrage rebate
rules. Guess who vetoed that?
So it is a little confusing as to where the administration stands on
school construction. All schools would be eligible to take advantage of
that change in the arbitrage rules, unlike the President's proposal,
which is a limited eligibility.
We already provide school construction assistance for schools that
show a need for additional funds. The qualified zone academy bonds
program provides $400 million of tax credits to investors who purchase
bonds issued by qualified zone academies for school renovation
projects.
What is also confusing is when they offer an amendment like this with
so little money, and then they do not prioritize. I do not understand
that. It seems to me with that small amount there certainly would be a
priority list. Otherwise, it gets misused.
Again, it is confusing because I am reading what the administration
is saying, and the administration is saying over and over again, both
in their veto of the tax bill and also back in 1996, that they thought
that this is a place they do not want money because they thought it was
the for local taxpayers.
Last night I was amazed because the gentleman said, oh, but it was
your administration that was administering these programs. I have news
for them, they administered the programs just exactly as the majority
said they had to administer the program. They had to send the money,
that is all they said. They never went out to look to see what was
happening with the money. They said, you send the money where we said
the money goes. So do not give me that foolish, facetious argument.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of the
committee
Mr. HOYER. Briefly, the distinguished chairman talked about waste,
fraud, and abuse. They did not cancel one Head Start program under
their administration, I told the chairman, and he said that, as well.
It was Donna Shalala that came along and said if Head Start is not
working, we are going to shut down programs.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our committee continually says,
regrettably, we do not have the money. He does not say we ought not to
do it. He says, regrettably, we do not have the money. That is a self-
imposed tax-cutting limitation. That is why we do not have the money,
because they have determined that the wealthiest in America needed more
than the children in America.
The President does have a program, as the chairman knows. For the
jurisdictions that have the money to sell bonds he allows a tax credit,
which makes them a little cheaper and therefore easier to sell, and
therefore easier to proceed to provide the classroom space that our
children so desperately need and that teachers need to have safe
schoolrooms in which to teach.
This program supplements it for the neediest children in America. Are
we so parsimonious that we will not do that for the neediest children
in America?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone in the
Chamber that the Secretary only made that decision after we said, from
the Congress, we are not interested in quantity anymore, we are
interested in quality. It did not matter whether it was the Johnson
administration, it did not matter whether it was the Reagan
administration, they did not have that edict from the Congress. They
now do, and she is taking advantage of what we have given her.

{time} 1345

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another one of these theme amendments
from the other side and basically what has happened, the goal is to
basically undermine the budget process that we have. The budget process
was adopted back in the 1970s to try to put some fiscal discipline in
our spending programs here in Congress. It did not work for the first
couple of decades, while the Democrats controlled this House, and once
we started getting a handle on our fiscal problems and now we have a
surplus, the idea is let us forget about the budget process and let us
just spend, spend, spend.
The way the budget process works is, we propose a budget in the House
and in the Senate. We agree to a budget. We agree to a set of numbers.
This was passed by a majority in the House and a majority in the
Senate. Now we have to live with these numbers. I know some do not like
the budget that was adopted but the majority of the Congress adopted
this budget and we have to live within this budget.
So that is what we are doing is saying are we going to believe in the
budget process or are we going to just undermine it? That is what the
basic objective we are talking about here is.
Now, when we have a surplus, the question is what do we do with all
of our extra money? I mean, it is exciting to spend money and there are
a lot of good programs in the Federal Government but the problem is we
have to establish priorities. There are some, I think, very high
priorities.
For example, I am a very strong supporter of the National Institutes
of Health, as I think many of my colleagues on the other side are. We
want to attack cancer with research. We want to go after the problems
of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. That is a high priority. We
are concerned about world health problems with the CDC, but all of a
sudden now we have a new program.
Last night we just appointed conferees to the Subcommittee on
Military Construction. Maybe we are moving in the direction of having a
school construction subcommittee, because this is a slippery slope.
When one starts putting a billion here to start with, it is not too
much; a billion in Washington it does not seem like a lot of money to
some people but it is a slippery slope.
There is a need. There is a problem with education. There is a
problem with our school systems, but this is traditionally done at the
State and local level. That is where we need it to remain. If we want
to help our schools, let us relieve them with special education funding
but we have to still live within the principles of a budget. If we want
to stay responsible and keep this surplus and preserve it and not get
ourselves in the hole where not too many years ago we were looking at
$200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see, let us start
spending money.
I mean, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars in
these theme amendments that totally destroy and undermine the budget
agreement. This is a totally new program. It is not authorized. It is
my opinion it should be defeated.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a fighter on school modernization, who
understands how important it is.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, we get called back here every week to name post offices
and to even fund unwanted aircraft carriers, but when it comes time for
us

[[Page H4252]]

to confront education head on we begin to fiddle, Mr. Chairman. We send
money from the Federal Government to build roads, to build highways. I
am always fascinated when I hear my colleagues on the other side
suggest that this is a local issue, this is local control. They did not
complain when the home builders came before us recently asking that
local land disputes be decided in Federal courts. Neither did I. I
supported it.
They do not come complaining that building prisons is a local issue
when those at the local level say we need more money to throw criminals
in jail, which I support. But when it comes time to build schools, to
provide children with an opportunity to learn in a safe and clean and
learner-friendly environment, they begin to buckle, they begin to
flinch. They begin to point fingers and suggest that it is not our
responsibility.
Name me a prison in America, Mr. Chairman, that closes early, as 30
of my schools do during the summertime because they have no air
conditioning. There is not one.
I would hope my colleagues on the other side could do better by our
kids. We ought to be thankful they cannot write campaign checks like
the gunmakers, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry.
If they could, perhaps we could give a better answer than the answer we
are giving today.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as the individual who heads the subject matter of K
through 12 education, the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
there are a few figures we need to trot out here in the overall
understanding of what we are doing.
One figure is simply this: In the five previous years, including two
Presidents, the Republicans have put an increase of 48.2 percent in
education funding K through 12, or 8.2 percent per year. In the 5 years
before that, when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress under
two Presidents at that time, the total was 32.9 percent or 6 percent a
year, a lesser percentage than the Republicans have been putting in, in
the last 5 years.
There are a lot of reasons for this: A President who cares about
education; a Congress which cares about education; both parties which
care about education, but we need to be very careful in saying who is
slighting education because the last 5 years have been the highest
increases in K through 12 education in the history of the Congress of
the United States.
Now we get to the issue of school construction here. There is a lot
of room for expenditures. That is being done in this budget, as in
other budgets. We also can, frankly, afford some of the tax cuts that
have been talked about and debt retirement. I understand we are
probably going to have an extra trillion dollars here very shortly.
The real issue is what are we supposed to be doing about this? I know
when I was a governor, we fought hard to reduce the size of the
classrooms in K through 3 because we thought that was so important, but
we also fought hard for school construction; mostly done at the State
level. That indeed is a State function, something which we thought a
great deal about in terms of what we had to do.
Yet in Delaware, a State which has, according to all the studies,
relatively good schools, we need a billion dollars for new schools. If
we take that and extrapolate that over 435 congressional districts
because that is just one congressional district, that is $435 billion.
If we put together a program like that, it is probably $500 billion.
Others will say it is $300 billion.
In the event, that is the low. I would say it is something higher
than that.
We are talking here about $1.3 billion. Maybe if it can be leveraged,
some more; but if it is leveraged, money is owed. So even if one gets
to $7 billion, they are talking about an absolute drop in the bucket.
That is the problem with this. We are buying into a program which is a
State and local responsibility, with a very small sum of money, so that
we can stand up politically and say that we have solved the problems of
construction of our schools.
This does not even begin to do that. We all need to understand it
and, in my judgment, it probably should not be a Federal
responsibility. If it is, let us look at what the Federal Government
has mandated or facilitated to the States, including dealing with IDEA,
dealing with technology, dealing with safety, dealing with the OSHA
requirements, whatever it may be. Maybe in that area we could do
something but, in my judgment, an open-ended construction bill is not
the way to go, and we need to be very careful about this. We need to
have further discussions. Perhaps something can be done, but I do not
think this is the solution right now.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education.
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I brought this chart up here because we
talk about numbers. I want people to understand, we are not talking
about a static number. We are talking about the growth in the number of
students in high school over the next 10 years, the greatest we are
facing in this Nation's history in terms of numbers.
So if we are talking about how much we have increased the budget, we
need to reflect. We have not increased it anywhere near what we need to
be increasing it to meet the needs.
We need to pass the Lowey amendment, to restore the administration's
plan to assist our local schools in repairing the schools that need to
be repaired instead of this massive tax cut that we are talking about.
As a former superintendent of my State schools, I know firsthand that
we need to invest in schools to help our children get individual
attention, to have proper discipline and instruction that they need to
meet the skills of the 21st century, and this $1.3 billion will restore
5,000 local schools that badly need it.
We can see from this chart that would only be a scratch in where we
need to go.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that needs to be done. I grew up on a
farm, and there is one thing a person understands. One does not eat the
seed corn, and this Congress is about to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment that
restores the administration's plan to assist repair plans for local
school buildings. This bill would kill that plan to finance the
majority's massively irresponsible tax scheme. I strongly oppose those
misplaced priorities.
As the former superintendent of my state's public schools, I know
firsthand we must invest in our schools so that students get the
individual attention, discipline, and instruction they need to learn
the skills to succeed in this New Economy. This amendment will restore
to the bill $1.3 billion for 5,000 local school districts across the
country to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing, and bring schools into
compliance with local safety codes. Common sense tells us that no
school can provide an adequate education if children are subjected to
substandard facilities.
Mr. Chairman, budget choices come down to a question of our values.
Do we value investment in our nation's future by providing our children
the best education in the world? Or do we fritter away that future by
acting like drunken sailors when it comes to tax cuts? I support
responsible tax relief for middle class families, but we must not raid
the Treasury and jeopardize our ability to make necessary investments.
Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a small farm. The farm teaches you hard
lessons. I believe cutting education to finance massive tax breaks is
as dumb as eating your seed corn. I call on my colleagues to reject the
Republican majority's misguided values, reject this bill and vote for
the Lowey amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) for yielding me this additional time.
Mr. Chairman, it is nice to have all these Johnny-come-latelys. For
22 years, I tried to get 40 percent of excess spending back to the
local districts as far as special ed is concerned. If the majority had
done that for all these years, Los Angeles, for instance, would have
been getting an extra 100 million dollars every year. Can one imagine
what they could have done in school construction, what they could have

[[Page H4253]]

done in class size reduction? Chicago would have gotten $76 million
extra every year. New York City would have gotten $170 million extra
every year. Imagine what they could have done.
Again, I could not get them to move to get that 40 percent of excess
funding back to those local districts, so their money would be freed to
do just the things that we think now is our responsibility: Class size
reduction; school construction. All the money would have been
available, but they had to take their money for our mandate and so they
could not do the kinds of things they should have been doing in
relationship to class size reduction, in relationship to construction.
Again, I am confused about where the administration stands on
construction.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend and leader.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to show my strong support
for the Lowey amendment. This is a crisis. When we have had crises
before, the Federal Government has, in fact, stepped in. Over the last
4 years, I visited many of the schools in my district and, frankly, I
was shocked by the conditions I found.
Our teachers are holding classes in trailers because their classrooms
aren't safe. Students crowd into these rooms. They sit on floors. They
sit on radiators. They have classes in closets. Just this morning, a
gentleman came into my office. He said his daughter in high school went
into a classroom, 40 chairs, 60 students.
Schools in my district are being forced to trade teachers for bricks
and mortar. These children cannot afford the trade-off and they should
not have to expect to choose between safe and adequate classrooms and
more teachers.
Studies show that on the average, students who attend schools in poor
conditions score lower on achievement tests. This is just one more
hurdle our students should not have to jump through.
One-third of all of our schools need extensive repair and over half
of our schools need repair of at least one major building. Please
support this amendment. It provides the States the much-needed
assistance to renovate the decrepit schools.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley), my good colleague, and a leader on school
construction. I have seen his district and the need is clear.
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, in strong support, of
the Lowey amendment. School renovation and construction is of the
utmost importance to our children and to the future of our country.
My colleague from New York has been a leader in the fight for Federal
funding for school renovation and construction assistance.
Schools, as part of our Nation's infrastructure, are in desperate
need of repair and modernization. One-third of our Nation's schools
were built prior to World War II. In the city of New York, the average
age of a school is 55 years of age, and one out of five schools is over
75 years of age.
I have the most overcrowded school district in New York City, School
District 24, which is operating at 119 percent of capacity.
Additionally, enrollment is increasing by 30,000 every 5 years. My
colleagues from New York are seeing similar problems arise.
How can we expect our children to work hard and care about their
education and their future when they have classrooms that were formerly
closets or bathrooms? That is not showing that we care about our
children.
I ask, would someone allow their child to attend a school that has a
roof falling in or fire alarms that do not work? Congress is allowing
their children to go to school under those conditions.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Owens), my colleague who knows firsthand what a
tremendous problem we have in our city schools.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, $1.3 billion is a very tiny amount, but it
is one step forward. $1.3 billion is $1.3 billion above zero.
The Republican majority has offered nothing. This small step to take
care of emergency repairs will open the door, I hope, to an
understanding that our schools are a part of our national security
system.
We had 300 personnel short of an aircraft carrier launched last year
because we did not have the right personnel to put on. They could not
meet the high-tech requirements. We have a bill coming up next week to
bring in people from outside the country to take jobs in our high-tech
industries. Those same people came from countries that built their own
nuclear industry on the basis of what they learned here as students and
as workers here.
We need to deal with the problem of $254 billion needed to bring up
our school infrastructure as determined by the National Education
Association survey, which was completed recently.
The General Accounting Office in 1995 said we needed $110 billion at
that time. Enrollments have grown. We need to spend on a level which
understands that we are going into the 21st century, a cyber
civilization.

{time} 1400

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member
of the committee, who has been a leader on education.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who are we trying to kid? I have been in this
House 31 years, and there has not been a year when the Republicans in
this House have not favored less funding for Federal education than
Democrats.
Over the last 5 years, first they wanted to abolish the Department of
Education. Then they tried to savage every education program that they
can get their hands on. Now that the polls are showing that education
is increasing in popularity, they are backing away.
Now they act as though somehow the idea of the Federal Government
helping local school districts with renovating buildings is a new idea.
Franklin Roosevelt, for goodness sake, helped local school districts
build 5,200 new schools when he was President in the 1930s. He helped
them renovate 1,000 schools that needed renovation.
My colleagues passed a minimum wage bill just a few weeks ago that
gave $11 billion in wage benefits to low-wage workers but gave $90
billion in tax cuts to people making over 300,000 bucks a year.
What does one have to do to finance this amendment? Cut back that $90
billion to their wealthy friends to $89 billion. Is not that a terrible
thing to ask to them do?
My colleagues ask why the administration opposed the Archer arbitrage
position. It is very simple. Because that provision encouraged delays
in construction because delaying construction would mean that schools
could have earned additional interest by leaving the money in the bank
rather than putting it in the school. That is why the administration
opposed that provision and supports this one.
If my colleagues are for education, if they are for helping kids in
lousy school buildings get a better deal, support this amendment. I was
in a school 2 weeks ago where the furnace room looked like it was in
the Titanic, for God's sake.
It is about time my colleagues recognize this is a growing
population. There are some communities that do not have the financial
power to do this job without Federal help. It is about time my
colleagues give it to them.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to forget the old stereotypes. We
need a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments.
This is an emergency. I visited a school in New York just a couple of
weeks ago where the kids had to move from one side of the gymnasium to
the other side of the gymnasium when it was raining. This in the United
States of America; this at the time of our greatest prosperity.

[[Page H4254]]

Franklin Roosevelt responded to the emergency. If we can build roads,
if we can build highways, if we can build bridges, if we can build
prisons, Mr. Chairman, let us work and be a partner to the State and
local government; and we can reduce the taxes at the same time.
We just do not have to have as large a tax cut as we are proposing.
We can respond and make sure that we are really educating every
youngster. This is the least we can do. Shame on us if we do not. Shame
on us if we do not pass this amendment.
This is $1.3 billion, and we have a responsibility to all the
youngsters in this great country of ours. I ask for my colleagues'
support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I am a person who can recall back when I
started high school in the late 1960s that, not only did we have a
problem with facilities, we had no facilities with which to attend high
school classes, and they had to split the class size up. Freshmen and
sophomores went in the morning, and juniors and seniors went in the
afternoon.
I would venture to say that because of the disarray with the local
school board back then, that even if we had a program in place like
this, they would have squandered that money; and they would have never
seen the light of day and created one single classroom.
The myth exists in this country that some people, and with good
intention, stand up and try to say, if we give Washington the power,
they can solve all problems locally for us, education, health care,
school construction, child care, all of these things, if only
Washington will create one more program.
But I venture to say this, the solutions for these problems do lie
back in the neighborhoods, and they will not be easy problems to solve.
But they must be done at the grassroots level, or the true solutions
will never be found. Solutions like this will only, at best, provide a
Band-Aid for very temporary relief for a very serious problem.

Point of Order

Mr. BONILLA. 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 pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order. I regret that
we were not able to offer this amendment so we can provide this to our
youngsters all throughout the United States.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
raises a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) changes existing law, in violation of clause
2(c) of rule XXI.
The amendment, in pertinent part, establishes a new program in the
area of school renovation and waives the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act to do so.
Clause 2(c) of rule XXI provides that an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This
provision has been construed to prohibit the enactment of law where
none exists. By seeking to waive existing law and establish a new
program, the amendment changes existing law and constitutes legislation
on an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

special education

For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, $6,550,161,000, of which $2,557,885,000 shall
become available for obligation on July 1, 2001, and shall
remain available through September 30, 2002, and of which
$3,742,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2001 and
shall remain available through September 30, 2002, for
academic year 2001-2002: Provided, That $9,500,000 shall be
for Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic to support the
development, production, and circulation of recorded
educational materials.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 16 by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I am offering the amendment as his
designee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Page 53, line 17, after each of the two dollar amounts,
insert the following: ``(increased by $1,510,315,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, points of order are
reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today that would increase
special education funding in this bill by $1.5 billion. This amendment
calls attention to the fact that this bill grossly underfunds the
Individuals with Disabilities Act. It fails to put us on the road to
full funding by the year 2010. That is the goal this House set with its
recent vote of 421 to 3 in support of the IDEA full funding act. That
was just a few short weeks ago.
We should be living up to the commitment that we made with that vote
and the commitment that this Congress made to help local schools meet
the needs of educational needs of children with disabilities when it
passed IDEA in 1975.
A number of Members have come to the floor today bemoaning the lack
of IDEA funding in this bill. There is a simple reason why we cannot
provide additional funding for IDEA, and it is because the Republican
leadership proposed a tax cut that benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans, ahead of the special education needs of our children.
If my colleagues supported the Republican budget resolution, they set
these priorities in place. Do not now come to the floor of this House
and lament the lack of IDEA funding. Because of these misplaced
priorities, the needs of special education youngsters will not be met
in this bill. We will not be on track to fully fund IDEA by the year
2010.
For so many years, back before IDEA became law, hundreds of thousands
of disabled children received no formal education. Those were dark
days. We should never go back to a time when the potential of so many
bright youngsters with so much to offer was squandered due to a lack of
understanding.
We finally opened our eyes to what these children have to offer. The
passage of IDEA authorized several programs to support and improve
early intervention and special education for infants, toddlers,
children, and youths with disabilities. It, in fact, has made a world
of difference, but we are not doing enough.
I offered this amendment in the Committee on Appropriations that
would have started us on the road to fully fund the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act by adding $1.5 billion to the bill, bringing
the increase in funding for this year up to $2 billion. That increase
would put us on target for fully funding IDEA by 2010 as we said we
would in this body.
Without a $1.5 billion increase this year, we will miss the mark.
While it is estimated that it would require $15.8 billion to fully fund
IDEA, the most the Congress has ever spent on the program is one-third
of that amount. Mayors, school superintendents, and teachers from
across my district tell me again and again that they are struggling to
provide these youngsters with the education they deserve.
I might add that we mandate government, the States and local
government to provide an education for these youngsters. In fact, what
we do is impose an unfunded mandate on them. But this Congress has not
made good on its commitment to provide the 40 percent of the cost that
schools pay for special education.

[[Page H4255]]

These school districts and the children are being shortchanged by a
shortsighted policy. And we are shortchanging ourselves by not ensuring
that these children receive every opportunity available to learn and to
thrive because they can thrive. They have so much to offer us. We just
need to give them the chance. We can do that by fully funding IDEA.
I thought we could all agree that IDEA was grossly underfunded. This
Congress voted almost unanimously by a vote of 421 to 3 in favor of a
resolution that said that we would fully fund this program by 2010.
When it came time to put their money where their mouth is, the
Republican leadership balked. They rejected moving us forward to fully
funding this program and opposed the amendment.
Unfortunately, this House will not have an opportunity to repair this
error because the rules of the House require that we must rob from
school modernization, Head Start, America's workers, and our seniors if
we were to increase funding for IDEA today. The rules set in place by
the Republican leadership would force us to rob from the poor to help
the poor, and that is wrong.
These needs will go unaddressed in this bill because the Republican
leadership refused to scale back the massive tax cut that benefits the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. If we reduce that tax break by only
20 percent, we could add this funding for IDEA and still provide tax
relief for working middle-class families, the families who need it the
most.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We will not sit
quietly while IDEA receives only lip service while crumbling schools
are ignored and while the health care needs of seniors and the
uninsured are disregarded in exchange for a tax break for the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans in this country. Support this
amendment and oppose the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for 15 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), a very valued member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Porter) for yielding me this time; and, of course, I
commend him for the great work he has been doing for these past 6 years
chairing this committee.
This particular amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) is a little different than the last amendment because it
advocates increasing spending on a program that is, in reality, is a
favorite for Republicans. We have done very well over the years in the
past 6 years and the past 5 years in appropriations for this program
because we really believe very strongly in special education.
However, this is another attempt to undermine the budget process that
we have here in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Congress
passed a budget process bill back in the 1970s that said we must pass a
budget, and we must live within it.
Now that we have a surplus, and now that the budget process is
working, let us spend money. It is kind of like kids in a candy store.
Hey, we have got a surplus. Let us spend more money.
Well, there are good spending programs, and this is certainly one of
the good spending programs in Congress. The Republican Congress in our
control of the Congress in the past 5 years has certainly shown our
favorable interest in special education.
For me personally, I have a niece who is a special ed teacher back in
Manatee County, Florida. I have a sister who is a mother of a special
ed student who wrote a book of a mother's perspective for special
education. So I have a very personal, committed interest to special
education.
That is one reason we continue to see the Republicans have done very
well. Look at the chart. The Republicans were in control the 5 years
prior to our control in 1995. The President proposed increases of 4
percent, .3 percent, .1 percent, 5.8 percent. We have given double
digit increases every year.
For the previous 5 years prior to the Republican control, spending
went from $1.5 billion to $2.3 billion. In that 5 years is an $800
million increase. When we took over, spending went from $2.3 billion to
$5.4 billion. We have more than doubled the spending of special ed in
the past 5 years.
So we have made some great strides, some great progress in funding a
program. Look what it compares, again, to what happened when the
Democrats were under control. In the 1993, 1994 years, they had total
control of the White House and Congress and barely increased spending
of special ed.
Now they want to undermine the entire budget process to try to score
some political points when, in reality, they are kind of Johnny-come-
lately. We are the ones who are doing such, I think, a good job. We can
use more money. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling)
has been advocating for years, we need to take up the full
responsibility to 40 percent. And we are making great strides in that.

{time} 1415

Because we have gone from pushing 7 percent now to 13 percent. Not as
far as 40 percent, but we are moving in the right direction. If the
Democrats had been in control and we followed the President's budget,
we would have seen a decline in special education.
It is a very important program, one that we strongly support, but
this is not fiscally responsible. It does not fit in with the budget
agreement and so it does not fit in the emergency category, and I
advocate the defeat of this amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 12 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Special education is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue or a
partisan program. The fact of the matter is that the introduction of
the tax proposal was by the Republican leadership. It seriously
underfunds special education only because the Republicans want to
provide a tax cut to the richest 1 percent of the people in this
country.
It was also a Republican resolution to fully fund IDEA over the next
several years, a 421 to 3 vote, one which, I might add, demonstrates a
sham to the reality of what this budget is about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), who sits on the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding me this time and for this amendment.
In my district, like all districts around this country, parents of
children with special needs are frantic. They are frantic about their
children's education. They often feel that their schools are giving
them the runaround, while the schools are worried about having the
resources to do the job that is needed.
At the same time, the parents of students without special needs are
fearful that special ed kids are taking precious resources from their
children. Therefore, we are pitting family against family. This cannot
continue.
Congress must step up to our responsibility, and we can do it this
year while the economy is good and we have a surplus. The DeLauro
amendment gets us on the road towards full funding for IDEA without
taking one penny from other good programs. By scaling back the proposed
cuts for the very wealthiest taxpayers, IDEA can be funded to the
Federal commitment.
I urge my colleagues to put education for children with disabilities
before tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Support the DeLauro
amendment and help all of our children and all of our families.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, my only regret, as I leave this
institution, is that the first 20 years I sat there in the minority
trying to make everybody understand that the thing that is driving
local school districts up the wall

[[Page H4256]]

more than anything else is the fact that we are only sending them about
6 percent of the 40 percent we promised them in excess costs to educate
special needs children.
Let me review, however, the last 5 years. I am very pleased with the
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The President
asked, in 1997, for $2.6 billion; the final appropriation $3.1. The
President asked, in 1998, for 3.2 level funding; he got 3.8. Level
funding means that he cut in his budget special education, because the
increased numbers that came in to special ed, as well as inflation, of
course, meant it was a cut.
In 1999, again he sent a budget up here cutting IDEA. At a Christmas
function, I asked him if he realized he was cutting IDEA. He said they
were putting a lot of money in IDEA. I advised him that he was cutting
it with the budget request that he was sending up. Fortunately, under
the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois, not his 3.8 in 1999 but
4.3 billion.
He cut it again in his fiscal year 2000 budget, again asking for
level funding, which is a cut because of the increased numbers that
have come in to special education and the costs of living increases.
But thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois, he did not
get that cut down to 4.3. He got an increase to $4.9 billion.
Again, in this budget, he has requested $5.2, and under the
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois it is $5.4.
These increases are dramatic. We have doubled the amount that we have
been sending in the last 5 years. We do have a long way to go, but, oh,
my, I am glad these born-agains have now understood that the greatest
problem facing local school districts is our unfunded mandate in
special education.
So I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the dramatic
increase; a 92 percent increase over the President's 1997 budget
request. Those are big bucks. I thank him, and all the school districts
thank him as well.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to
my colleague who spoke, that the President of the United States is not
offering this amendment. This is my amendment. This is our amendment.
It was just several weeks ago when the Republicans offered a
resolution on this floor to fully fund IDEA, and we are just trying to
get there from here. That is what this amendment is about.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to
strengthen special education, and I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for introducing it.
Special education students have particularly acute needs which begin
early in childhood. We know that the right attention can make an
enormous difference in children's lives and impact their future.
Teachers' aides are needed to provide one-on-one support. Counselors
can help disabled children follow often very difficult paths through
childhood, adolescence and into adulthood.
Right now schools are forced to make terrible choices. They can put
limited funds into special education and deny other basic needs, or
they can neglect those children and try to meet the basic needs of
other children. Those are choices our schools should not have to make.
Last month the House overwhelmingly passed the IDEA Full Funding Act,
so why are we not appropriating the funds to meet the needs of some of
our most vulnerable children? This is not right.
I support the DeLauro amendment to increase special education funding
without denying other vital programs. Our children must be our national
priority, not huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, just for 2 seconds I wish to indicate to
the gentlewoman that I know it is not the President offering the
amendment, but she missed my point. For 20 years I sat here trying to
get her side to do something about it and they did nothing.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I alluded to this earlier, but I think it is very
important to understand where we are with respect to spending on
education in terms of both political parties.
Basically what this chart shows is a period of time starting with
1990 as a base year that shows the years of 1991 through 1995, in which
there was a Republican President and there was a Democrat president. We
also had a Democrat Congress during that period of time. It shows what
all those expenditures are.
The important thing to understand in all this is that the average
increase during that period of time was 6 percent in K through 12
spending. Six percent. What is K through 12? It includes Goals 2000,
school to work, ESEA, and vocational education. For a total of a $32.9
percent increase.
In that year, in that particular election, Republicans took over
control of the Congress of the United States. And the statistics since
that time, with the same Democrat President who was President during a
couple of those years before, has been average annual increases in K
through 12 education of 8.2 percent. Six percent versus 8.2 percent, or
an overall increase of 48.2 percent.
Now, I say all this because we had a whole evening last night, a
whole discussion of the rule last week as well as discussion today in
which the basic message has been that the Republicans are sacrificing
education because, A, they do not want to spend or, B, they want to
give tax cuts to whomever, the wealthy or whomever it may be. The
bottom line is that the totals show that Republicans have done more for
education in 5 years while in control of the House and Senate, in this
Congress, than in any other 5-year period of time, probably in the
history industry of the Congress of the United States of America.
Now, I will be the first to say that there is a presidential
influence, and there are many other things which are out there, but
this is not a Congress which has exactly shirked its responsibilities
with respect to K through 12 education.
I am a total believer that that is, of all the programs that we have
that could help people, K through 12 education is the one that could
help the most. I also believe it is a State and local responsibility,
but there is some Federal responsibility. We see it in IDEA, we see it
in title I and in a variety of programs that we need to support here,
and I believe that we are supporting them.
I am going to borrow the chart of the gentleman from Florida for just
a moment, which also shows something else, and that is where we have
gone with respect to the subject of this amendment in that special
education funding. It shows a tremendous increase by dollars and by
percentage since Republicans have taken over control of the Congress of
the United States. The very subject matter of this amendment.
This amendment, by the way, is empty. This amendment will probably be
stricken down on a point of order. The bottom line is that Republicans
have come through on the funding for special education.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) has 6 minutes remaining, and has the right to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
What is before the House this year is not what has been done in the
past but, in fact, what it is we are going to do in this year. The
majority party may have been on the right side of the issue in the
past; this year they are on the wrong side. We need to deal with the
surplus that we have and take care of children's needs today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Owens), a champion of education.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is to be

[[Page H4257]]

congratulated for speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of
the Members of this House, the 421 Members who voted to follow the
wisdom of the head of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and
increase the funding for special education. She is only asking in this
appropriations bill that we follow the authorizing move that we made a
few weeks ago.
I accept the reasoning of the chairman of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce. If we put money in to special education, we are
allowing the local education agencies to move that money that they were
spending on special education somewhere else. That is a back-door
approach, but I will accept any approach to get additional funding for
education. So let us do it. Let us not back away from the commitment of
$1.5 billion that we made and only, instead, have a $500 million
commitment.
Let us go all the way and let us realize that the big issue that has
been repeated here over and over again is that there is more money for
education if my Republican colleagues will yield on their tax cut.
Instead of a tax cut commitment, let us have a smaller tax cut and let
us dedicate 10 percent of the surplus to education. That is reasonable.
Ten percent of the surplus this year and 10 percent of the surplus for
the next 10 years will solve the funding problems for the Federal
Government with respect to education.
We now only contribute 7 percent. Of the total education bill each
year, the Federal Government takes responsibility for only 7 percent.
Seven percent is too little. That is a Stone Age, a Neanderthal
approach. We need more Federal assistance to education at the local
level. The Federal Government is now where the money is. We have a $200
billion surplus this year, and we will have a $200 billion surplus for
the next 10 years. Let us dedicate 10 percent of that. We can put part
of it into school construction, 5 percent, and another 5 percent can be
used for special education and more teachers. Ten percent of the
surplus is our answer to all of these problems.

{time} 1430

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, just this Monday, I met with the
Superintendent of Schools in Lynbrook and the Chair of their school
board, and they expressed to me the urgency of mainstreaming youngsters
in their community. They have been so successful. But it costs money.
They had a quadriplegic who cost them $100,000 a year. And because they
have been so successful, they are attracting other youngsters.
It is because of the leadership of this administration that we are in
a time of great prosperity. This is the time to respond to the urgent
need in education.
I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling). And that is why I am so puzzled. Frankly, I do not get it.
On May 3, the House passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 421-3
a bill calling for a $2 billion increase in 2001 and full funding by
2010.
Even with the additional $1.5 billion provided by the DeLauro
amendment, we will still be providing only 17 percent of the national
average per pupil.
Please, we should be supporting the DeLauro amendment on both sides
of the aisle to move forward on our commitment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we should commend the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for bringing up a very important issue.
Special education funding is the top priority for the governor of
Kansas. It is the top priority for the largest school district in
Kansas, headed by Superintendent Winston Brooks. They have found
themselves all over the State of Kansas trying to fund special ed by
taking money for other programs that are very important. So I think
that we should focus on special education.
I am disappointed that this amendment was not within the guidelines
so that it will be struck on a point of order, as is my understanding.
But I think that we should continue our efforts through the course of
this bill and as we progress further in this session to try to focus
our efforts by getting the appropriate funding for the Department of
Education special education portion.
If we look at the amount of money that gets spent right here inside
Washington out of the budget the Department of Education gets, about 35
percent of it does not even get outside the beltway, it is spent right
here in Washington, D.C.
So if we can direct the money for special education specifically to
the school districts, then it will free up some of their money, it will
not be wasted here in Washington, D.C., and those students that truly
need help are going to receive it.
At the local school district level, it gives them the opportunity to
fully fund the programs that are helping the average student and the
other students. But those with special needs are going to get the help
from Washington if we can focus our resources here.
There are several amendments that will follow. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and myself have one where we are going to have,
under the appropriate guidelines, taking some money from a program that
has grown dramatically, take a small portion of that and move it over
toward special education to help us achieve our goal. I hope that
Members of the House will take that into consideration in the future,
because it is very important that we meet the needs of these special
students.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has said that we
are trying to break the budget process. The majority party has already
obliterated the budget process.
Last year alone, the majority provided $40 billion worth of budget
gimmicks to hide $40 billion worth of spending in the budget.
With respect to special education numbers that have been cited on the
floor, let me simply state the facts. Under the Reagan and Bush
presidencies, in nine of the 12 years, the Congress provided more money
for special education than President Reagan and President Bush asked
for.
When the Republicans took over in 1996, they tried to provide $400
million less than the President provided in special education. And it
has only been in the last 2 or 3 years that they have had a road-to-
Damascus conversion.
With respect to the overall education numbers cited by the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the fact is all that chart shows is that he
is bragging about the fact that his own party lost the budget fights
with President Clinton the last 5 years. Because if you take a look at
what you tried to do before the President forced you to change your
mind, you tried to cut in fiscal 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; and now
this year, you have tried to cut a total of over $14 billion from the
President's education budgets.
And then you have the gall to come to the floor and show what you
have provided. You provided it after the President dragged it through
the room. I know; I was in the room for the last 5 years. I was the
Democratic negotiator. And each year he had to drag it to the table to
drag those numbers up for education so you could finally do right by
America's children.
So let us not hear any more hurrah about either budget responsibility
on your side or about how dedicated you are to education. You are the
party that started out your stewardship here by trying to wipe out the
Department of Education.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we mentioned Nate from Minnesota. When he entered the
first grade, his parents told him he had severe mental retardation.
School officials, using testing funded by IDEA, found Nate actually had
an extremely high IQ but had serious learning disabilities. They made
accommodations for his needs. He graduated from high school and went on
to college. With support from his family and school and services
through IDEA, he has a very bright future.
All we are asking our colleagues to do is to scale back the tax cuts
for those in the top 1 percent of all earners. All they need to do to
pay for this

[[Page H4258]]

$1.5 billion is to cut back the size of that tax cut for the wealthy by
20 percent. In that case, we can in fact meet the needs of youngsters
with serious disabilities.
We are in an era of surplus. It is one thing if we are in an era of
deficit, but we have no excuse not to move to fully funding the IDEA
program, as we said on the floor of this House on May 3, 2000.
Let us put our money and our resolve where our mouths are.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and
others on her side of the aisle would have us believe that this
amendment and the other amendments that they have offered would have
something to do with tax cuts versus spending, that in these amendments
there contains a transfer of money from the tax side to the spending
side.
Let me say that those are not contained in these amendments. In fact,
they controlled this House for 40 years. There was never a time ever
when we could transfer money under a procedure in the House from tax
cuts to spending under their control.
Now, that may be quite understandable, Mr. Chairman, because I do not
think anytime during that 40 years they ever proposed to cut taxes,
ever, once.
But there is no element in any of these amendments, including this
one, of moving money from tax cuts to spending. It simply is a figment
of their imaginations and does not exist under the rules and never did.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am worried about misinformation. I am worried
about people not committed to the truth. And I think at least three of
their theme amendments, this being one of them, tried to get people to
believe that the majority party is not supportive of special education
or funding for biomedical research or providing young people the
opportunity to get a higher education through Pell Grants.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been the champions
in each of those areas. They have been the followers. And yet, each of
these amendments wants to add more money irresponsibly outside the
budget process to say that they are somehow the ones that have taken
the leadership on this. They have not. We have.
We have plussed up Pell Grants higher than the President every time.
We have plussed up special education much higher than the President
every year. We have plussed up funding for biomedical research to the
National Institutes of Health higher than the President every year. We
are in the process, through our initiative, of doubling funding for
NIH.
Do not believe these theme amendments. They simply are passing along
misinformation. It is time that we looked at our whole society, our
whole political process, what is on the Internet, what is happening to
the truth in this process.
The truth is being lost. It is propaganda. It is false propaganda.
These amendments, all of them, are false propaganda.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) insist on his 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 pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order because the
House of Representatives rules dictate that, unfortunately, the budget
priorities of the majority will shortchange our youngsters and, in
fact, tax cuts ought to go to working middle-class families.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and
sustained.
Are there further amendments to this section?

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bass

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Bass:
Page 53, line 17, after each dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
Page 57, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have before my colleagues now is an
amendment that they are going to be able to vote on, an amendment that
will increase funding for special education by $200 million.
Now, we have heard plenty of arguments today and also last week about
how important it is to fully fund special education. Well, here is our
chance to up funding in this appropriation from $500 million to $700
million.
Where does the offset come from? It comes from a program called GEAR
UP. Now, GEAR UP is a new program that was started in 1998, and its
purpose is to encourage children at a young age to pursue a college
education.
However, similar programs already exist. The Talent Search program in
TRIO provides grants to schools and academic institutions and so forth
to provide counseling for young people wanting to go on to college. The
Upward Bound Program in TRIO provides similar services.
Let me read to my colleagues what the Oakland, California Chronicle
had to say as recently as June 3 about GEAR UP: ``Consultants hired to
provide college preparatory programs for thousands of Oakland middle
school students paid themselves but spent only a fraction of the money
meant for the children,'' the Chronicle has learned.
``Two of the consultants were fired, and the third resigned when
Federal education officials overseeing the 5-year $14 million grant
became suspicious. According to documents and sources familiar with the
case, the beleaguered Oakland School District had $2.8 million to spend
in the school year, the first year of the program, to help 3,500
seventh graders through their graduation in 2005. But by April, those
in charge of the grant had budgeted just $439,000 mainly on their own
salaries, benefits, and travel.
``The students who were supposed to benefit from the grant saw just
$157,000 of that money in the form of a chess club, computer lab, and
some math workshops, according to the records.''
Now, this is a new program. I point out that the TRIO programs in
this budget are receiving a $35 million increase above the President's
request, which is $115 million above last year.
My friends, let us add $200 million to special education. Let us do
it by reducing funding for a program that has questionable results and
is already funded, in essence; its functions are in the TRIO program.
Let us, please, support my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that, again, we are all in support of
special education on this side of the aisle but not at the expense of
taking away educational opportunity for kids who need it just as much.
The difference between TRIO and Talent Search is that the program the
gentleman seeks to cut tries to identify children at a much younger
age, sixth, seventh grade, and tries to put them on the right course so
that they understand, number one, that there is such a thing as a
college education.

{time} 1445

And, number two, how to prepare for it at an early enough time to
make a difference, and help build a support

[[Page H4259]]

structure between the child and the family so that they understand that
financial aid will be available to them. There are a lot of families in
this country who never dreamed that they could afford to send their
kids to college. This is one of the few programs around that helps. It
intervenes at an earlier age than the other programs mentioned by the
gentleman. That is why the budget increases for programs such as TRIO
are irrelevant. What we are trying to do is to intervene at an early
enough time so that we reverse the trend of minority students getting
less higher education than they were 5 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of speakers talk about
tax cuts and perhaps using a little bit of their tax cut to pay for
some of these initiatives. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass)
is a good man, but for the life of me I cannot understand how he could
be opposed to a program which takes entire groups of kids, classes of
kids whom early in life many of us would suggest because of the dire
economic conditions and social conditions they may face may have a more
difficult time getting to college than perhaps some of their cohorts.
Study after study shows that high-achieving students from low-income
families are five times as likely not to attend college as high-
achieving students from middle- to higher-income families. I do not
mean to discriminate against middle- and higher-income families by any
means, but we know that kids who come from other circumstances often
face different challenges.
It amazes me to hear the gentleman from New Hampshire and some of
them suggest that we have another program that addresses this problem,
because I do not think we can have enough programs to address this
problem, Mr. Chairman. I say that understanding that the Federal
Government cannot go out funding each and every program, but we offered
tax cut after tax cut. I voted for the estate tax reduction. But it
would be nonsensical of me to say, Well, we've given people an estate
tax reduction so we don't need to give them a capital gains tax
reduction. There are different issues and different challenges here.
In my State alone, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
received over $200,000 to help identify entire groups of classes to
bring them through high school and to help them go to college. The
numbers show, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) knows,
that a young person's ability to earn over a lifetime increases by
$600,000 with an opportunity to go to college, $300,000 at Dyersburg
State Community and $650,000 at Memphis City schools.
I ask my colleague from New Hampshire, and perhaps we can engage in a
colloquy, explain to me why not, if we can do it for wealthy Americans,
we ought to be able to do it for poor children in this Nation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has expired.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) who has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be
given 30 additional seconds.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair can provide additional time to
both sides. Is that the gentleman's request?
Mr. BASS. That is fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, both sides are granted 30 additional
seconds.
There was no objection.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Pardon my passion on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and I ask
the House's forgiveness for violating our rules, but it is just hard
for many of us to comprehend, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) is a good man as many on the other side of the aisle are, why
we would argue taking precious dollars at a time in which we are
moments away from increasing the quota on H1-B visas because we are
unable not to find workers but to provide workers with the skills they
need to fill the jobs that we are creating here at a record number in
this Nation.
This program, like many others, seeks to do that. I would hope that
the gentleman would rethink his amendment and even those on his side
who may support it. I would hope they would reconsider their support of
it.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire my friend from Tennessee's passion
about this issue. I also appreciate the fact that he has not dwelt with
the phony theme issue of tax relief.
There is a difference here in priorities. I believe that funding of
special education provides broader funding for more people. I certainly
agree that it might be a good idea in some school districts for sixth,
seventh, and eighth graders to receive counseling preparatory to
college. But I also feel that providing services for developmentally
disabled students is a higher priority for me.
That is essentially a difference that we have between the two of us.
The fact of the matter is by providing more funding for special
education, we free up local funds so that local school boards in his
district or mine can provide counseling if they want to for sixth,
seventh, and eighth graders to prepare themselves for college.
Mr. Chairman, I support my amendment. I think, as the gentleman from
Tennessee has pointed out, it is a question of priorities. I think this
GEAR UP program is a troubled program. It is a new program. The TRIO
program already funds it. I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass
amendment. Many people learn about how to get on the college track at
home at the kitchen table from their mother and their father. But there
are a lot of children, a lot of young people in this country who do not
have someone sitting at the kitchen table who has been to college. GEAR
UP is about giving that young man or that woman someone to talk to
about that issue. It works. It should be given a chance to work. The
TRIO argument, frankly, is irrelevant. This is a different program with
a different set of parameters.
I agree with my friend from New Hampshire that wants to fund more
special education. I would support a $200 million increase in special
education. We could pay for it by eliminating less than 2 percent of
the tax cut that his budget resolution put forward in this House. That
is the way to pay for it, not choosing between education programs. That
is the right way to do this and it would be paid for in that way. We
should all join together and oppose this amendment.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment because this amendment, unlike the previous
amendment that was offered, has a real offset. We debated earlier about
the importance of special education and how it is critical and both
sides support special education. Now we have an opportunity to actually
increase it by cutting a program that is of questionable merit and has
not got a proven track record. Let us put the money where it is most
important and flows directly to the school districts to help the most
needy kids.
I commend the gentleman for having a real amendment, not a rhetorical
one that is going to be kicked out because of a point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to this
amendment. I am astounded that we are even debating the elimination of
funding for a program as critical as GEAR UP. Although it is a new
program started

[[Page H4260]]

only last year, it has had phenomenal success in my congressional
district. It offers a solution to raise the graduation rate of many of
the Hispanics. As Members know, it is only 70 percent that graduate,
compared to 92 percent for the Anglo-Saxon students. I am here to
improve that and GEAR UP is one of the solutions. GEAR UP is designed
to enable more young Americans to stay in school, study hard and take
the right courses to go to college. Is that not what we are ultimately
trying to do by funding school programs?
Look at this chart. Every single red dot on this map is a GEAR UP
program like mine in my congressional district where there is
excitement, there is hope because of GEAR UP. I ask my colleagues to
all stand up and vote against this amendment.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply say that I believe the $200 million more for
special education will have an impact in every school district in this
country, every family in this country, every school board, every
teacher, and most importantly every student who is coded and part of
the IDEA program. Now, this is an opportunity for Republicans and
Democrats, as the old saying says, to put their money where their mouth
is and vote for a significant increase in special education funding.
I would only point out that the operations undertaken by the GEAR UP
program are already done by the TRIO program, not at as young an age
but already done by the TRIO program, already covered by the TRIO
program, and the TRIO program is receiving a $115 million increase over
last year's appropriation. So it is not as if we are ignoring this
important priority of preparing students in disadvantaged areas for
college so that they get an equal chance to go on to higher education.
This is a good amendment. It will increase funding for special
education. I urge the Congress to adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
the right to close and 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, with great respect to my colleagues, we had
an opportunity to put $1.7 billion in IDEA and that is what we should
have done. We should not be choosing between a program such as IDEA and
a program that reaches out to those kids who do not understand what it
is to prepare for college.
Our kids, probably your kids, had the opportunity from the time they
went to the first grade to plan, to be taught, to be tutored. What this
program does and the reason GEAR UP is so successful, it helps kids
understand that they can have their dream, they can be what they want
to be. It provides tutors and assistance to help them seek the American
dream. I am opposed to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

rehabilitation services and disability research

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Assistive Technology Act of
1998, and the Helen Keller National Center Act,
$2,776,803,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
105(b)(1) of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (``the AT
Act''), each State shall be provided $50,000 for activities
under section 102 of the AT Act.

Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities

american printing house for the blind

For carrying out the Act of March 3, 1879, as amended (20
U.S.C. 101 et seq.), $11,000,000.

national technical institute for the deaf

For the National Technical Institute for the Deaf under
titles I and II of the Education of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20
U.S.C. 4301 et seq.), $54,000,000, of which $6,000,000 shall
be for construction and shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That from the total amount available, the
Institute may at its discretion use funds for the endowment
program as authorized under section 207.

gallaudet university

For the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School, the Model
Secondary School for the Deaf, and the partial support of
Gallaudet University under titles I and II of the Education
of the Deaf Act of 1986 (20 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.),
$89,400,000: Provided, That from the total amount available,
the University may at its discretion use funds for the
endowment program as authorized under section 207.

vocational and adult education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act and
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, $1,718,600,000,
of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until expended,
and of which $923,000,000 shall become available on July 1,
2001 and shall remain available through September 30, 2002
and of which $791,000,000 shall become available on October
1, 2001 and shall remain available through September 30,
2002: Provided, That of the amounts made available for the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,
$4,600,000 shall be for tribally controlled vocational
institutions under section 117: Provided further, That of the
amount provided for Adult Education State Grants, $25,500,000
shall be made available for integrated English literacy and
civics education services to immigrants and other limited
English proficient populations: Provided further, That of the
amount reserved for integrated English literacy and civics
education, half shall be allocated to the States with the
largest absolute need for such services and half shall be
allocated to the States with the largest recent growth in
need for such services, based on the best available data,
notwithstanding section 211 of the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act: Provided further, That of the amounts made
available for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act,
$14,000,000 shall be for national leadership activities under
section 243 and $6,500,000 shall be for the National
Institute for Literacy under section 242.

student financial assistance

For carrying out subparts 1 and 3 of part A, part C and
part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended, $10,198,000,000 (reduced by $48,000,000), which
shall remain available through September 30, 2002.
The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be
eligible during award year 2001-2002 shall be $3,500:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 401(g) of the Act, if
the Secretary determines, prior to publication of the payment
schedule for such award year, that the amount included within
this appropriation for Pell Grant awards in such award year,
and any funds available from the fiscal year 2000
appropriation for Pell Grant awards, are insufficient to
satisfy fully all such awards for which students are
eligible, as calculated under section 401(b) of the Act, the
amount paid for each such award shall be reduced by either a
fixed or variable percentage, or by a fixed dollar amount, as
determined in accordance with a schedule of reductions
established by the Secretary for this purpose.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
Page 56, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $938,000,000)''.
Page 56, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $300)''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, all points of order are
reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would add $300 to the maximum Pell grant for a total
maximum award of $3,800. As we are all aware, the cost of a college
education has been increasing faster than the rate of inflation,
putting college out of reach for many Americans.
The Federal Government has had a role in helping students gain access
to college since the GI bill in 1944. Financial aid has evolved over
time into a safety net of programs that have made college possible for
generations of

[[Page H4261]]

Americans, including many of the staffers who work in this House, and
perhaps some of the Members, too. The Pell grant program is the
cornerstone of that safety net, providing grant aid to nearly 4 million
needy students. It is one of the few sources of grant aid still
available to help cut down on the crushing college debt burden assumed
by so many students and their families today.
When President Clinton took office in 1993, the Pell grant maximum
award was $2,300, the same as it was in 1989. The maximum Pell grant in
this current fiscal year is $3,300, an increase of 43 percent since
1993. The bill before us today proposes an increase in the maximum to
$3,500 as the President requested. This is good news but it is still
not enough. A $200 increase in Pell equals less than the cost of one
semester's required books for a full-time student. The Pell funding in
this bill is simply inadequate to meet the costs of higher education
today.
The authorized ceiling for these grants is now $4,800, a full $1,500
above this year's appropriated level. The real dollar value of a
maximum Pell award has declined 18 percent since 1975.

{time} 1500

To get to the level we were in 1975, the Pell Grant award would have
to be merely $4,300. My amendment will get us closer to that, setting
the maximum award at $3,800; but leaving us room for improvement.
Over the next 10 years, my colleagues, more than 16 million students
will be enrolled in our Nation's colleges and universities, preparing
for the challenges of a high-tech economy and a highly educated and
productive workforce.
We must do better to demonstrate our commitment to Federal student
aid, and we can do that by increasing the maximum grant to $3,800.
We can also do better by improving the allocation for this
subcommittee. Once again, our subcommittee was not provided adequate
resources to meet the significant human needs addressed by programs
under our jurisdiction.
In this time of surplus, in this time of prosperity, the failure to
provide sufficient resources puts this committee at risk of failing a
course in logic, because we know that education is a lifelong
investment in our people and our future; yet this bill does not live up
to our responsibility to make that investment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for 15 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida, (Mr. Miller), a valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, once again, we have one of these so-called theme
amendments. It is an amendment that is not going anywhere, but it is to
try to score some political points to try to show that Republicans are
not really the big supporters of this programs, but they are. Well,
once again, it is not going to work. It is just like with special ed.
Special ed, the Republicans have been the big supporters of the
special ed over the years; and since Republicans took control, we have
seen the increase for special ed go up much, much faster than when the
Democrats controlled it.
And once again, under Pell Grants, Members will find Republicans have
strongly supported Pell Grants for the past 5 years. Just as this chart
shows, back in 1991 and 1992, the maximum Pell Grant was $2,400; then
it dropped down to $2,300 for the first 2 years of the Clinton
administration.
Look what happened since the Republicans took over, we are going up
to $3,500 now, Johnny come lately. The Democrats say, hey, we want to
even increase it more. They always use this argument, oh, my gosh, tax
cuts.

Last week we did pass tax cuts and one-third of the Democrats, and I
congratulate them, one-third of the Democrats supported it. So I guess
they are one-third of the Democrats that was bad. Someone mentioned
capital gains. Oh, my gosh, capital gains helps the rich. Capital gains
is one reason we have a surplus.
When we cut capital gains, we increased the revenue to the Federal
Government. We talk about tax cuts on the Spanish American War, tax on
telephones. Luckily the Democrats support that one. Marriage penalty,
they talk like they support getting rid of the marriage penalty, and we
should take care of that.
So the thing is let us talk about specifics. The Committee on Ways
and Means handles tax cuts. We are in an appropriations, this is
spending. Appropriations follow-up with a budget resolution. The budget
resolution, of which a majority of Members of this House and a majority
of the Members of the Senate passed earlier this year, tells us we have
to live within our means, and that is exactly what we are doing right
now.
Now, we talk about this issue of Pell Grants. I am a former college
professor. I taught college at Louisiana State University, Georgia
State, University of South Florida. I worked with lots of students. I
know the importance of financial assistance to students.
It is very important that we provide the most opportunity for every
kid to get the highest education they can, so that is the reason
Members find Republicans have continued to provide an increase every
year more than the President has requested.
Now, all of a sudden, they say oh, my gosh, the Republicans do not
like this program. Let us live within our means. Let us do the right
thing. This is important for our youth in this country.
One of the most important things we can do for the youth of our
country is to get rid of this national debt that we have that has been
accumulated over the past several decades and provide the most
educational opportunities every student can get.
We have increased Pell Grants by over 50 percent in the past 5 years.
I am proud of that accomplishment. I am proud of the leadership that
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) has provided and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has on these issues.
And I do not take any second seat to anybody in support for higher
education.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member and leader of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Lowey
amendment. For a lot of people, the difference between succeeding in
higher education and not succeeding in higher education is the Pell
Grant. The amount that is proposed in this increase is modest, a few
hundred dollars. But it can be the difference between being able to pay
for your books or not pay for your books or have your computer access
or perhaps take another course that gets us that much closer to your
ultimate educational goal.
Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the choice that we should have
made about this would not have been made today on the floor. It should
have been made several months ago when an unrealistic budget resolution
was passed by a majority of this House.
The costs of this proposal by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) is under $1 billion this year. It is important to understand how
that fits into the scheme of things.
The costs of the majority's tax scheme is about $13 billion this
year. So for 7 percent of the costs of the majority's tax scheme, we
would be in a position to make this substantial investment in better
education for more Americans. So the majority could still give 93 cents
on the dollar of tax relief that they want to give and approve the
Lowey amendment. That is a good deal for this economy. That is a good
deal for this country.
I understand that she does not follow the technical rules, but I
think the majority's ignoring the more important rules, which say that
we ought to be investing in the future of the economic growth of this
country.
In the future, the difference between success and failure will be the
difference between an educated and prepared workforce and an under-
educated and unprepared workforce.

[[Page H4262]]

The Lowey amendment is a step in the right direction for the future,
and I urge its adoption.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I was a teacher and a coach both in
high school and in college. I can talk articulation agreements. I also
know the value of assisted education. The gentlewoman and I have worked
together before on education matters, Pell Grants and the support; but
unfortunately, this is just another exercise. No matter what we do, the
Democrats try to oneupsman by saying we want just a little bit more and
that we, the Republicans, do not care.
I think that is wrong. I think this exercise in politics is wrong. I
think it disdains the House and what we really stand for. I would tell
the gentlewoman Pell Grants are very, very important; but when Members
talk about tax breaks for the rich, which is your mantra on this whole
bill and probably will be throughout, then I think Members do a
disservice. Because in the case of the death tax, it was not for the
rich.
If we take a look at marriage penalty for people, that was not for
the rich. Taking away the Social Security increase tax that Democrats
put on in 1993 when in control of the White House, the House and the
Senate; that is for senior citizens. I think that that itself is a
disservice.
If Members take a look at some other areas where we may have cut,
take a look at the 149 deployments that the White House has had us all
over the world. We had decent debates on the floor. Look at Somalia,
Haiti. Haiti we put $2.4 billion, and it is still one of the worst
places in the world. Most of the monies in Aristide's pocket, they just
caught Russia laundering $7 billion in a New York bank. So when Members
go log for funds, most of the people supported on that side all of
these deployments. Like we said we should not stay in Somalia. We
should not go into Haiti and Kosovo and Bosnia. We should not hit an
aspirin factory in the Sudan, $200 billion.
And when I tell the gentlewoman there would be a lot of money, that
money comes out of the general fund. It comes out of the Defense. So
there is money, and we can have increased Pell Grants.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a leader in education.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the important message that I want to leave is
to echo the words of the chairman of the Committee on Education and
Workforce who spoke about the authorization language that we had for
the Teacher Empowerment Act. It is very important when we talk about
Pell Grants to understand that the authorization level is $4,800 as a
maximum.
We are far below achieving what the Committee on Education and the
Workforce has established as an appropriate grant for those who
qualify. We are not handing money out to students who come into the
office and say they would like to have assistance in going to college.
There is a very complicated formula, a process in which an analysis is
made about the need of each specific student.
The monies that we are talking about to add on to the $300 is based
upon a very, very strict analysis of the need of that particular
student. And the Congress has already said in its authorization that
that maximum ought to be $4,800. And we are only talking about $3,800
today. We have to meet this challenge.
Look at what we are doing. We are bringing in 200,000 foreigners to
come in and beef up our high-tech industry. High-tech industry is
supposed to be the future of this country, the future of the world; and
we are not meeting the challenges of higher education.
We talk about our young people needing to be encouraged to go to high
school, not to be a dropout, to go on further to achieve their college
aspirations. Many of them are too poor to be able to go; many of them
come from families where not a single child has gone to college. So to
steal from them this small amount of money, $300, which could lift them
up, give them the opportunity to go to college, to me, is an obligation
of this country, as wealthy as it is, as prosperous as it is. I
strongly support the Lowey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt), a great supporter of education.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, it has been good for education to have
Republicans in control. Under the direction of the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have improved the important programs;
and education has done very well, and Pell Grants is one of those
programs.
Under the Democrats' control, prior to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) taking over, Pell Grants were stagnant in their funding
levels. It actually shrank a little when the Clinton administration
took over. But under the leadership of the gentleman of Illinois
(Chairman Porter), in the last 5 years, we have increased the funding
for Pell Grants by 50 percent. It is a very good program, so I want to
commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for bringing to our
attention the importance of Pell Grants so that we can talk about how,
under Republican control, Pell Grants have done very well.
There has been some confusion on the floor about the relationship
between this education funding bill, appropriations bill, and tax
relief. There is no tax provisions in this bill, but there is an
increase to education. In the last 5 years under Republican control,
education has grown faster than the rate of inflation.
The important programs have been highlighted and have also grown. So
let us not be confused by this talk about tax relief and education,
because Republicans have emphasized the need for good programs, like
Pell Grants, like special education, and have increased the funding
dramatically.
So when we consider this bill and this amendment, I think that we
should remember that it has been very good for education in America,
especially for in the classrooms, those people trying to get into
college; it has been good to have Republicans under control. And I am
very pleased with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling)
and his Committee on Education and the Workforce and the gentleman from
Illinois (Chairman Porter) and the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, because they have
emphasized programs that have been efficient and that worked well and
more fully funded those.
So let us not be confused by the arguments about tax provisions, and
let us focus on the needs of our children and the improvements that the
Republicans have made.

{time} 1515

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment.
Slowly, but surely, we are shifting the higher educational financial
aid system away from low-income working families who need it the most.
We all know that college costs are skyrocketing and that these costs
are particularly burdensome for working class and minority families
trying to send their first child to college.
Pell Grants are the one program specifically designed to help these
low-income students get their foot in the door of a college or
university. Since 1980, adjusted for inflation, tuition has more than
doubled, while the value of the maximum Pell award has dropped by 25
percent.
So I do not buy the Republican argument that we have done enough
financial aid for needy kids. None of us should buy the argument put
forth by some, including Governor Bush, that says, well, if they cannot
afford school, let them just take out loans. For a low-income family,
particularly one that

[[Page H4263]]

has never sent a child to college, the prospect of taking out $15,000,
$30,000, or $50,000 of loans is often unthinkable. That option is
simply not in the cards. In many cases, if the family cannot afford the
tuition bill, these kids simply do not enroll at all.
So I support the modest Lowey amendment to raise the Pell Grant by
$300 to $3,800 a year. A yes vote on this amendment sends a message
that Congress is willing to give the neediest, hard working kids an
extra boost into college. It is not a handout, but a helping hand, to
those students who need it the most.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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, appropriations for Pell Grants have
increased by 24 percent under the leadership of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter). The maximum Pell Grant has gone from $2,340 to
$3,500, again an increase of almost 50 percent under the leadership of
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). 237,000 more students receive
Pell Grants. For fiscal years 1987 to 1995, when the appropriations
were written by the other side, the maximum Pell Grant increased by an
average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Under the leadership of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), that annual average rate is 7.1
percent.
In addition to funding, the funding for work study has increased by
52 percent under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) and would increase much more if we had not gotten into this
community service business and set up all those bureaucracies. All of
that money could have gone into work study, and the college students
would have done the public service work.
Funding for Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants has increased
by $70 million. Funding for TRIO programs has increased $115 million,
for a total of $760 million. The Perkins capital contributions are
level funded at $100 million, but the cancellation fund has been
increased to $40 million. Aid for institutional development has
increased by $95 million, for a total of $388 million, and that will
assist hundreds of institutions with their efforts to improve academic
instruction, in technology upgrades and institutional management.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, the students at the colleges and the universities
today and the proprietary schools say, Thank you, Mr. Porter, for
making higher education a priority during your reign, and the students
who wish to be college and university students and proprietary school
students also say, Thank you, Mr. Porter. I will be able to realize my
dream, thanks to your making higher education one of the priorities in
your leadership.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from New York to increase the maximum Pell
Grant level to $3,800. This is a reasonable and modest amendment; and I
would like to see the increase, quite frankly, be even greater. I have
even introduced a bill that would fully fund Pell and restore its
original purchasing power. To do that, the maximum Pell level should be
at $6,900.
Everyone in this Congress talks about increasing funding for Pell
Grants, but somehow there is never enough money to fully fund this
program. Somehow our students always get shortchanged.
This is a debate over national priorities. The majority in this
Congress believes we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on tax
breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Certainly then, Mr.
Chairman, we can afford $938 million for the working families of this
country, so that we can move closer toward that day when every single
child in America will be able to get the higher education that they
need.
With an increasingly global economy, our students must be prepared to
face the challenges of the future. A college education is key to that
success. We will not continue to be the world's economic superpower if
we do not have a well-educated workforce.
All young people, regardless of income, deserve the opportunity to go
to college. Mr. Chairman, to do that, we must increase the funding for
Pell Grants.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) for her leadership and courage in bringing this issue up for
debate, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put
students first and to support the Lowey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our
committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to call a spade a spade here
today and recognize what is happening. The majority party in 1995 tried
to shut down the government in order to force President Clinton to cut
$270 billion out of Medicare and to make deep cuts in education and
health care and a number of other domestic programs just to finance
huge tax cuts which were primarily aimed at the highest income
Americans. You got burned. Since then, you have been a little shy about
attacking education.
We have seen charts today that brag about what the Republican Party
has done to raise Pell Grants. This chart shows in the blue graphs what
the President has asked for in Pell Grants since 1985. The red chart
shows what the Republicans have provided, or what the Congress has
provided. As you can see, it has been the presidential demand that has
driven the number up each year, except for 2 years when the President
asked for more money and the majority party one-upped him by a tiny
amount of money. So it has been the President driving this upward
increase in Pell Grants.
The question is not so much what you did yesterday; it is what you
are going to do today and tomorrow. In 1976, Pell Grants paid for over
70 percent of the cost of sending a working family's kid to college.
Today it pays for less than 40 percent.
We think now that we have surpluses instead of deficits we ought to
do something about that. We are afraid that you are not going to make
higher education a priority because your standard bearer, George Bush,
said on March 22: ``Higher education is not my priority.'' He also said
when he came to my State, when he was asked by a student, what are you
going to do about the huge debt overhang that kids have when they leave
college, he said, and this is an exact quote: ``Too bad. That is what
loans are; they are to be paid back. There is a lot of money out there,
if you just go looking for it. Some of you are just going to have to
pay it back, and that is just the way it is.''
That is a ``let them eat cake'' attitude, and we do not subscribe to
it. I urge that the House recognize the wisdom of the amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to do the right thing, to support this amendment. I have heard my
good friends say live within our means, do the right thing. I heard
other good friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is just
an exercise. This is just politics.
I just wish my good friends were with me at Westchester Community
College just a few weeks ago talking to the students who are benefiting
from student aid. One of them was in tears. She desperately wanted to
be a teacher. Now, maybe it is hard for people on the other side of the
aisle to understand that this young woman could not put together the
$2,500 she needed to pay her tuition. She just could not do it, and we
were there just trying to figure out how we could respond to these
problems.
It seems to me that we have to get beyond the politics, get beyond
the partisan politics and focus on what are the real needs. You cannot
say that a tax cut is irrelevant. You are saying there is a limited pot
of money. Well, in my judgment, at this time of such prosperity in this
country, at a time when people are in need and they are struggling to
pay their tuition, not only should we be funding GEAR UP to motivate
young people, to help them understand that getting an education,
working hard, will provide them with

[[Page H4264]]

the opportunities of a good life in the United States, not only must we
support IDEA, which helped those disadvantaged kids, to give them the
opportunity to reap the rewards of this society; but it seems to me
that we have a responsibility to do what we can to get as close as we
can to the authorized level.
That is why I offer this amendment. These youngsters work two and
three jobs. They are not just depending on public assistance. Let us
support this amendment. Let us support our youngsters. Let us invest in
education. Let us get real.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, one of the matters that the other side has conveniently
failed to address, and both the gentleman from Massachusetts and my
colleague from Wisconsin failed to address it as well, is the fact that
what we are attempting to do by increasing funding for Pell Grants is
to get more access for more young people of modest means to get a
higher education. One of the difficulties is that every time we raise
the Pell Grants, the colleges and universities across this country
raise their tuition and expenses, and we buy no new access. So simply
raising the money, unfortunately, does not get us greater access. In
fact, as one of the speakers said earlier, education inflation has
outstripped the increases that all of us have strongly supported in
Pell Grants. We really ought to all be concerned about this trend.
Now, I would say to the gentlewoman offering the amendment, our bill
increases student financial aid by $763 million, an increase of 8.1
percent. That is about what we have been trying to do every year. That
is a 6 percent real increase: a large increase. We are, obviously,
concerned, as you do not have to be, with the bottom line.
Now, budgets are meant to give limits. Limits are something that my
colleagues in the minority paid no attention to for years and they are
not paying any attention to those limits today. For the 30 years that
they controlled the House, they spent as if there were no limits. They
spent the Social Security reserve, all of it. They spent us into huge
deficits, some years nearly $300 billion, until finally the American
people said, ``We don't think you ought to be in control any longer.
You are not responsible.''
So here we are again. You are offering no limits, no restraint with
the budget. You will not even recognize it, even though it is adopted
by both sides of the House. Unfortunately, somebody has to be
responsible. We are trying to be responsible.
We have met the President's goal in raising funding for Pell Grants.
In some years we have exceeded the President's suggested funding level
for the maximum grant. We put this at an extremely high priority. We
believe that young people across this country who want to go on to a
higher education ought to have that opportunity. Kids of modest means
need that kind of support.
All of us ought to be concerned about the fact that this money is
just absorbed in our education system. There seems to be no restraint
on education inflation, and the access we are trying to get for more
kids often is lost in higher costs and higher tuition.

{time} 1530

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague that we have made this a
high priority. I would say that we have made it a higher priority than
the President year after year. This amendment does not have the
responsibility of an offset and simply raises the spending in the bill.
It is not in order, as all the rest of these amendments are not in
order. It shows no responsibility for limits on spending that all of us
must observe.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) insist on a 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 of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
motion?
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 any net increase in new discretionary budget
authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such
authority.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority on
its face proposes to increase the level of new discretionary budget
authority in the bill. 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. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title III of the bill through page 63, line 19, be considered as
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of title III of the bill from page 57, line
4, through page 63, line 19, is as follows:

federal family education loan program account

For Federal administrative expenses to carry out guaranteed
student loans authorized by title IV, part B, of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $48,000,000.

higher education

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided,
section 121 and titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961;
$1,688,081,000, of which $10,000,000 for interest subsidies
authorized by section 121 of the Higher Education Act of
1965, shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
$10,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2002,
shall be available to fund fellowships for academic year
2002-2003 under part A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act,
under the terms and conditions of part A, subpart 1: Provided
further, That $3,000,000 is for data collection and
evaluation activities for programs under the Higher Education
Act of 1965, including such activities needed to comply with
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

howard university

For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et
seq.), $226,474,000, of which not less than $3,600,000 shall
be for a matching endowment grant pursuant to the Howard
University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480) and shall remain
available until expended.

college housing and academic facilities loans program

For Federal administrative expenses authorized under
section 121 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $737,000 to
carry out activities related to existing facility loans
entered into under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

historically black college and university capital financing program
account

The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 344
of title III, part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965
shall not exceed $357,000,000, and the cost, as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of such
bonds shall not exceed zero.
For administrative expenses to carry out the Historically
Black College and University Capital Financing Program
entered into pursuant to title III, part D of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended, $207,000.

education research, statistics, and improvement

For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of
1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; section 2102 of
title II, and parts A, B, and K and sections 10105 and 10601
of title X, and part C of title XIII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and title VI of
Public Law 103-227, $494,367,000: Provided, That $50,000,000
shall be available to demonstrate effective approaches to
comprehensive school reform, to be allocated and expended in
accordance with the instructions relating to this activity in
the statement of managers on the conference report
accompanying Public Law 105-78 and in the statement of the
managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law
105-277: Provided further, That the funds made available for
comprehensive school reform shall become available on July 1,
2001, and remain available through September 30, 2002, and in
carrying out this initiative, the Secretary and the States
shall support only approaches that show the most promise of
enabling children to meet challenging State

[[Page H4265]]

content standards and challenging State student performance
standards based on reliable research and effective practices,
and include an emphasis on basic academics and parental
involvement: Provided further, That $30,000,000 of the funds
provided for the national education research institutes shall
be allocated notwithstanding section 912(m)(1)(B-F) and
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 931(c)(2) of Public Law
103-227: Provided further, That $45,000,000 shall be
available to support activities under section 10105 of part A
of title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, of which up to $2,250,000 may be available for
evaluation, technical assistance, and school networking
activities: Provided further, That funds made available to
local educational agencies under this section shall be used
only for activities related to establishing smaller learning
communities in high schools: Provided further, That funds
made available for section 10105 of part A of title X of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall become
available on July 1, 2001, and remain available through
September 30, 2002.

Departmental Management

program administration

For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the
Department of Education Organization Act, including rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and hire of two
passenger motor vehicles, $382,934,000.

office for civil rights

For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, as
authorized by section 203 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $71,200,000.

office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General,
as authorized by section 212 of the Department of Education
Organization Act, $34,000,000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. No funds appropriated in this Act may be used for
the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
overcome racial imbalance in any school or school system, or
for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the
purchase of equipment for such transportation) in order to
carry out a plan of racial desegregation of any school or
school system.
Sec. 302. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be
used to require, directly or indirectly, the transportation
of any student to a school other than the school which is
nearest the student's home, except for a student requiring
special education, to the school offering such special
education, in order to comply with title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. For the purpose of this section an
indirect requirement of transportation of students includes
the transportation of students to carry out a plan involving
the reorganization of the grade structure of schools, the
pairing of schools, or the clustering of schools, or any
combination of grade restructuring, pairing or clustering.
The prohibition described in this section does not include
the establishment of magnet schools.
Sec. 303. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to prevent the implementation of programs of voluntary prayer
and meditation in the public schools.
Sec. 304. (a) Internet Filtering.--No funds made available
under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to a local educational agency or elementary or
secondary school may be used to purchase computers used to
access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated
with accessing the Internet, unless such agency or school has
in place, on computers that are accessible to minors, and
during use by such minors, technology which filters or
blocks--
(1) material that is obscene;
(2) child pornography; and
(3) material harmful to minors.
(b) Disabling During Adult Use.--An administrator,
supervisor, or other authority may disable the technology
described in subsection (a) during use by an adult, to enable
unfiltered access for bona fide research or other lawful
purposes.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit a local educational agency or
elementary or secondary school from filtering or blocking
materials other than those referred to in paragraph (1), (2),
or (3) of subsection (a).
(d) Definitions.--
(1) Material harmful to minors.--The term ``material
harmful to minors'' has the meaning given such term in
section 231(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934.
(2) Child pornography.--The term ``child pornography'' has
the meaning given such term in section 2256(8) of title 18,
United States Code.
(3) Minor.--The term ``minor'' has the meaning given such
term in section 2256(1) of title 18, United States Code.
(e) Severability.--If any provision of this section is held
invalid, the remainder of such section and this Act shall not
be affected thereby.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 305. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out any activities related to any federally
sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other
subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for
in authorizing legislation enacted into law, except that such
limitation shall not apply to the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study or other international
comparative assessments developed under the authority of
section 404(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act of
1994 (20 U.S.C. 9003(a)(6) et seq.) and administered to only
a representative sample of pupils in the United States and in
foreign nations.

Amendment No. 186 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 186 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
Page 64, after line 6, insert the following:
Sec. 306. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by decreasing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--education reform'' for the
21st Century Community Learning Centers, and by increasing
the amount made available under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION--special education'' for grants to States, by
$300,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in short, my amendment that I bring forward is an
amendment to make special education a priority by increasing the
funding for IDEA by $300 million and by reducing the 21st Century
Learning Centers by the same amount, an appropriation which is $600
million at this time.
My reason for offering this amendment really comes down to the
promise made to special education students and their parents and
teachers by the Federal government. When Congress passed the IDEA law
in 1975, we did so with the stipulation that the Federal government
would fund 40 percent of special education and the State governments
would fund 60 percent of special education.
Sadly, that is not the case today. This new law from 1975 on amounts
to an unfunded mandate being placed upon our local school districts. It
is a law where every single dollar in local school districts being
chased to fund this unfunded mandate comes at the expense of every
other local resource decision allocation made in our local school
districts.
This funding formula right now stands at 12.6 percent, meaning the
Federal government is funding 12.6 percent of IDEA, where it promised
in 1975 to fund 40 percent. It is a huge funding shortfall, which is a
large unfunded mandate being placed on our local schools.
Last month the House passed legislation authorizing the IDEA Grants
to States program, which is where the bulk of the IDEA funding comes
from. It is $7 billion. Many voted in favor of this legislation.
However, the underlying appropriations bill being debated here provides
$5.49 billion for IDEA.
As I mentioned earlier, the increase for special education will be
offset by a $300 million decrease in 21st Century Learning Centers.
This is a program that was created by a Wisconsonite, Steve Gunderson,
in 1994. The purpose of this program at that time was to allow local
communities in rural areas like western Wisconsin to have the chance of
using the facilities, the libraries, the computer systems in high
schools and other areas where those kinds of facilities do not exist.
Well, this program has gone well beyond its original intent to the
point where, Mr. Gunderson has said, if we examine both the
Department's publicity for this program and its allocations of funds,
we discover little of the legislative intent.
This program has grown in function and in funding beyond the scope of
why it was created in the first place. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this
program has grown 800 times in 5 years, from $750,000 to $600 million
in this budget year's budget, an 80,000 percent increase in just 5
years. Yet, this program is unauthorized. This program has had no IG
reports, no GAO reports, no reports discovering whether or not this
program is using its money wisely.

[[Page H4266]]

There is another very important point which the authorizers have
pointed out. That is that it vastly mirrors and duplicates other
existing programs in the Federal government; namely, the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Act.
That bill that has been passed through the authorizing committee,
H.R. 4141, would add these two programs together, would put 21st
Century Learning Centers in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. Even
with this amendment passing, it would provide a 50 percent increase in
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act with the authorizing language.
My point is this, Mr. Chairman. Almost every Member of Congress, on a
vote of 413 to 2, voted for House Concurrent Resolution 84 earlier this
year, stipulating that the highest priority of Federal spending in
education would be IDEA, would be special education. All this amendment
does is seek to go down the road of trying to cover that unfunded
mandate Washington is placing on our local schools.
It says to other Members, ``Be consistent. If you voted for House
Concurrent Resolution 84, as 413 Members did, then be consistent and
vote for this amendment putting $300 million into IDEA and leaving the
growth of the 21st Century Learning Centers to be a 50 percent growth
for fiscal year 1999.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to claim time in
opposition?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. We have done more to
increase IDEA than any other governmental account. It has been placed
at the highest priority. It has the highest dollar increase of any
other educational account. There is half a billion dollars in this bill
of increase. We bring up the account to $5.5 billion.
Over the last 5 years we have doubled the funding for IDEA. It is a
high, high priority for us, Mr. Chairman. But there are other programs
that are important, as well. The 21st Century After-School Learning
Centers provide kids who are in high-risk neighborhoods with an
opportunity to be off the streets. It places them in an educational
environment where they are not going to get into trouble. They are not
going to end up in prison. They are not going to be able to lose their
chance for an education. They will get an opportunity to get ahead in
our society.
This is where the money is going. It is providing them safe havens at
a time when crime is often being committed by young people. We want to
get them off the streets.
While I respect the gentleman and his amendment, I believe that we
have done everything we possibly can do for IDEA. I think this is a
very important and effective program, and I think the amendment
therefore is misguided.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
reclaim the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has
1 minute remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a cosponsor of this amendment.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is important because
we are taking a program that is going to increase. We are not taking
away the large portion of the increase. We are still leaving $100
million as an increase in the 21st century learning program. We are
simply redirecting the remaining money to a higher priority. That is
the special education program.
I think it is a good amendment. I think it meets the priorities of
this House as was voted on just last May. I would ask the Members to
support the Ryan-Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. Forty
days ago this very body stood up and by an overwhelming vote of 421-3
passed H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Fund Act stating this Congress'
commitment to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Many of my fellow colleagues joined me at this podium and asserted
our responsibility to live up to our promise to our school districts.
Additionally, last May we passed H. Con. Res. 84, again by an
overwhelming vote of 413-2, which urged Congress and the President to
give programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the
highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education
programs. The highest priority.
The legislation increases IDEA funding by $500 million from FY2000
funds, continuing the Republican Congress' record of consistently
adding money to the IDEA program. I commend Chairman Porter for his
drastic increase in IDEA funding from 13 percent to 25 percent. It is
under his and Chairman Goodling's guidance that we have stepped up our
efforts to help local school districts comply with IDEA mandates.
However, even this great increase is still about $1.5 billion short of
the 40 percent funding we promised to our school districts. This is a
good bill that will improve our nation's schools. I just believe that
we have an opportunity to do even more to ease the burden IDEA has
placed on school districts.
My home state of Kansas can expect to see about a quarter of the
promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken
with school officials in their districts know that this is inadequate.
While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to
meet IDEA mandates, at the expense of both children with and without
disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of
Education programs that are not vital to our children's education. One
such program, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, has ballooned
800 percent in the last 4 years. This program was originally funded at
$750,000 to help rural areas maximize their resources. I am not looking
to eliminate the 21st Century Learning program. I am only looking to
cut the increase in funding by $300 million, about half of the $600
million it was funded, and still a 400 percent increase from FY1996
funding.
I don't know how many Members have toured special education
facilities in their home districts. I have. I have toured Levy Special
Education Center in Wichita and seen these special children. I have met
with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about
the lack of funding combined with the burden of increased paperwork.
Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA the Federal Government
mandated that our local school systems educate all children, even those
with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has placed an
extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be partially
alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund 40 percent of the
program. To not do so, and instead increase funding for programs like
the 21st Century Learning Centers, we are completely ignoring the needs
of our local school districts. I challenge my fellow colleagues to live
up to their vote last month and support our effort today to put more
money into IDEA.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control 2 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan
amendment, and support the chairman's opposition.
Mr. Chairman, this is a measure which would cut the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program by $300 million. This amendment is a
wolf in sheep's clothing. This wolf is ready to attack our students.
By drastically cutting this program, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) and other Members of this House would be responsible for
pulling our children out of safe educational settings and sending them
to empty homes and to unsafe streets.
The gentleman's State, Wisconsin, has 19 programs. Our State, New
Jersey, has seven. We have been planning for this for over 6 months.
Now the gentleman is going to pull the rug out from what we believe is
going to be a very successful program because it has brought together
many segments of the community for something that is worthwhile,
something very tangible, and something very educational.
Mr. Chairman, this would dismantle new programs. It would stop us
looking

[[Page H4267]]

to other places where these programs should be implemented. This
amendment would cut over $260,000 in one system alone. That is Passaic,
New Jersey. I ask for the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the reason this bill is here is because 15 million kids
go home every day to an empty house because so many of them have two
parents working outside of the home. That is why we are providing
after-school centers.
If this amendment passes, we will be ignoring the fact that most of
the juvenile crime in this country occurs between the hours of 3
o'clock in the afternoon and 7 in the evening. We will be ignoring the
fact that this amendment would cut back by 27 percent each and every
one of the grants that now serves some 3,000 centers in the United
States.
If we take a look at the way this program works that the gentleman is
trying to cut, 28 percent of the kids who are participating in these
after-school activities have been identified as kids with disabilities.
In terms of need, if we want to measure it, just recognize the fact
that there are 2,200 communities which have requested that we provide a
total of $1.3 billion in assistance for after-school centers. The
agency has been able to fund only 310 new grants. That is not enough to
meet the problem.
I would suggest to the gentleman, I appreciate where he wants to put
the money, but where he wants to take the money from is a tremendously
bad idea. If Members care about youth discipline, if Members care about
crime, I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
A few brief points. This program goes vastly beyond its original
intent, even stated by the author of the program.
Two, even with this amendment, after-school programs will be vastly
increased. Even with this amendment, in fiscal year 1999 there is a
$100 million increase.
Number three, it really comes down to an issue of local control. If
we vote to fully fund IDEA and get as close to that goal as possible,
we are voting for any program that helps local school districts,
because we are voting to put those dollars in the hands of local
education decision-makers. It is a vote for after-school programs. It
is a vote for local control.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members do not know how good it is to
work on a bipartisan basis on an amendment with the other side.
Both sides, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and my colleagues, have worked for
after-school programs, not just baby-sitting, but to make sure there is
education going on. I laud that from both sides.
Alan Bersin is the Superintendent of Schools in San Diego. I support
him 100 percent. He is one of my champions. He is a Clinton appointee
on the board, and before now he was superintendent.
If we really want to help special education, we are losing thousands
of good teachers that just want to teach in special education. But
there are trial lawyers that are using and abusing the schools and
forcing many of these teachers out.
This is an area where we can come together and work to actually
enhance special education, instead of having trial lawyers take all the
money that we are trying to help with that.
I laud my colleagues on the other side for supporting the after-
school programs. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) will be postponed.

{time} 1545

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gary Miller of California

Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gary Miller of California:
Page 64, after line 6, insert the following:
Sec. 306. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by decreasing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--education reform'' for
ready to learn television, and by increasing the amount made
available under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--
special education'' for grants to States, by $16,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller)
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Ready-to-Learn television program was created by
the Improving America's School Act of 1994. It was intended to support
the first national educational goal of Goals 2000, that by the year
2000 all American children begin ready to learn for school.
The Ready-to-Learn television program authorizes the Secretary of
Education to award grants to enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with nonprofit entities to develop, produce, and distribute
educational instructional television programming and support materials.
The target age group is pre-school and elementary age children. In
the past, it has gone to a collaboration between the U.S. Department of
Education and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.
We are transferring money from one Federal agency to another.
We are not against funding quality educational television programs.
This vote is not a referendum on the validity of spending $16 million
on the Ready-to-Learn television program. This vote is about
prioritizing our limited educational dollars as we go. Meeting the
direct needs of our local districts should be our first priority.
Labor HHS also increases the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's
budget by an additional $15 million, as requested, for a total of $365
million. That does not include the $16 million.
Special education has been chronically underfunded. In 1975, Congress
passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Ready-to-Learn television program basically supports two shows,
Dragon Tales and Between the Lions. Cutting the Ready-to-Learn
television program does not cut Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers'
Neighborhood, Teletubbies, Barney, Arthur, Theodore Tugboat, Noddy,
Zoom, or any of the programs children watch.
We need to prioritize our dollars. We need to vote for special
education. I ask for support for this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment
would eliminate all funding for the Ready-to-Learn TV program and puts
the money into IDEA State grants.
Now I just indicated on the last amendment that we have made IDEA
State grants a high priority in our bill. We increased it up by half a
billion dollars this year. I am at a loss to understand why the
gentleman would target the Ready-to-Learn service that serves 132
public television stations in 46 different States, including his own.

[[Page H4268]]

Ready-to-Learn TV currently provides a minimum of 6.5 hours of
nonviolent educational programming each day. The number of
participating stations across the country has grown from 10 stations in
1994 to 132 in the year 2000, reaching 90 percent of American homes.
In addition, two new daily children's educational programs, Dragon
Tales and Between the Lions, and two parenting initiatives, have been
developed as a result of this project.
The program was recently reauthorized as part of both the House and
the Senate ESEA bills.
I believe that while the gentleman has a very wise intention to
continue to increase IDEA funding, we have certainly done a far better
job in this area than the President has suggested in his budgets, which
are after all political documents. Nevertheless to zero out this
effective program that is subscribed in almost every State in the Union
and by so many of our public television stations, seems to me to be
unwise. I would oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for his work on IDEA. He has
done a commendable job, and this is in no way to impugn his efforts in
that direction, but we have a limited amount of funds. We have to say
when a child spends a little over 4,000 hours in front of a television
before they start school, does the Federal Government need to fund an
additional $16 million each year for Dragon Tales and Between the Lions
when we need to prioritize our funds?
The money should go to the classroom. This is reasonable. It is
established by offsets. We are not trying to drag monies in that do not
exist and we are just saying we have made a promise to fund special
education. We have not complied with that promise. We have left local
districts underfunded. This is a small amount of money, $16 million,
but when we are dealing with monies that are not available it can be a
large amount of money, and I ask for support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2 minutes of my time, for the purpose
of yielding time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I will simply say this is the kind of amendment that
should be supported if you believe that our young children are being
exposed to too much quality television. If you think that they are not,
then I think it is an amendment that one ought to oppose.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of
the position expressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
I think one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for special
education is to improve reading skills for very young children. $16
million for a program that reaches every corner of the country is a
very modest, and I believe very wise investment.
Many of the special education problems in our public schools are
actually misidentified because they are reading problems. They are
children that are struggling in school because they never built the
building blocks of reading skills in the early ages.
Now getting children to a quality pre-K program is a noble goal. It
is something I believe we ought to do, but for many families it is an
impossible goal. It is much more possible for the family and the
children to gather at the appropriate time in front of a television set
and begin to pick up some of those skills in the privacy of the home.
This is a very small investment in a very great need, and I believe
that the amendment is misguided. It is certainly wise in trying to add
to special education but reducing the need for special education is
what we get when we invest in reading.
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting the concept that government must
provide quality television. It is the first time I have heard an
argument maybe children should come home at night and watch TV instead
of do homework. I think dollars belong in the classroom. When we have a
shortage of dollars and we have made a commitment and a promise to
special education classes that we are going to fund them, and we have
yet to do that, to make an argument that we need to provide more
television time for children at home rather than an opportunity for
them to learn in the school is a different argument, an argument I am
unaccustomed to hearing.
It is interesting that the House budget in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000
allocated zero dollars for this program. It came back from the Senate
with a final appropriation bill in 1997, 1998, allocating $7 million.
There are a lot of sponsors in this country looking for an
opportunity to sponsor good television shows. We argue against tobacco
companies for advertising and encouraging young people to smoke.
Obviously, advertising works. Sponsors will put their money where it
works. If money works in good television shows for young people, they
will sponsor those shows. But when we are dealing with the government
having to fund television and when we have special education fundings
that should be provided for and we are not providing for them, that is
not a very good argument. I think we need to put our money in the
classroom, put our money where our mouth is and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, once again I find myself up here in
support, and I would say to my colleague, the ranking minority member
on the committee, in the regards to Archie the Cockroach, which I have
right here, in this bipartisan support against this amendment, children
do watch too much television. They are going to watch television. If we
look at the violence and the things that are out there, I want my
children watching something that is going to improve their literacy,
that is going to improve their knowledge on education, especially for
those who are going to enter kindergarten. This has been proven the
case.
If we were talking about some of the other programs, yes, I would
support this, but in this particular case I reluctantly oppose the
gentleman's amendment. In the spirit of Archie the Cockroach, I support
the gentleman's position.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment robs Peter to pay Paul, and will gut the Ready to
Learn program that serves as an educational tool for millions of school
age children.
The sole PBS station in my home city of Jacksonville provides quality
educational, cultural, and information programming services that
directly affect the quality of life of my constituents. They have been
doing a tremendous job of providing top notch outreach and pro-children
programming with the limited Ready to Learn funds they receive. They
are partnering with the local public library and children's commission
to provide outreach and training to underserved communities, and have
been recognized by the county school systems Teen Parent Program for
providing outstanding service to young mothers. All of this with a
meager $12,000.
It's unbelievable to me that we can stand here on the House floor and
talk about tax cuts while we strip funds from our PBS stations. I agree
that we need more funding for special education programs, but not at
the expense of a program that serves millions of young children.
I ask my colleagues to do the right thing. Oppose this amendment and
save these valuable funds.

[[Page H4269]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary Miller) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
said before that Democrats are operating without limits, and that is
why the deficits got out of control. I was really puzzled by those
comments.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
our ranking member, to clarify for the record that statement.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not do this but because we have
repeatedly heard the statements that it is the uncontrolled spending of
the Democrats that have caused the deficits, I want to repeat a little
history lesson.
This graph shows that at the end of World War II our national debt,
as a percentage of our total national income, was more than 100 percent
because we fought World War II first and thought about paying for it
afterwards. If we had not done that, Hitler flags would be flying all
over the world.
That dropped under a succession of Presidents, Republican and
Democrat, until the debt was down to about 23 percent of our total
national income. Then it stalled out between, say, 1973 and 1979 with
the two energy crises under President Ford and President Carter.
President Reagan got elected. The Congress passed his budgets which
doubled the defense spending on borrowed money and which cut taxes by
very large amounts at the same time. As a result, as the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out last night, the debt exploded as a
percentage of our national income and in all other ways. We added over
$4 trillion to the debt, and it was pushed back up to about 50 percent
of our annual national income.
Since that time, the President has recommended budget changes and the
economy has resurrected itself at a remarkable rate, and at this point
we are rapidly on our way to eating into that debt both as a percentage
of our national income and in terms of its overall dollar amount.
What we have been doing the last 18 years, we have been spending the
last 18 years trying to eliminate this debt bubble that was caused by
the irresponsible spending of the President and the Congress under the
Reagan administration.
President Bush signed a budget agreement that began the downturn and
President Clinton got his budget package through the Congress by one
vote in both houses, which substantially reduced that debt.
So all I would say, in response to the gentlewoman, is that I will
never again listen to any lectures on the other side of the aisle about
being responsible in terms of spending and debt, because we have spent
the last 18 years trying to get back to a budget which is reasonably in
balance, and thankfully we now are. So the issue is not what happened
yesterday but what we ought to do tomorrow. We think that since we have
moved from an era of deficits to an era of surpluses that not all of
those surpluses should be used for tax cuts; that some of them should
be reserved to deal with Medicare, with education, with health care,
with child care, and that is what we are trying to do in these
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her question.

{time} 1600

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to bring Archie out this
time. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of Archie, I have got to oppose the
statements of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
First of all, the proof is in the pudding right here today. The
Democrats controlled this House and Senate almost exclusively for 40
years. Spending is controlled within Congress, not the President of the
United States. We sent him the bills.
The President in every one of his budgets, not many Democrats ever
supported it, nor Republicans. We brought it up to show how ridiculous
it was. It was a political document. I would say in the spirit of
Archie, Republican Presidents have done similar things.
But the proof is in the pudding right here today. No matter what we
put as a mark within the balanced budget, within a budget frame, they
want more. They want more and more and more. Just like they have in
every single one of their appropriations bills, every single time,
which drives up the debt.
For 40 years, did they have a balanced budget? Absolutely not. They
had $200 billion deficits as far as one can see. Welfare reform, which
limited their spending, welfare, they spent trillions of dollars in
just dumping more money into it. Sixteen years is the average. Now, we
have people working, bringing home a paycheck instead of letting the
children see them bring home a welfare check. Billions of dollars of
revenue in, and not the Democrats when we talk about policies that
increased.
President Kennedy, along with Ronald Reagan, recognized that tax
refunds to the American people, they are going to go out and buy a
double egg, double cheese, or double fry burger, or a car or buy real
estate; and that money is going to turn over. That revenue is going to
provide tax money to the general fund. That has always been the case.
But, yet, my colleagues on the other side, tax increases, look at
1993 in the tax increase. Then we have eliminated many of those tax
increases on the American people. Look what has happened to the
economy. But they cannot help themselves increasing taxes, and then
every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund they spent and put in
IOUs, which drove up the debt over $5 trillion.
We said no more. Let us put it into a lockbox. Guess what, we are
paying off the debt by the year 2012. Forty years they had to do that.
We have been in leadership for 5 years. Look at the difference.
The chart of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is almost
laughable, because in every single appropriations bill we bring up,
except for defense, watch my colleagues try and increase spending above
a balanced budget.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), I appreciate the talk. I was elected in
1996. But in 1993, the tax bill that was passed by the Congress, there
were those on the other side of the aisle who suggested it would cause
unemployment to rise, interest rates to rise, and the economy to move
in the wrong direction.
But if I am not mistaken, 8 years ago, the DOW was at 3,500; it is
now three times that amount. We had a $390 billion projected deficit
for last fiscal year. We are now running $180 billion plus surplus.
According to the front pages of newspapers around the country, those
projections are conservative.
I appreciate the gentleman from California trying to take credit. I
think there is a lot of credit to be given here, as entrepreneurs and
innovators deserve a lot of it as well. But to suggest that we are at
fault here, I think, is somewhat of a misnomer.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) will further yield, the fact is that one can spend it any way
one wants. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) is my friend, and he
knows that. One can spend this any way one wants.

[[Page H4270]]

But increasing the taxes on the American people does not stimulate the
economy. Not operating under a balanced budget does not.
Those taxes that Democrats supported without a single Republican
vote, we have repealed the Social Security tax. We have balanced the
budget. We brought revenue in with welfare reform. We saved Medicare.
We put Social Security in the trust fund. Those are the economic
stimulus that I think have stimulated the economy, not a tax increase.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
will further yield, I would just contend that we all deserve a little
credit for that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 203 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 203 offered by Mr. Schaffer:
Page 64, after line 6, insert the following:
Sec. 306. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by decreasing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--education research,
statistics, and improvement'' for the research activities,
and by increasing the amount made available under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--special education'' for grants to
States, by $10,356,700.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for favorable consideration of the amendment I
have offered. What that amendment does is shifts approximately $10.3
million toward the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act
funds, special education as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, this House has acted three times in recent months on
establishing for ourselves and for the country a priority of fully
funding the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. This first
was initiated in the first session, about a year, a little over a year
ago, where 413 of us said that this is the highest priority in the
Department of Education.
Let me reemphasize that, because the funds I am shifting come from
the Office of Education Research and Improvement and some research
expenditures; I might also add, the same funds that the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) proposed to move $25 million from earlier.
That is a priority for some clearly, but I would submit and defy
anyone to challenge my statement that IDEA is the highest priority
established by this Congress. I say that because 413 of us voted for
those exact words, that the fund I am proposing to increase by $10
million is the highest priority that we have.
So I do not want to get into the debate of whether the funds we are
moving are coming from a priority, only whether it is true that we are
shifting funds from a lesser priority to a higher priority. I think
when viewed within that context, I hope that the numbers will be
similar on this amendment that they were when we established that
priority a little over a year ago.
Now, just a month ago, we passed a similar resolution where we
suggested that we would fund this year's IDEA to the tune of $7
billion. Well, we have not really done that. We have added, I think, a
half a billion dollars, which is a billion and a half short of where we
promised the American people we were headed. In fact, in that
resolution, the schedule is lined out right in the bill itself. My
colleagues can take a look at it. It was H.R. 4055. It says right here,
in 2001, we will authorize for appropriations $7 billion. We are a
billion and a half short of that, despite the heroic efforts, I might
add, of the chairman and others who believe that IDEA is a high
priority.
I am here to make a case that it is, in fact, the highest priority.
When we make the promise to the American people, not once, not twice,
but in fact three times, then we ought to fulfill that promise and make
a stronger effort. I am suggesting at least to the tune of $10 million
how we might be able to do that.
Then, finally, in the budget resolution, which just passed days ago,
we assumed at least a $2 billion increase in fiscal year 2001 over the
current fiscal year as part of our commitment to get us to 40 percent
of full funding, the congressional promise to the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act.
Mr. Chairman, I urge favorable adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
1 minute of that time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is a
very strong supporter of IDEA. All of us are. We put it at the very
highest priority. Other programs are a priority also. We cannot know
whether educational programs, including IDEA, work unless somebody
evaluates how they work.
The Federal Government is the primary source of funds for long-term
investment in national education research and development. Much of what
we know about how to improve schools, much of what we know about how
kids learn has come from investments made over the past 30 years.
The education industry is a $584 billion industry. It absorbs 7.2
percent of our gross domestic product. But we spend only three-
hundredths of 1 percent of that money on R&D, education research and
development, learning what works and what does not work and how to
improve the learning of our children. Most of that spending is cut by
this amendment.
The President's 1997 Technology Advisory Report and Senator Frist's
1998 Budget Committee Education Report and this year's Republican Main
Street Partnership paper all call for more spending, not less, on
education R&D.
Cutting education statistics will eliminate the retesting of students
who took the TIMS exam, which found our students lacking in math and
science knowledge. This will prevent our Nation from knowing whether
our students are getting better or worse in those very, very important
areas.
Mr. Chairman, the desire to increase IDEA is one we certainly share
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). But taking money from
this account is not wise. We need to know what works and what does not
work. This is very, very important spending. I urge Members to oppose
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, we spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on
education. We spend it on programs with various groups in the education
community promoted as being good ideas.
We spent a fraction of that amount to actually determine what works
and what does not. Each Member brings to this floor his ideology, his
biases, his prejudices. Once in a while, maybe a few facts. But the
fact is that, without education research, we are flying blind. We are
spending the taxpayers' money blindly, and we are more likely rather
than less likely to put it in the wrong places.
That is why I think the amendment is wrong and should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer)
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
has 2 minutes remaining and has the right to close.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of points. One, it was
said that this amendment cuts most of

[[Page H4271]]

the funds where research is concerned. The reality is this cuts a
fraction of the funds from our research efforts, about 10 percent to be
exact. In fact, much less than what was proposed by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) earlier today.
Secondly, the notion that this is a reliable use of funds today is
also errant in my estimation. I would point to the testimony given by a
witness that was called before the Committee on Education and the
Workforce by the Democrats. This is Dr. Robert Slavin, who was the co-
director of the Center for Research on Education of students placed at
risk. He says, ``OERI does have a good deal of money, but very little
of it is for anything like research. This must change. We can talk all
we want about standards or assessment or governance or charters or
vouchers or other policy initiatives. But until every teacher is using
better methods and materials with every child every day, fundamental
change is unlikely.''
I guess, Mr. Chairman, this really is the focus of the decision I am
asking us to make now. We have established for the country the high
priority of getting funds to those children who have various
disabilities where education is concerned.
The Supreme Court has ordered the Congress to make sure that those
children have equal access to an equal education. Do not steal funds
from those children for programs of questionable merit and value.
Again, research funds may have some merit to some, but they do not
achieve the high priority of disabled children. Please fund them first.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. The
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is correct. What I meant to say
was that most of the money involved in the gentleman's amendment comes
from the spending cut by this amendment.
I would say to the gentleman, he quoted Dr. Slavin of Johns-Hopkins.
If one looks at the models contained as suggestions in the Porter-Obey
comprehensive school reform legislation, half the model cited in the
legislation were Federally funded including Dr. Slavin's own model
itself.
Another example, the Nation's only nonbiased paper on class size
reduction and one that is cited by Republican and Democratic Senators
alike during last month's ESEA debate over in the Senate was done
through education research and development.

{time} 1615

Studies making exit exams more accurate, ensuring that States attempt
to use standard-based exit exams and actually test what students know,
are developed through education R&D.
This is a very important account. We need to evaluate the programs
that we have in existence and those that are proposed. It would be a
serious mistake to undercut the funding in this account; and, in fact,
most observers on both sides of the aisle believe that this funding
ought to be increased.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Schaffer) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2001''.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

armed forces retirement home

For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $69,832,000, of which $9,832,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single
contract or related contracts for development and
construction, to include construction of a long-term care
facility at the United States Naval Home, 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 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government
Obligations.

Corporation for National and Community Service

domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $294,527,000:
Provided, That none of the funds made available to the
Corporation for National and Community Service in this Act
for activities authorized by part E of title II of the
Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 shall be used to
provide stipends or other monetary incentives to volunteers
or volunteer leaders whose incomes exceed 125 percent of the
national poverty level.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 2003, $365,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex.

Amendment No. 182 Offered by Mr. Oxley

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 182 offered by Mr. Oxley:
Page 65, line 22, strike ``$365,000,000'' and insert
``$361,350,000''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, June 8, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin first, Mr. Chairman, by thanking my good friend, the
gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Porter), for his service to this
institution for so many years. We will all miss his great leadership on
the Committee on Appropriations. It has been a pleasure to work with
him on a number of issues.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that reduces the funding for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 1 percent. Let me begin by
saying that it is unfortunate that the last authorization for the CPB
expired in 1996 and, as a result, in the failure of the authorization
process, the Committee on Appropriations has basically been
appropriating funds for CPB during that time, including today's bill.
The CPB funding makes up approximately 14 percent of public
broadcasting's budget. Last year's appropriations bill increased CPB
spending by some $10 million and this year the bill that my friend from
Illinois brought forward has another $15 million increase. With this
kind of increase each year that appropriators have provided for CPB, I
would argue that it leaves little room or any incentive for reform by
CPB. And, indeed, they need reform.
All of us are familiar with last year's fiasco, when it became
obvious that PBS had swapped donor names with Democrats for a number of
years and affected thousands and thousands of members of public
broadcasting stations all over the country. And while the stations
ultimately apologized, it turned out it was a far more widespread
scandal than anyone could have anticipated. But the fact is that this
Congress, nor anybody else, has really reacted to provide some kind of
incentive for CPB to look at some real reforms and some accountability
for what went on.
These were illegally shared lists of donors with Democratic
campaigns. Many of my colleagues will recall that when we had the
hearing in the Committee on Commerce, CPB came in and initially said
that this was also shared with Republican groups. Those Republican
groups turned out to be nonexistent and, in fact, this was clearly an
effort by CPB to work with the

[[Page H4272]]

Democrat campaigns and Democrat donors. I wrote language in last year's
satellite bill to protect the privacy of contributions to PBS and NPR
stations but there was never any sanction for the violation of this
public trust.
In 1997, it was discovered that senior executives at NPR and PBS had
evaded a statutory cap on their pay by granting themselves bonuses of
up to $45,000 a year, which gave them more pay than the Secretary of
State, other cabinet officials, and Members of Congress. Rather than
complying with the law, they hired expensive lobbyists to get the cap
lifted. Public records show that PBS alone payed Covington & Burling
$60,000 to get the cap removed.
Last year, it was revealed that PBS headquarters in Old Town
Alexandria employs a professional masseuse as part of its ``preventive
health'' program. So much for providing cultural content as part of
public broadcasting.
Now, many of these NPR stations and public stations have, I think,
started to understand that maybe some time in the future the Federal
largess will end. And as they expand into Internet ventures, satellite,
radio, and digital cable, I think, frankly, this provides the
opportunity that we have all been looking for to wean public
broadcasting away from the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers' money.
And, indeed, the digital conversion that is mandated in the
Telecommunications Act sets up the possibility for public broadcasting
to go digital and to have the capability, at least in part of their
digital programming, to provide the necessary funding that can wean
them away from this dependency on taxpayers' dollars.
So, for that, I applaud them. I think it makes a lot of sense, if
they will continue to follow through, make those kind of changes
necessary. And, in fact, as I told our worthy chairman, I support the
concept of digital transition for public broadcasting. I support the
money necessary, the $10 million. I wish we had authorized a program in
the Committee on Commerce so we could have done exactly that, and I
would have been the first to support it. Because I think it provides
the magic key to separating the tax dollars from the members.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the 1 percent cut that we have
proposed, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and myself, be
accepted.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I claim time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
Do I understand the gentleman's time has expired?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the
gentleman from Ohio. He is an expert in this area as a member of the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. But
I think I am correct in saying that the scandal, and that is a proper
designation for what happened, involved 53 public television and public
radio stations. Twenty-nine were TVs and 24 were radio grantees who
exchanged or rented donor lists with political entities. Clearly, this
activity should not have taken place. But it was 53 out of over 1,000
stations, and it certainly was not as widespread as the news reports
first indicated.
In July of 1999, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting adopted a
policy to ban such practices and worked cooperatively with Congress on
a statutory prohibition, which we passed in November 1999 as part of
the Satellite Home Viewers Act. A thorough investigation determined
that the motives of the minority of stations who were involved in this
activity were not political but financial.
Now, clearly, there was wrongdoing involved. But cutting the
appropriation, it seems to me, will undoubtedly hurt a lot of the very
small stations that serve rural communities in the most isolated areas
in our country. It will not provide the kind of sanction that I am sure
the gentleman intends, to those larger stations that undoubtedly were
part of this process.
We have a lot of large stations and large metropolitan areas that are
not dependent at all on the Federal funding. They have a small amount
of Federal funding and they can leverage funds. We also have a number
of smaller stations in smaller markets that depend very heavily upon
the grants from CPB through its affiliates, and those are the ones that
an amendment like this can most likely hurt. They really need the
money.
So while I certainly agree that the gentleman has put his finger on
something that I deplore and all Members, I would hope, deplore, the
misuse of political donor lists by certain stations. I would urge
Members to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is
absolutely right. I think that we should require of every other program
administrator in government the same pristine perfection that we
demonstrate in the Congress every day.
I am being sarcastic. I assume people understand that. I mean, the
gentleman is suggesting that because a tiny handful of stations allowed
somebody to exchange fund-raising lists, that somehow they ought to pay
a penalty for that by cutting back on funds which will assist them to
deliver programming to every American.
Now, if Members are satisfied with what they get on the private TV
networks, then, fine, be my guest and vote for this amendment. But all
I would say is that I think, in general, the quality provided on public
television is considerably less violent, considerably less ridden with
sexuality than the programs that we see on any of the major networks.
I would simply say that if Members of Congress had 1 percent deducted
from their office budgets every time we did something stupid, we would
be operating on budgets of zero. So I think that public broadcasting
has already paid a very large penalty for what happened. They lost the
momentum of their reauthorization bill that they had been working on
for the last three sessions. They lost $15 million for DTV conversion
in 1999 that was appropriated contingent upon that authorization.
So it seems to me that, while the gentleman is perfectly within his
rights to offer the amendment, I think it is ill-advised, and I will
urge its rejection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 84, line 17, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 66, line 6 through page 84, line 17 is
as follows:

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out the functions vested in it
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-
180, 182-183), including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
for expenses necessary for the Labor-Management Cooperation
Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a); and for expenses necessary for
the Service to carry out the functions vested in it by the
Civil Service Reform Act, Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. ch.
71), $37,500,000, including $1,500,000, to remain available
through September 30, 2002, for activities authorized by the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a):
Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged,
up to full-cost recovery, for special training activities and
other conflict resolution services and technical assistance,
including those provided to foreign governments and
international organizations, and for arbitration services
shall be credited to and merged with this account, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That fees
for arbitration

[[Page H4273]]

services shall be available only for education, training, and
professional development of the agency workforce: Provided
further, That the Director of the Service is authorized to
accept and use on behalf of the United States gifts of
services and real, personal, or other property in the aid of
any projects or functions within the Director's jurisdiction.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,200,000.

Institute of Museum and Library Services

Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

For carrying out subtitle B of the Museum and Library
Services Act, $170,000,000.

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out section 1805 of the
Social Security Act, $8,000,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended), $1,400,000.

National Council on Disability

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $2,450,000.

National Labor Relations Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $205,717,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95
percent of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes.

National Mediation Board

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $9,800,000.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $8,600,000.

Railroad Retirement Board

dual benefits payments account

For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $160,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 2001 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$160,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.

federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts

For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $150,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2002, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.

limitation on administration

For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $95,000,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.

limitation on the office of inspector general

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $5,380,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in any other
paragraph of this Act may be transferred to the Office; used
to carry out any such transfer; used to provide any office
space, equipment, office supplies, communications facilities
or services, maintenance services, or administrative services
for the Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for
any personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating
expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for
any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

Social Security Administration

payments to social security trust funds

For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,400,000.

special benefits for disabled coal miners

For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $365,748,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2002, $114,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

supplemental security income program

For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $22,791,000,000
(increased by $85,000,000), to remain available until
expended: Provided, That any portion of the funds provided to
a State in the current fiscal year and not obligated by the
State during that year shall be returned to the Treasury.
In addition, $245,000,000 (reduced by $35,000,000), to
remain available until September 30, 2002, for payment to the
Social Security trust funds for administrative expenses for
continuing disability reviews as authorized by section 103 of
Public Law 104-121 and section 10203 of Public Law 105-33.
The term ``continuing disability reviews'' means reviews and
redeterminations as defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the
Social Security Act, as amended.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title XVI of the Social
Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002,
$10,470,000,000, to remain available until expended.

limitation on administrative expenses

For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$6,367,036,000 (increased by $70,000,000) may be expended, as
authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Soc ial Security Act,
from any one or all of the trust funds referred to therein:
Provided, That not less than $1,800,000 shall be for the
Social Security Advisory Board: Provided further, That
unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2001 not
needed for fiscal year 2001 shall remain available until
expended to invest in the Social Security Administration
information technology and telecommunications hardware and
software infrastructure, including related equipment and non-
payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this
information technology and telecommunications infrastructure:
Provided further, That reimbursement to the trust funds under
this heading for expenditures for official time for employees
of the Social Security Administration pursuant to section
7131 of title 5, United States Code, and for facilities or
support services for labor organizations pursuant to
policies, regulations, or procedures referred to in section
7135(b) of such title shall be made by the Secretary of the
Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the general fund not
otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible after such
expenditures are made.
From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less
than $130,000,000 (increased by $70,000,000) shall be
available for conducting continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$520,000,000 (reduced by $70,000,000), to remain available
until September 30, 2002, for continuing disability reviews
as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121 and
section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing
disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as
defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security
Act, as amended.
In addition, $91,000,000 to be derived from administration
fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected
pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or
section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain
available until expended. To the extent that the amounts
collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in
fiscal year 2001 exceed $91,000,000, the amounts

[[Page H4274]]

shall be available in fiscal year 2002 only to the extent
provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
From funds previously appropriated for this purpose, any
unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2000 shall be
available to continue Federal-State partnerships which will
evaluate means to promote Medicare buy-in programs targeted
to elderly and disabled individuals under titles XVIII and
XIX of the Social Security Act.

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $14,944,000, together with not to exceed
$50,808,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
In addition, an amount not to exceed 3 percent of the total
provided in this appropriation may be transferred from the
``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'', Social Security
Administration, to be merged with this account, to be
available for the time and purposes for which this account is
available: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be
transmitted promptly to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House and Senate.

United States Institute of Peace

operating expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $15,000,000.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State
legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any
State legislature itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress or any State
legislature.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are
authorized to make available not to exceed $20,000 and
$15,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and
expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official
reception and representation expenses; the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from the funds available for
``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board
is authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds
included in this Act, including but not limited to State and
local governments and recipients of Federal research grants,
shall clearly state: (1) the percentage of the total costs of
the program or project which will be financed with Federal
money; (2) the dollar amount of Federal funds for the project
or program; and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total
costs of the project or program that will be financed by non-
governmental sources.
Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this
Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds
are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any
abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none
of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are
appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health
benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package
of services covered by a managed care provider or
organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding
section shall not apply to an abortion--
(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest; or
(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical
disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a
life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from
the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a
physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an
abortion is performed.
(b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or
private person of State, local, or private funds (other than
a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching
funds).
(c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as
restricting the ability of any managed care provider from
offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or
locality to contract separately with such a provider for such
coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's
contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or
human diploid cells.
Sec. 511. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for any activity that
promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance
included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled
substances established by section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when there is significant medical evidence of a
therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other
substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are
being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity if--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
Sec. 513. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of fiscal
year 2000 from appropriations made available for salaries and
expenses for fiscal year 2000 in this Act, shall remain
available through December 31, 2000, for each such account
for the purposes authorized: Provided, That the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations shall be notified at
least 15 days prior to the obligation of such funds: Provided
further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply
to any funds appropriated to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention or to the Department of Education.
Sec. 514. Section 5527 of Public Law 105-33, The Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, is repealed.
Sec. 515. (a) Dates for Evaluation.--Section
403(a)(5)(H)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(5)(H)(iii)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2005''.
(b) Interim Report Required.--Section 403(a)(5)(H) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(G)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(iv) Interim Report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the
Secretary shall submit to the Congress an interim report on
the evaluations referred to in clause (i).''.
Sec. 516. Section 403(a)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(A)) is
amended--

[[Page H4275]]

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``1999, 2000, and 2001'' and inserting
``1999 and 2000''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) for fiscal year 2001, a grant in an amount equal to
the amount of the grant to the State under clause (i) for
fiscal year 1998.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 517. Section 410(b) of The Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) is
amended by striking ``2009'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2001''.

{time} 1630

Amendment No. 205 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 205 offered by Mr. Schaffer:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 518. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by decreasing the amount made available in title I
under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Employment and
Training Administration--training and employment services''
for the Job Corps program under the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998, and by increasing the amount made available in title
III under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--special
education'' for grants to States, by $42,224,000.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to request the rest of the
amendment be read by the Clerk?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the reading of the
amendment?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask favorable adoption of this amendment. This
is an amendment that moves approximately $42 million to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.
I have spoken on this topic before and proposed to increase the
funding for IDEA in a previous amendment, and the philosophy here is
quite the same. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is,
quite frankly, a well-established priority, not only a priority, but
the highest priority of the United States Congress. We have established
that as the highest priority three times.
My colleagues, what we have accomplished, basically, is, if we fail
to fulfill our obligation to fully fund the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act to the extent that we have promised
previously, we have done the following:
In May of 1999, we promised about $2 billion this year in increases
for IDEA. We held the cash out to the American people for special
education and we said, we are going to give this money to them.
About a month ago we came to the floor here and passed a similar
resolution and said, we are going to fully fund the IDEA program; we
are going to give this cash to them.
Just days ago we passed the budget resolution, where we suggested an
authorization of a $2 billion increase; and, for the third time, we
said to the American public, those who are concerned about IDEA, we are
going to give this money to them.
And today, the point at which it is time to actually give the money
to those who care about special education, we are not going to do it
because there are other priorities.
I will agree with those who say there are other priorities. But the
fact is we have voted three times to say that there is no higher
priority than fully funding IDEA.
Now, this is a long-term goal; but the first installment on that
payment occurs right now. We promised $2 billion this year in
additional funding for special education. And by the end of the day, I
suspect that this amendment fails, as others who are proposing the same
that we keep our pledge, we will only increase funding by about half a
billion dollars, a substantial amount, a good gesture, to be sure.
But the reality is that principals, superintendents, State
legislators, and parents are asking us to fully fund the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. It is the largest Federal mandate that
every school administrator has to deal with. By our failure to fully
fund these children who need our help and assistance and who have been
promised three times and where we have been obligated by the Supreme
Court, they are being left high and dry.
I would ask our colleagues to find it in their hearts to reach out
and just fulfill the promises that we have made and support this
amendment. It is one that I think is reasonable and modest. In fact, it
does not go nearly far enough to fulfill the promises that we have
made. But these are the children who need the dollars most, who have
every right to an equal access to a quality education, and they are
denied that because this government has foisted a mandate upon the
States and upon the people in it, and it has refused to pay for its
share of the cost.
This amendment moves us in that direction. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again, I understand why the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Schaffer) wants to increase IDEA, as we did in the bill and we
have in prior bills. I do not understand why he would want to cut a
very, very successful program that the majority has strongly supported
over the last 6 years and has become the centerpiece of our work on job
training.
There are many young people who in their home neighborhoods generally
have little or no hope of participation in the prosperity of this
economy. They lack the opportunity to get work experience and get
ahead.
Job Corps has taken young people out of such neighborhoods and put
them into a situation where they can learn skills, get a work ethic,
get an opportunity to get a job, get a job, hold a job, have a family,
participate in the American dream.
To cut funding in this area seems to me to be very misguided. The
young people that have been served by this program have done amazingly
well. It is a program that we have consistently increased more than the
President has included in his budgets. We increased funding because we
believe there is a real chance for young people who otherwise are so
much at risk to get an opportunity to get ahead in our society. I
believe that it would be extremely unfortunate if this program were cut
and this money were transferred.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I reject the characterization of this
amendment as one that cuts Job Corps. The reality is this amendment
shifts the new funding in Job Corps that the program does not have
today, essentially leaving the funding at the current level without any
change. That is not a cut. That is an amendment that holds the program
harmless.
Secondly, as to the value and the merit of the Job Corps program, let
us keep in mind that, even with my amendment, we will still spend $1.4
billion on the Job Corps program. And that is not to mention several
other job-seeking types of programs that the Federal Government
maintains.
I would love to offer for consideration of our colleagues and perhaps
submit for the Record a report by Mark Wilson of the Job Corps program;
and in it it finds that Job Corps is government's most expensive job-
training program and continues to receive increases despite serious
questions raised about the program by the U.S. General Accounting
Office.
There are several other findings that Job Corps has a spotty record
in. In some parts of the country, it seems to work well. In other
spots, it is hemorrhaging cash without providing results.

[[Page H4276]]

All of that being put aside, Job Corps may be a persuasive priority
for some. I merely maintain that the highest priority should be those
children who are in classrooms today suffering from various
disabilities that impair their ability to receive a first-rate, quality
education.
The reason it becomes so challenging for these children is because
this Congress has mandated rule after rule after rule and regulation
and failed to put the cash forward. That is what this amendment
accomplishes. I urge its adoption.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that when we talk about
the Job Corps, we are talking about young people who up to that moment
in their lives are 100-percent failures and the Job Corps manages to
salvage about 50 percent of those young people. That is a better
batting average than Babe Ruth had.
I must say, I am amused by the fact that just 3 days ago we saw on
the floor a chart by one of the Members of the majority side and that
chart was used to brag about how much the Job Corps was being increased
by the majority party; and now this amendment seeks, I guess, to rip up
that chart. And I guess maybe those speeches on behalf of the Job Corps
that were given on the other side would have to be ripped up, as well.
This just is not something we ought to do. It goes at people who have
no hope without help, and I think we ought to turn the amendment down.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say, in closing, as the chairman of
the authorizing committee just said to me, this is an expensive
program. But the alternative is much, much more expensive both to the
individual and to our society.
I believe in this program. I think it has made a difference in so
many young people's lives in this country. It is the model, I believe,
for overcoming poverty and gang neighborhoods and violence and getting
young people an opportunity and a chance. And God knows what this
country stands for is people getting an opportunity and a chance to
reach their level of achievement. If we do not provide that
opportunity, we are short changing the very things we believe most
deeply in.
I oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote against it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Schaffer) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 7
offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), amendment No.
186 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), amendment
No. 203 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer),
amendment No. 182 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and
amendment No. 205 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Schaffer).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bass

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 319, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 259]

AYES--98

Aderholt
Barr
Bass
Bereuter
Blunt
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Cooksey
Crane
Cubin
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Goode
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Inslee
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Weldon (FL)

NOES--319

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise

[[Page H4277]]

Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Fletcher
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Markey
McCollum
Pallone
Thune
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1705

Messrs. HUTCHINSON, LUTHER, COLLINS, SCARBOROUGH, SPENCE, PETRI,
EDWARDS and Mrs. BONO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ADERHOLT, STUMP, HUNTER, BURTON of Indiana, and DICKEY
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 259 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution
518, the Chair announces that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.

Amendment No. 186 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 186 offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 293, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 260]

AYES--124

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
DeLay
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Everett
Ewing
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Goodling
Graham
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Leach
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riley
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)

NOES--293

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
John
Markey
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1714

Mr. SPENCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ROYCE and Mr. HULSHOF changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1715

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gary Miller of California

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 261]

AYES--150

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Everett
Foley
Fossella
Ganske
Gibbons
Goode
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Istook

[[Page H4278]]

Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Myrick
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Wilson

NOES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Markey
McCollum
Obey
Pallone
Peterson (MN)
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1722

Mr. MOORE of Kansas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 203 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 203 offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No 262]

AYES--132

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Fossella
Fowler
Gekas
Gibbons
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Weldon (FL)

NOES--287

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton

[[Page H4279]]

Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Markey
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1729

Mr. McHugh changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded:

Amendment No. 182 Offered by Mr. Oxley

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 182 offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 263]

AYES--110

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonior
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Everett
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Linder
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Toomey
Upton
Wamp
Weldon (FL)

NOES--305

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Ewing
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Kanjorski
Kasich
Markey
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller

{time} 1736

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 205 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 205 offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 103,
noes 315, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 264]

AYES--103

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baird
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Camp
Cannon
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Riley
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller

NOES--315

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich

[[Page H4280]]

Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Campbell
Cook
Cox
Danner
DeMint
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Markey
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1744

Mr. PICKERING and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''

{time} 1745

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 518. (a) Chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``Subchapter E--Normal Trade Relations For China Transitional
Adjustment Assistance Program

``SEC. 250A. ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM.

``(a) Group Eligibility Requirements.----
``(1) Criteria.--A group of workers (including workers in
any agricultural firm or subdivision of an agricultural firm)
shall be certified as eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under this subchapter pursuant to a petition filed
under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that a
significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to
become totally or partially separated, and either----
``(A) that----
``(i) the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely,
``(ii) imports from the People's Republic of China of
articles like or directly competitive with articles produced
by such firm or subdivision have increased by reason of the
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of China, and
``(iii) the increase in imports under clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat
of separation and to the decline in the sales or production
of such firm or subdivision; or
``(B) that there has been a shift in production by such
workers' firm or subdivision to the People's Republic of
China of articles like or directly competitive with articles
which are produced by the firm or subdivision by reason of
the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of China.
``(2) Definition of contributed importantly.--The term
`contributed importantly', as used in paragraph (1)(A)(iii),
means a cause which is important but not necessarily more
important than any other cause.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
relating to the application of the criteria described in
paragraph (1) in making preliminary findings under subsection
(b) and determinations under subsection (c).
``(b) Additional Requirements.--The provisions of
subsections (b) through (e) of section 250 shall apply to the
administration of the program under this subchapter in the
same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply
to the administration of the program under subchapter D.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2101) is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 250 the following:

``SUBCHAPTER E--NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS FOR CHINA TRANSITIONAL
ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

``Sec. 250A. Establishment of transitional program.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment
of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois reserves a
point of order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio will state her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the point of order, if at
the end of our brief period of discussion the point of order is called,
then that means our amendment cannot be offered; is that correct, will
not be voted on?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the point of order has been reserved,
the gentlewoman can proceed with her 5 minutes. If the gentleman
insists on his point of order, at that time the Chair will make a
ruling on whether the point of order is well taken.
Ms. KAPTUR. Just so I understand it, if the point of order is upheld,
then our amendment could not be offered; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is correct.
Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to make that very clear in the beginning.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just a few days ago on May 24, this House voted to
extend permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of
China without restriction. Yet based on projections by our own
government, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the approval of
that agreement threatens to eliminate more than 870,000 jobs in this
country, predominantly in the manufacturing area.
They estimate over 742,000 jobs will be lost to China. In my own
State of Ohio, over 34,500 jobs are projected to be lost. America has
an obligation to assist working people and their families who will
suffer from the devastating consequences of job loss due to this deal
with China.

[[Page H4281]]

What this amendment does is it would help meet our obligations by
establishing the China PNTR transitional adjustment assistance program,
or China TAA, modeled after the trade adjustment assistance that locked
into place when NAFTA was passed.
We have all seen how important that program has been with the
hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been moved to Mexico.
Under our proposal, workers could petition for critical reemployment
services such as job training, job search, training for important
employment in other jobs or careers, and certainly in many cases direct
income support.
The very least this Congress should do, and I cannot understand why
it was omitted from the base bill that came out of the Committee on
Ways and Means, we ought to respond to the basic needs of people who
want to work when their jobs disappear. If advocates for PNTR truly
believe that America's workers will only benefit from PNTR for China,
then they have nothing to fear from this amendment.
We should have a vote on this amendment. However, it is my
understanding that this amendment may be struck by a point of order;
and therefore, I want to ask my colleagues to join me in establishing a
formal China TAA assistance program in a bill that I will drop into the
hopper right after this debate today. And I urge Members to join me,
along with a growing list of original cosponsors, in making a stand for
the workers of this country by cosponsoring this important bill and
supporting this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell), who has been such a strong voice for working Americans from
coast to coast.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding me this time.
Congress has made its bed and now we want some accountability as we
begin to sleep with the enemy. I rise today to voice my strong support,
Mr. Chairman, for the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
When the House passed PNTR, American job loss was an issue that was
merely pushed aside by those who voted for business as usual and for
business interests in the low-wage Chinese workforce. Now workers are
coming to me and asking what we will do in the aftermath.
With this amendment, we have an answer for those who will lose their
jobs. The administration admits there will be a loss, net loss of
872,000 jobs, in America. Twenty-two thousand of those jobs will be in
New Jersey. We have no program set up in that interim period when those
people lose their jobs.
What are we going to tell these workers, that they have lost their
job to the low-production jobs in China? That is no answer. We need to
train people to move on to other jobs.
I ask that we support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do not claim the time in opposition. I would reserve my
point of order and ask if the gentlewoman would like to make a
summation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a very distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Lorain, Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has worked
with us so much on this issue and whose district has suffered directly
from job losses to both Mexico and China.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time, and also thank her for her
amendment on the Trade Adjustment Act, monies in support for the China
PNTR bill.
Everyone knows that our trade deficit, $70 billion and counting, with
China will grow after the passage of PNTR. Ten years ago, it was $100
million. Three years ago, it passed $40 billion. Today it is $70
billion. We know it will continue to grow. Everyone also knows that the
China PNTR vote will cost American jobs. It is only right when we see a
plant close, we see a Huffy Bicycle plant close, jobs move to China.
Phillips TV job plant closes in Ohio, jobs move to Mexico; one after
another after another.
We know we must do something for those workers. Passing these trade
bills, this Congress has done. It passed NAFTA in a close vote. It
passed PNTR in a close vote. At least with NAFTA we had some trade
adjustment assistance. We should do the same thing with PNTR.
This amendment makes great sense, the amendment of the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for coming
to the floor, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and I
would say that I have a sinking feeling that the Republican leadership
of this House is about to call a point of order against our amendment
and not permit us to pass a program to help American workers who are
going to lose their jobs to China.
I think that is unconscionable. I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman who chairs this particular subcommittee, but I know that the
leadership of his party approached me prior to this vote and asked if I
was really going to offer that amendment. I said, yes, we are.
I would ask the American people to know what is about to happen here.
We need to help America's workers who are going to lose their jobs to
China.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) insist on his 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.
The amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a
ruling from the Chair.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the net effect of that then is not to allow
our amendment to assist America's workers who will be displaced because
their jobs move to China from being able to have a vote on this today;
is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The effect
of the Chair's ruling will be, if the Chair sustains the point of
order, that the amendment will not be considered at this time.
Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is the Chair saying that it is going to
rule on that now?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to hear the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) directly amends existing law. The amendment
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 196 offered by Mr. Boehner:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program under part B of title IX of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H4282]]

Mr. Chairman, I rise today and offer an amendment to protect the
interests of taxpayers, as well as thousands of native students in the
State of Hawaii.
Like all States, Hawaii currently receives funds under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act for struggling schools and students, but
unlike other States Hawaii also receives an additional $20 million each
year in addition to its allocation for the native Hawaiian education
programs.
The name is misleading, I think, to say the least. The recipients of
these funds are not Hawaii's native students but much of this money
goes to an entity known as the Bishop Estate Trust.
It was created over a century ago to carry out the legacy of a
beloved Hawaiian princess who died in 1884 and left her fortune for the
education of Hawaii's native children. That was a noble mission.
Unfortunately, the princess would not recognize the Bishop Trust if she
were alive to see it today.
The Bishop Estate is now the richest charitable trust in the United
States and the largest landowner in Hawaii. The Bishop Estate's
holdings include a pair of Hawaiian resort hotels, the Royal Hawaiian
Shopping Center, several assets in Las Vegas, two of the largest
shopping centers in Wisconsin, large expanses of timberland in Michigan
and, until last year, owned 5 percent of Goldman Sachs.
In 1999, its annual revenues were $460 million, with assets that
totaled an estimated $10 billion. Incredibly, this vast empire spends
only a tiny share of its resources on its purpose, its only mission as
given by the princess, to educate native Hawaiian children. Last year,
it spent just $100 million for that purpose.
As the program 60 Minutes reported this spring, and I will quote,
``What was supposed to be a tax-exempt charitable trust devoted to
education was behaving very much like an international conglomerate.
While it was raking in hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the
Bishop Estate was spending less than half of that on the school and
serving just 6 percent of eligible children in Hawaii,'' end quote.

{time} 1800

Until recently, the estate's trustees received compensation of nearly
$1 million per year. In recent years, the estate has been rocked by
everything from an IRS investigation of its tax exempt status to
reported accusations of theft, kickbacks, and other crimes.
Yet the Federal Government is subsidizing this empire to the tune of
more than $20 million per year. Let me remind my colleagues their only
mission with this $10 billion trust is to educate Hawaii's native
children.
Mr. Chairman, one does not have to be from Hawaii to wonder why a $10
billion private trust needs another $20 million subsidy from American
taxpayers. One does not have to be from Hawaii to wonder why the Bishop
Estate is spending only a fraction of its resources on the education of
Hawaii's native students.
As long as the taxpayers continue to provide this $20 billion
subsidy, the estate will never reform itself. The longer Washington
continues to provide the subsidy, the longer Hawaiian students, Native
Hawaiians students, will have to wait for the Bishop Trust to stop
skimping on their future.
In 1995, President Clinton proposed in his budget to eliminate these
programs. Vice-President Gore called for the elimination of these
programs as part of his reinventing-government initiative. Last
October, the House repealed the authorization for this expenditure
overwhelmingly.
My amendment will allow us to keep this bipartisan commitment.
Instead of pouring another $20 million into the account of this $10
billion private trust, the $20 million could be used to help all of
America's children.
The longer we wait to take the step, the longer the Bishop Estate
will continue to shortchange the native children of Hawaii. For the
sake of taxpayers and Hawaii's children, I urge the adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) claim the time in opposition.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 5 minutes
assigned to the side in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is
recognized 5 minutes.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the words of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). He made his whole case on the fact that his
belief, an assumption, the Bishop Estate, who is the enemy as far as he
is concerned, is being identified as the recipient of 20-plus million
dollars under this appropriation act.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is absolutely nothing
in the ESEA appropriations or authorization bill or whatever that lays
any assignment of the money to the Bishop Estate or the Kamehameha
schools. If we are talking about the bill that came out of the full
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), in
offering the native Hawaiian reauthorization, there is absolutely
nothing in this legislation either that identifies one penny to the
Bishop Estate. In fact, the money goes to many nonprofit organizations,
the University of Hawaii, other public entities.
To assume responsibility for the education of these children who are
the most deprived children in the State of Hawaii, perhaps they could
be taken care of under title I or other appropriations, but this unique
legislation comes forth and has been enacted by the Congress because
the Congress has recognized this certain responsibility that the
Federal Government has to these native children.
We passed in 1996 an apology resolution for the Federal Government
going into Hawaii, overriding the monarchy at that time, taking
millions of acres of land, and appropriating it to its own use.
In order to rectify that injustice, in 1920, the Congress said we are
terribly sorry about what happened in 1893. We are going to give back
some of these lands to the native Hawaiian peoples. We returned land,
but we did not appropriate one single dime so that the native Hawaiian
people could go on these lands.
So gradually, as we looked at this deplorable situation, recognizing
the moral responsibility that the Federal Government had to these
children, we began to put together special legislation to take care of
the most impoverished, most deserving needy children in the midst of
our State.
The reason why they are in such a desperate situation is because,
when the lands were returned to Hawaii, they were in the remotest part
of the territory where nobody lived, where there were no jobs, no
educational opportunities. So the lands were given to them, and the
children were really relegated to a permanency of poverty.
Congress has now said in its wisdom we want to make right this
situation, and we are going to provide special funds to these native
Hawaiians. They are no different than Native Americans. No one would
repeal the Native American Act.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 1
minute remaining. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Who has the right to
close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has
the right to close. The gentleman from Ohio is the proponent of the
amendment, and no manager controls the time in opposition.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter),
all the members of the committees that have looked at this issue have
decided that justice and equity resides with this appropriation.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has been at odds with the

[[Page H4283]]

trustees of the Bishop Estate for some 6 years now. Those trustees are
no longer in place. The argument that he has had with the Bishop Estate
no longer applies. Not one single penny, as he well knows, goes to the
Bishop Estate.
Why the gentleman from Ohio has this obsession to come to Hawaii, why
he has the time to leave his district in Ohio and try to come to the
floor of this House to act on behalf of Hawaiian children, I do not
know. But I do know that his characterization to my colleagues is
something that I take great offense at, because not one penny for these
children is going to either those trustees or into that estate.
The people who are handling the funds that my colleagues have put
forward in this bill are the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Leeward
Community College, the Maui Community College, the Kauai Community
College, the Hawaii Community College, and four Hawaiian nonprofit
organizations, none of whom have anything to do with the Bishop Estate.
Now, if my colleagues want to make this into a Republican versus
Democratic issue, I most emphatically plead with them, do not do this.
This is an educational issue that everyone in every district here can
relate to on the basis of what is good for the children of one's
district.
This is not a partisan issue unless the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) is able to make it that and unless he is able to convince my
colleagues against the evidence that this has something to do with the
estate with which he has had an argument in the past.
Every issue raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) with
respect to the estate has been addressed. Every single issue now is
moot.
So I plead with all the Members, Democrat or Republican here, to
trust the judgment in this instance of Democrats and Republicans alike,
leaders on both sides, and a plea from me and the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) that my colleagues allow us, as we do for any Member
in this House, to trust us as we trust them to address the particular
circumstances in their districts that require congressional attention.
I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) not to make this an issue
that would divide this House along partisan lines and to recognize that
his arguments have been met, his arguments have been addressed.

native hawaiian education assessment project

Kamehameha Schools assists with the development of the needs
assessment and targets programming to these needs. From the 1999
report, the most severe needs continue to be school readiness, basic
skills, high school completion, and college enrollment and completion.
Efforts to address these needs must begin with the very young, and it
must integrate the language, culture, and values of the Native Hawaiian
people.

status of kamehameha schools

In May 1999, the courts appointed a new Board of Trustees for the
Bishop Estate. The interim trustees have moved swiftly to approve new
policies and initiatives which have already changed the direction of
Kam Schools in very constructive ways. The Board has held many town
meetings to undertake strategic planning with all stakeholders.
The direction of Kam Schools for the next 10 or 15 years will spend
more on education and try to reach more Hawaiians and form more
community partnerships. Another major change--giving the Hawaiian
community more of a say in how the trust is run--has already begun with
the strategic planning process. The draft was formed from more than
3,000 comments and suggestions the estate has solicited from the public
since August. Kam Schools currently serves 961 preschool age children,
1,000 elementary school students on three islands, and 2,482 students
attending high school on Oahu. They plan to increase the education
spending from $100 million annually to $159 million in the next budget.
Since May 1999, the following changes have occurred:
Reorganized the Education Group, so all instructional and support
programs report directly to the President;
Began leveraging of Kamehameha's resources through partnerships to
expand programs;
Developed a K-3 reading program with DOE for DOE classrooms;
Expanded Pre-schools for three-year olds
Approved parenting program focusing on infants and toddlers.

native hawaiian education act objectives

The NHEA was enacted in 1988. Its objective is to raise the
educational status of Native Hawaiians (whose needs are documented
below) through the provision of supplemental programs and services for
curriculum development, pre-school education, gifted and talented
programs, special education initiatives, and the provision of higher
education. The Act was amended in 1994 and expanded to include the
establishment of community-based learning center, a curriculum
development and teacher training component, and the establishment of a
statewide Native Hawaiian Education Council and individual island
councils.

native hawaiian education act--seven sections

(Sec. 9204) Native Hawaiian Education Council and Island Councils
(Sec. 9205) Native Hawaiian Family-Based Education Centers
(Sec. 9206) Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program
(Sec. 9207) Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Program
(Sec. 9208) Native Hawaiian Special Education Program
(Sec. 9209) Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training,
and Recruitment Program
(Sec. 9210) Native Hawaiian Community-Based Education Learning
Centers

nhea programs administered by kamehameha schools

(Other grantees include the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Leeward
Community College, Maui Community College, Kauai Community College,
Hawaii Community College, Pihana Na Mamo, Alu Like, Inc., Pulama I Na
Keiki, Aha Punana Leo)
(1) Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program
$1.036 million program funding--last year served 91 students.
provide financial assistance and direction to Native Hawaiian
students seeking postsecondary education--also requires a community
service commitment
(2) Kamehameha Talent Search
$303,201 program funding--competitively granted--last year served 800
public schools students
assist students who may be first in family to graduate from a
secondary school to enroll in postsecondary educational programs

safe and drug free schools native hawaiian set aside administered by
kam schools

$882,000 program funding--last year served 12,369 individuals
establish Safe and Drug Free Schools to reduce violence and substance
abuse

rep. boehner previous arguments

During the October 1999 markup of a section of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization, Representative Boehner offered
his amendment to repeal the program. He stated:
His comments would focus on Bishop Estate, its mission, its history
of scandal, its budget, and potential for success with the recent
reforms
He said there are 15,000 Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii--Patsy
corrected him with Census data in her testimony, stating that there are
actually 47,282.
He said Bishop Estate was worth $10 billion and they own 10% of
Goldman Sachs, numerous Hawaii hotels, Las Vegas casinos, and shopping
centers. Kamehameha Schools budget data reflects a net worth closer to
$5 billion.
He said that the former trustees were involved in kickback schemes,
mail fraud, drug use, and improper credit card use, but their biggest
fault was their $1 million annual compensation. He also mentioned the
continuing probe of the estate's activities by the IRS and the State
courts.
He said that there are 3,200 students in Kamehameha Schools and that
only one-eighth of those that apply are accepted. Patsy corrected him
that there are actually 5,000 children attending Kam Schools--my
statistics show that the number is 4,444 kids.
He also made a point that the Estate should try using their interest
income on educating Native Hawaiian children. That would raise the
amount they spend by $400 million annually.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my two colleagues from Hawaii.
We have been involved in this fight for some 6 years. The fact is that
the largest charitable trust in the United States is the Bishop Estate.
Their only mission in the trust document is to provide for the
education of the native Hawaiian children. The fact is that, last year,
they bring from $460 million, and they only spent $100 million for the
benefit of those children.
As a matter of fact, the IRS has gone in to investigate them, almost
took away their tax exempt status because of the corruption in the
estate. The fact is that why should taxpayers in Washington, D.C.,
provide an additional $20 billion to one State that other States do not
get when, in fact, they have got a $10 billion trust that has no other
mission, there is no other

[[Page H4284]]

use for this money than to help these children that they seek to help.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we end this, and I urge my
colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following:
Sec. 518. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III of this Act may be used to prohibit a
State vocational rehabilitation agency from counting a blind
or visually-impaired person as successfully rehabilitated
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 if the person is placed
in a noncompetitive or nonintegrated employment setting at
the Federal minimum wage or higher.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for
5 minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about preserving all of the best
options for the job training and job placement of blind or visually
impaired citizens.
The state of the law today I believe is correct. It says to State
vocational rehabilitation agencies that, when they embark on the
important work of preparing the blind or visually impaired for the work
force, they have essentially two choices. They can direct their efforts
toward a sheltered environment where individuals are placed and trained
in an environment where there is public subsidy of the economic
activity that ensues and where products are given certain market
preferences; or they can attempt to train and place the blind or
visually impaired citizen in the regular private sector marketplace.
In February of this year, the Department of Education embarked upon a
rulemaking process that I believe would upset that delicate balance.
This proposed rule would not permit State vocational rehabilitation
agencies to count as a success a placement of a blind or visually
impaired citizen in a sheltered work environment.
Now, I believe that some individuals should not be placed in a
sheltered work environment. They are in fact prepared and ready for the
regular private marketplace. I certainly believe that all individuals
should not be placed in a sheltered work environment.
But I believe that we should leave the law as it stands today, that
we should permit vocational rehabilitation decision-makers at the State
and local levels to use their good discretion as to where the best
placement for these citizens would be.
Mr. Chairman, the other body in report language that will accompany
their version of this appropriations bill has taken a stand in
accordance with mine and has taken a stand in that report language
stating that the law should remain the same and that the Department of
Education should not go forward with this rule. I believe that is the
correct position, and that is the purpose of my offering this
amendment.
Now, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is subject to a
point of order because it is authorizing in nature. I would like to
engage the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of our
subcommittee, in a colloquy. Following that, I plan to withdraw my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter), chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly engage the gentleman in a
colloquy at this point if that is his desire.
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could the
gentleman from Illinois assure me that the report language addressing
this matter as I just outlined will stand in conference?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, while I have not examined this particular
issue in detail, I will tell the gentleman from New Jersey that each
House's report language has independent standing with the agencies. The
gentleman is correct that, unless the statements made in report
language are specifically rejected by the conferees, the language
included in the report of the other body will stand in conference.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the
chairman, and his staff.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 198 Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 198 offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prohibit military recruiting at secondary schools.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is fitting that we address a crisis
that our military is facing tonight.

{time} 1815

Each branch of the military is facing this same problem. It is having
a very tough time attracting the number and quality of recruits needed
to staff our military. The military, in fact, is suffering its worst
personnel crisis since the draft ended in 1973.
My colleagues, sadly, over a thousand high schools nationwide
restrict military recruiters access to their high schools. This barring
keeps recruiters from its number one source of recruits, graduating
high school students. The precedent has been set in the past that
recruiters be given the same access to post secondary institutions as
businesses or companies that are allowed to do so. For example, the
jewelers that come to give the high school rings are allowed. There are
lots of different companies that come in, but not our military.
This ban not only hurts our military but it also places students who
may face difficulty financing college at a disadvantage from learning
of the opportunities that the military could offer them in bonuses to
help them with their education.
Service in the military is honorable, and we should encourage our
young people to consider the possibility of serving in our Armed
Services. My amendment establishes that none of the funds made
available in this act may be used to prohibit military recruiting at
our secondary schools. This amendment still allows for local control
but permits Congress the opportunity to express the importance of
allowing military recruiters access to our high school campuses. With
all-time lows in recruiting for our military, Congress should make a
statement tonight to encourage schools to honor military recruiters'
requests for access.
For federally-funded schools to ban any access for military
recruiters defies logic and, of course, patriotism.

[[Page H4285]]

Several school districts are banning military recruiters for social
reasons. For some reason they just do not believe in the ideology of a
military. So, therefore, they rob students of the privilege of hearing
about the opportunities available in the Armed Services.
If school board members wish to oppose the military in their private
lives, of course, in this Nation, they have the freedom to do so.
Ironically, they have that freedom because men and women, of course,
have served in the military and have sacrificed their lives for
Americans to have this freedom. But to impose their personal ideology,
their views, on a federally-funded public school is not right.
The Washington Times, on May 29 this year, reported about a
resolution passed by the San Francisco Unified School District during
the height, during the height of the Persian Gulf War, while our men
and women were putting their lives at risk. It said, ``Unbridled
military spending in the last 40 years has, in large part, been
responsible for the growing national debt and for inadequate spending
on education and other necessary social services.'' This resolution was
coupled with the school board's determination to deny the military all
access to their school campuses or student lists. School board members
should take their views to the polls, not restrict access to public
schools by our military recruiters.
The United States Navy missed its recruiting goal by nearly 7,000
sailors in 1998, forcing many ships to be deployed understaffed. In
response, the Navy's leadership decided in 1999 to accept a higher
percentage of recruits without high school diplomas. That same year,
both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force also missed their recruiting
goals.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the policy expressed in the
amendment, and we would accept the amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. I appreciate the Chairman's acceptance. If I could, Mr.
Chairman, I just would like to finish my statement. How much time do I
have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are informed by the Secretary of Education
that they have no intention of trying to prevent this kind of activity.
In fact, the Secretary indicates he sent a letter urging them to
emphasize the value of military service as a post high school option.
So, since it does not really do anything that I know of, I have no
problem with accepting it.
Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues,
and I conclude by saying that we should support our military tonight.
My amendment helps them to gain access so that they have the
opportunity to get future soldiers.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment says that none of the funds in
this appropriation can be used for implementing a uniform medical
identifier. It is a privacy amendment. It was in the bill in 1998 and
1999. I think it would be a good idea to have it in this year's bill.
This comes from authority granted in the Health Insurance Portability
Act of 1996 and it was designed to establish a medical data bank. But
because many, on both sides of the aisle, have objected to this
invasion of privacy to set up a medical data bank, there has been some
resistance to this. Although the removal of the authority would be the
proper way to solve this problem once and for all, I think that it
would be very appropriate to continue the policy of not permitting any
Federal funding to be spent on developing this universal medical
identifier, which by all indications would be our Social Security
numbers.
Many people object to this invasion of privacy. They do not place
full trust in the U.S. Congress and in the U.S. Government to protect
our privacy. Many say that this would not be an invasion of privacy and
there would be some strict rules and regulations about how this medical
information would be used, but that is not enough reassurance.
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues that this form of invasion
of our medical privacy will not serve us well in medical care. What it
leads to is incomplete and inaccurate medical records, because it
becomes known to the patient as well as the physician that once this
information is accumulated that it might get in the hands of the
politicians and used for reasons other than for medical care, I think,
it could damage medical care endangered from having a medical data bank
set up.
The American people have spoken out strongly in recent years about
their invasion of privacy. There was a proposal to implement a know-
your-customer bank regulations. These were soundly rejected by the
people, and I think that this same sentiment applies to the medical
data bank. Also, efforts to establish a national identification card
for the American people has not met with a great deal of acceptance
with the American people.
So my effort here in limiting this development of a universal medical
identifier is to keep the Federal Government out of this business. It
is too easy for abuse of this type of information to occur. We have
heard that the various administrations over the years have abused
records kept in the IRS as well as the FBI. This would just be another
source of information that individuals could use in a negative fashion.
I believe it is a fallacy for those who promote the setting up of a
universal medical identifier and a universal medical data bank that it
is an effort to simplify the process, to streamline the system, to make
government more efficient, to facilitate medical research. It has also
been said this could be used in law enforcement. But just think about
this. If these records can be turned over without the approval of the
patient to law enforcement, it really, quite clearly, is a violation of
the fifth amendment of self-incrimination. So this idea that this
medical bank might be beneficial for law enforcement is rather scary
and something that we should prevent.
Already, under authority that was given to Health and Human Services,
they have started to draw up regulations which regulate privacy
matters, not so much the medical data bank but in other areas. The
other thing that concerns me a great deal is these medical regulations
that have been proposed not only deal with the privacy of somebody that
may be receiving medical care from Medicare but also in the private
sector.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the policy of this amendment

[[Page H4286]]

also, and we would be happy to accept the amendment
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to accept the amendment
on this side of the aisle. I think the gentleman is correct.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in
a colloquy with my colleague from Illinois.
Both the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, and the gentleman from Illinois have been tremendous
supporters of the asthma programs under the CDC Chronic and
Environmental Disease Prevention program. Members on both sides of the
aisle have agreed that this program is critical in addressing the
increases in asthma amongst children. Under the subcommittee's
leadership last year, we were able to provide an increase of $10
million to this program. This year the total CDC Chronic and
Environmental Disease budget was approved for an increase of over $21
million, bringing its overall total to $317 million. While this
commitment is a wonderful step in the right direction, it is my hope
that the subcommittee will continue its work in conference to assure
that increases for asthma control and prevention are continued.
Asthma rates are rising dramatically across this country in all
populations. Tragically, our children, in fact, are affected the most.
Between 1980 and 1994, the rate of asthma incidence rose by 160 percent
for children under 4 years of age. Across the Nation, 17 million
Americans, 5 million of them children, are afflicted with asthma. As an
asthmatic myself, I can assure my colleagues that prevention programs
are vital. They teach asthmatics as well as their families how to
develop strategies within the home to reduce allergens, as well as to
treat the disease of asthma.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman
from Illinois to the CDC and its programs regarding asthma control, and
it is my hope that the gentleman will continue to work throughout this
legislative process to ensure that the issue is provided additional
funding in the final bill.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I know it is the gentleman's last year
in this body, and I want to thank him for all of his hard work. He has
been critical to our Nation's health programs, and I know that all of
our Members widely regard the gentleman as just having been a great
champion for the NIH and for so many important areas. There are few
Members who have worked so hard on areas of critical concern, like our
health care system, and the gentleman has been terrific.
I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), for his efforts in his position as ranking member on the
Committee on Appropriations. He has also attended to our national
health programs with the utmost of integrity, and I want to thank the
both of them for showing what it means to be both good appropriators as
well as supporters of essential health programs.
Mr. PORTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the
gentleman from Rhode Island for his very kind words.
We have agreed in the subcommittee that the increased prevalence of
asthma is of great concern. My sister is a sufferer from asthma. She is
in the hospital right at this time.
As the gentleman mentioned, last year we increased the CDC Chronic
and Environmental Disease program by $10 million. We have provided an
additional $21 million this year for all programs in this account. The
gentleman can be sure that we will do our best through the remainder of
the process and within budget constraints of the bill to increase
funding for asthma control programs.
I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from Rhode Island on
this issue.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I want to thank him and wish his sister a speedy
recovery.

{time} 1830

Part B Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B Amendment printed in House Report 106-657 offered by
Mrs. Wilson:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. 518. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Occupational Safety and Health Administration--salaries and
expenses'', and increasing the amount made available for
``higher education'', by $25,000,000, to be used to carry out
the 21st Century Teaching Scholarships Act, if such
legislation is enacted.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have at the desk and that I am
offering today launches a G.I. bill for teachers.
I recognize that some may oppose this amendment today for procedural
reasons and others for ideological reasons, but I believe it is very
important for this country to lower our voices and to raise our sights
with respect to public education and to embrace the greatest challenge
that we face in the 21st century. And I believe that that is public
education.
I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for bringing
forward a bill that does increase funds for education. While I realize
that there are still disagreements on details and on programs, this
bill does include an almost 10 percent increase in education in the
bill, and I support additional increases as we go on.
But I do not think that we can do things the same old way and expect
different results. We know that we are going to have a shortage in this
country of 2 million teachers that we will need to hirer over the next
decade. I believe we need to get the best and the brightest we possibly
can and get them, train them, and put them in the classroom. I would
like to start this year.
I introduced a bill earlier this year which I call the GI Bill for
Teachers. It is much larger than the amendment that I am offering
today, but I would like to get a start.
The amendment that I am offering today would take $25 million to
start this GI Bill for Teachers. It would provide scholarships of
$10,000 a year for full-time students, $5,000 a year for part-time
students. Students who would be eligible include high school graduates,
as well as certified teachers; and those scholarships would be
available for up to 5 years for each student.
The idea is that teachers would give back 2 years in the classroom
for every year that they are on full-time scholarship, or 1 year given
back in service for every year that they are in a turnaround school, a
school that has been identified by the State as one that needs to
improve its performance for its students.
The scholarship program gives the money to the States based on
student population, and it has the States set up selection boards and
those selections would be based on merit.
It also allows States to set up up to 35 percent of the value of the
scholarship to recruit teachers into critical-shortage areas so States
like my own that are short of bilingual teachers or short of secondary
school teachers in mathematics and science could set that as a special
area of concern and try to recruit young people who are the best and
the brightest to teach in those areas.
This is only a beginning. It would create 2,500 scholarships for
young people who are committed to the profession of teaching or even
for teaching assistants who want to go back to

[[Page H4287]]

school and get that degree to become a teacher in the classroom.
I believe we have much work to be done over the next decades to
improve America's public schools, and I am very happy to be part of
initiating a program like this to get started.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the program that
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) seeks to promote. The
problem is that the bill itself to which you would offer this amendment
eliminates the guarantee that we will continue on the road to produce
100,000 new teachers in the classroom, an initiative which the
President began 3 years ago.
Under the bill before us, that program guarantee would be eliminated
because that program is tossed into a block grant and those funds could
be gobbled up for other purposes.
Under the President's proposal, which this committee walks away from,
the gentlewoman's own State will receive over $14 million to assure the
placement of additional teachers in the classroom.
In contrast, this proposal, laudable though it is, would, as I
understand the impact of the bill, produce only about $175,000 in
funding for the home State of the gentlewoman.
But a more serious problem is that, while the amendment itself in
terms of what it would add would do no harm, what it would cut
certainly would. There are a lot of people who work in a lot of places
in this country who do not worry about fancy slogans like moving into
21st century learning and living in a 21st century modern world; they
simply worry about getting through the day without getting hurt. And if
you take a look at what this amendment does, it funds this laudable
program by a whopping $25 million out of OSHA.
OSHA is the agency charged with the responsibility to protect
workers' health and safety. Right now it has only one inspector for
every 3,100 businesses. Of the 13,000 most dangerous non-construction
workplaces in this country, OSHA was able to inspect less than 2,200
last year.
So it seems to me that the amendment of the gentlewoman, while
laudable in terms of what it adds, is extremely troublesome in terms of
where it gets the money; and I would say that, for that reason alone,
the committee ought to turn it down.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just add two things to my support of this
amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct that this
does have an offset, which is required in order for an amendment to be
in order on the floor. But that offset only reduces the general
accounts, salaries and benefits accounts, of the OSHA administration by
about 5 percent.
I am one of those who believes in safety in the workplace. But I also
do not believe that we can inspect Quality Inn. And I think there is a
distinct approach that is possible with respect to occupational safety
and health and that this really is a rather modest reduction with
respect to OSHA.
But with respect to his other point about 100,000 teachers to the
classroom, we may have differences about how to administer funds, but I
think we need to be fair that we are not talking about whether to
increase funds for education.
I actually fully expect to support additional increases in funds for
education, and that is why I got into public life is because of a
concern about public education. But I have to say I would rather that
those decisions be made by somebody who knows my son's name, and I
would rather that my local school district have the authority to decide
whether we are going to go to full-day kindergarten or whether we are
going to have smaller kindergarten classes and be able to make those
decisions even school by school, classroom by classroom.
That is the distinction between the sides of the aisle here. I can
support a lot greater increases in funds for education. I just want to
make sure that the quality is there and that the accountability is
there and that the decisions are made at a local level.
I ask for my colleagues' support for this critical teacher-training
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, again let me say that I am perfectly willing to work
with the gentlewoman to try to find funding for the program that she is
talking about. But when she describes this cutback in OSHA funding as a
modest reduction, I would simply say, tell that to the families of the
48 workers in New Mexico who were killed last year in occupational
fatalities, tell that to the 30,000 people in her State who were
injured last year, tell that to the 65 workers in her State who
suffered amputations last year.
And I would also note that in her home State, on average, it takes 76
years for OSHA to get around to being able to inspect all of the plants
in that State. And nationally, that bleak picture is much the same.
Over 6,000 occupational deaths last year; almost 5 million occupational
injuries.
I do not think if you sweat 40 hours a week to earn a living for your
family that you would regard a $25 million cut in the budget that
protects your health, safety, and your very life as a modest reduction.
For some individuals, it would literally be a life-or-death decision. I
urge rejection of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Andrews:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title), the following new section:
Sec. 518. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make
payments to a Medicare+Choice organization offering a
Medicare+Choice plan with respect to which the Secretary
finds the organization to be out of compliance with
requirements of part C of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act pursuant to an audit conducted under section 1857(d) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27(d)).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in 1997, this House enacted the Medicare+Choice
Program. The idea was to give some senior citizens the ability to get
extended benefits under Medicare, including prescription drugs, by
enrolling in managed care plans.
There were advertisements in newspapers and on televisions across the
country advertising zero premiums and very cheap premiums, and millions
of senior citizens across the country flocked into the program. In my
area, it is estimated that 35,000 Medicare recipients flocked to the
program.
The law provided for the first 2 years of the program a substantial
Federal subsidy to the Medicare+Choice Program. That subsidy evaporated
at the beginning of this calendar year. As a result of that, on January
1, 2000, senior citizen enrollees in this program across the country
received significant increases in their premiums.
For example, in the part of New Jersey that I represent, people who
were paying nothing or $10 a month saw their premiums skyrocket to $85
dollars or $100 or $120 a month. This is a serious problem.
The way to address it is for us to bring to the floor of this body
legislation that would create for the first time a real and meaningful
and comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
While we await that hopeful action, there is some repair work that I
believe needs to be done on Medicare+Choice.

[[Page H4288]]

In my region, we have the indefensible situation where constituents
are paying $120 a month in premiums for the same benefit under the same
program where people who are literally a mile away living across the
river in Pennsylvania are paying $15 or $20 or $25.
Now, Mr. Chairman, they are living in the same regional economy. They
pay the same hospital costs. They pay the same prescription drug costs.
But the difference of ZIP code separates this price increase and
imposes upon my constituents in southern New Jersey a price increase
that is substantially higher than that of our neighbors.
Earlier this year, I spoke, Mr. Chairman, to the leadership of the
Health Care Financing Administration and asked them, as they have under
statutory authority, to conduct an audit to determine whether the
managed care plans in southern New Jersey are charging the appropriate
rates under this program. It has been represented to me by the
leadership of the Health Care Financing Administration that this audit
will be done in an expeditious fashion.
But I am concerned. The contracts for calendar year 2001 must be
renewed this year by September 1, 2000. It is imperative that these
audits be finished in a fashion so that adjustments can be made and
contracts can be properly renegotiated so these premium increases can
be rolled back in time for the September 1, 2000, contract deadline.

{time} 1845

The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to require that these
audits be done in a timely fashion so that the results can have a
bearing and a significance on the contracts for the new year in
calendar 2001.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of cooperation to
withdraw the amendment, but I would like to yield to the gentleman from
Illinois so that I can hear his comments on it.
Mr. PORTER. If I may claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois may
claim the time in opposition.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would have to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.
I know the gentleman is trying to make a point with this amendment and
it is a valid point, but I do not think this is the right way to do it.
If I understand the amendment correctly, it would shut down any
Medicare+Choice health plan in the country for any reason a plan is not
in compliance with an audit performed by the Department. This could be
something as minor as using an incorrect calculation. I do not think
the gentleman intends to start shutting down plans and leaving senior
citizens without access to health care, so I would ask the gentleman if
he would withdraw the amendment. I would work with him to make this a
priority for HCFA and the Inspector General who is actually doing an
audit of the plan the gentleman has concerns about right now.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is
certainly my intention to accede to his request. If I may just say,
there is an audit ongoing by both HCFA and the IG at this time. My
interest is in expediting the completion of that audit. I would ask for
the chairman's, the ranking member's, and the committee's cooperation
in impressing upon HCFA the importance of an expeditious completion of
the audit.
Mr. PORTER. We will work with the gentleman in that regard.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 191 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 191 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. 518. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the aggregate amount made available for
``Occupational Safety and Health Administration--salaries and
expenses'' , by reducing the aggregate amount made available
for ``education for the disadvantaged'', by reducing the
amount made available under the penultimate proviso (relating
to section 1002(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965) under the heading ``education for the
disadvantaged'', by reducing the amount made available under
title III for ``Departmental Management--program
administration'', and by increasing the aggregate amount made
available for ``special education'', which increase shall be
available for carrying out part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, by $5,000,000, $20,000,000,
$20,000,000, $5,000,000, and $30,000,000, respectively.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today on the floor of the House we have had a number of amendments
offered on the same issue. This issue, of course, is the transferring
of funds from someplace in this bill to IDEA, or the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act. They have been uniformly turned down by our
Members at the point in time on which they were voted, so I recognize
full well that I am here in a way perhaps as a beau geste. I believe so
strongly that we should be reorganizing our priorities in this
particular bill that I feel it is worth the effort to once again bring
it to the attention of my colleagues. However, I would also say, Mr.
Chairman, that I intend to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment at the appropriate time.
While Congress over the last 5 years under the leadership of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) increased the Federal share of IDEA to 12.6
percent, we have much further to go to reach the promised 40 percent.
That is why I was so disappointed to see the underlying bill, the bill
which we are debating here, includes only a $5.5 billion appropriation
for special education grants to State programs, only a $500 million
increase over last year's level.
While I commend the House Committee on Appropriations for increasing
the program, it is well short of the over $16 billion level needed to
reach the full 40 percent promised to States and localities and less
than the $2 billion increase promised in the budget resolution. The
lack of adequate funding for special education in H.R. 4577 comes even
as the bill increases funding for many education programs which are
inefficient and have yet to produce reliable results.
It is for this reason that I and many of my colleagues come down to
the floor today to offer the amendments to increase funding for special
education which should be our first priority in the education part of
this bill.
Today, I offer this amendment to increase IDEA funding by $30 million
by reducing funding for the comprehensive school reform program by $20
million, for OSHA by $5 million, and for the Department of Education
administration by $5 million. The amendment does not cut the
comprehensive school reform program, it merely reduces the funding
increase in the current bill and transfers that extra funding to
special education.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am almost as concerned
about this constant attempt, or not just attempt but accomplished fact
of appropriating money to unauthorized programs where now we are up to
over $200 billion a year. So it does call into question the need for
authorizing committees in the first place, that is for sure, and once
you recognize that this is another one of those programs, the
comprehensive school reform program, it may be a wonderful program, we
have never authorized this program, never from its inception. We have
not the slightest idea how this program really is supposed to work
against anything else. There are no rules and regulations that really
the Department can operate on to determine whether or not it is doing
well. It is now appropriated

[[Page H4289]]

at about $170 million. That is what it is going to be in this year. It
is an extremely expensive program, again, never authorized. And so we
do withdraw $20 million in funding just bringing it down to last year's
level.
The program was authorized at $145 million per year to help low-
performing schools raise student achievement by adopting research-
based, schoolwide approaches. It is important to remember that under
the schoolwide program approach of title I, schools with 50 percent or
more poverty can use their regular title I funds to serve all students
in the school and to change the whole school. But rather than debate
all the different places from which this money is taken, I want to
concentrate on the need for the Congress of the United States to live
up to the commitment it made to the people of the United States when it
enacted the first special education laws, because that is really where
we should be focusing our attention.
That was the mandate. We tell every State in the Nation what they
must do and how they must do it. And it is an extraordinarily expensive
undertaking for them that drains money away from other very important
programs. And so I suppose I will be here as often as I can to make the
case for us to live up to the commitment in special education, even if
it means reducing our commitment to these other programs which have in
the past shown absolutely no improvement.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment which
would cost $20 million in funding in the bill for the Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration Program.
Funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Program is authorized
under the title 1 demonstration program (section 1002) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition, the program has
been included in bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate
Education Committees to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
I would like to insert at this point in the Record some preliminary
findings of the Department of Education--data on early CSRD
implementation from the national longitudinal survey of schools--on the
first year of implementation of the comprehensive school reform
program. This program is beginning to accomplish significant results in
schools in Wisconsin and in other States across the country.

[Memo]

To: Honorable David Obey.
From: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of
Education.
Re: Data on Early CSRD Implementation from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Schools.
Date: June 12, 2000.

This memo provides information on the early implementation
of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD)
program. The following is a compilation of preliminary
results from the first year administration of the National
Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS). The NLSS was
administered in Spring 1999 to a nationally representative
sample of Title I schools as well as to a sample of
approximately 300 Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
(CSRD) schools that received grants under this program
between July 1998 and mid-February 1999. The Title I school
sample serves as a useful comparison group to the CSRD
schools.
The NLSS is collecting, for three years, information on
school-level implementation of standards-based reform and
Title I. Principals and up to six teachers in each school are
surveyed. The surveys address topics such as awareness and
understanding of standards, selection and implementation of
externally-developed models, Title I services, parent
involvement and professional development.
These data are taken from a draft report prepared by RAND,
``Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) Schools:
Early Findings on Implementation,'' based on the first year
of the NLSS. The draft report is currently circulating for
review within the U.S. Department of Education and is
expected to be formally released to Congress this summer. The
data cited below highlight comparisons of CSRD and Title I
schools:

school and student characteristics

Overall, CSRD schools are comparable to Title I schools as
to the grade levels served and size. However, CSRD appears to
be serving higher poverty schools with larger minority
populations. CSRD serves a mix of urban (50 percent),
suburban (15 percent) and rural (35 percent) schools, but are
more likely than Title I schools to be located in urban
areas.
CSRD is more focused on turning around low-performing
schools. CSRD schools (42 percent) are more likely than Title
I schools to be identified as in need of improvement (10
percent). In general, CSRD schools in the sample had been
identified as in need of improvement longer than Title I
schools identified for improvement in the sample.
CSRD is more targeted than Title I towards higher poverty
schools. In about 96 percent of CSRD schools, at least half
or more of students receive free/reduced price lunch. In
contrast, about 53 percent of Title I schools have half or
more students receiving free/reduced price lunch.
CSRD schools are serving schools with a higher
concentration of minority students. Compared with 20 percent
of Title I schools, in well over half of CSRD schools between
75-100% of students are minority.
CSRD schools are serving substantial numbers of special
education students. Virtually all CSRD schools in the sample
have special education students. In 68 percent of CSRD
schools at least 10 percent of the student population have
Individual Education Plan (IEPs).

Adoption of Externally-Developed Models

One of the goals of the CSRD program is to help facilitate
the adoption and implementation of research-based models in
Title I schools. According to the NLSS, in 1998-99, about 31
percent of Title I schools overall reported that they have
adopted research-based models. This baseline figure will be
tracked by the NLSS over the next three year to examine the
extent that CSRD may be catalyst for reform in Title I
schools overall.
CSRD schools are more focused than Title I schools on
research evidence. CSRD schools are more likely than Title I
schools to report that the research evidence (95 percent
compared to 88 percent) and improved student performance in
similar schools (95 percent compared to 85 percent) was an
important factor that influenced their choice of models.
Faithful implementation to a model design is often cited as
a key issue for model effectiveness. According to the NLSS,
significantly fewer (8 percent) CSRD schools reporting
adopting just parts of models compared with Title I schools
(22 percent). Fewer Title I schools than CSRD schools
reported implementing models strictly without adaptations.
CSRD schools are receiving more assistance from model
developers. 96 percent of the CSRD principals, compared with
82 percent of principals in Title I schools implementing
models reported that their staff received professional
development or assistance implementing their chosen model. In
80 percent of the CSRD schools, compared with only 52 percent
of Title I schools, assistance was provided by the model
developer.
Teacher buy-in is also considered a key need in
implementing reform. In 80 percent of CSRD schools compared
with 53 percent of Title I schools implementing models,
teachers voted on the adoption of the model.

Leveraging Title I Services

The NLSS seems to indicate that CSRD may be helping to
leverage Title I funds in ways that support the priorities of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For
example:
CSRD schools are more likely to support extended learning
time. Nearly 70 percent of CSRD schools report having before
and after school programs, compared with 52 percent of Title
I schools and 53 percent of Title I schoolwides. CSRD schools
are more likely than Title I schools to have summer school,
extended year, and weekend programs.
Improving parent involvement is more of a focus in CSRD
schools. CSRD schools in general were much more likely to
report parent services programs supported with Title I than
Title I schools. About 80 percent of CSRD principals reported
parent training, 72 percent had a parent liaison, and 40
percent had a family literacy program. This was compared to
61, 54 and 29 percent respectively in Title I schools.
Minimizing pullouts. The percentage of Title I schoolwide
elementary schools offering pull out services (57 percent) is
higher than of CSRD elementary schools (45 percent).
Use of teacher aides. Overall, far fewer CSRD school
principals reported using teacher aides to provide Title I
instructional services in reading and math (66 percent)
compared with schoolwide or all Title I principals (81 and 83
percent respectively).
Coordination of funds. In general, CSRD schoolwide
principals were more like than Title I schoolwide principals
to report greater integration of funds. Fewer CSRD
schoolwides than Title I schoolwides reported challenges to
coordinating federal resources with other funding sources.
For example, in citing barriers, 55 percent of Title I
schoolwide principals said they were unsure of what was
allowed in combining funds compared to 38 percent of CSRD
schoolwide principals.

Professional Development

Professional development priorities. CSRD school principals
were more likely to report that their school improvement plan
and standards (70 percent) were important for determining
professional development activities (55 percent in Title I
schools).
Sustained professional development. CSRD teachers were more
likely than Title I teachers to report that their
professional development activities in the areas of
instruction, strategies to help low-achieving students, and
other professional development activities were sustained and
ongoing.

parent involvement

Sharing information. CSRD schools are more likely than
Title I schools to share documents, including school
performance profiles with parents; provide homework hotlines
to parents; and ask all parents to participate in a school-
parent compact.

[[Page H4290]]

Support services. On the whole, CSRD schools resemble
schoolwide Title I schools with respect to parent involvement
strategies with one exception--a far higher number of CSRD
schools provide social support services to parents.
Parent involvement strategies. CSRD teachers were more
likely than Title I school teachers to report using certain
parent involvement strategies such as home visits (20 percent
to 15 percent), showing parents models of successful work (82
to 75 percent), and initiating phone calls to parents (74 to
69 percent).

concerns

The comparative data between Title I and CSRD schools does
raise some concerns, particularly in the area of expectations
of students and use of technology. Some of these differences
may be due to the significantly more targeted use of CSRD
funds in high-poverty and low-performing schools. Recall that
CSRD schools are more likely to be identified for improvement
under Title I than Title I schools in general (42 percent
compared with 10 percent) and significantly higher poverty
(86 percent high-poverty CSRD schools compared to 53 percent
high-poverty Title I schools).
CSRD school principals are more likely than Title I
schoolwide or Title I principals in general to report that
standards are too rigorous for most of their students (14
percent compared with 7 percent). Twenty-two percent of
teachers in CSRD schools report that standards and
assessments are too hard for most of their students.
The student to computer ratio in CSRD schools is 10:1
compared to 8:1 in Title I schoolwides. Sixteen percent of
teachers in high-poverty Title I schools report that their
students use computers daily, compared with 6 percent of
teachers in CSRD schools.
CSRD principals were more likely to report barriers in
using technology that principals in Title I schools. For
example, 70 percent of CSRD principals reported lack of staff
or inadequate training was a barrier to use of technology in
their schools, compared to only 45 percent of Title I
schoolwide school principals.
Additional findings will be available after completion of
the internal review of the NLSS report on first year CSRD
findings.
____

State Education Administrators View CSRD as Helping Strengthen the
Quality of Schools' Title I Schoolwide Programs

colorado

The State of Colorado has been witness to the positive
effects that CSRD has on student achievement. The response to
this demonstration program has been enthusiastic from the
local and state levels.''--Brooke Fitchett, Consultant,
Colorado Department of Education.

maine

``The current eleven CSRD schools are making great strides
and serving as important role models for Maine's secondary
education reform initiative Promising Futures; A Call to
Improve Learning for Maine's Secondary Students.''--Susan
Johnson, CSRD Program Coordinator, Maine Department of
Education.

montana

``Montana is not the sort of place that usually comes to
mind in connection with ``schoolwide restructuring.'' It has
a lot of rural, one-school districts, a lot of places where
there are more members on the school board than students. The
state has low-performing schools most of them on or near
Indian reservations. Many of these schools face not only the
usual problems associated with poverty, but also those
associated with isolation. They tend to have a lot of staff
turnover; one district that obtained a CSRD grant had had
seven superintendents in five years.
We saw [CSRD] as a wonderful chance to bring more resources
to the schools with the highest rates of poverty. . . . Five
of the six schools are elementary schools; one is a rural
high school. Four are located on reservations, and all have
high percentages of Native American children.
The awards, which ranged from $50,000 to $147,000, were
made in July and October 1999, but the effects are already
obvious. More administrators stayed put this fall, for one
thing.
Bringing members of the community in to see what their
school is doing had tremendous positive impact. It's
developed school-based leadership; made people in the
community feel they have a stake in the plan.
Schools have given teachers more planning time, and forged
new relationships with tribal colleges, other higher
education institutions and the state education agency. Within
the state agency, there is more collaboration among program
offices, and there is a greater understanding of school
programs at the state level as a result of CSRD.''--Ron
Lukenbill, Title I Specialist, Montana Department of
Education.

OHIO

``In the past two years, the CSRD program has helped
eighty-seven schools in thirty-nine Ohio school districts to
improve the quality of their educational programming. This
important resource has not only enabled school buildings to
implement professional practices to address individual
building needs, but also strengthened the connection between
single buildings and districts in an effort to maximize the
impact of their reform efforts. We hope to use future CSRD
funds to strengthen the foundation we have built, and better
serve even larger numbers of students and schools.''--Frank
Schiraldi, Associate Director, Comprehensive School
Improvement, Ohio Department of Education.
``. . .ODE anticipates that CSRD will become the
centerpiece of comprehensive school reform in Ohio.''--from
State of Ohio Revised Application for Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration Program.

OREGON

``CSRD has served as a model for an intensive, in-depth
school improvement planning process. Oregon is electing to
use this same model to strengthen the Title I Schoolwide
Program planning process throughout the state, and to provide
a vehicle for change in schools that are in Title I school
improvement status. In order to effectively design a
coherent, cohesive process for these schools that is closely
aligned to CSRD, Oregon has submitted a Consolidated State
Plan amendment for the FY2000 Appropriation for Title I
School Improvement. Oregon proposes to combine these funds
with FY2000 CSRD funds. In this way, more low-performing
schools will be eligible to engage in a common school
improvement effort with the same support system in place.''--
Chris Rhines, Education Program Specialist, Office of Student
Services, Title I, Oregon Department of Education.

UTAH

``The interest of Utah schools in the Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration program was high initially and has
continued to grow in the last two years. . .each year the
quality of the CSRD plans has improved and the grant
competition has become more competitive.''--Sandra Johnson,
Title I Coordinator, and Nancy Casillas, Title I and CSRD
Specialist, Utah Department of Education.

WISCONSIN

``Wisconsin's [CSRD] program has sparked an incredible
amount of interest and energy for improving Wisconsin's
schools. The legislation aligns well with our school
improvement framework. For example, the legislation allows
schools the flexibility to identify their needs and goals,
and then select a reform design based on research that
addresses those needs and goals.
``Also, the legislation focuses on schools with the
greatest needs, such as our Title I schools; encourages a
balance between our rural and urban schools, as well as
between elementary and secondary school levels; and promotes
a focus on Wisconsin's Model Academic Standards.
``These reform efforts in Wisconsin are not top-down
mandates, but rather have been effectively initiated as a
collaborative effort between teachers, administrators, and
parents. We have seen schools reenergize; students have begun
to achieve in the core academic subjects; a common vision and
purpose developed within schools; a restructuring of
professional development for school staff; and parents and
communities involved.''--Scott Jones, Director of School
Improvement, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

Excerpts from ECS Publication entitled Comprehensive School Reform:
Five Lessons From the Field, December 1999

``Comprehensive school reform is not just another school
improvement strategy--it is a significant leap forward in
reforming today's public schools. Comprehensive school reform
addresses all students, all academic subjects and all
teachers. When done well, a school is overhauled from top to
bottom. Adding one program on top of another is thrown out in
favor of the much more difficult work of reorganizing
schools, targeting professional development for teachers and
principals, changing curriculum and making tough budget
decisions.
``In short, comprehensive school reform transforms the way
a school functions to accomplish one goal: improved student
achievement for all students. Comprehensive school reform is
a breakthrough that allows schools, districts and states to
move beyond finger pointing and blame to real improvements in
student learning. Implementing this reform strategy is not
easy, however. There is nothing tougher than spending money
differently, sticking with an approach long enough to see
results, and overcoming turf battles along the way.''

Wisconsin CSRD Evaluation Findings

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction's evaluation
of the first year of CSRD implementation concluded that
students in CSRD schools made notable gains on the Wisconsin
Student Assessment System (WSAS). At the fourth grade level,
students in CSRD schools improved slightly in reading and
made large improvements in language arts, math, science and
social studies. The percentage increases of the CSRD schools
exceeded those of Wisconsin schools as a whole in all of the
subjects except language arts.

CSRD Schools and the AIR Study

Approximately 369 schools, or 21% of CSRD schools, are
using a model rated strong by the AIR study of comprehensive
school reform models.
Approximately 531 schools, or 30% of CSRD schools, are
using a model rated either strong or promising by the AIR
study of comprehensive school reform models.

[[Page H4291]]

States Are Using the CSRD Framework To Strengthen Their Work With
Schoolwide Programs and Low-Performing Schools

Oregon plans to integrate CSRD funds, Title I
Accountability funds and state improvement funds in a reform
effort based on the CSRD framework.
Virginia is using the CSRD framework to support low-
performing schools through the Governor's Best Practice
Centers.
California has integrated the CSRD program into the state's
new accountability initiative. Schools identified for
immediate intervention are eligible to compete for a CSRD
grant this year or receive a planning grant using state
dollars.
In Idaho and Utah, private foundations are providing
significant resources to schools to implement comprehensive
reform efforts, using the basic criteria from CSRD.

Appendix A.--CSRD Schools Serve Special Education Students as a Part of
Their Efforts to Improve Teaching and Learning for All Students in the
School

Blackstone Primary School, Blackstone, Virginia

Blackstone Primary is an elementary school located in
Nottoway County, Virginia, a small rural school district.
Blackstone, a Title I schoolwide program, serves
approximately 500 students in grades Pre-K to 4. Sixty-three
percent of students are eligible to receive free lunch. The
school population tends to be stable. The school has recently
undergone a major facility renovation.
Blackstone was among the highest achieving schools in the
state on the 1999 Virginia Standards of Learning assessments.
On the grade three test, over 70% of students passed all four
tests (English, math, science and social studies). Based on
this level of achievement, Blackstone was one of a small
percentage of schools that qualified for full state
accreditation. The leadership of the school, however, knows
there is still room for improvement. ``We want them all'' to
pass is the school's goal.
Identified as a school in need of improvement under Title I
in the past, Blackstone has been instituting reforms for the
last eight years. From the time that Mrs. Horn became
principal, the staff became involved in finding new programs
that would result in increased student achievement. Support
has steadily grown. Data-driven decision making and a
rigorous focus on literacy are the key themes at Blackstone
Primary. The implementation of the Onward to Excellence II
reform model, supported by a grant from the Comprehensive
School Reform Demonstration program, is assisting the school
in these efforts. The whole staff is involved in the data
collection and analysis process. Data is collected on
achievement, discipline, attendance and teaching experience
and is disaggregated by student, teacher, gender, free lunch
and race, Priorities and goals for the school, along with
strategies to reach them, are based on this information.
Individualized strategies are also planned for students not
making adequate progress.
The literacy program at Blackstone is based on instilling
in children a love of reading and a belief that they can
succeed as readers. Students are constantly assessed on their
reading level, and every child knows exactly what his or her
reading level is. Parents understand and are involved in the
leveling system. The school also has an incentive system to
reward students based on the books they have read.
Fourteen percent of students at Blackstone have
individualized education plans to receive special education
services. The school operates under an inclusion model. With
the exception of one kindergarten class, there are no self-
contained special education classes. The philosophy of
Blackstone is to have one set of expectations for all
students, including special education, and the school is
committed to including special education students in testing
where appropriate. On the 1999 Standard of Learning test, 70%
of third grade special education students were tested.
The educators, administrators, parents and students of
Blackstone Primary have created a true learning community.
Strong leadership and constant assessment of their program
have already shown positive results. Blackstone Primary is
committed to enabling all students to succeed.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 84, after line 21, insert the following section:
Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the Department of Health and Human Services may be used to
grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant to
chapter 18 of title 35, United States Code, except in
accordance with section 209 of such title (relating to the
availability to the public of an invention and its benefits
on reasonable terms).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Baldacci). When I last introduced a version of this amendment in
1996, it received 180 votes. I hope we can win tonight with strong
bipartisan support. This amendment is supported by Families USA, the
National Council of Senior Citizens, and the Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have
contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health
for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has
paid off. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs approved by the
FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by the NIH. Today,
many of the most widely used drugs in this country dealing with a
variety of illnesses were developed through NIH research, and that is
very good news.
The bad news is that, by and large, these drugs which were developed
at taxpayer expense were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with
no assurance that American consumers would not be charged outrageously
high prices.
Mr. Chairman, the pharmaceutical companies constitute the most
profitable industry in this country. Yet while their profits soar,
millions of Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs they
desperately need because of the high prices they are forced to pay. In
fact, Americans pay by far the highest prices for prescription drugs
than the people of any other country on Earth, and many of these drugs
are manufactured right here in the United States and their research was
done through taxpayer dollars.
While there are many reasons for the crisis in prescription drug
costs in this country today, in this amendment I want to focus on one
small part of that problem, and, that is, that it is totally
unacceptable for the taxpayers of this country to provide billions of
dollars through the NIH in research money for the pharmaceutical
industry and get nothing in return in terms of lower prices for the
products that they help to develop.
Mr. Chairman, the reality is that taxpayers spend billions of dollars
for research and development of prescription drugs and they deserve to
get a return on that investment in terms of lower prices.
Let me cite some examples. Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed drug for
breast cancer, received federally funded research, and NIH sponsored
140 clinical trials to test its efficacy. Yet today the pharmaceutical
industry charges women in this country 10 times more than they charge
women in Canada for a drug widely developed with U.S. taxpayer support.
Many, many other drugs were developed with NIH support: Zovirax; AZT,
the primary AIDS drug; Capoten; Platinol. And Prozac, the blockbuster
antidepresant, was made possible by the basic NIH-funded research that
discovered the brain chemical triggering depression. And on and on it
goes.
The reality is, and The New York Times in a front page story made
this point, that much of the drug research in this country comes from
taxpayer support.
Our amendment requires that the NIH abide by current law and ensure
that a company that receives federally owned research or a federally
owned drug provide that product to the American public on reasonable
terms. This is not a new issue. During the Bush administration, the NIH
insisted that cooperative research agreements contain, quote, a
reasonable pricing clause that would protect consumers from exorbitant
prices of products developed from federally funded research. The NIH
several years ago abandoned the clause

[[Page H4292]]

under heavy pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.
While a reasonable pricing clause is not the only device that will
protect the investment that American taxpayers have made in numerous
profitable drugs, this amendment makes clear that Congress will not
stand by while NIH turns over valuable research without some evaluation
that the price charged to consumers will be reasonable as is required
by current law.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I need to know
what amendment he is offering because the amendment we have talks about
licensing, and he has just talked about reasonable pricing. I do not
know which one he is offering.
Mr. SANDERS. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very, very clear.
Mr. Chairman, am I on his time or my own?
Mr. PORTER. The gentleman is still on his at the moment.
Mr. SANDERS. Why does the gentleman not take his own time, if he
would.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me first say a few things. First, this amendment has gone through
about four different iterations, and we are not quite sure which one
the gentleman is offering. I have the one in front of me dealing with
licensing. That is the correct one.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is
correct.
Mr. PORTER. First, I understand the point the gentleman is trying to
make. I think the amendment misses the mark. First of all, let me say
that we have this wonderful synergy in our country where a great deal
of the basic research which provides the foundation for applied
research is done through NIH grants and we build this body of knowledge
and then our pharmaceutical industry and our biotech industry build on
that knowledge to develop products that they take to market. I think
that that is a wonderful system that does more to develop the kinds of
drugs that help eliminate disease or prevent it than any other place in
the world. But what the gentleman's amendment attempts to do, and if I
can read it, I would read it this way, it says, ``None of the funds
made available in this Act for the National Institutes of Health may be
used to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant
to,'' et cetera, dealing with the licensing of drugs.
The funds that NIH makes for grants are never involved in licensing
operations. The licensing is done by the institution subsequent to the
completion of the grant. So that while the gentleman, if this amendment
passed, might think he is accomplishing something, I believe that the
amendment as written would not hit the mark he is trying to hit. I
think under those circumstances, and I know how hard it is to fashion
an amendment that is in order on this subject under this bill, but this
is really an authorizing matter that the gentleman really ought to
address in an authorizing forum and not on an appropriations bill.

{time} 1900

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) for his thoughts, but I respectfully disagree. And here is the
bottom line: the bottom line is that as a result of taxpayer-funded
support, very important and wonderful drugs are developed. But the
problem, Mr. Chairman, is that millions of Americans who paid for the
research to develop those drugs cannot afford the product.
I think it is totally responsible for the United States Government to
say to the private companies we are giving you important research. But
in return, we have to make some guarantees to the public that we are
going to serve the public interests in terms of controlling the prices
that are charged. I think that that is something that the taxpayers of
this country deserve.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what the
gentleman is trying to do. My point is that this amendment does not do
that; that it deals with the grant funds for licensing, and grant funds
are not used for licensing. So the amendment will be ineffectual to
achieve the ends that the gentleman is seeking to attain, in my
judgment; and where this whole discussion belongs is not on an
appropriations bill but on an authorizing bill where that subject is in
order.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PORTER. It is my time, but I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SANDERS. I am sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the gentleman.
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional time?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) has 30 seconds remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) has the right to close and has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
minute and yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will entertain a request to grant
1 minute to each side.
Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, and let me say that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
has been trying to propose an amendment of this purpose for several
years now. But it seems that every time he proposes it, there is just
something wrong with it, that it just is not exactly right.
I do not know about these details about the little loopholes of
intricacies of the writing of the bill, but I do know that the
fundamental principle he is trying to advocate here is right, and, that
is, if a pharmaceutical company takes money from the taxpayers to
develop a new drug, they have taken on the taxpayers as a partner; and
thus they cannot then turn around and exploit the taxpayers and soak
them for all money that they can get out of them because the taxpayer
has paid basically for their research and development.
Research and development is the risk that a company takes, and if we
are going to pay for that risk, the taxpayers should get something back
in return. And fairer prices that are affordable prices is certainly a
reasonable assumption for companies that are taking that money.
By the way, let me note, many pharmaceutical companies do not take
research and development money; and they should have every right to
charge what they want for their product. But in this case, the
principle is absolutely sound, whether you are conservative or a
liberal or a capitalist or a socialist. The fact is that the people
have paid a certain amount of money, they deserve some rights with that
money and protecting the consumer at the same time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) hit it
right on the head and, that is, at a time when millions of Americans
cannot afford the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs, they
need to know that when their tax dollars went to develop these drugs,
that the United States Government is saying to the private drug company
they cannot charge anything they want; that they are going to go
through the NIH, going to negotiate with you for reasonable prices.
This is nothing more than asking for a fair return for the taxpayers
of this country on their investment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), again, I understand what he is talking about, but I think
that it misses the mark. If NIH is working on joint research with a
pharmaceutical company in developing a drug, then clearly the NIH
shares in the royalties or the profits from that drug.

[[Page H4293]]

What the gentleman is talking about is when basic research is done
and then that body of knowledge, which is disseminated to everyone and
available to all sciences, then picked up by the pharmaceutical
industry from which they do research and develop a product that somehow
we ought to somehow measure what that contribution is; and the fact is
that there it is simply adding to a body of knowledge that is available
to all science everywhere. That is the role of NIH research.
This amendment, even if the gentleman's premise was correct, this
amendment will not accomplish what he is seeking to do, and it is the
wrong place. It should be offered on the authorizing legislation
dealing with the subject matter. So I would oppose the amendment and
hope Members would not support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for having some excellent provisions for
giving education a priority.
I understand that an amendment that was going to take money out of
Even Start and put it into IDEA is now not going to be offered, and I
just want to emphasize how important I think that we move ahead with
the concept of Even Start. Even Start brings parents in to make sure
that parents are part of that encouraging effort.
Just briefly, what happened in Michigan, I put in some appropriations
for what we call the HIPY program in Michigan, it is Home Improvement
for Preschool Youth, and that program helps teach parents how to react
to their kids to help their kids do a better job before they went in
school.
What was exciting, it increased the reading comprehension for those
children by 80 percent; but even more significant, it increased the
reading comprehension for the parents by an equal amount. And 60
percent of those parents went on to get their GED.
As we move ahead with Even Start, as we move ahead with Head Start,
it is important that we continue to bring parents into the picture to
be part of that coordinated effort to encourage better education for
their kids.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Obey:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that tax reductions for taxpayers in the top 1 percent of
income levels should not be enacted until the Congress enacts
a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all
Americans under Medicare.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, points of order are
reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to read this amendment: ``It is the sense
of the House of Representatives that tax reductions for taxpayers in
the top 1 percent of income levels should not be enacted until the
Congress enacts a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all
Americans under Medicare.''
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 18 years we have been
digging out from deficits created when Ronald Reagan pushed through a
supine Congress legislation which doubled military spending on borrowed
money and made very large reductions in tax cuts.
And over the past 18 years, we have been desperate to finally work
down these deficits that were built up and this increase in the
national debt that was built up.
And now finally after 18 years of deficits, which gave us an excuse,
a collective institutional excuse to do diddly for millions of
Americans who needed help, we finally have an opportunity to provide
some help. This House passed a number of tax bills in the last 2
months.
First of all, we passed a minimum wage bill that gave $11 billion in
benefits to minimum wage workers; but as a price for passing that, it
included $90 billion in tax cuts for people who made over $300,000 a
year.
They just passed an inheritance bill last week which gave $50 billion
per year when fully operative to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in
this country. I observed at the time if we did not do that, we instead
could provide a universal prescription drug benefit for every single
senior citizen in this country. In fact, we could do it for a lot less
than that cost.
In fact, what we could do, if we did not spend that $50 billion on
these folks, we could provide a universal health coverage for every
single person in this country that does not have it.
Very simply, I would ask one thing. I have held a number of meetings
in my congressional district. I run into senior citizens. I ran into a
person just last Saturday, who spent $24,000 a year on prescription
drugs fighting cancer. I talked to another woman who spent over $6,800
a year. I have talked to doctors who tell me that seniors have to
choose between heating and eating, and that they have known many a
patient who has decided they would cut their dosage in half because
they could not afford to buy their medicine.
Now, this Congress is very good at saying, oh, you should offset your
spending increases. What we are asking you to do today in an amendment
that we can offer, but which we cannot get a vote on, what we are
asking for is to recognize that there are two parts to a budget: what
you recognize in revenue and what you spend in expenditures.
We are asking you for a change like the outside world would, where
you live in reality to put those two pieces of the budget together, and
recognize that what you do on one half has an impact on what you can or
cannot do on the other half.
Now, we cannot under the rules of the House get at that action today;
and so this is, in essence, a symbolic amendment, because we have no
opportunity to offer any other kind. This is a symbolic amendment that
says decide who we ought to put first.
Now that we finally have some surpluses and can start meeting some of
the Nation's challenges again, decide whether the wealthiest 2 percent
of people in this country need that money more than someone who is
living on $16,000 a year on a fixed income. If you have a conscience,
the answer is clear. That is why this amendment, though it will not be
adopted by this House tonight, should be.
It would be a signal that at long last we are putting the needs of
working people and retirees ahead of the economic establishment in this
country. There are only 6 percent of the people in this country who
contribute to political campaigns; that is why you get $50 billion a
year put here instead of here. And that, I think, is the most
disgraceful thing you can say about this session of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is
recognized for 15 minutes.

[[Page H4294]]

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and everyone on
his side of the aisle have stayed very much all the time that we
debated this bill on their political point, which they have made over
and over and over again. They do not like tax cuts for the wealthy; and
if we would only not have put those in the bill, we could do all kinds
of things that they would like to do with the money.
Let me say something that I know that they will not like to hear, but
I personally do not believe that we should every hear in this Chamber
the kind of language that divides us. It is wealthy against working
people, over and over and over again in their vernacular; and I do not
believe that is what this country stands for or what we believe in.

{time} 1915

It is not a crime to work hard and become a wealthy person. In fact,
I would say that universally Americans accept the principle that they
value the opportunity to do exactly that. That is what they want to do.
And I think this divisive language of setting class against class and
saying over and over again that it is one group against another is
really not what we ought to be engaged in in debate here, ever.
We ought to talk about the principles that we believe in, and the
policies that advance those policies. I do not think we believe in
class warfare, and I do not think we believe in dividing people by
economic means.
We do believe, and I agree with the gentleman, that there are people
in this country that are really put to the test as to whether they can
afford the drugs that they need even to stay alive, and very clearly
there are people that are having to make very difficult decisions in
their lives in order to pay for those drugs that they should not have
to make.
We ought to have a program to address the needs of those people. We
ought not to have a program to provide universal coverage for
prescription drugs, because there are lots of people in this country,
about two-thirds of the people, the seniors in this country, that have
a prescription drug benefit already under their own policies. They can
afford it, they do not need the help. But there are certainly people
that do.
I believe that this Congress will provide that kind of prescription
drug benefit. We will make certain that we are taking care of those
people who are put to that tough test and are deeply in need, and we
ought to. But I think the language of divisiveness, the language of
division, the language that divides people economically is not
appropriate, has not been appropriate throughout this debate, and I
would hope that we would reject that kind of class warfare.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, as far as class warfare is concerned, the fact is that
the working class has already lost and the wealthiest 2 percent have
already won. The wealthiest 1 percent of people have made so much in
additional money over the past 5 years that they now control more of
the Nation's wealth than 90 percent of the American people combined. I
do not call that class warfare, I call that telling the truth.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we stand accused by the
gentleman from Illinois of recognizing reality. The reality is there is
a budget. It limits the amount of money we can spend. If you spend on
one set of things, you cannot spend for another. That is reality. If in
fact you give large tax cuts to people who are very wealthy, you will
have less money that you can spend elsewhere.
The gentleman says, ``Oh, let's not have class warfare; let's just
have the wealthy and the middle class and the working class all get
along.'' It sounds like Woody Allen's statement, ``the lion shall lie
down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep.'' The wealthy
and the poor can work together, as long as the poor are prepared to be
submissive.
The Republican plan says that you will get some help in paying for
prescription drugs, up to 150 percent of poverty, $16,000 a year. If
you are a retired individual making $20,000, $25,000, $28,000 a year
and you get hit with a drug bill of four, five or six hundred dollars a
month, the Republican position is we cannot afford it.
Now, we say you could afford it if you did not give large tax cuts,
and the gentleman says, Oh, that is class warfare. That is not class
warfare, that is reality. If you, in fact, decide that Bill Gates
should be allowed to pass down to his children all of his money with no
taxes, and deprive the revenue base of 20 or 30 billion dollars, and
you then say, ``but we can't help you if you are making $20,000 a
year,'' and that is the Republican's plan. We did not make it up. This
is not class warfare, this is your plan. One hundred fifty percent of
poverty is the level at which you get subsidized.
The gentleman said, We don't need universal coverage under
prescription drugs. It is the same argument that said on the part of
the Republicans that we did not need Medicare, we did not need
universal health care. The fact is if you were making up a health care
plan today, you would fully cover prescription drugs. Yes, there are
some older people who have private insurance for prescription drugs.
They pay unduly for it.
We have a very simple case, and the gentleman apparently objects to
our pointing it out. The more you do for people at the upper end of the
scale, given a limited amount of money, the less you can do for people
at the other end. I am sorry that that makes the gentleman
uncomfortable. It does him honor that it makes him uncomfortable, but
we did not create this situation. It is the reality that you have
brought to the floor with your overall program.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), a very valued member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1995, when I was fortunate enough to get
on this committee, I asked what subcommittees I would be on and one was
called the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education. I asked people about that committee, and they said this is
one time that you can go into deliberations and it will not be
political; that there will be people like Louis Stokes on the other
side who are just as concerned about poor people, just as concerned
about medical needs of people, and just as concerned about all these
programs that we have, NIH and all these programs that we have; that
is, it is completely nonpartisan.
Well, I am afraid to say that is not true. I would like to point out
why and how I can come to that conclusion right now.
We have had a subcommittee process going on here where we have laid
out this whole plan, and I think the chairman has done an excellent
job, and I believe that the opposition believes the same thing. In the
subcommittee there was not one amendment that had a setoff to it, there
was not one amendment mentioned. It was an ambush that was being
planned, a political ambush, not an ambush in any other fashion or in a
constructive way. They were sanitizing themselves and saying no, we are
not going to have setoffs, we are not going to match these things. That
could either be it was politically motivated, or they really and truly
agreed this was a tremendous balance of all the interests in every
respect.
Well, we come to the floor now, where we have all the bright lights,
all the attention of our Nation on it, and we start talking about a
very political issue called tax cuts, money that is not spent, but is
withheld by the people who own it when there is a surplus.
These same people have been hollering against tax cuts in every way
possible. They first of all said, back in the times when we were
talking about trying to reduce the tax burden on the working people of
America, they said we want to pay down the debt. Have they said one
thing about paying down the debt here? No, they have not, because what
they want to do is spend more and spend more and spend more. They want
to keep this money in the government coffers so that they can have more
control over it and so we can get right back in the same position that
we were in when we started this business of balancing the budget and
bringing ourselves into some reasonable economic sanity.

[[Page H4295]]

So it is very clear. Even the arguments about protecting Social
Security, if we did not protect Social Security we could have all this
money that they could spend on this part of their agenda. That has
happened year after year after year after year, until the conservatives
took control of Congress and took the hard hits and said no, we are not
going to borrow money from Social Security to satisfy your spending
addiction.
It is sad to me that we have this circumstance here and that this
committee is being used for that purpose. It is a setup. The people of
America should understand that, the people on both sides of the aisle
should understand it, that when we have somebody like Jim Kelly, the
Buffalo Bills quarterback, and his wife coming before our committee and
telling about their small son, Hunter, and his disease, we should not
be talking about politics. We should be talking about gigantic needs.
When we look at what we can do in curing diseases across the globe,
we should not be talking about politics, we should be talking about
doing what is right. When we are talking about education and helping
the people who have missed their opportunities, who do not have a
pattern, a generational pattern for them to follow, we should not be
talking about politics, we should be talking about what is right.
So I would say we ought to reject this idea of these tax cuts being a
factor in this discussion. Those discussions are nothing but political.
We are not being constructive, and I agree with the chairman, we are
not gaining anything, and we are doing a disservice to our country and
to all of these causes that we are trying to serve in this committee by
continuing this harangue time after time after time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the other distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Obey amendment. The
Republican leadership wants America to believe that adding a
prescription drug benefit to Medicare is one of their top priorities.
That simply is untrue. They have done nothing to seriously address
prescription drug prices for citizens. Many of the 13 million senior
citizens who have no insurance coverage for prescription drugs are
forced to choose between food and medicine, yet the Republican
leadership has just pushed a $200 billion tax giveaway for the super
rich through the House.
More than half of their reckless tax giveaway is available to only a
few thousand of the wealthiest families out of more than 60 million
families in America. We should put an end to these giveaways until
Congress enacts a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all
Americans who are eligible for Medicare.
Senior citizens' lives are at risk when they cannot afford
prescription drugs that they need, yet pharmaceutical companies and
their lobbying machine have kept this Congress from enacting a
prescription drug benefit.
But, Mr. Chairman, this debate does tell America what Republican
priorities really are: Tax cuts for the super-rich, a few, before
prescription drugs for the 13 million American senior citizens who
cannot afford either the out-of-pocket costs or the insurance for drug
coverage.
It is the Republican majority who have created the so-called class
warfare that the gentleman from Illinois speaks about. They have put
the comfort of the very wealthy over the needs of ordinary citizens. We
must begin responding to the needs of all Americans, not just the
super-rich.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for this amendment and against this
totally inadequate bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman correctly that he wants a
universal prescription drug benefit?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, a universal voluntary prescription drug
benefit under Medicare.
Mr. PORTER. That would therefore provide a prescription drug benefit
for these very wealthy people that the gentleman just described?
Mr. OLVER. Voluntary.
Mr. PORTER. Who do not need it.
Mr. OLVER. If they do not want it, they do not have to take it.
Mr. PORTER. It is always voluntary, of course.
Mr. OLVER. If they have a better plan, surely they will keep the plan
they have, rather than take a plan which is inferior, if they have a
better plan.
Mr. PORTER. We just want to get the government into this business
directly and provide for all those people, even though they do not need
it.
Mr. OLVER. It is voluntary, and it is one that anybody who has a
better plan should keep their better plan.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his tireless efforts on behalf
of hard-working, middle-class families. He has been an important voice
for common sense in this debate.
The Obey amendment is an attempt to bring some of his common sense to
this legislation, to help it to be able to reflect the priorities of
the American people. It says, very simply, let us provide a
prescription drug benefit for all of America's seniors, before, in
fact, we enact a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
Sixty percent of our seniors on Medicare lack good, affordable
coverage. The nearly 12 million seniors who have no prescription drug
coverage need our help. If all of senior citizens are covered, then we
will see the prices drop on prescription drugs.
More than one in eight seniors are faced with an awful choice of
paying for food and shelter or buying the prescription drugs that they
simply cannot live without. In a time of unprecedented prosperity, the
Republican leadership is telling these seniors that providing a tax cut
to that wealthiest 1 percent of Americans is a higher priority than
helping seniors afford prescription drugs.
They have given a lot of lip service to the need for a Medicare
prescription drug benefit, but the fact is, Republicans still do not
have a plan to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit that
covers all of America's seniors, no matter where they live.

{time} 1930

They want to do this through private insurance companies who quite
frankly have said their plan is absurd.
This amendment says that the Republican leadership needs to get back
in touch with the values of the American people and provide
prescription drug coverage to all of America's seniors before we pass
those tax breaks for that wealthiest 1 percent. Those are the
priorities of the American people. They should be our priorities.
I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am a practicing politician, just like
everyone else in this institution, so I would plead fully guilty, I
would like to vote for a lot of tax cuts for my constituents. But I
think I have some differences from some of my friends on the Republican
side of the aisle. I want tax cuts that are aimed, for instance, at
small businessmen so they can help provide health insurance for their
employees.
I know what it is like to run a small business on a 1 percent or 2
percent profit. I do not want tax cuts that provide 73 percent of their
benefits to the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of the people in this
country. I have nothing against those folks, but when we give 73
percent of the tax benefits to the very wealthiest 1 or 2 percent, we
do indeed precipitate class warfare, and Members cannot object when the
average working family asks their representatives to fight back.
I also do not want tax cuts that are so large that they get in the
way of our protecting Medicare and Social Security, and that require
the kind of reductions from the President's budget

[[Page H4296]]

that this bill has in education, that it has in health care, that it
has in the National Science Foundation, that it has in a range of other
programs that help build this country.
Mr. Chairman, we are the strong country we are today because we have
always tried to be in everything together. We have tried to sacrifice
together in wars and prosper together in peace. The problem is that
today, in many places in this country that is not happening.
What we are saying is very simple: Yes, we want a universal health
insurance plan for prescription drugs, a voluntary plan. The reason
they have never been able, on that side of the aisle, the reason they
have never been able to put a dent in Social Security, the reason they
have never been able to wipe out Medicare, as their earlier leadership
said they wanted to do, is because they provide universal benefits,
regardless of income, so all levels of this society recognize they are
in it together when it comes to those programs, so people at all levels
of income defend those programs.
I make no apology for wanting to apply the same logic to prescription
drugs. There is nothing wrong with asking Members to delay the tax cuts
Members are giving to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in this
country until they provide a prescription drug benefit for people who
need it.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out time and time again that all
they have to do to be able to avoid all of the cuts from the
President's budget that they have in education, in health care, and
child care, and everything else, is to simply cut by 20 percent the
size of the tax cut that they are providing in the five tax cut bills
they have put through this House so far.
It is true, our procedures do not allow us to directly join this
issue tonight by way of votes, so all we can do is join it
rhetorically. If those are the only tools that we have, then pardon me
for making the best use of them that we know how. I make no apologies
for it.
This amendment is the right thing to do if Members believe in a just
society.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that
this entire debate has attempted to focus on tax cuts, and of course
there are no tax cuts on the table here whatsoever.
In addition, I would say to the gentleman that he knows very well,
and everybody on his side of the aisle knows very well, that there are
no tax cuts of the type he describes on the table anywhere, because the
President of the United States has said he would veto those tax cuts.
That is not in play. It has not been in play at any time.
We on our side have to abide by the budget resolution. It is easy to
talk about adding money for this program or that program, and to simply
say, we are not going to take any responsibility for it. We can add
whatever number we want, because we are not bound by the budget
resolution.
I am sorry, we are bound by the budget resolution. We have to live
within the allocation we are given. We have to act responsibly. We have
to figure out the best priorities for our country.
I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, the
gentlewoman, they have had ample opportunity to adjust those priorities
if they do not agree with them by moving money from one account to
another. They have not offered one single amendment to do that. All
they want to do is add spending to the bill and breach the budget
allocation that the subcommittee has been given.
That is why every one of these amendments are out of order and will
not stand. They have simply used this as a political exercise to
express the kind of statements that have been made over and over again
about tax cuts. They are irrelevant to this process. They would be
vetoed by the President anyway. The whole thing is simply a political
exercise.
I would simply say that I think we have wasted a lot of time in this
exercise that could be spent productively in legislating.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on
the point of order?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on this amendment
because it proposes to change an 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 pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do, for the reasons that I cited in my
previous remarks.
I recognize that the rules of the House do not allow us to get a vote
on this amendment. That does not mean the amendment is not correct.
Obviously, under the rules we are operating under it is not in order,
so I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin concedes the
point of order. The point of order is sustained.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, before we move to the final amendments on this bill, I
know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Traficant) has one and I know
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has one and the chairman
of the committee has one, but I simply want to take this time, in spite
of the heat of the debate that we sometimes had, to take a moment to do
honor to the man who is chairing this subcommittee as we consider this
legislation for the last time under his stewardship.
Mr. Chairman, I have known the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)
for a long time now. I have never seen a day when I have thought that
he did not act out of absolute patriotism and out of an absolute
dedication to what he believes is good for this country.
I deeply believe that being a politician, and I am proud of it, I
deeply believe that being a politician or public servant is one of the
highest callings that one could have. In a democracy, I know of no
higher calling except to be a minister, a rabbi, or a priest.
I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) with all of the
differences we have had on this bill, I think the gentleman from
Illinois has in all ways, as long as I have known him, done honor to
his constituency, done honor to his State, done honor to his party,
done honor to this institution, and above all, has done honor, great
honor, to the country that he has so ably served.
I will regret seeing him leave. I will miss him personally. I will
miss him professionally. I think that the differences that he and I
have had on this bill prove that when two people agree on everything
one of them is unnecessary, so we have disagreed often today. We each
have our roles to play. But public service loses something very
precious when it loses people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter).
I simply want to say that whether the issue has been health or
education or welfare, or whether the issue has been the foreign policy
interests of the United States, the gentleman has always, in my view,
been a credit to this institution and a credit to himself.
I think honestly he has deserved a better cut of the deck than he has
gotten, because if we had a realistic budget situation in which we were
operating, I think he could produce legislation which is far more in
line with what I know his instincts to be and what his concerns to be.
I simply, if I were wearing a hat, would take it off to the
gentleman, because he has been an exemplary public servant for as long
as I have known him.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the gentleman how much I appreciate those
very, very kind and generous words. I have served in this body for 21
years, almost, and I have loved every minute of my service. I have
loved the relationship that I have had with Members on both sides of
the aisle.
I believe we lose a lot when we lose the collegiality of working
together for our country. Too often we get involved in partisan
bickering and partisan debate, instead of finding the common ground
that we need to move this country ahead.

[[Page H4297]]

I particularly value my relation with the gentleman from Wisconsin.
He has been steady and strong and articulate in his beliefs about
policy for our country. He has been a man of great integrity. Yes, he
is difficult to deal with at times, and he recognizes that himself, but
he fights for what he believes in, and I respect that greatly.
I am going to miss greatly this body, and I am going to miss the
relationships with Members. I am going to miss this kind of give and
take on the floor and the processes of democracy, where we try to find
the middle, where we try to find a way of coming together and working
out our differences, and we will. We will in this bill, we will
throughout the process. We will win some and lose some on both sides,
but it will work for us.
I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I very much
agree that we need to help our young people to understand that public
service is a very, very honorable profession; that we can follow our
ideals and work for the things we believe in and maybe make a
difference in the results, if we want to get in and do that.
I think too often, if I may say so, too often we have a media that
focuses on all the negatives. They do not recognize the hundreds and
hundreds, 99 percent of this body or 100 percent, who are caring
people: who care about their country, who work for the things they
believe in, who work with others. They always look only at the
negatives.
The American people need to know that this is a body of very able,
caring people who work for this country, who work for their
constituents, who sacrifice a great deal to make things work and make a
difference in public policy. That message is not conveyed sufficiently.
I thank the gentleman for his kind words. It has been a real
privilege to work with him all this year, and I consider him a very,
very close and dear friend.

Amendment No. 201 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 201 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill add the following new section:

minimum wage

Sec. 104. Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not
less than--
``(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997,
``(B) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning April 1,
2000, and
``(C) $6.15 an hour beginning April 1, 2001;''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois reserves a
point of order on the amendment.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is recognized.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey.) There is not a tougher bulldog on our side, and I think at some
point everybody gets mad at him, but I do not think anybody could have
made a better statement in tribute to the contributions of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I commend the gentleman.

{time} 1945

I was about to do that, and I will let the great words of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speak for themselves, except to
thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for all he has done for
America.
I want to commend also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). There
is some talk of me even appealing the ruling of the Chair. I know this
is legislation on an appropriation bill, but my people need it
desperately.
I am going to ask the Republican leadership to allow for an up/down,
clean vote at some point in the Congress on the Traficant bill to raise
the minimum wage $1.00 over 2 years.
Again, I would thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for
fighting so hard for what we believe in. I thank him for the words he
put together for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). He really
deserves them. He is a great guy, and I wish the chairman the greatest.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10 by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as his designee.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Page 20, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $244,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $36,000,000)''.
Page 34, strike the proviso beginning on line 16.
Page 40, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $175,000,000), of which not less
than $125,000,000 shall be for an expanded focus on respite
and other assistance for families of vulnerable elderly, as
authorized by section 341 of the Older Americans Act of
1965''.
Page 72, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $156,000,000)''.
Page 73, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $156,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, points of order are
reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), that he does this House honor
though we have disagreements and we disagree on this piece of
legislation. It is an honor to serve with him in this body.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses glaring insufficiencies in
this bill in protecting the health and the welfare of America's
seniors. It increases funding for the HCFA nursing home initiative, the
Medicare integrity program, family caregivers, Meals on Wheels, the
Social Security Administration, community health centers and health
care for uninsured workers.
It provides $661 million in needed funding for seniors and for
middle-class families. These needs will go unaddressed in this bill
because of misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership.
There was a lot of talk today about the need for offsets in order to
pay for the vital needs for seniors, our schools, and health research.
I have the offset right here, the one we ought to focus on, and that,
in fact, is to scale back that massive tax cut that is wanted and that
benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and then we can meet
the need of seniors and still be able to provide tax relief for working
middle-class families.
Provide those tax breaks for working families. Scale back the
enormity of the tax cut, and we will have the offsets that we need to
be able to do something for the families in this country.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
rejected this type of a balanced approach, and just let me say who will
not be served because of this misplaced leadership. Family caregivers,
today over 5 million Americans, 3 to 4 million of whom are seniors, are
able to remain in their homes during an illness because of the services
provided to them by family caregivers. These family members face the
stress of caring for a frail and ill senior while still struggling to
look after the rest of their families. Many still work full time while
providing

[[Page H4298]]

care that allows their parent to maintain their dignity. This bill cuts
$125 million from this program.
Second, Meals on Wheels, we have all been the witness of the benefit
of the Meals on Wheels program. It provides vital nutrition to low-
income seniors, helps them again to stay in their homes and in their
communities. We could have provided an additional 75,000 low-income
seniors with this important help if this amendment would pass, if we
could add $50 million to the program. Rejecting the amendment means
that these seniors will go without. Many of them will not be able to
maintain their independence and remain in their homes because they will
not receive the service of Meals on Wheels.
Nursing home initiative, with a helping hand many seniors can
maintain their independence. Too many people my age have to face the
awful choice of finding a nursing home that will provide around-the-
clock care for a parent who can no longer live on their own. We have
all seen the horror stories about homes that fail our seniors.
Most recently in today's papers, in New York, have talked about the
inadequate care and actually the violation of seniors' human rights in
some of these institutions.
One in every four nursing homes puts their patients at an unnecessary
risk for death or injury. It is simply unacceptable that the greatest
generation is being put at risk by the generation that followed them.
We could have protected these seniors by funding a $38 million nursing
home initiative that would have insured quality nursing home care for
1.6 million seniors.
Funds for Medicare fraud and Social Security, the amendment funds
efforts to protect Medicare, ensure that Social Security serves our
seniors. By funding the Medicare integrity program, we can fight waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system and return dollars that are so
needed for the program. Every dollar invested in this fraud-fighting
initiative means that we can return $17 to Medicare that would be lost
to fraud and abuse.
Support of this program would save Medicare $850 million.
The Social Security Administration, the amendment would also ensure
that the Social Security Administration could improve their services
for seniors and reduce the waiting time for claims and requests.
Supporting the amendment would have made a real difference for
seniors. Unfortunately, we will not be able to properly fund these
critical needs or many of the other initiatives that are grossly
underfunded in this bill today, because the Republican leadership has
insisted on providing tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans.
We can keep the tax relief for middle-class families. They need it.
Scale back the tax break for the top 1 percent, the wealthiest of the
wealthy, and we can invest in these important initiatives.
I think that most Americans would make this trade-off. If we cannot
find the funds for these vital needs, we should resoundingly reject
this legislation. It betrays American seniors, fails to live up to the
values that they have passed on to all of us.
I heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules refer to this bill as
progress. If this is progress, then the future Republicans envision is
not one that respects the contribution of America's seniors and that
maintains their values. Oppose this misguided bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman would increase funding for the Social
Security Administration in spite of the fact that the bill increases
the account by $400 million.
I would say this: If I, like the gentlewoman, were not constrained by
a budget allocation, I would attempt to do more in this account. It is
obviously a very important one.
She would increase community health centers above our level, which
is, in turn, above the President. I would say to the gentlewoman, this
is an account that we have increased above the President every year for
the last 5 years. This is a high priority for us. We have increased it
this year above the President but, again, when one does not have any
budget constraints I guess it is very easy to increase it to any level
they want.
With respect to Meals on Wheels, we fund that at the request level
which the gentlewoman would increase by $50 million over the
President's request. Now I would say to the gentlewoman that I do not
think that we have done as good a job as we should do in respect to
some of the senior programs, but I would also say to the gentlewoman
neither has the President.
Generally speaking, when we meet the President's requests in a
program like this we feel that we have done a great deal when we have
budget constraints, but I would also say that in the future, as more
resources become available, we need to do a better job with Meals on
Wheels and others in this area.
With respect to the nursing home initiative, the administration asks
us to enact a user fee which has, as he well knows, the President well
knows, essentially no support. We have not included the funds as a
result of this proposed fee. Otherwise we carry this fund at the
request level.
On health care access for the uninsured, this is a program that is
not authorized. The administration requested funding for it in last
year's budget request under the Office of the Secretary. The committee
did not approve initial funding, but in conference the administration
requested that $25 million for a community access program be provided
under HRSA using the demonstration authority.
The budget request for this year proposes to increase this
demonstration to $125 million. Unfortunately, the program is still not
authorized.
The Secretary envisions this program to reach $1 billion over 5
years. The committee believes that it should be acted upon by the
authorizing committees of jurisdiction prior to any appropriation being
made for it. Again, if one is not limited by any constraints, it is
easy to put money into accounts; it is easy to put money into programs
that are not authorized.
We cannot do that.
So I would simply say to the gentlewoman, while she makes some valid
points about the priority of some of these programs, and they ought to
be addressed, that particularly in reference to the community health
centers which we consider a very high priority and which we have always
funded above the President, this is a misguided amendment. Again, she
is not bound by any budget constraints. She just pours money in, and
says we ought to spend more.
That is easy to say. It is more difficult to live within some
constraints and live within fiscal responsibility. I oppose the
gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just reiterate what I said earlier, that the
President of the United States is not offering this amendment. I am
offering this amendment, and we, in fact, have 3 coequal branches of
government. The President may have made a request, but I believe that
we need to increase the dollar amount for several of these programs.
Secondly, the constraints that have been put on the budget are
irresponsible restraints because they reflect the priority of the
Republican leadership. They reflect truly the values and the priorities
of the Republican leadership, which says let us provide a tax cut to
the 1 percent of the wealthiest people in this country, and when one
places that constraint on the budget as an albatross, then all of those
programs are held captive that, in fact, would benefit working
families, seniors and the most precious commodity, our children.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro
amendment. It addresses some of this bill's most serious deficiencies
in protecting the health and welfare of seniors and other vulnerable
populations.
I recognize that the persons across the aisle are arguing there is no
money for this; that the President did ask for this so we should not
give any more

[[Page H4299]]

money, but what I want to say to the folks on the other side of the
aisle is tell some of the people back in my district, who have been the
working poor for years, that this government has no money for the
senior citizens who use senior citizen facilities across this country.
Let me make it personal for a few moments. Let me tell the story of
my mother-in-law, Ruby Jones, who is 79 years old, who was taking care
of her husband in her home.

{time} 2000

As a result of her work and taking care of her husband, who has
congestive heart failure, she developed a stroke. She has been in a
coma for 4 years and in need of home health care in her home. My
sister-in-law, now the caregiver, who works full-time as a pharmacist,
is caring both for her father and mother in her home.
This amendment will provide additional dollars to caregivers who are
providing services in their homes. Being a caregiver is not an easy
task. Over half of them are over the age of 65. Most of them are women.
One-third of them have full-time jobs.
Help for caregivers is needed now more than ever. The population age
85 and over will continue to grow faster than any other age, increasing
by 50 percent from 1996 to 2010. Research has shown that caregiving
exacts a heavy emotional, physical, and financial toll.
Therefore, support provided to informal caregivers significantly
benefits them. The other day I visited a facility in my district called
Concordia Health Care. It is a PACE program. At Concordia, there are
women there who are 80 to 85 years old, and their families have been
caring for them in their home. But this is a day care facility for
senior citizens. It is remarkable because most of these women would be
stuck in their homes all day if it were not for the dollars that are
provided for senior care.
So I support the amendment. I believe it provides for the working
poor. These are our senior citizens who have worked all of their lives,
and we cannot turn our backs on them now. I support the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished 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, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) sets aside an additional $125 million for section 341 (Part
D--In-Home Services for Frail Older Individuals) of the Older Americans
Act, and of course, therefore, is authorizing on an appropriation bill.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I am very disappointed that I
have not been able to bring the Older Americans Act to the floor. I
have not been able to reauthorize it. My colleagues on that side have
just as much responsibility for that not happening as some on my side.
My colleagues have to understand the Older Americans Act in the first
place.
How 10 groups, 10 organizations got their fingers on all that money,
I will never know. But that is the way it was passed. But what the law
said when it was passed is that 55 percent of the money would go back
to the States, 45 percent of the money would stay in Washington for the
lobbyists here in Washington.
Unfortunately, the other body has not followed that law. The House
has always appropriated properly. The other body has appropriated 75
percent for those lobbyists in Washington and 25 percent for those who
really need it back in my colleagues' districts and my district.
We came up with a bipartisan bill, moved it out of committee. Again,
those Washington lobbyists got to my colleagues' side of the aisle, got
to my side of the aisle; and therefore we again do not have a
reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.
H.R. 782 would do everything the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) would like to do and more. In H.R. 782, we combine two of the
programs: the programs of In-Home Services for Frail Older Individuals
and Assistance for Caregivers into a family caregiver program.
Now, what does that program offer? That program provides services for
counseling, for training, for support groups, for respite care, for
informational assistance and supplemental services for the frail
elderly and their families.
The gentlewoman needs to talk to her side, as I need to talk to my
side. It is time we buck the Washington, D.C., lobbyists that get their
hands on most of this money. It is about time we get it back to those
States and back to the people in need.
But I need my colleagues' help on their side just as much on our side
if that authorization level is to get here. As I said, it came out of
committee in a bipartisan fashion. It is authorized out of committee.
You get it to the floor. Then you get the other body to act. And we
will not only do what the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
wants to do, but much, much more for senior citizens in need in this
country.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) does not know this, because the gentleman is a student
of these matters. The fact of the matter is, on page 324 of this
document: ``However, funding for the President's initiative does not
require final passage of the authorization of the Older Americans Act.
States can provide services to family caregivers under existing
provisions of title III (Part D) of the Older Americans Act.''
So, in fact, this has been authorized under an existing authority
already.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in
bringing this amendment to the floor.
This amendment is about addressing misplaced priorities of this
committee and this Congress. It attempts to repair the damage this bill
does to initiatives that protect the health and welfare of seniors and
other vulnerable populations.
This amendment is necessary for a simple reason. The Republican
majority is more focused on providing a trillion-dollar tax cut that
largely benefits the wealthiest Americans than on providing needed
funding for the neediest Americans.
The DeLauro amendment is necessary because it provides an additional
$119 million increase to the community health centers above the House
level to provide affordable care to the uninsured and underinsured.
I think every Member of this House respects the work of the community
health centers, because nearly one in five working adults lack health
insurance, and half the working Americans with incomes less than
$20,000 could not pay their medical bills last year.
Poverty, homelessness, poor living conditions, geographical
isolation, lack of doctors, and lack of health insurance pose
insurmountable access problems for many people at higher risk for
serious and costly health conditions.
Community health centers address these access problems through the
delivery of comprehensive primary and preventive services, the type of
services not typically offered by traditional private sector providers
to at-risk people. Health centers do it cost effectively. Health
centers focus on wellness and early prevention.
At a time of great economic prosperity, we must not forget those who
are not enjoying good financial times, those who do not have the health
coverage for themselves or their families. The community health centers
fill a need we cannot ignore.
As I said earlier in the day, if we would cut the budget, cut the tax
break for the wealthiest Americans by just 20 percent, it would afford
us the $2.5 billion to address the initiatives put forth in these
amendments.
Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution passed by the House
created a framework for failure. We are trying to redress those
failures in this amendment.

[[Page H4300]]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) has the right to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to do a lot of good
things. One of the most important things is that it tries to add back
$38 million to correct the fact that this bill cuts 95 percent of the
funding for the administration's nursing home initiative, which is
aimed at strengthening the protection of our senior citizens in nursing
homes. The General Accounting Office has said that there are one in
four nursing homes in this country that has serious deficiencies. I
think we ought to do our best to correct that, and this amendment does.
I do not know how many have ever worked in a nursing home. I worked
an entire summer in an institution when I was a young teenager that
dealt with people in need of nursing home care and also dealt with
people in need of care because of mental and emotional problems. It was
not a pleasant job. It is a tough job.
Nursing homes that are trying to do right by their citizens need to
be backed up by the Government who will keep those who are not quite so
fastidious towing the line, because otherwise it makes it impossible
for the nursing homes who we are trying to tow the line to do so.
I think it is a disgrace that we do not fund their money. I also
think it should be on notice that this amendment restores money that
fights Medicare fraud. It restores money to try to shorten the delays
that people have when they apply for Social Security disability. A
woman came up to me 2 weeks ago who was facing the loss of her house
because she could not get a hearing fast enough on her Social Security
disability claim.
There are real people behind this amendment and real needs that we
are trying to fill with this amendment.
I congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for
trying. I would urge a vote for this amendment if we have the
opportunity to get a vote.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just continue where my colleague left off on the
$38 million for a nursing home initiative that would provide quality
nursing home care, because we do know the horror stories.
Today's New York Daily News, ``Nursing Home Horror, Queens facility
abused elderly residents, Feds say.'' ``Elderly face mental and
physical abuse.''
Line after line of the most vulnerable citizens in a place in which
they are unprotected, and their rights and their dignity are taken away
from them.
We have an opportunity with this amendment, with this bill, which
focuses in on the lives of people in this country to take $38 million
and provide additional nursing home care, quality care so that, in
fact, we do not have to read stories like this in the newspapers.
Cut back the tax cut to 20 percent. Give us the $2.5 billion for
these amendments that are going to make a difference in the lives of
the American people.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) insist on a 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 pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that we understand that the
rules of the House restrain us on this matter, and it is unfortunate.
If there had been a vote on this issue, I believe we would have
prevailed. I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded, and the
point of order is sustained.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for fiscal year 2001 that is not
required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a
provision of law is hereby reduced to 0.617 percent.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would explain briefly that the amendment reduces all
discretionary budget authority provided in this bill by 0.617 percent.
I do not want to offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman; but it is
essential and necessary that I do. It is the only fair and reasonable
way to address the problem that was created when the emergency
designation in this bill was struck on a point of order.
The emergency designation related to the funding in this bill
approved by the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations
for the public health and social services emergency fund, and a
declaration of emergency was attached to that funding. Now, because a
Member on my side of the aisle decided that he did not like that, they
struck it on a point of order.
Under the budget rules, removing an emergency designation from a
bill, that has the effect of reducing the committee's budget
allocation. Thus this bill is $500 million in budget authority and $217
million in outlays over its allocation thanks to that point of order.
So this has to be fixed. If it is not fixed in this bill, then we would
need to reduce the 302(b) allocations for one or more of the other
subcommittees that have not yet marked up a bill.

{time} 2015

In other words, the allocations for the Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary appropriation bill, or the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing and Related Programs appropriation bill, or the Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government appropriation bill, or the
District of Columbia appropriation bill would have to be cut. We have
to make up this $500 million. This cut is required to remain within our
allocation, and they must be found in this bill unless we intend to
disrupt all of the other 302(b) allocations.
I would point out that this bill is an increase over last year. There
is $2.7 billion in discretionary funding more than last year's bill.
There is $11.5 billion more in this bill for the mandatory accounts. So
this bill has had an increase. But despite that increase, I would
really prefer that we allow this emergency declaration to stick with
the public health and social services emergency fund. But that has been
struck on a point of order, therefore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wish to seek the time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me explain this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This bill originally
contained an emergency designation for funding for the Center for
Disease Control to respond to bioterrorism attacks, as only that
institution has the capacity to do. The committee designated it as an
emergency. But then the organization in the Republican

[[Page H4301]]

Caucus known as the CATS objected, and so the Committee on Rules did
not protect the emergency designation for that money in the rule.
This amendment, while it is being offered by my friend, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), it really, I suppose, ought to be called the
Coburn amendment. Because when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
struck the protection on the point of order, it left this bill some
$500 million over its budget ceiling. I would simply suggest that it is
too bad that my good friend had to be put in a position to offer this
amendment, because I do not think he believes it is good public policy
any more than I do.
I would say that there is a group in the majority party caucus which
has a highly erratic record on the issue of emergency designations. One
week that group rabidly opposes emergency designation for items that
are emergencies, such as hurricanes, floods, bioterrorism threats; the
next week it supports designating as an emergency funding for a
decennial census, which we all know comes every 10 years; and even
supports emergency funding for Head Start, a program that has been
around since I was a teenager.
I guess I would say that I find it most ironic that even after these
cuts are made this bill will still be $33 million above its allocation
in outlays. This is ironic given the fact that all day long we were
told by the majority that we could not get a vote on the amendments
that we were offering on our side of the aisle because they exceeded
the numbers in the budget resolution.
So I would simply point out that this amendment cuts $54 million from
title I, $40 million from special education, $52 million from Pell
grants, $4 million from after-school centers, $6 million from Impact
Aid, $11 million from class-size initiative, $116 million for the
National Institutes of Health, $35 million from Head Start, $30 million
from job training, $7 million from community health centers, $9 million
from low-income heating assistance program, and $6 million from
Administration on Aging.
If my colleagues are comfortable with those cuts, vote for it. But I
do not think there will be many people on our side of the aisle doing
so, because we recognize that there ought to be higher priorities in
this country than giving the wealthiest 400 Americans $200 billion in
tax cuts, as the majority decided to do last week.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has the
right to close.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time, and just let me say again that I really regret that it is
necessary for me to offer this amendment, but it is essential that we
pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I
regret that the chairman has to regret to offer the amendment, too. I
think this demonstrates what happens when we are ruled by accountants
and when we come to be ruled by process rather than making decisions on
the basis of good old-fashioned instinct and judgment.
I think that this amendment recognizes that it is impossible to pass
this bill without departing from reality once again, as the majority
has been forced to do many times in supporting appropriation bills. If
I were in the gentleman's position, I would be as uncomfortable as I
know he is right now. But he did not make this problem, the majority
party leadership did when they decided to pursue the course that they
decided to pursue.
We could have easily passed all these bills with bipartisan
majorities if these bills had produced real trade-offs. But, instead,
because the majority party leadership has insisted that they put their
tax plans above everything else, that has deprived this House of the
opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis on all of these appropriation
bills. I regret that personally, I regret that professionally, and I
most of all regret it because of what it means for the people we are
supposed to represent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) will be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as the House knows, last night we spent a considerable
amount of time in disagreement because this Congress has not voted on
this bill in the last 3 years, and this labor, health and education and
social services bill represents the major effort of the Congress to
meet our national responsibilities in funding the needs of working
American families. We wanted to make sure that the debate on this bill
occurred not in the dead of night but in the light of day, and we
finally reached an agreement under which that would occur.
I insisted at the time that I wanted the debate to occur at the same
time that we were going to have the vote on final passage so that the
issues would not be disconnected from the vote on final passage. I was
told by the majority party leadership staff that they would assure me
of that with one caveat. They said that when the time comes, if we do
not think we have the votes to pass the bill, we will have to lay it
over and, therefore, would not vote on it tomorrow.
Well, I have now been told that the leadership does not intend to
push this bill to passage tonight. If that is the case, then assuming,
and I do, good faith on the part of the leadership staff, then it must
mean that they do not have the votes at this point for this bill. I
would simply say if that is the case, then while the majority party has
suggested all day long that they were not comfortable with our constant
efforts to drive home the fact that their tax actions have had serious
consequences on their ability to meet our responsibilities in the area
of education, health and worker training, while they have expressed
great discomfort with our efforts to drive that point home every hour,
apparently that message has, at least with some members of the majority
party caucus, hit home. If it has, then this day's debate has not been
a waste of time.
It is clear, even if sufficient Members of the House on the majority
side can overcome their rightful concerns about this bill, that this
bill is going nowhere because the President has made clear his
intention to veto it until the Congress restores the funding they have
cut from his budget request for education, for health care, for worker
training and the like. So if this bill is not to be put to a final
vote, I assume it is because it does not have the votes; and all I can
say is, it does not deserve to.
That is not the fault of the gentleman from Illinois handling the
bill, but, nonetheless, we do not vote on each other, we vote on the
product that we produce, and this product is not in the interest of the
American people who we represent.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would simply say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I am afraid
his attacks have been ineffectual. The reason we are not voting tonight
is because we have a number of Republican absences. They will be back
tomorrow, and I think the gentleman will see the result.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman can tell me,
when would it be convenient for the majority party to be present so
that we can vote on the product?
Mr. PORTER. Perhaps tomorrow.
Mr. OBEY. That would be very nice.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518,
proceedings will now resume on those

[[Page H4302]]

amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following
order: Amendment No. 196 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner), amendment No. 198 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns), part B amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson), amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Boehner

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202,
noes 220, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 265]

AYES--202

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--220

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
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)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Campbell
Cook
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Visclosky
Watts (OK)

{time} 2048

Messrs. TANNER, RANGEL, MARTINEZ and GALLEGLY changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma, and Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Amendment No. 198 Offered by Mr. Stearns

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No 266]

AYES--381

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah

[[Page H4303]]

Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--41

Baldwin
Bateman
Brown (OH)
Clayton
Conyers
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Lee
Lofgren
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Miller, George
Morella
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rivers
Sanchez
Sanders
Serrano
Stark
Towns
Udall (CO)
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Blumenauer

NOT VOTING--11

Campbell
Cook
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)

{time} 2058

Mr. DeFAZIO, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mrs. JONES of
Ohio, Mr. WU, and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Part B Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 267]

AYES--156

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Coble
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Kasich
Kingston
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner

[[Page H4304]]

Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--11

Campbell
Cook
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)

{time} 2104

Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 268]

AYES--313

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--109

Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Castle
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLay
Dooley
Dreier
Dunn
Eshoo
Farr
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Granger
Greenwood
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Lewis (CA)
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
McCrery
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sherman
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vitter
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Campbell
Cook
Danner
DeMint
Edwards
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)

{time} 2113

Mr. KASICH and Mr. BENTSEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WALSH, LAZIO and HERGER and Ms. KILPATRICK and Ms. EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I was not recorded on vote No. 268. Had I
voted, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 269]

AYES--186

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt

[[Page H4305]]

Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--12

Campbell
Cook
Danner
DeMint
Franks (NJ)
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Matsui
McCollum
Pallone
Vento
Watts (OK)

{time} 2121

Mr. SPENCE and Mr. RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to do two things: First of all, as every Member
knows, as hard as Members work, our staffs work twice as hard. I would
simply like to take a moment to thank Christina Hamilton, Norris
Cochran, Mari Johnson, Scott Lilly, Cheryl Smith, Mark Mioduski and
Kori Hardin for the work they have done for me and for the Democratic
minority.
I would like to thank Doyle Lewis, Marc Granowitter, Scott Boule,
Clare Coleman, Kristin Holman and Charles Dujon for the work that they
have done on behalf of the minority members of the subcommittee.
I would like to thank Tony McCann, Carol Murphy, Susan Firth,
Francine Salvador, Jeff Kenyon, Tom Kelly, Spencer Pearlman, and
Katharine Fisher for the work they have done on behalf of the majority.
They have done very good work in preparing us and in preparing our
arguments, even when they know that both of us are wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that many of them have gone
without sleep for a long time, and I think they need our thanks. Also
the folks in the front office of the committee, who also get beat up,
but work very hard as well.
I also would simply like to note that with the defeat of the Young
amendment on the last vote, this bill is now $500 million in budget
authority and $217 million in outlays above its allowable spending
levels in the budget resolution. That means that at this point the bill
has the same defect that the majority objected to in the amendments
that we offered on the minority side all day long. Very interesting.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it has been brought to my attention that
HCFA is in the process of drafting a rule that will effectively
eliminate the states ability to generate revenue through the so-called
``upper limits test'' to help cover the cost of providing healthcare
for the uninsured. It is my understanding that such a change in policy
would cost my state of Illinois approximately $500 million in revenue
annually, including $200 million to Cook County Hospital, a federally
qualified health center that cares for the indigent. Mr. Chairman, I
have spoken with the Director of HCFA to inform her of my concern over
the affect of this proposed rule, which could greatly limit access to
care for many uninsured individuals in mine and other states. I
informed her, also, that I hoped that HCFA would be able to resolve
this issue internally so that a legislative solution would not be
required.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, since coming here last January, I have
repeatedly asked: What have our children done to deserve the little
faith and support this body gives them? Year after year we level fund
or cut their education, job training, child care, and health programs.
Class size reduction program funds are zeroed out and instead, rolled
into a giant block grant to states, which they can use for other
purposes. And most importantly, we sit back and say it is not our
responsibility to help schools whose roofs are falling in and whose
classrooms are bursting at the seams.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
appropriations is an injustice to our children. It freezes funding for
Title I basic grants, safe and drug free schools, teacher quality
enhancement and bilingual education. It eliminates the class size
reduction program. Tell that to students at PS 19 in my district where
the average class size is 26! And what about the students who use the
new after school and summer programs in community School District 30?
Well, 1.6 million students will not have after school programs since we
are not investing in this worthwhile program. They can just go back to
the streets where they are susceptible to drugs and gangs.
Most egregiously, this bill eliminates funding for elementary school
counselors. At a time where school safety is of paramount concern to
American families, H.R. 4577 would deny needed intervention and
violence prevention services to as many as 100,000 children.
If there is one thing in this country that deserves an investment, it
is our children. I believe it is unconscionable that we even consider a
bill that will do nothing to help our children. Moreover, passage of
this bill will harm our children as it denies desperately needed
renovation assistance to schools across the country--schools that are
failing inspections. Would you allow your child to attend a school that
had a roof falling in or fire alarms that did not work? Congress is
allowing that to happen to the children of America.
Additionally, this bill increases funding for abstinence only
education but level funds Title X funding. While an integral part of
Title X goes towards family planning, this program also provides
important basic health services to young and low income women.
Oftentimes, it is the only time low income women see a doctor. To level
fund this program harms women and children.
Also included in H.R. 4577 is a restrictive rider that prohibits OSHA
from implementing an ergonomics standard.
Each year, 1.8 million workers experience work related
musculoskeletal disorders, about one third of them serious enough to
require time off from work. An ergonomics standard would prevent
300,000 injuries annually and would save $9 billion each year in
workers' compensation and related costs. There has been extensive
research conducted and there is no reason for further delay.
I could go one, but overall, I urge you to vote against this bill and
in support of our children, our workers and their future.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4577,
the Labor, Health and

[[Page H4306]]

Human Services, and Education bill for Fiscal Year 2001. This is an
irresponsible bill that cuts critical funding to our nation's
elementary and secondary education programs and severely limits the
ability for students to receive a quality education.
The bill cuts $600 million from the Administration's request for
Head-Start. This would mean that 56,000 children would be denied Head-
Start services. As I have traveled throughout Oregon, I have seen
first-hand the positive impact that Head Start has on children in
building a positive foundation. My wife Michelle taught Head-Start
teacher in Portland. Through her work, I have seen that Head-Start is a
life transforming educational experience.
Yet, only 26.7 percent of eligible children ages 0 to 5 can be served
in Oregon. Nationally, this figure is as low as 14.4 percent.
Significant research has shown the importance of brain development in
young children and an increased focus on intervening in a young child's
life during the most sensitive of years is vitally important. We must
work toward serving 100 percent of these children.
The Education and the Workforce Committee spent a great deal of time
considering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Members
of Congress from both parties agreed that we need to do more for our
nation's schoolchildren even though we may come from different
viewpoints on how to achieve this goal. One step in the right direction
is reducing class size. Studies have shown that if you reduce class
sizes in the early years the results last a lifetime. In classes with
fewer students, children receive individualized attention that leads to
a solid foundation in learning. The legislation we are considering
today repeals our promise to students by gutting the class size
initiative. For two years, this program has funded nearly 29,000
teachers and Oregon schoolchildren, their parents and teachers are
seeing the benefit of smaller classes.
As more and more schools are hooking up to the internet with the e-
rate as well as learning on-line with donated computers, we need to
ensure that computers aren't merely a box on the desk but that teachers
are able to fully integrate technology into the curriculum and our
classrooms. In Oregon, public and private efforts empower students and
teachers. They incorporate information technology into learning and
teaching, at home and at school. I am proud of the innovative work done
in Oregon as well as in other states. However, we must continue to
foster these types of relationships to ensure that students are using
technology in all of their classes.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Next Generation Technology
Innovation Grants Act of 2000 with bipartisan support. This program
combines the Star School program and Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants to develop and expand cutting edge technologies that deliver new
applications for teaching and learning. Building on the successes of
private/public partnerships, grants are made to a consortium of school
districts, states, higher education institutions, nonprofit
institutions and businesses.
The grant-funded projects would create models for effective use of
educational technology including the development of distance learning
networks, software, and online learning resources. Unfortunately, the
Committee provided zero funding for this program.
On a positive note, I would like to commend the Appropriations
Committee for recognizing the need to raise the maximum Pell Grant
award to $3,500. Today, the real value of the Pell Grant award has
declined by 18 percent since 1975. To restore the value of the grant in
current dollars, however, the maximum grant would need to be set at
$4,300.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill for our nation's children, schools,
and parents. I urge defeat of this bill so that we can go back to the
drawing board and come back with a common sense, bipartisan bill that
will truly make a positive impact on our students. The bill fails to
provide adequate funding for crucial education programs such as the
Class-Size Initiative, school construction, and teacher quality
programs is rooted in the drive to cut taxes by $1-$2 trillion. More
modest tax cuts would permit us to address our most pressing education
needs.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have drafted an amendment to the
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations (H.R. 4577) we are considering today
but, in deference to Mr. Obey I will not offer it.
My amendment aimed to increase the funding for ``Meals on Wheels''
and other nutrition programs for senior citizens by $19 million. Cuts
in the Department of Health and Human Services management budget would
offset this vital increase.
Mr. Speaker, I recently visited senior centers and food banks in
Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. As often as I have seen hungry people
in this country and abroad, my trip was both eye-opening and
disturbing. I met hundreds of people during the two days I spent
looking at the problems hungry Americans face: senior citizens who must
choose buying medicine and buying groceries; a couple who knows how to
make a can of tomato juice last a week (by adding water); a woman who
can make ``chicken noodle soup'' out of an egg, some flour and a lot of
water (by omitting the chicken); a Navy veteran who doesn't eat on the
weekends because the local soup kitchen isn't open.
I will be publishing my report on the trip in the Congressional
Record, and I hope our colleagues will take a moment to read their
stories. None of these places is far from an interstate, or more than
100 miles from a large community. They may be rural, but they are not
isolated. And they are not alone in their difficulties--in fact, they
are in the overwhelming majority of communities where hunger remains a
real problem for large segments of the people who live there.
I crafted my amendment to help senior citizens who are turning to
soup kitchens, food banks, and programs like ``Meal on Wheels'' in
disproportionate numbers. I believe the $19 million it would have
provided is far better spent there in the HHS bureaucracy.
I chose that agency's management budget because I believe the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is badly out of touch with
people like the ones I met on June 1-2. A few days before my trip, at
the National Nutrition Summit here in Washington, Secretary Shalala
declared victory in the battle against hunger. ``Except for a few
isolated pockets,'' she told community leaders from around the nation,
``for the most part, we've succeeded at ending hunger in America.''
Mr. Speaker, that is a bizarre statement and a clear sign that this
Cabinet official is out of tough with reality. Moreover, in her speech,
Secretary Shalala went on to explain that she could declare victory
over hunger because of dietary guidelines. Not because of Meals on
Wheels, or WIC, or school lunch, or food stamps, or food banks or soup
kitchens--but dietary guidelines! That, she said, is her understanding
of why hunger is a problem only in ``isolated pockets'' of our nation.
It is disturbing logic, particularly for a senior official charged with
looking after senior nutrition, Medicaid, and other programs that serve
the poor and hungry.
Three decades ago, a nutrition summit became a springboard for
initiatives that brought greater attention to the fight against hunger.
It was a watershed event that did some good for people. I hope the
nutrition summit of 2000 does more for the on-going battle than
Secretary Shalala's statement suggests.
The fact that hunger continues to be a problem for our country--even
in these boom times--doesn't surprise most of us. We regularly see our
elderly constituents at congregate feeding sites, and know that many of
them struggle to decide whether to fill their prescriptions or their
grocery carts. We know that many of our nation's seniors depend heavily
on home-delivered and congregate meals. And we know that our
communities' own program have watched their funding shrink by 35
percent since 1993, in large part because of senior's increased needs.
These are not just a few people: One in five Americans over 65 lives
in poverty or near poverty according to America's Second Harvest.
Nearly two million elderly Americans must choose between buying the
food they need, or the medicine they need; and senior citizens are
over-represented in the growing lines at food banks and soup kitchens.
Nor is the problem just one our nation's elderly face. The World
Health Organization just found that America's poorest rank among
Africa's poor when it comes to how long their good health will last.
They ranked 23 other nations ahead of ours, largely because of how we
treat the poor. Moreover, a new UNICEF report on child poverty in the
29 most developed nations puts the United States second to last, ahead
of only Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, I plan to issue a challenge to Secretary
Shalala. I will meet her anytime, anywhere and show her where to find
hunger. It is in every community, in every month of the year. It is the
underbelly of our booming economy: something you might not want to see,
something you don't see unless you choose to look, but something that
haunts our people.
As Senator Lugar, who has been a champion in the fight against
hunger, said in a letter to Roll Call last week, while ``* * * progress
has been made in reducing hunger. * * * we can and should be doing much
better.'' The first step is to refuse to quit before the problem is
solved. Secretary Shalala has given up too soon, and I urge our
colleagues not to follow her lead.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern regarding the
level of funding including in this bill for the Social Security
Administration's (SSA) administrative expenses. This bill reduces the
President's request by $156 million. Compared to the Commissioner's
request, this is a reduction of $378 million. These reductions will
force SSA to reduce staff at the same time that the SSA is

[[Page H4307]]

facing its own wave of retirements from its own employees in the next
five to ten years as well. The reductions will also result in decreased
service to individuals with disabilities and the nation's seniors, and
reduced oversight of the integrity of the Agency's programs. I fear
that these reductions will put a strain on the agency's ability to
carry out its mission.
I believe that the SSA faces these funding shortfalls because it is
subject to the allocation required by the spending caps, even though
Social Security benefit payments are considered off-budget and not
subject to spending cap restrictions. Since we are not able to fund the
SSA properly, we should take Social Security's administrative expenses
out of the caps. We could fund the Agency based on the size and scope
of its programs--subject to the approval of the Committee on
Appropriations, but not subject to the Section 302 allocation--rather
than what we are able to find without our allocation.
Even though most of the administrative funding for SSA is derived
from the Trust Funds--funds that cannot be used for any other program--
we are limited in the allocation required by the budget caps. The
demands on the Agency are greater than our allocation can fund that
will grow as the baby-boom generation is quickly moving into its
disability-prone years, with retirement not far behind.
I believe that the SSA should be funded at $7.356 billion, the
Commissioner's request, and that we need to work together, with the
Administration, to find a solution to this structural anomaly which
classifies administrative costs to run Social Security programs as
under the discretionary caps. We should let the Agency use Social
Security money for Social Security purposes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has included in the report
accompanying this bill language providing $125 million to the Centers
for Disease Control for a National Campaign to Change Children's Health
Behaviors. The language is found on page 54 of the H. Rept. 106-645.
I want to commend Chairman Porter for seizing the initiative in this
area. It makes sense that if we are to improve health habits in our
young people, they will sustain better health and better quality of
life for a lifetime. Just to cite one example, it was through the
hearings in the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education that we have
learned a great deal about the growing epidemic of child obesity, its
causes, and its effects which include adult onset diabetes, high
cholesterol, premature cardiovascular disease, arthritis and other
substantial health problems.
As a former teacher and coach, I have a particular interest in the
health of young people, and in the importance of physical education in
particular. Before my election to Congress and my service in the Navy,
I was a teacher and coach at Hinsdale (Illinois) High School and at the
University of Missouri, and was privileged to coach swimmers who went
on to win gold and silver medals in the Olympics. I was also privileged
to coach young people who learned through physical activity the kind of
good health and good fund that last a lifetime.
But just as we are funding that obesity is a major, growing public
health problem among young people, we are likewise seeing major
declines in the kinds of physical education and physical activity that
would reduce obesity and its effects.
Children are becoming more and more inactive. One-half of young
people ages 12 to 21 do not participate in physical activity on a
regular basis. Less than one in four children get more than 20 minutes
of physical activity a day.
Meanwhile, the physical education programs in this country's schools
reflect the sedentary nature of our children's lifestyle. Only 27
percent of school children participate in physical education on a daily
basis and 40 percent of the nation's high school students are not
enrolled in physical education at all.
More children are obese. And fewer are participating in physical
education. I believe these two are fairly directly linked.
Does every child need to be the star quarterback, or a varsity track
star, to benefit from physical education? Not at all. Physical
education, with broad participation among every young person blessed
with every range of athletic gifts, builds health habits that last a
lifetime.
More directly to the point on public health, physical education
programs can help children counteract physical ailments by increasing
their levels of physical activity. Physical education can help children
develop skills, such as hand-eye coordination and dexterity. Physical
education can provide alternatives to crime, drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco.
And, Mr. Chairman, physical education is fun.
In an effort to realize some of these benefits, I believe that we
must renew a real and positive focus on physical education in our
nation's schools. I believe that Chairman's Porter's provision
allocating funding to CDC to focus on children's health behaviors
represents a good start. In part, I believe that it would benefit from
a particular strong additional emphasis on physical education in
schools, which helps accomplish many of the objectives we have in this
area. And I hope that the Chairman and I can work toward this end as
this appropriations bill goes to conference committee with the Senate.
I am sure that he shares my belief that the time and effort we invest
in physical education today will be small in comparison to the amount
of work that will be necessary for health care treatment should our
children's current trend towards sedentary lifestyles continue.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4577,
the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2001. This legislation would shortchange funding for
critical education programs and would seriously undermine efforts to
maximize student achievement, improve teacher quality, and improve our
public school systems. The legislation would also undermine important
worker rights by shortchanging the principal programs which protect the
health and safety of America's workers.
Mr. Chairman, at town meetings in my congressional district, parents
tell me they want to ensure that their children have good teachers in
small classes so that their children can get the personal attention
they need. Parents tell me we need to strengthen accountability in the
schools. Parents, teachers and principals tell me they urgently need
help in renovating aging school buildings. Parents and counselors tell
me that children need more after-school programs and that we need to
work much harder to close the digital divide. But the bill before us
today fails to meet the challenges of record enrollments, more students
with special needs, shortages of teachers and principals and schools
needing modernization.
Mr. Chairman, under this legislation students and schools in
California next year would be denied critical federal funds for
education. Under H.R. 4577, the state of California would receive no
support specifically targeted to deal with our lowest performing
schools or to improve the condition of outdated and dilapidated school
buildings. California would lose more than $396 million--money that was
requested by the President to improve teaching and learning in our
public schools and to help local schools improve the basic skills of
disadvantaged students. Passage of this bill would mean that California
would receive less money to hire new teachers and would jeopardize the
jobs of over 2,000 new teachers recently hired. Passage of this bill
would mean that California would lose more than $80 million to improve
teacher quality and recruit teachers for high-poverty school districts.
Passage of this bill would mean that California would receive over $56
million less to help students in high-poverty areas raise their
academic performance.
Mr. Chairman, the American public ranks education as a top priority
for federal investment. It is time to maximize student achievement.
This bill fails to address the most urgent problems in our education
system and falls over $3 billion short of the President's proposed
education funding levels. The bill eliminates important education
programs which have had a proven track record in improving the academic
performance of our children and our schools. I urge my colleagues in
the House to reject this bill and support a bipartisan bill that
provides all of our nation's students and schools with the resources
and assistance they need to succeed.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4577 also contains unacceptable cuts in programs
which protect the safety and health of America's workers. It would
undermine the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively
and would weaken attempts to enforce our nation's minimum wage and
child labor laws.
H.R. 4577 also contains a very unwise and dangerous anti-labor rider.
The legislation would prevent the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its proposed ergonomic standards.
Ergonomic hazards are still our nation's number one occupational safety
and health problem. Ten years ago, when I served as Chair of the
Employment and Housing Subcommittee, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth
Dole announced the need for ergonomic standards. Since that time more
than 6 million workers have suffered disabling ergonomic injuries. In
1997 alone, more than 600,000 workers suffered injuries as a result of
ergonomic hazards in the workplace and required time off from work. It
is critical that OSHA be allowed to move forward to issue ergonomic
protections in the workplace.
Ergonomic injuries are painful often crippling musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs) or injuries and leave many unable to work or live a
normal life. MSDs include injuries or disorders of the muscles,
tendons, ligaments, joint, cartilage and spinal disks. The main causes
of MSDs are overexertion and repetitive motion

[[Page H4308]]

and can occur during heavy lifting, forceful exertions, repetitive
motions and awkward postures. MSDs occur in all sectors of the economy
including the manufacturing, service, retail, agricultural,
construction, and industrial sectors. Ergonomic injuries are estimated
to cost the US economy more than $20 billion annually, $9 billion in
workers compensation. MSDs can be prevented. I urge my colleagues to
oppose H.R. 4577 and oppose any efforts that would prevent OSHA from
issuing ergonomic standards for the workplace.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unwise and detrimental to our
children and to American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on
this bill.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman. I rise to strike the last word. I stand in
strong opposition to the passage of the 2001 Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations bill because it severely cuts programs that are
extremely important to the education of our children, affects veterans
programs, and because it hurts displaced workers. I urge my colleagues
to oppose it.
The first problem with this bill is that it severely shortchanges
eduction--by $3.5 billion. This bill would end our commitment to hire
100,000 new teachers and to reduce class sizes. I am also concerned by
the fact that this bill would eliminate Head Start for some 53,000
children and cut $1.3 billion for urgent repairs to schools across the
country. These are critical issues for my district and for many
districts across the country. This bill will also eliminate school
counselors serving over 100,000 children. This would deprive schools of
the professionals they need to identify and help troubled children.
This bill also does considerable injustice to Bilingual and Immigrant
Education. The amount included in the bill for programs addressing
these issues in $54 million below the budget request. The professional
development of our bilingual education teachers is critically
important. The Labor, HHS, and Education bill in its current form
provides an amount that is $28.5 million below the budget request for
the important programs of Bilingual Education Professional Development.
The grants that are provided for the development of our teachers in
bilingual education are needed to increase the pool of trained teachers
and strengthen the skills of teachers who provide instruction to
students who have limited English proficiency. These funds support the
training and retraining of bilingual teachers. The disparities to
minority education will be increased if this bill is passed.
Secondly, this bill severely shortchanges programs that assist
displaced workers. This is a major issue for my constituents in El
Paso, as I know that it is for many of you in your home districts. In
El Paso and in other areas along the U.S./Mexico border, NAFTA has
created many displaced workers, and this bill undermines programs
designed to help them. For example, the bill cuts assistance to over
215,000 dislocated workers and it cuts the dislocated worker program by
$207 million below the 2000 budget level. These cuts will make it more
difficult for these workers to find jobs. This bill also cuts adult job
training for almost 40,000 adults. The cuts in adult training programs
equal $93 million or 10 percent below the request and 2000 levels.

Finally, this bill provides only $9.6 million for employment
assistance to another class of displaced workers: Our homeless
veterans. There are over a quarter million homeless veterans in this
country, and the provisions in this bill will deny employment
assistance to thousands of these Americans who have faithfully served
our country. This is unacceptable.
We are attacking programs that are needed to educate our children,
help our veterans, and to assist displaced workers. Again, I stand in
strong opposition to passage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for the past year, I have been
investigating the scientific research regarding a possible link between
the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and a type of autism,
known as autistic enterocolitis.
I have met with the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and
National Institutes of Health officials to discuss this matter. I have
also met with researchers that have identified measles virus in the
intestines of children with autistic enterocolitis. I have become very
concerned about a lack of interest on the part of the CDC and NIH to
fully examine this issue.
I am a strong proponent of vaccines. Vaccines save thousands of lives
in America each year and have spared our nation from the scourge of
disease that plagued our nation in the early part of the 20th Century
and that still plagues many parts of the globe. Recent reports (MMWR
Weekly, April 4, 2000) of measles outbreaks in unvaccinated populations
in developed countries like the Netherlands, indicate how important it
is to ensure confidence in our vaccination program so that children are
vaccinated against diseases.
This confidence is maintained by seriously considering all scientific
research related to vaccines, even if such research indicates that we
may need to make adjustments in the vaccine schedule. While some may
argue that a quick dismissal of such studies is needed to ensure
confidence in the national vaccination program, such action may
actually lead to the opposite effect and undermine confidence in the
program. I believe that the federal agencies responsible for our
nation's vaccination program must remain ever vigilant in fully
examining any research related to questions about vaccines to ensure
that confidence is maintained. This means giving serious consideration
and independent review to any credible study related to vaccinations.
Recent peer reviewed studies reveal that there may be emerging an
atypical phenotype of autism (autistic enterocolitis), in which normal
development is followed by developmental regression with a simultaneous
manifestation of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. One hypothesis is
that this may be related to a trivalent vaccine for Measles, Mumps and
Rubella (MMR). It is important that the appropriate federal agencies
give these studies a full and independent review to determine their
validity. Specifically, symptoms described in the study include ileal
lymphoid modular hyperplasia with chronic enterocolitis, immune and
metabolic derangement combined with a regressive developmental
disorder. Most important is the localization, quantitation and
sequencing of measles virus genome in affected tissues in the
gastrointestinal tract. The hypothesis, suggests the possibility of a
gut-mediated autism associated with the trivalent vaccine, whereby
damage to the gut may lead to damage to the central nervous system at a
sensitive time and thus the onset of the development disorder. It is
the combination of these vaccines in a single dose that may cause an
adverse effect, according to the researchers. They do not indicate a
similar concern when the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are given
in a monovalent form at different times.
I appreciate the chairman's and the committee's willingness to
include language in the bill recognizing the research on the MMR/Autism
issue by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of London, England and Professor John
O'Leary of Dublin, Ireland. I further appreciate their inclusion of
language in the report directing the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) to:

. . . give serious attention to these reports and pursue
appropriate research that will permit scientific analysis and
evaluation of the concerns that have been raised through all
available mechanisms, as appropriate, including an attempt to
replicate the molecular evidence of persistent measles virus
infection in children with autistic enterocolitis. This
research should be pursued in a way that does not cause undue
harm to the Nation's efforts to protect children against
vaccine-preventable diseases.

This language will ensure that the NIH works to replicate the work of
Dr. Wakefield and Prof. O'Leary and others who have raised concerns
about the trivalent vaccine and incidence of a regressive form of
autism.
Just last year the CDC took action to remove the Rotavirus vaccine
when evidence was presented indicating adverse reactions in several
children. It is this type of decisive action and willingness to fully
review our vaccine schedule when questions are raised that builds
confidence in our vaccine program. The CDC and NIH should pursue the
evidence presented in the MMR/Autism arena with equal vigor.
It is the best interest of our national vaccine program and the
safety of our children that the NIH and CDC attempt to replicate this
work in a timely manner. If such independent studies were to fail to
demonstrate Dr. Wakefield's and Prof. O'Leary's findings, this would
serve well to bolster public confidence in the safety of the MMR.
Certainly, if the research were to verify Dr. Wakefield's and Prof.
O'Leary's findings, this would be an important scientific finding that
policy makers would need to know and should know at the soonest time
possible. There are acceptable alternatives to the MMR, including
separating the vaccine and giving it at different times.
In order to secure public confidence in our national vaccine program.
I believe it is critical that public health officials fully examine any
research that calls into question the safety of vaccines. It is also
important that this research be done independent of the government
vaccine officials or vaccine manufacturers.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4577, the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education (Labor-HHS-Education) Appropriations Act, which includes
insufficient funding for critical education and health programs. I am
very concerned that this bill will not meet the needs of our nation and
is $7 billion less than the President's request for next year. I am
also disappointed that this bill includes budget gimmicks such as
advance funding and other mechanisms in order to fund programs. This is
another example of the Republican leadership trying to have it both
ways with its budget--say you are for unrealistic cuts in domestic
priorities and then find

[[Page H4309]]

ways to avoid such cuts. Advance funding means that programs do not get
the funding they need on a timely basis and results in fewer funds
being available in the out years. If we have needs to be met, I think
we should be honest with the American people and let them know exactly
how much funding is really needed to meet these needs. This bill fails
this test.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed funding for the
National Institutes of Health. This bill would provide $18.8 billion,
an increase of $1 billion above the Fiscal year 2000 budget, well below
Congress' goal of doubling the NIH's budget over five years. Over the
past three years, a bipartisan effort has helped to provide 15 percent
increases each year for the NIH. We know that the American public
strongly supports this investment and we know that this increased
funding can be well spent. For instance, only one in three of peer-
reviewed grants is currently funded by the NIH. If we do not maintain
this 15 percent increase, we will be losing the momentum that we have
gained over the past three years. Failing to maintain a sufficient
funding stream for NIH is counterproductive. With the President's
announcement yesterday of the Executive Order directing the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) to begin covering the routine patient
costs associated with clinical trials, the Administration and those of
us in Congress who have been pushing for this coverage by Medicare had
hoped to eliminate the bottleneck in biomedical research from the
laboratory to treatment. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not
sufficiently committed to providing the necessary resources to
biomedical research and finding cures to diseases such as AIDS, cancer,
heart disease, and Alzheimer's which plague the nation. As one of the
Co-Chairs of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, I am committed to
increasing this inadequate funding level.
Another concern is the funding for the Older Americans' Act. This
bill provides $926 million for senior citizen programs such as a
popular Meals-on-Wheels program to provide nutritional meals to senior
citizens. This funding level is $158 million less that President
Clinton's request and will not ensure that senior centers around the
nation get the support they need. Throughout my district, thousands of
senior citizens on fixed incomes rely greatly on these nutrition
programs.

This bill also fails to properly fund child care grants to the
states. The child care and development block grant program helps low-
income families to pay for child care services while they work. This
bill provides $400 million for the child care program which is $417
million less than the President's request of $817 million. If we want
people to move from welfare to work, and we do, we must ensure that
they receive sufficient assistance in order to take care of their
children in quality, safe child care centers. All of us as parents know
the cost of child care is rising. And when we passed the Welfare Reform
Act of 1996, my support was not only for limitations on benefits and
requirements to work but also ensuring that sufficient child care funds
were provided to the states. This bill goes back on that commitment.
This bill signals a retreat on education, which I cannot support,
H.R. 4577 provides overall education funding at $2.9 billion below both
the Administration's budget and $3 billion below the bipartisan Senate
bill. These cuts in education funding would seriously undermine efforts
to maximize student achievement, improve teacher quality and ensure
accountability in public education for all of our nations' students.
The unsatisfactory overall funding level for education neglects the
needs of America's schoolchildren and it ignores the public
prioritization of education as the preeminent issue of the new century.
For elementary and secondary education programs, the bill provides
only a nominal increase--$2.6 billion below the Administration's budget
and more than $2.5 billion below the Senate approved appropriation.
Factoring in inflation and rising student enrollment, this funding
level essential represents a funding freeze at the same time the
nation's public schools are experiencing record enrollment growth.
While H.R. 4577 increases special education funding by $500 million--
which I strongly support--it does so by reducing virtually all other
elementary and secondary education programs below current levels.
H.R. 4577 not only eliminates targeted funding to help low-performing
students maximize student achievement, it would freeze Title I program
funds and effectively deny additional math and reading services to
several hundred thousand disadvantaged students. Last fall, the House
passed H.R. 2, the Student Results Act, a bipartisan measure that set
the Title I funding level for FY2001 at $9.85 billion. H.R. 4577 would
cut $2 billion from the amount authorized in H.R. 2. Although the
Congressional Research Service has determined that Title I funding
would need to be tripled to $24 billion in order to serve fully all of
the nations eligible low-income children, H.R. 4577 falls well short of
meeting the needs of this important educational tool. At a time when
parents and politicians are calling for better results and more
accountability, H.R. 4577 would fail to target adequate resources to
those students with the greatest need and would leave too many children
who urgently need targeted educational assistance out in the cold.
In addition to the freeze in Title I funds, H.R. 4577 is $1.5 billion
below the level Congress recently approved on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan basis in H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act. On average,
it costs more than $14,000 to educate a special education student.
Local school districts simply could not afford those expenditures on
their own. The Budget Committee's assumption of a $2 billion increase
would have significantly advanced the congressional effort to provide
40 percent of the funding for IDEA.

H.R. 4577 also fails to fund the critical need for school
modernization and renovation. Under this bill, $1.3 billion in
emergency grants and loans proposed by the Administration for essential
school construction and modernization would be denied. These funds
would leverage $6.7 billion over 5,000 repair projects in the highest-
need areas of our nation. This bill denies the desperately needed funds
to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing, improve accessibility for
disabled students and bring local school buildings into compliance with
local safety codes.
This legislation would also jeopardize the class-size reduction
program Congress approved just last November. H.R. 4577 would block-
grant the $1.75 billion requested for smaller classes, which has
already helped school district to hire 29,000 highly qualified new
teachers including 2,500 in Texas. Eliminating funds for class-size
reduction would jeopardize gains recently attained and would prevent
the hiring of an additional 20,000 qualified teachers to serve 2.9
million children.
H.R. 4577 also provides $1 billion less than the Administration's
request for teacher quality programs. The House has already approved
two ESEA reauthorization bills requiring all teachers to be fully
certified and highly qualified. Schools will need additional funds to
recruit and train the 2.2 million new teachers needed in the next
decade, and to strengthen the skills of current teachers. The bill also
reduces the Administration's request for teacher technology training by
$65 million, which will deny 100,000 teachers the opportunity to
develop the necessary skills to use technology effectively in the
classroom.
Federal education funding is critical for the improvement of our
nation's schools. The FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation bill
fails to appropriate the necessary funding for education programs and
quality resources, while it intrudes upon the realm of local decision
makers. We must protect America's successful public school system by
rejecting this inadequate bill.
The Committee erred in its approval of the Northup amendment banning
the use of funds for implementation of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) proposed rules for ergonomics. I believe OSHA has
properly identified the need to address Repetitive Strain Injuries
(RSIs) which research has found annually forces more than 600,000
workers to lose time from their jobs. These disorders constitute the
largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United States
today. Employers pay more than $15-$20 billion in workers' compensation
costs for these disorders every year, and other expenses associated
with RSIs may increase this total to $45-$54 billion a year.
There appears to be broad consensus that a well-designed work space
can reduce employee injuries, heightens productivity and save money.
Employers benefit from creating office environments and workplaces that
are healthful to workers. Clearly, OSHA has a significant role to play
to prevent such injuries. But I also believe the OSHA proposed rule has
some flaws which should be addressed, first through the rule-making
process and only if it is determined that OSHA fails to fully address
legitimate concerns should it subsequently be addressed through the
legislative process. It is heavy-handed to simply ban any action and
pretend ergonomics does not exist.
Additionally, H.R. 4577, fails to provide adequate funding for the
Title X family planning program. Title X, as a federal domestic family
planning program, grants state health departments and regional umbrella
agencies funding for voluntary, confidential reproductive health
services. This perennially underfunded program has provided basic
health care to more than 4.5 million young and low-income women in over
4,600 clinics throughout the nation. Regrettably, Title X is often the
only source for basic health care for many uninsured low-income women
who fail to qualify for Medicaid. Eighty three percent of women
receiving federal family planning services rely solely on clinics
funded by Title X for their family planning services. In light of these
dramatic statistics, H.R. 4577 fails once again for its meager $239
million funding stream.

[[Page H4310]]

Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill which fails in almost every
count, but particularly in health research and education. Rather than
invest in our nation's potential, this bill tracks a flawed budget
resolution which sacrifices our domestic priorities for the benefit of
tax cuts, fails to adequately retire national debt and engages in
fiscal chicanery. As such, I cannot support the bill as presented.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the
amendment offered by Representative Schaffer. This amendment has a good
objective but takes its funding from a valuable program that provides
real learning opportunities to so many children and their parents.
Mr. Chairman, I have long called for the federal government to fully
fund its commitment to IDEA. During the past four fiscal years, the
Republican majority in Congress has increased funding for IDEA by 115
percent, or $2.6 billion, for the federal share in Part B of IDEA. Even
with the increase, however, the funding equals only 12.6 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure to assist children with disabilities. We
must do better.
Indeed, we passed a bill this year H.R. 4055 that calls for the
federal government to meet its obligation to special education within
ten years. The bill would authorize increases of $2 billion a year over
the next 10 years to meet the federal commitment of 40 percent by 2010.
The money to fully fund IDEA must come from somewhere. What this
means is that some difficult decisions have to be made.
In this case though, reducing the funding for the Even Start Program
is the wrong decision. The Even Start Program provides opportunities
for parents lacking a high school diploma or GED and their children to
receive instruction in basic skills, support for their children's
education, and early childhood education for those participating in the
program.
There is a great deal of unmet need in the family literacy field. The
appropriation in the bill will help ensure we can help more families
break the cycle of illiteracy and poverty and become self-sufficient.
While we need additional funding for IDEA, we also need to increase
spending for quality literacy programs. In fact, by taking money from
literacy programs such as Even Start actually defeats the purpose of
the programs. We should be trying to reduce the need for special
education by investing in early childhood literacy programs.
The best argument against this amendment is that we know that family
literacy works. Parents are the key to their child's academic success.
The more parents read to their children and actively participate in
their education, the greater the probability that their children will
succeed in school. We should not be cutting funding for this important
program.
I firmly believe that the amount of federal funding that goes to IDEA
must be increased. Having said that, however, we need to be responsible
about where we get the money to increase funding for IDEA. Even Start
is not the place to take money away.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Schaffer amendment.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in a time of unprecedented economic
growth and surplus, the majority supported bill shortchanges every
American citizen in our country. Republicans have systematically cut
funding for a number of important initiatives in the President's
budget. And, despite the fact that Americans ranked education--over
health care, tax cuts or paying down the national debt--as their
highest priority for additional federal funding, this bill falls short
of providing $3.5 billion of the President's request for education
programs alone.
This bill fails to provide funding for the President's School Repairs
initiative of $1.3 billion in loan subsidies and grants to repair up to
5,000 aging and neglected public schools. Natural disasters and
inadequate funding to provide maintenance have contributed to the decay
of Guam's aging public schools. As a result, thousands of Guam's
students are crowded into makeshift classrooms or in temporary
buildings. The most dramatic example of this is the temporary closure
of an entire elementary school in my District of Guam. Last year, C.L.
Taitano Elementary School was shut down for repair because it could no
longer meet the local safety codes required to keep its doors open. In
the interim repair period, nearly all the students were shifted to
temporary buildings--trailers. This interim is expected to last more
than a year. Having classrooms housed in trailers is simply
unacceptable. Having an entire elementary school in trailers is an
abomination. All American students deserve a decent education; Guam is
no exception. Guam's schools are in dire need of repairs now.
This bill fails to support our school children and teachers by
providing funding needed for the President's Class-Size Reduction
initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers by FY 2005. This in effect
repeals the bipartisan agreement on class size reduction and
jeopardizes the Federal commitment to hire as many as 20,000 new
teachers next year.
This bill cuts funding for ESEA Title I grants for local education
agencies by more than $400 million from the President's request of $8.4
billion. Title I helps over 11 million disadvantaged school children
gain skills in core academic subjects and helps them achieve to high
academic standards. This would eliminate services to more than 650,000
low income students. In FY 2000, Guam's schools received $5.3 million
in Title I grants. The FY 2001 request for Guam is $5.6 million.
This bill cuts $51 million from the President's request of $650
million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Fully funding the
President's request would enable the expansion of the Safe School/
Healthy Students school violence prevention initiative to an additional
40 school districts.
This bill freezes the FY 2001 appropriations for Bilingual Education
to FY 2000 levels. At $248 million, this is a decrease of $48 million
from the President's request of $296 million.
Approximately 3.4 million students enrolled in schools through the
nation have difficulty speaking English. From 1990 to 1997, we saw a
57% increase in limited English proficient (LEP) students. With
continued growth in the school enrollments of LEP students, we will
have to turn away more than 100 qualified school districts and deny
desperately needed services to approximately 143,000 LEP students.
This bill also shortchanges labor and health programs which will put
American workers and seniors at risk. Although the national
unemployment rate is at its lowest level in 30 years, not all corners
of the United States are experiencing the benefits of a robust economy.
In Guam, unemployment is at 14%, nearly 3.5 times the national average
of 3.9% The unemployment forecast for 2000 is expected to be even
higher. We need to safeguard programs that provide training and relief
for all American workers.
This bill not only ignores the $275 million requested increase for
the second year of the five-year plan to provide universal re-
employment services to all America, it cuts $593 million or 30% below
the President's request and 19% cut below the FY 2000 level.
Seventy-six million baby boomers will begin reaching retirement age
eight years from now. The population of those over age 85, who often
need the greatest care, is expected to increase by 33% in the next 10
years. The urgency to prepare for the needs of our aging population is
critical.
This bill eliminates $36 million in the HCFA budget for the Nursing
Home Initiative. This would safeguard the delivery of quality health
care in nursing homes across the nation through state surveying and
certification reviews.
This bill eliminates the President's $125 million request for the
Community Access Program to address the growing number of those workers
without health insurance. Approximately 44.5 million Americans were
uninsured in 1998-24.6 million of those uninsured were workers.
We cannot ignore the needs of our diverse community! The education,
health, and social well-being of our nation is at stake. This bill
neglects to recognize the most fundamental needs of our communities.
For all these reasons, I strongly oppose the passage of this bill.
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.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore 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.

____________________