[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10346-10392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following 
prayer:
  Lord, You alone can take the rock rejected or the stone overlooked 
and make it Your cornerstone. Upon Your chosen cornerstone, precious in 
Your sight and sacred by Your handling, You create something new.
  You are the master builder. It is You, Lord God, who have redeemed 
Your people. You are the one who has given us this land of freedom and 
opportunity. You continue to fashion us into Your people and make of us 
a powerful nation.
  By Your spirit, awaken in us Your desires. Help us to seize the 
present moment to bring forth Your set purpose in this world.
  May the edifice You make of us be a city of virtue built on a 
mountain top; a beacon of justice, a household of integrity, and a 
harbor of peace.
  In You, O God, Your people of promise find fulfillment now, in the 
future, and forever.
  Amen.

                          ____________________



                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the 
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________



                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) 
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. LAMPSON led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________



                          TRIBUTE TO BOB JOHNS

  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude to a 
member of our Nevada staff, Dr. Robert Johns, for his dedication, hard 
work and commitment to this Nation. Dr. Johns has not only worked 
diligently serving the people of Nevada in our northern Nevada district 
office but has also served as the vice chairman of the President's 
council on historic preservation for two terms during the Reagan 
administration. As a retired World War II naval officer, Dr. Bob Johns 
has dedicated most of his life to public service. He is a real American 
hero, Mr. Speaker. We both grew up in the same small town, Sparks, 
Nevada, just a few blocks apart. I have been honored to have Bob Johns 
as a true friend and a member of my staff since my time in the Nevada 
State legislature.
  On May 30, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Johns celebrated his 80th birthday. He 
continues to work every day serving as an active and vital public 
servant in his home State of Nevada.
  Thank you, Dr. Johns, for your friendship, your hard work and your 
commitment to the people of Nevada and to this Nation.

                          ____________________



                        INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION

  (Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell the story of Audrey 
Lynn Leinoff. Audrey was abducted from New York when she was 4 years 
old by her noncustodial mother, Marcia Leinoff, on May 25, 1988. The 
international criminal police organization also known as Interpol 
confirmed that both Audrey and Ms. Leinoff entered Israel on June 19, 
1988. Although there has been no confirmation of their ever departing 
Israel, their actual presence currently and location in Israel are 
unknown. Audrey's maternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Sylvia Bloom, are 
also believed to be involved with the abduction.
  In addition to custody from the United States, Audrey's father was 
given sole custody in January 1991 by the Jerusalem district court. Mr. 
Leinoff, despite having custody, has not had any contact with his 
daughter since her abduction.
  Mr. Speaker, children like Audrey deserve to have a relationship with 
both their parents, and parents deserve a relationship with their 
children. This House should make sure that the most sacred of bonds, 
that between a parent and a child, is preserved. We must bring our 
children home.

                          ____________________



                         GAS PRICES ON THE RISE

  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, gasoline is $2.20 a gallon. That is 
right,

[[Page 10347]]

$2.20. Now, if that is not enough to bust your bunions, Congress gives 
billions of dollars to OPEC countries, and they rip us off. To boot, 
the domestic oil companies are gouging us so bad, we are all passing 
gas.
  Beam me up. I think it is time to tell the OPEC countries, ``The next 
time you are attacked, call BP and Rotary. Don't call us.'' I also 
think it is time to pass H.R. 3902, which imposes a $100 million fine 
for any American oil company that unreasonably gouges us and raises 
prices. Enough is enough.
  I yield back the fact that while Uncle Sam is killing Microsoft, we 
are getting our oil changed big time.

                          ____________________



                              SIERRA LEONE

  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the situation in 
Sierra Leone, a marvelous country, a country with great promise, a 
country that provided freedom for slaves many years ago. Today it is in 
utter chaos. Revolution is taking place. But what is unique about this 
is that it is not a political revolution, even though it pretends to be 
that, but it is basically a band of bandits trying to take over the 
country so that they can have access to the diamonds and the diamond 
mines. They already have access to many of them and they are using 
those diamonds to finance the revolution.
  The rebels are incredibly inhumane. Most of their captives have been 
released but only after a hand, a leg, a foot, or an arm have been 
chopped off and amputated.
  The inhumanity is such that last week, an 8-month-old baby had his 
arm amputated when his mother was captured as part of the revolution. 
Imagine the rebels amputated the arm of an 8-month-old baby!
  We must work with the British and the U.N. to stop this. We must act 
in a meaningful, humane way, and not back down from this as we have 
been backing down for a decade. It is time for our State Department and 
our President to act.

                          ____________________



                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 
announces that he will postpone further proceedings today on each 
motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and 
nays are ordered, or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of 
rule XX.
  Any record votes on postponed questions will be taken after debate 
has concluded on all motions to suspend the rules but not before 6 p.m. 
today.

                          ____________________



            REQUIRING FRAUD AUDIT OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4079) to require the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the Department of 
Education, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4079

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE FRAUD AUDIT OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   EDUCATION.

       (a) Audit.--Within 6 months after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall--
       (1) conduct and complete a fraud audit of selected accounts 
     at the Department of Education that the Comptroller General 
     determines to be particularly susceptible to waste, fraud, 
     and abuse; and
       (2) submit a report setting forth the results of the audit 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor and Pensions of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 4079.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4079 is a bill that in many ways we would probably 
rather not be dealing with today. We are dealing with this issue 
because of the Department of Education's inability to receive a clean 
audit. Each year, the Department of Education, like other Federal 
agencies, is required to undergo an audit. For fiscal years 1998 and 
1999, the Department of Education could not receive a clean audit 
opinion. In plain English what that means is that the financial 
analysts who have gone in and taken a look at the books as prepared by 
the Department of Education do not have a high degree of confidence 
that the figures and the numbers that are reported in their financial 
statements are an accurate reflection of the actual conditions at the 
Department of Education.
  Now, there are a number of reasons why this has occurred. There are 
also a number of instances where this lack of financial control has 
exhibited itself. One of the reasons why the Department is unable to 
get a clean audit is that it lacks an accounting system that meets 
generally accepted standards or complies with Federal financial 
management standards. That is why it could not get a clean set of books 
for the last 2 years.
  The disappointing thing here, and I think this is why we need to take 
this step today, is that the Department also does not expect to have an 
effective account system in place until at least October 2001, more 
than a year out. Thus, the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 audits will most 
likely result in the same results as 1998 and 1999, an inability to get 
a clean audit.
  Now, it would be one thing just to say they cannot get a clean set of 
books. It is another when the General Accounting Office and other 
groups have identified that because of the weaknesses within the 
financial control system, this Department has experienced a number of 
cases of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Let me just highlight a couple of these. The Inspector General and 
the General Accounting Office have identified a number of examples. One 
is that the Department over the last 2 years has issued about $175 
million in duplicate payments to grantees. These payments continue to 
occur despite the Department's avowed attempts to crack down on them.
  What is a duplicate payment? Well, we have here a list of duplicate 
payments that occurred in October of 1999. What a duplicate payment is, 
is that it means the Department recognizes that it has a liability, 
that it owes a State, it owes a contractor, or a supplier a certain 
amount of money, it cuts a check and it pays them. A duplicate payment 
means that it cuts a check and pays them again.
  This is to the tune of over $175 million of duplicate payments, one 
as large as $71,425,000 that occurred on 10/20/1999. As I said, these 
payments have continued through 2000. So that is one area that the 
Inspector General and the GAO have said this is perhaps an area that we 
need to take an additional look at. Why? We need to identify whether, 
number one, we have captured all of the duplicate payments and we have 
identified all the contractors or suppliers who have received a 
duplicate payment. If not, let us find them.
  The second thing we need to do is we need to identify whether for all 
of the duplicate payments that have been made, whether the American 
taxpayer and the Federal Government have been reimbursed for this 
duplicate payment. And then, thirdly, we need the General Accounting 
Office to go in and identify the problems that the Department of 
Education has in their system that allows this problem to continue on 
for 2 years.
  So this is not a single occurrence. This is a series of occurrences 
over a period of 2 years that have resulted in

[[Page 10348]]

over $175 million in duplicate payments.

                              {time}  1415

  Last month, a contract employee at the Department became the second 
person to plead guilty in participating in a theft ring. This is, 
again, disturbing because this builds off of recommendations that were 
not followed in previous audits. Previous audits, previous work by the 
Inspector General and by the General Accounting Office had indicated 
that the Department of Education did not have an effective way of 
managing its inventory, meaning that it would go out and buy capital 
assets, but had no way of tracking what assets were purchased and the 
location of each of those assets.
  The result is, that with a lack of a good system in place, we created 
an environment where employees understood that there was a lack of 
these controls in place and, actually, created an environment that 
became inviting for waste, fraud and, in this case, abuse and fraud. 
Because what happened is that this Department of Education employee, 
along with outside contractors, and there are still additional people 
that are being investigated in this process, they put in place, we will 
use the word that is kind of in vogue today, they used a scheme to 
defraud the Department of close to a million dollars.
  The scheme worked like this: someone within the purchasing department 
at the Department of Education would issue requisitions for certain 
kinds of equipment, and, in this case, it included computers. It 
included telephone equipment. It included a 61-inch TV, that is one big 
TV, and a whole series of other electronic equipment.
  They would issue the requisition, the equipment would be purchased, 
and it would be delivered somewhere other than the Department of 
Education, perhaps to the employee's home or other locations ensuring 
that the equipment never came to the Department of Education. Roughly 
$330,000 worth of equipment was defrauded from the Department through 
this mechanism.
  Now, these purchase orders were supplied to an outside contractor. 
What was then in it for the outside contractor? The benefit to the 
outside contractor was that this outside contractor would be allowed 
and the purchasing agent would approve for the billing of hourly work 
and overtime by this outside contractor.
  It is estimated that in this case close to $600,000 in phony overtime 
was paid to this and other outside contractors. When we combine the 
fraud of purchasing this equipment and the overtime, we have close to a 
million dollars in fraud from the Department of Education.
  These are just two examples of why I think on a bipartisan basis we 
have recognized that when we are talking about some of the most 
important dollars that we spend in Washington today, those dollars that 
we invest in our young people, that we invest in our educational 
system, that when those are going into a Department we need to ensure 
that we have got the highest standards of integrity and accountability 
to make sure that those dollars are being spent where they will make a 
difference and that they are not being siphoned off through either 
waste and, in these cases, fraud and abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, I, too, support this bill before us today that was 
voice voted with unanimous support out of the whole Committee on 
Education and the Workforce just recently, at the end of May.
  Just so our colleagues are clear, yes, there are problems at the 
Department of Education that we need to oversee, and I think this bill 
will address many of those issues. But the Department of Education is 
not the only agency that is having problems with audits and getting 
certified unqualified audits reported. In fact, at last count, we have 
10 agencies and probably 11 for fiscal year 1999 alone that have not 
been able to produce unqualified audit reports.
  We are not talking about an anomaly here in the Department of 
Education; but what I think is a whole scale problem that is affecting 
many, many different agencies within the Federal Government; and, 
hopefully, through the leadership of our committee and the oversight 
work that we have done here, it will encourage even greater oversight 
with many of these additional agencies, so we can get a clean, healthy 
book of record for all of the agencies that were responsible to the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the Department of Education, there has 
been proof that the Department has been defrauded by some employees or 
contractors as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 
indicated. While indictments and a conviction has been secured, in 
regards to the investigation at the Department, it is important that 
we, as the oversight body for the Department and its programs, ensure 
the security and safety of the Department's finances.
  The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has held several 
hearings regarding the state of the Department's financial management 
systems, and we are very aware that the Department has had significant 
shortcomings in its audits over the last 5 or 6 years.
  While the Department of Education is just one of several Federal 
agencies that have been unable to obtain unqualified audit reports in 
recent years, we, as policymakers and the overseers, cannot take a 
relativistic attitude toward's Department audit shortcomings. We must 
set high standards for ourselves and the Department just as we do for 
the educators we are trying to assist through the Department programs.
  With that being said, I have been very encouraged by the Department 
of Education's response to its audit weaknesses in the last year or so 
especially. New staff at the Inspector General's office and the chief 
financial officer's office had helped motivate change and a greater 
degree of responsibility in regards to the books in the Department. The 
last audit was completed on time and with corrections to previous 
weaknesses.
  We on the subcommittee have been assured by the Department's new IG 
that the financial records will be produced in a timely and adequate 
manner for future audits. The electronic nightmare, which the 
Department has been living through with failing and faulty computer and 
accounting systems, should finally be corrected in the next 2 years, 
building more security and reliability in the overall financial system 
at the Department regarding outright fraud.
  At our last subcommittee hearing on the subject, I was told by both 
the Inspector General and the outside auditor after a specific question 
to them on this issue that there is no systematic fraud or abuse that 
they have been able to detect at the Department of Education.
  Obviously, again, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 
pointed out, instances of fraud have, nevertheless, occurred at the 
time of the hearing. We are aware of pending investigations, and it is 
very distressing that multiple cases of fraud have, in fact, taken 
place.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to just take a moment and commend the 
subcommittee Chair in his realization in order to save taxpayer dollars 
that we are taking a more targeted fraud investigation approach to the 
audit requests contained in this bill today. I think it is a very 
reasonable and responsible approach to this.
  Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to demand a more probing audit 
specifically geared towards fraud detection and vulnerability at the 
Department. Ultimately, it is this committee's jurisdiction to 
authorize funding for the education programming that we expect will 
hopefully benefit the neediest of America's schools and children.
  We decide programs structure. We set relative priorities, and we are 
the first to berate the appropriators for underfunding our education 
authorization levels. Accordingly, we must also be the first to raise 
the alarm when management issues move from the realm of accounting 
weaknesses to direct fraud and abuse.

[[Page 10349]]

  I agree that a narrow, selective fraud investigation is warranted and 
should allow the Department to proceed with its financial management 
upgrades and security enhancements. Hopefully with this audit and the 
regular audits our subcommittee has been reviewing, we soon will see 
the promises of the Department and the Inspector General come to 
fruition. Hopefully, we will soon be able to focus on education policy 
with confidence and undivided attention, be able to move beyond just 
oversight and get to the bottom of some of the problems that exist at 
the Department of Education and pass important and meaningful education 
legislation that many of us were hoping to achieve this year.
  We still have yet to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, a vitally important program in order to improve the 
quality of education, especially for the most vulnerable and needy 
school children throughout our country. We have an Even Start Family 
Literacy bill that has passed the committee back in February, I 
believe, with wide bipartisan support under the leadership of the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), and that has yet to see the light of day on the House floor.
  We are hoping to be able to move to that work as soon as possible, as 
well as some of the other unfinished education issues that are still 
pending before this Congress.
  Let's do a responsible job of providing appropriate oversight with 
the Department of Education but let's not also lose sight on the 
unfinished job of passing meaningful education legislation that is 
going to improve the quality of education that our Nation's children 
deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind) for his words and also his highlighting that hopefully some of 
the work that we have done on the subcommittee can perhaps be a 
stimulus for the House as a whole. We are currently in the process of 
drafting a piece of legislation where we apply the same standard to 
other Federal agencies that we have applied here to the Department of 
Education that says if, for 2 consecutive years, a Department or an 
agency cannot get a clean audit that it should be a fundamental 
requirement that a more in-depth analysis or a quote, unquote, a fraud 
audit or a targeted fraud audit should take place within these agencies 
because what we do know is that when an agency cannot deliver a clean 
audit, the auditors have some concern about their internal controls as 
to how they are measuring and recording the various expenditures. So 
the same standard that we apply to the Department of Education should 
apply to all of the other agencies that we have, whether it is the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Labor or whatever we are 
working on, and propose this one because of the work that the 
subcommittee has done in this area.
  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), because I agree with him the more time that 
we can spend on exploring educational policy and what is going on at 
the State and local level as to what works and what does not, the more 
effective we can be in spending the billions of dollars that we are 
allocating here at a Federal level so that we can move away from purely 
the measurement of where the dollars are going, but actually be taking 
a look at the effectiveness and are we getting the impact for the 
dollars that we would like to have.
  I have to applaud my colleague. I think we have been in 21 different 
States and had 23 field hearings, and my colleague consistently is 
there with us. He has been in New Mexico with us. He has been in 
Colorado with us. Last week he was in Minnesota. He has been in my 
district in Michigan; and consistently when we are at a State in a 
local level having a field hearing, he has been there and participating 
in that process to make sure that we are getting the best bang for our 
buck.
  The other thing that I would like to also say is that we have had a 
very good working relationship, developing a good working relationship 
with the new Inspector General and with the General Accounting Office. 
The General Accounting Office has completed an audit of the 
Department's grant back fund where there were some questions about how 
these dollars were being used and what was moving into the account and 
whether that was appropriate or not; and as a result of the work that 
they have done with us, I think, again, in a bipartisan way, the 
Department, I think, has returned over $700 million back to the 
Treasury.
  I think that is a very good, cooperative way of us moving through 
this process and dealing with this ugly side of the financial 
management part of the Department of Labor. I also think that as we 
move through this process in a more targeted approach, one of the ways 
that the Department or one of the areas that the Inspector General and 
the General Accounting Office have agreed with us that they will take a 
look at is the security of the computer data systems that the 
Department of Education maintains.
  These systems contain student loan and grant records for tens of 
millions of students, and what we want to do is we want to make sure 
that the safeguards are in place to maintain the integrity of these 
systems to make sure that no one can get into these files and either 
steal data or manipulate the data that are in these files.
  It is a wide-ranging effort that we have undertaken, and I think we 
have had good cooperation from both sides of the aisle as well as with 
the Department, with the Inspector General and also with the General 
Accounting Office to get to the bottom of these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of the subcommittee for his remarks 
and would be happy to be able to work with him and others who are 
drafting this legislation in order to form a stricter, higher standard 
of audit accountability in the rest of the agencies. I think that that 
is long overdue and the gentleman is heading in the right direction in 
drafting legislation for that very requirement.
  Again, I do not want our colleagues who are listening to this 
discussion today to be under some false impression that everything is 
wrong and bad and the Department of Education is breaking down and they 
are not actually accomplishing some very worthwhile goals and 
objectives over there, because they are. As I indicated, during the 
previous hearings that we have had on the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, as well as other Education hearings, there is a lot of 
hope and promise that we are finally starting to turn the corner, as 
far as the quality of programming, more direction with the resources, 
emphasizing quality and accountability, rather than just expansion of 
programs.

                              {time}  1430

  So I think there are a lot of things you can point to and show 
definite progress and improvement at the Department of Education.
  I also feel that when the history books are written on this 
administration, we are going to be able to look back on the Department 
of Education and the leadership which has been provided to it by 
Secretary Riley and realize we have had one of the most effective, 
brightest, hard-working, and thought-provoking and innovative 
Secretaries that our Nation has ever seen in Secretary Riley. So I hope 
people do not view this as a reflection on the work that he has done at 
the Department of Education. Because under his leadership there have 
been significant improvements overall at the Department of Education. I 
just want to highlight a couple of those that we have seen in recent 
years.
  The Education Department today has roughly two-thirds of the number 
of employees administering its programs since 1980, even though the 
budget has approximately doubled since then. The Education Department 
has trimmed its

[[Page 10350]]

regulations by a third and reduced grant application paperwork and 
aggressively implemented waiver authority to legal roadblocks to State 
reform.
  The student loan default rate is now at a record low 8.8 percent 
after declining for 7 consecutive years. It was 22.4 percent when 
President Clinton took office, and, as a result, the taxpayers in this 
country have been saved billions of dollars.
  Collections on defaulted loans have more than tripled, from $1 
billion in fiscal year 1993 to over $3 billion in fiscal year 1999 
alone.
  The Direct Student Loan Program proposed by President Clinton in 1993 
and enacted by Congress in 1994 has saved taxpayers over $4 billion 
over the last 5 years.
  The creation of the National Student Loan Data System has allowed 
education officials to identify prior defaulters and thereby prevent 
the disbursement of as much as $1 billion in new grants and loans to 
ineligible students.
  The customer saving rates for ED Pubs, the Education Department's 
documents and distribution center, exceed those of premier corporations 
like Federal Express and Nordstrom.
  There are also signs that the quality of education is starting to 
turn the corner as well. We have higher academic standards and 
assessments being put in place throughout the 50 States, improvement in 
the Nation's reading scores in the three grades tested, and math scores 
are starting to show some improvement as well.
  Yes, there are some management problems that we are hopefully going 
to be able to get to the bottom of, and, with this legislation, sooner 
rather than later, but there are a lot of achievements and progress 
being made with the Department of Education and the programs they are 
responsible for that we shouldn't lose sight of even with the need for 
this legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for working together on this issue. 
We have outlined some of the problems within the Department of 
Education. Hopefully through this effort, by having the General 
Accounting Office go in and take a more in-depth analysis, hopefully 
they will go in and they will not find additional fraud or abuse and 
they will find that the Department is operating appropriately. At this 
point in time, we just do not know. We have enough cases that indicate 
on a bipartisan basis that we need to go in for a closer look.
  This is a targeted approach. This is an approach that we can work 
with the General Accounting Office on and make sure that we are dealing 
with the appropriate issues at the right time and that we then can move 
on to the other things that my colleague from Wisconsin was alluding 
to, as to the effectiveness of the spending participating here in 
Washington, are we getting the maximum effect for the dollars we are 
spending.
  That will be a debate for another day, or hopefully that will be a 
debate or a process that we can build a bipartisan consensus as to the 
best way to move forward, empowering local officials and parents to 
make the decisions for the education of their children because that 
really is the leverage point, empowering parents and local officials to 
focus on basic academics, delivered in a safe and drug-free school, so 
that our children can get the best education of any kids in the world.
  I think that is a vision that we share on a bipartisan basis, at 
least getting the best education for our kids. We may have some 
disagreements as to what the best process is, but we have the same 
long-term goals and objectives in mind.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4079, 
which requires the Comptroller General to conduct a fraud audit of 
selected accounts at the U.S. Department of Education. I want to thank 
Mr. Hoekstra for his work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  I note at the outset that this bill received the support of minority 
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce at our full 
committee mark-up held a couple of weeks ago. Both majority and 
minority members of the Committee are aware of the serious financial 
management problems at the Department of Education. This awareness is 
due to the considerable time and effort the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations has spent assessing the agency's practices. Through 
its hearings, the Subcommittee found the department's operations and 
practices to be very susceptible to fraud and abuse.
  By way of background, I would note that Congress has increased 
federal education funding in recent years. The Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001 provides $37.2 billion in 
discretionary spending for the Department of Education. The agency also 
currently manages a $100 billion direct student loan portfolio, a new 
banking function initiated by the Clinton Administration. I am 
concerned that the direct loan program is becoming a millstone around 
the neck of an agency struggling to handle its basic responsibilities.
  Recent reports of independent auditors have informed us that the 
Department neither practices sound fiscal management nor possesses an 
appropriate accounting system. The agency has yet to get its first 
clean audit opinion and is consistently cited by auditors for failings. 
These include an inability to reconcile its accounts with Treasury; 
failure to properly inventory its computers and other equipment; and an 
inability to safeguard effectively its computer systems from access by 
unauthorized users.
  Federal education dollars that should go to the classroom are instead 
going to buying television sets, computers and palm pilots for friends 
and relatives of Department of Education employees. Two individuals 
recently pleaded guilty to participating in such a scheme, which 
remains under investigation by the Justice Department. And this is only 
one in a series of abuses recently examined by the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigation.
  We have tried as a Congress to improve the fiscal stewardship of the 
Department. When the 105th Congress wrote the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1998, it turned the Education Department's Office of 
Student Financial Assistance into the federal govenment's first 
performance-based organization.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4079, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________



             HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2000

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4504) to make technical amendments to the Higher Education 
Act of 1965, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4504

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Higher 
     Education Technical Amendments of 2000''.
       (b) Reference.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in 
     this Act, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     Act, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if 
     enacted as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-244).

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Amendments to Title I.--
       (1) Section 101(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, 
     or students who meet the requirements of section 484(d)(3)''.
       (2) Section 102(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(2)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--For the purpose of qualifying as an 
     institution under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall 
     establish criteria by regulation for the approval of 
     institutions

[[Page 10351]]

     outside the United States and for the determination that such 
     institutions are comparable to an institution of higher 
     education as defined in section 101 (except that a graduate 
     medical school, or a veterinary school, located outside the 
     United States shall not be required to meet the requirements 
     of section 101(a)(4)). Such criteria shall include a 
     requirement that a student attending such school outside the 
     United States is ineligible for loans made, insured, or 
     guaranteed under part B unless--
       ``(i) in the case of a graduate medical school located 
     outside the United States--

       ``(I)(aa) at least 60 percent of those enrolled in, and at 
     least 60 percent of the graduates of, the graduate medical 
     school outside the United States were not persons described 
     in section 484(a)(5) in the year preceding the year for which 
     a student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV; and
       ``(bb) at least 60 percent of the individuals who were 
     students or graduates of the graduate medical school outside 
     the United States (both nationals of the United States and 
     others) taking the examinations administered by the 
     Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates received 
     a passing score in the year preceding the year for which a 
     student is seeking a loan under part B of title IV; or
       ``(II) the institution has a clinical training program that 
     was approved by a State as of January 1, 1992; or

       ``(ii) in the case of a veterinary school located outside 
     the United States that does not meet the requirements of 
     section 101(a)(4)--

       ``(I) the institution was certified by the Secretary as 
     eligible to participate in the loan program under part B of 
     title IV before October 1, 1999; and
       ``(II) the institution's students complete their clinical 
     training at an approved veterinary school located in the 
     United States.''.

       (3) Section 102(a)(3)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)(3)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 521(4)(C) of the Carl Perkins 
     Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act'' and 
     inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 
     and Technical Education Act of 1998''.
       (4) Section 103(7) (20 U.S.C. 1003(7)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(7) New borrower.--The term `new borrower' when used with 
     respect to any date for any loan under any provision of--
       ``(A) part B or part D of title IV means an individual who 
     on that date has no outstanding balance of principal or 
     interest owing on any loan made, insured, or guaranteed under 
     either such part; and
       ``(B) part E of title IV means an individual who on that 
     date has no outstanding balance of principal or interest 
     owing on any loan made under such part.''.
       (5) Section 131(a)(3)(A)(iii) (20 U.S.C. 
     1015(a)(3)(A)(iii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``an undergraduate'' and inserting ``a 
     full-time undergraduate''; and
       (B) in subclause (I), by striking ``section 
     428(a)(2)(C)(i)'' and inserting ``section 428(a)(2)(C)(ii)''.
       (6) Section 131(b) is amended by striking ``the costs for 
     typical'' and inserting ``the prices for, and financial aid 
     provided to, typical''.
       (7) Section 131(c)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``costs'' 
     and inserting ``prices''.
       (8) Section 131(d)(1) is amended by striking ``3 years'' 
     and inserting ``4 years''.
       (9) Section 141 (20 U.S.C. 1018) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by inserting ``total and 
     unit'' after ``to reduce the'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``Each year'' and 
     inserting ``Each fiscal year'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``guaranty 
     agencies,'' after ``lenders,''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``expenditures'' and 
     inserting ``administrative expenditures for the most recent 
     fiscal year''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Chief Financial 
     Officer Act of 1990 and'' and inserting ``Chief Financial 
     Officers Act of 1990,'' and by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and other relevant legislation'';

       (C) in subsection (f)(3)(A), by striking ``paragraph 
     (1)(A)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (D) in subsection (g)(3), by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``The names and compensation for 
     those individuals shall be included in the annual report 
     under subsection (c)(2).''.
       (b) Amendments to Title III.--
       (1) Subsection (g) of section 324 (20 U.S.C. 1063(g)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Special Rule for Certain District of Columbia 
     Eligible Institutions.--
       ``(1) Howard university.--In any fiscal year that the 
     Secretary determines that Howard University will receive an 
     allotment under subsections (b) and (c) which is not in 
     excess of amounts received for such fiscal year by Howard 
     University under the Act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 438; 20 
     U.S.C. 123), relating to the annual appropriations for Howard 
     University, then Howard University shall be ineligible to 
     receive an allotment under this section.
       ``(2) University of the district of columbia.--In any 
     fiscal year, the University of the District of Columbia may 
     receive financial assistance under this part, or under 
     section 4(c) of the District of Columbia College Access Act 
     of 1999 (P.L. 106-98), but not under both this part and such 
     section.''.
       (2) Section 326(e)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)) is amended, 
     in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting a 
     colon after ``the following''.
       (3) Section 342(5)(C) (20 U.S.C. 1066a(5)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting a comma after ``equipment'' the first 
     place it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``technology,,'' and inserting 
     ``technology,''.
       (4) Section 343(e) (20 U.S.C. 1066b(e)) is amended by 
     inserting after the subsection designation the following: 
     ``Sale of Qualified Bonds.--''.
       (5) Section 1024 (20 U.S.C. 1135b-3), as transferred by 
     section 301(a)(5) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-244; 112 Stat. 636), is repealed.
       (c) Amendments to Part A of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 402D (20 U.S.C. 1070a-14) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Special Rule.--
       ``(1) Use for student aid.--A recipient of a grant that 
     undertakes any of the permissible services identified in 
     subsection (b) may, in addition, use such funds to provide 
     grant aid to students if the recipient demonstrates in its 
     application, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that the 
     size of the grants the recipient will provide to students is 
     appropriate and likely to have a significant impact on 
     retention at that institution. In making grants to students 
     under this subsection, an institution shall ensure that 
     adequate consultation takes place between the student support 
     service program office and the institution's financial aid 
     office.
       ``(2) Eligible students.--For purposes of receiving grant 
     aid under this subsection, eligible students shall be current 
     participants in the student support services program offered 
     by the institution and be--
       ``(A) students who are in their first 2 years of 
     postsecondary education and who are receiving Federal Pell 
     Grants under subpart 1; or
       ``(B) students who have completed their first 2 years of 
     postsecondary education and who are receiving Federal Pell 
     Grants under subpart 1 if the institution demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that--
       ``(i) these students are at high risk of dropping out; and
       ``(ii) it will first meet the needs of all its eligible 
     first- and second-year students for services under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Determination of need.--A grant provided to a student 
     under paragraph (1) shall not be considered in determining 
     that student's need for grant or work assistance under this 
     title, except that in no case shall the total amount of 
     student financial assistance awarded to a student under this 
     title exceed that student's cost of attendance, as defined in 
     section 472.
       ``(4) Matching required.--A recipient of a grant who uses 
     such funds for the purpose described in paragraph (1) shall 
     match the funds used for such purpose, in cash, from non-
     Federal funds, in an amount that is not less than 33 percent 
     of the total amount of funds used for that purpose. This 
     paragraph shall not apply to any grant recipient that is an 
     institution of higher education eligible to receive funds 
     under part A or B of title III or title V.
       ``(5) Reservation.--For any fiscal year after the date of 
     enactment of the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 
     2000, the Secretary may reserve not more than 20 percent of 
     the funds available under this section for grant aid in 
     accordance with this subsection.''.
       (2)(A) Section 404A(b) (20 U.S.C. 1070a-21(b)) is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Duration.--An award made by the Secretary under this 
     chapter to an eligible entity described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (c) shall be for a period of 6 years.''.
       (B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     effective for awards made for fiscal year 2000 and succeeding 
     fiscal years, except that the Secretary shall permit 
     recipients of 5-year grants made for fiscal year 1999 to 
     amend their applications to include a 6-year project period.
       (3) Section 415A(a)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1070c(a)(2)) is amended 
     by striking ``section 415F'' and inserting ``section 415E''.
       (4) Section 415E(c) (20 U.S.C. 20 U.S.C. 1070c-3a(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Each State receiving a grant 
     under this section may use the grant funds for--
       ``(1) making awards that--
       ``(A) supplement grants received under section 415C(b)(2) 
     by eligible students who demonstrate financial need; or
       ``(B) provide grants under section 415C(b)(2) to additional 
     eligible students who demonstrate financial need;
       ``(2) providing scholarships for eligible students--
       ``(A) who demonstrate financial need; and
       ``(B) who--

[[Page 10352]]

       ``(i) desire to enter a program of study leading to a 
     career in--

       ``(I) information technology;
       ``(II) mathematics, computer science, or engineering; or
       ``(III) another field determined by the State to be 
     critical to the State's workforce needs; or

       ``(ii) demonstrate merit or academic achievement and 
     desire; and
       ``(3) making awards that--
       ``(A) supplement community service work-study awards 
     received under section 415C(b)(2) by eligible students who 
     demonstrate financial need; or
       ``(B) provide community service work-study awards under 
     section 415C(b)(2) to additional eligible students who 
     demonstrate financial need.''.
       (5) Section 415E (20 U.S.C. 20 U.S.C. 1070c-3a) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), for 
     purposes of determining a State's share of the cost of the 
     authorized activities described in subsection (c)--
       ``(1) in the case of a State that participates in the 
     program authorized under this section in fiscal year 2000--
       ``(A) if such State participates in the program in fiscal 
     year 2001, for that year the State shall consider only those 
     expenditures from non-Federal sources that exceed its 
     expenditures for activities authorized under this subpart for 
     fiscal year 1999; or
       ``(B) if such State does not participate in the program in 
     fiscal year 2001, but participates in the program in a 
     succeeding fiscal year, for the first fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 2001 in which the State participates in the 
     program, the State shall consider only those expenditures 
     from non-Federal sources that exceed its expenditures for 
     activities authorized under this subpart for the preceding 
     fiscal year, or fiscal year 1999, whichever is greater; and
       ``(2) in the case of a State that participates in the 
     program authorized under this section for the first time 
     after fiscal year 2000, for the first fiscal year in which 
     the State participates in the program, the State shall 
     consider only those expenditures from non-Federal sources 
     that exceed its expenditures for activities authorized under 
     this subpart for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(g) Use of Funds for Administrative Costs Prohibited.--A 
     State receiving a grant under this section shall not use any 
     of the grant funds to pay administrative costs associated 
     with any of the authorized activities described in subsection 
     (c).''.
       (6) Section 419C(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-33(b)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     thereof.
       (7) Section 419D(d) (20 U.S.C. 1070d-34(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``Public Law 95-1134'' and inserting ``Public Law 
     95-134''.
       (d) Amendments to Part B of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 425(a)(1)(A)(i)(II) (20 U.S.C. 
     1075(a)(1)(A)(i)(II)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(II) if such student is enrolled in a program of 
     undergraduate education that is less than 1 academic year, 
     the maximum annual loan amount that such student may receive 
     may not exceed the lesser of--

       ``(aa) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subclause (I) as the length of such program 
     measured in semester, trimester, quarter, or clock hours 
     bears to 1 academic year; or
       ``(bb) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subclause (I) as the length of such program 
     measured in weeks of instruction bears to 1 academic year;''.

       (2) Section 428(a)(2)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(2)(A)(i)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (II) of 
     clause (i); and
       (B) by moving the margin of clause (iii) two ems to the 
     left.
       (3) Section 428(b)(1) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking subclause (II) and 
     inserting the following:

       ``(II) if such student is enrolled in a program of 
     undergraduate education that is less than 1 academic year, 
     the maximum annual loan amount that such student may receive 
     may not exceed the lesser of--

       ``(aa) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subclause (I) as the length of such program 
     measured in semester, trimester, quarter, or clock hours 
     bears to 1 academic year; or
       ``(bb) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subclause (I) as the length of such program 
     measured in weeks of instruction bears to 1 academic year;''; 
     and
       (B) in subparagraph (Y)(i), by striking ``subparagraph 
     (M)(i)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (M)(i)(I)''.
       (4) Section 428(c)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``and recorded in the borrower's file, except that 
     such regulations shall not require such agreements to be in 
     writing''.
       (5) Section 428C(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C. 1078-3(a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) Loans made under this section shall, to the extent 
     used to discharge loans made under this title, be counted 
     against the applicable limitations on aggregate indebtedness 
     contained in section 425(a)(2), 428(b)(1)(B), 428H(d), 455, 
     and 464(a)(2)(B).''.
       (6) Section 428H(d)(2)(A)(ii) (20 U.S.C. 1078-
     8(d)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) if such student is enrolled in a program of 
     undergraduate education that is less than 1 academic year, 
     the maximum annual loan amount that such student may receive 
     may not exceed the lesser of--

       ``(I) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in clause (i) as the length of such program 
     measured in semester, trimester, quarter, or clock hours 
     bears to 1 academic year; or
       ``(II) the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subclause (I) as the length of such program 
     measured in weeks of instruction bears to 1 academic year;''.

       (7) Section 428H(e) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).
       (8) Section 432(m)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1082(m)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (i), by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end; and
       (ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     period;
       (B) by striking clause (iv) of subparagraph (D); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Perfection of security interests in student loans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of any 
     State law to the contrary, including the Uniform Commercial 
     Code as in effect in any State, a security interest in loans 
     made under this part, on behalf of any eligible lender (as 
     defined in section 435(d)) shall attach, be perfected, and be 
     assigned priority in the manner provided by the applicable 
     State's law for perfection of security interests in accounts, 
     as such law may be amended from time to time (including 
     applicable transition provisions). If any such State's law 
     provides for a statutory lien to be created in such loans, 
     such statutory lien may be created by the entity or entities 
     governed by such State law in accordance with the applicable 
     statutory provisions that created such a statutory lien.
       ``(ii) Collateral description.--In addition to any other 
     method for describing collateral in a legally sufficient 
     manner permitted under the laws of the State, the description 
     of collateral in any financing statement filed pursuant to 
     this section shall be deemed legally sufficient if it lists 
     such loans, or refers to records (identifying such loans) 
     retained by the secured party or any designee of the secured 
     party identified in such financing statement, including the 
     debtor or any loan servicer.
       ``(iii) Sales.--Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (ii) and 
     any provisions of any State law to the contrary, other than 
     any such State's law providing for creation of a statutory 
     lien, an outright sale of loans made under this part shall be 
     effective and perfected automatically upon attachment as 
     defined in the Uniform Commercial Code of such State.''.
       (9) Section 435(a)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1085(a)(5)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``July 1, 2002,'' 
     and inserting ``July 1, 2004,''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``1999, 2000, and 
     2001'' and inserting ``1999 through 2003''.
       (10) Subparagraphs (A) and (F) of section 438(b)(2) (20 
     U.S.C. 1087-1(b)(2)) are each amended by striking the last 
     sentence.
       (11) Section 439(d) (20 U.S.C. 1087-2(d)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (3).
       (e) Amendment to Part C of Title IV.--Section 443(b)(2)(B) 
     (42 U.S.C. 2753(b)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting 
     ``(including a reasonable amount of time spent in travel or 
     training directly related to such community service)'' after 
     ``community service''.
       (f) Amendment to Part D of Title IV.--Paragraph (6) of 
     section 455(b) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), as redesignated by 
     section 8301(c)(1) of the Transportation Equity for the 21st 
     Century Act (112 Stat. 498) is redesignated as paragraph (8), 
     and is moved to follow paragraph (7) as added by 452(b) of 
     the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (112 Stat. 1716).
       (g) Amendments to Part E of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 462(g)(1)(E)(i)(I) (20 U.S.C. 
     1087bb(g)(1)(E)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting ``monthly'' 
     after ``consecutive''.
       (2) Section 464(c)(1)(D) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(c)(1)(D)) is 
     amended by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively.
       (3) Section 464(c)(2)(A)(iv) is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon at the end the following: ``, except that 
     interest shall continue to accrue on such loans and such 
     interest shall be eligible for cancellation under section 
     465''.
       (4) Section 464(h) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) by inserting ``, and the loan default has not been 
     reduced to a judgment against the borrower,'' after 
     ``defaulted on the loan''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``held by the Secretary,'' the 
     following: ``or if the borrower of a loan under this part who 
     has defaulted on

[[Page 10353]]

     the loan elects to make a single payment equal to the full 
     amount of principal and interest and collection costs owed on 
     the loan,''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule.--At the discretion of the institution 
     or the Secretary, for the purpose of receiving the benefits 
     of this subsection, a loan that is in default and reduced to 
     judgment may be considered rehabilitated if--
       ``(A) the borrower makes 12 on-time, consecutive, monthly 
     payments of amounts owed on the loan, as determined by the 
     institution, or by the Secretary in the case of a loan held 
     by the Secretary; or
       ``(B) the borrower makes a single payment equal to the full 
     amount of principal and interest and collection costs owed on 
     the loan.''.
       (5)(A) Section 465(a)(2) (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 111(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1113(a)(5)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``With Disabilities'' 
     and inserting ``with Disabilities''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (F), by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``, including full-time 
     prosecutors and public defenders earning $30,000 or less in 
     adjusted gross income''.
       (B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A)(iii) shall be 
     effective on the date of enactment of this Act, except that 
     such amendment shall not prevent any borrower who, prior to 
     the date of enactment of this Act, was receiving cancellation 
     of indebtedness under section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 from continuing to receive such 
     cancellation.
       (6) Section 467(b) (20 U.S.C. 1087gg(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``(5)(A), (5)(B)(i), or (6)'' and inserting 
     ``(4)(A), (4)(B), or (5)''.
       (7) Section 469(c) (20 U.S.C. 1087ii(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``sections 602(a)(1) and 672(1)'' and 
     inserting ``sections 602(3) and 632(5)'';
       (B) by striking ``qualified professional provider of early 
     intervention services'' and inserting ``early intervention 
     services''; and
       (C) by striking ``section 672(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     632(4)''.
       (h) Amendments to Part F of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 471 (20 U.S.C. 1087kk) is amended by striking 
     ``subparts 1 or 2'' and inserting ``subpart 1, 2, or 4''.
       (2) Section 478(h) (20 U.S.C. 1087rr(h)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``476(b)(4)(B),''; and
       (B) by striking ``meals away from home, apparel and upkeep, 
     transportation, and housekeeping services'' and inserting 
     ``food away from home, apparel, transportation, and household 
     furnishings and operations''.
       (3)(A) Section 479A(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087tt(a)) is amended by 
     inserting ``a student's status as a ward of the court at any 
     time prior to attaining 18 years of age,'' after ``487,''.
       (B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     effective for academic years beginning on or after July 1, 
     2001.
       (i) Amendments to Parts G and H of Title IV.--
       (1) Section 482(a) (20 U.S.C. 1089(a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) The Secretary shall provide a period for public 
     comment of not less than 45 days after publication of any 
     notice of proposed rulemaking published after the date of the 
     enactment of the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 
     2000 affecting programs under this title.''.
       (2) Section 483(d) (20 U.S.C. 1090(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``that is authorized under section 685(d)(2)(C)'' 
     and inserting ``, or other appropriate provider of technical 
     assistance and information on postsecondary educational 
     services, that is supported under section 685''.
       (3) Section 484 (20 U.S.C. 1091) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``certification,,'' 
     and inserting ``certification,'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``section 428A'' and inserting ``section 428H'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end thereof;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (C) in subsection (d)(3), by inserting ``certifies that he 
     or she'' after ``The student''; and
       (D) in subsection (l)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``section 
     521(4)(C) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act'' and inserting ``section 3(3)(C) of 
     the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
     1998''.
       (4)(A) Section 484(r)(1) is amended by inserting after 
     ``controlled substance'' the following: ``during any period 
     of enrollment for which the student was receiving assistance 
     under this title''.
       (B) Section 484(r) is further amended--
       (i) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(3) Consequences of failure to answer.--Any student who 
     fails to answer a question of the common financial aid form 
     developed under section 483 that relates to eligibility or 
     ineligibility under this subsection shall be treated as 
     ineligible until such question is answered.
       ``(4) Notice.--The Secretary shall require each institution 
     of higher education that participates in any of the programs 
     under this title to provide each student upon enrollment with 
     a separate, clear, and conspicuous written notice that 
     advises students of the penalties contained in this 
     subsection.''.
       (C) The amendments made by this paragraph shall be 
     effective for academic years beginning on or after July 1, 
     2001.
       (5)(A) Section 484B (20 U.S.C. 1091b) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``subpart 4 of part 
     A or'' after ``received under'';
       (ii) in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) by inserting ``(as 
     determined in accordance with subsection (d))'' after 
     ``student has completed''; and
       (iii) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (I) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``subject to--'' 
     through to the end of such subparagraph and inserting 
     ``subject to the procedures described in subparagraph 
     (C)(ii).''; and
       (II) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) Grant overpayment requirements.--(i) Notwithstanding 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), but subject to clause (ii), a 
     student shall not be required to return 50 percent of the 
     total grant assistance received by a student under this title 
     for a payment period or period of enrollment. A student shall 
     not be required to return amounts of less than $50.
       ``(ii) Subject to clause (iii), a student shall be 
     permitted to repay any grant overpayment determined under 
     this section under terms that permit the student to maintain 
     his or her eligibility for further assistance under this 
     title, including a period during which no payment is due from 
     the student--
       ``(I) for 6 months, beginning on the day the student 
     withdrew; and
       ``(II) while the student is pursuing at least a half-time 
     course of study, as determined by the institution.
       ``(iii) Clause (ii) shall not apply to a student who is in 
     default on any repayment obligations under this title, or who 
     has not made satisfactory repayment arrangements with respect 
     to such obligations.''.
       (B) The amendments made by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     effective for the academic year beginning July 1, 2001, 
     except that, in the case of an institution of higher 
     education that chooses to implement such amendments prior to 
     that date, such amendments shall be effective on the date of 
     such institution's implementation.
       (6) Section 485(a)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``mailings, and'' and inserting ``mailings, or''.
       (7)(A) Section 485(f)(1) (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(I) A statement of policy concerning the handling of 
     reports on missing students, including--
       ``(i) the policy with respect to notification of parents, 
     guardians, and local police agencies and timing of such 
     notification; and
       ``(ii) the institution's policy for investigating reports 
     on missing students and for cooperating with local police 
     agencies in the investigation of a report of a missing 
     student.
       ``(J) A statement of policy regarding the availability of 
     information, provided by the State to the institution 
     pursuant to section 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071), regarding 
     sexually violent predators required to register under such 
     section. Such statement shall include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(i) An assurance that the institution shall make 
     available to the campus community, through its law 
     enforcement unit or other office, all such information 
     concerning any person enrolled or employed at the 
     institution.
       ``(ii) The means by which students and employees obtain 
     access to such information.
       ``(iii) The frequency at which such information is updated.
       ``(iv) The type of information to be made available.
       ``(K) A description of campus fire safety practices and 
     standards, including--
       ``(i) information with respect to each campus residence 
     hall and whether or not such hall is equipped with a fire 
     sprinkler system or other fire safety system;
       ``(ii) statistics concerning the occurrence on campus of 
     fires and false alarms in residence halls, including 
     information on deaths, injuries, and structural damage caused 
     by such occurrences, if any, during the 2 preceding calendar 
     years for which such data are available; and
       ``(iii) information regarding fire alarms, smoke alarms, 
     fire escape planning or protocols (as defined in local fire 
     codes), rules on portable electrical appliances, smoking and 
     open flames, regular mandatory supervised fire drills, and 
     any planned improvements in fire safety.''.
       (B) The amendment made by this paragraph shall be effective 
     for academic years beginning on or after July 1, 2001.

[[Page 10354]]

       (8) Section 485(f) is further amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following: ``In addition, each such institution shall 
     make periodic reports to the campus community regarding fires 
     and false fire alarms that are reported to a local fire 
     department.'';
       (B) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (1)(F)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (F) and (J) of paragraph (1)'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``education, 
     identify'' and all that follows through the end and inserting 
     the following: ``education, identify--
       ``(i) exemplary campus security policies, procedures, and 
     practices and disseminate information concerning those 
     policies, procedures, and practices that have proven 
     effective in the reduction of campus crime; and
       ``(ii) fire safety policies, procedures, and practices and 
     disseminate information concerning those policies procedures 
     and practices that have proven effective in the reduction of 
     fires on campus; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) not later than July 1, 2002, prepare and submit a 
     report to Congress containing--
       ``(i) an analysis of the current status of fire safety 
     systems in college and university facilities, including 
     sprinkler systems;
       ``(ii) an analysis of the appropriate fire safety standards 
     to apply to these facilities, which the Secretary shall 
     prepare after consultation with such fire safety experts, 
     representatives of institutions of higher education, and 
     Federal agencies as the Secretary, in the Secretary's 
     discretion, considers appropriate;
       ``(iii) an estimate of the cost of bringing all 
     nonconforming residence halls and other campus buildings into 
     compliance with appropriate building codes; and
       ``(iv) recommendations concerning the best means of meeting 
     fire safety standards in all college facilities, including 
     recommendations for methods of funding such costs.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (12)(A), by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``(other than in dormitories or 
     other residential facilities reported under subparagraph 
     (D))''.
       (9) Section 485 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) New or Revised Requirements.--For any new requirement 
     for institutional disclosure or reporting under this Act 
     enacted after April 1, 2000, the period for which data must 
     be collected shall begin no sooner than 180 days after the 
     publication of final regulations or guidance. The final 
     regulations or guidance shall include any required data 
     elements or method of collection (or both). The Secretary 
     shall take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that 
     institutions have adequate time to collect and prepare the 
     required data before public disclosure or submission to the 
     Secretary.''.
       (10) Section 485B(a) (20 U.S.C. 1092b(a)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating the paragraphs following paragraph (5) 
     (as added by section 2008 of Public Law 101-239) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (11), respectively; and
       (B) in such paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.)),'' and 
     inserting ``(22 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.),''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end thereof and 
     inserting a semicolon.
       (11) Section 487(a)(22) (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(22)) is amended 
     by striking ``refund policy'' and inserting ``refund of title 
     IV funds policy''.
       (12) Section 491(c) (20 U.S.C. 1098(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The appointment of members under subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) of paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication 
     of the appointment in the Congressional Record.''.
       (13) Section 498 (20 U.S.C. 1099c) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``institution,'' and 
     inserting ``institution (but subject to the requirements of 
     section 484(b)),'';
       (B) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``for profit,'' and 
     inserting ``for-profit,''; and
       (C) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by inserting ``and'' at the 
     end thereof.
       (j) Amendments to Title V.--
       (1) Section 504(a) (20 U.S.C. 1101c(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(1) In general.--''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (2) The amendments made by this subsection shall be 
     effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (k) Amendment to Title VI.--Section 604(c) (20 U.S.C. 
     1124(c)) is amended by striking ``this part'' and inserting 
     ``this title''.
       (l) Amendments to Title VII.--
       (1) Section 701(a) (20 U.S.C. 1134(a)) is amended by 
     striking the third sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``Funds appropriated for a fiscal year shall be obligated and 
     expended for fellowships under this subpart for use in the 
     academic year beginning after July 1 of such fiscal year.''.
       (2) Section 714(c) (20 U.S.C. 1135c(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 716(a)'' and inserting ``section 
     715(a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 714(b)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``section 713(b)(2)''.
       (m) Amendment to Title VIII.--Section 857(a) of the Higher 
     Education Amendments of 1998 (112 Stat. 1824) is amended by 
     striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2001''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).


                             General Leave

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 4504, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering the Higher Education Technical 
Amendments of 2000. Most of you will recall that just over 2 years ago 
we met here on a bipartisan basis to consider the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1998. That legislation was subsequently enacted into law 
on October 7, 1998, and now greatly benefits students by providing the 
lowest student loan interest rates in almost 20 years, as well as by 
making needed improvement to important student aid programs like Work-
Study, Pell grants and TRIO.
  First, I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) for his leadership on that bill and for the years 
of leadership he has shown on all education matters during his time 
here in the Congress.
  I also want to thank the committee ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay), the former ranking member of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the current ranking member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), for 
their cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor and for the great 
work that they have done on the other bills that we have been working 
on.
  These amendments which we crafted together have been a great success, 
and our continued efforts on this legislation will only improve on 
those results. The legislation we are considering today makes numerous 
technical corrections, but it also includes some significant policy 
changes that we believe are necessary to ensure that the Higher 
Education Act is implemented in the way we intended.
  Although we could not include all the changes on everyone's wish 
list, we did try to include those improvements that will benefit 
students and families who are struggling to pay for a college 
education.
  An important change included by the committee impacts the eligibility 
of historically black colleges and universities to participate in the 
Federal student aid programs. These institutions play a vital role in 
providing access to post-secondary education for students who might not 
otherwise enroll in higher education. In the 1998 amendments, we 
required some of these institutions to submit plans and implementation 
strategies that would result in default rate reductions at their 
institutions. However, we did not provide sufficient time for the 
affected institutions to take the actions outlined in the default 
management plans to reduce their cohort default rates. This bill is 
correcting that mistake.
  H.R. 4504 also includes three new provisions all related to campus 
security. The first provision is based on H.R. 3619, introduced by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), that requires institutions of 
higher education to have a policy related to the handling of reports on 
missing students, including the notification of parents, guardians and 
local police.
  The second provision is based on H.R. 4407, introduced by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), which requires institutions to 
have a policy regarding the availability of information provided by the 
State under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act with 
respect to registered sexually violent predators.
  The third provision was an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) that requires institutions to include in 
their

[[Page 10355]]

annual security report a description of campus fire safety practices 
and standards. All of these provisions will result in greater awareness 
of potential security risks on campus, and I, for one, believe that 
more information is better.
  Additionally, this legislation will improve the regulatory process 
for institutions of higher education and other program participants. We 
continue to hear reports that the Department does not give the public 
enough time to comment on or to implement complex student aid 
regulations. For that reason, we have established minimum time periods 
for certain activities.
  First, the bill requires the Department of Education to allow a 
minimum of 45 days for comment after the publication of a notice of 
proposed rule making. Second, it prevents disclosure or reporting 
requirements from becoming effective for at least 180 days after final 
regulations are published. Although some groups would have preferred a 
longer period of time, the committee believes that these time frames 
provide a reasonable period of time for action without causing 
disruptive delays in the regulatory or implementation process.
  Most importantly, the bill clarifies and strengthens provisions in 
the Higher Education Act regarding the return of Federal funds when 
students withdraw from school. Specifically, it will correct the 
Department interpretation so that students will never be required to 
return more than 50 percent of the grant funds they receive. In 
addition, it will provide students with a limited grace period for 
repayment to help students who are unable to repay immediately upon 
their withdrawal and it will set a minimum threshold for grant 
repayment of $50.
  All of these steps will aid students who withdraw from college for 
emergency or financial reasons. It is our hope that these changes will 
allow a low-income student to make another attempt to obtain a post-
secondary education in the future, which is, of course, what we are 
trying to do with this whole education process.
  This legislation will improve the implementation of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 which we worked very hard to enact in the 
last Congress, and I urge every Member of this Congress to support it.
  Finally, I would like to thank our Education staff members, Sally 
Stroup and George Conant on the majority side, and Maryellen Ardouny 
and Marshall Grigsby on the minority side, for all of the work they 
have done to make this bill possible at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, the Higher Education 
Technical Amendments Act of 2000. In October of 1998, as the chairman 
has already said, after 2 years of debate and compromise, the Congress 
passed and the President signed the Higher Education Amendments of 
1998.
  Among other things, this bipartisan legislation reduced student loan 
interest rates to the lowest level in 17 years, established the 
performance-based organization to administer Federal student aid 
programs, and it authorized programs to help disadvantaged elementary 
and secondary students graduate from high school and enter college. It 
authorized new programs to strengthen the quality of the elementary and 
secondary teaching force, and expanded the loan cancellation for 
individuals teaching in low-income schools.
  However, since its enactment, approximately a year and a half ago, as 
the chairman said, several technical errors, such as misnumbered 
paragraphs and incorrect punctuation, have been brought to the 
attention of the Committee on Education and Workforce.
  In addition, it has become apparent as a result of the negotiated 
rule making process that, in few instances, clarifying language is 
necessary in order for the 1998 amendments to be implemented as 
Congress intended. Therefore, today we are considering H.R. 4504, the 
Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000.
  In addition to renumbering paragraphs and changing colons to 
semicolons, the bill does a number of things to improve the Higher 
Education Act and benefit students. For instance, it modifies the 
Student Support Service Program under TRIO to allow grantees to use 
funds for college completion grants and requires 33 percent matching 
funds used for this purpose. It extends the Gear Up grant award period 
to 6 years to allow grantees to serve a cohort of students beginning in 
the sixth grade. It allows work-study funds to be used for travel 
training, and it eliminates the 2-year waiting period Hispanic-serving 
institutions must observe before applying for another grant under title 
V, similar to the legislation recently passed by Congress and signed 
into law to eliminate the wait-out period for tribal colleges and 
Native Alaskan and Hawaiian institutions.

                              {time}  1445

  Most importantly, it adjusts the title IV refund policy to make it 
easier for low-income students who are forced to withdraw from school 
to reenter when their circumstances improve. I believe that the small 
number of changes in the bill and the very technical nature of most of 
them are testimony to the outstanding job that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and 
members of the committee did in 1998. I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill, which will improve the excellent piece of legislation we 
passed in 1998, and allow the Department and community to continue 
implementing the Higher Education Act as Congress intended.
  In closing, I would like to say thank you to Sally Stroup, George 
Conant, Marshall Grigsby, and Mary Ellen Sprenkel of our staff for all 
their hard work on H.R. 4504 and the underlying bill.
  I would also like to take a moment to express my deepest sympathy for 
John Oberg, special assistant of higher education at the Department of 
Education. John, who has done an outstanding job of representing the 
administration on issues concerning higher education for the past 6 
years, lost his wife last week in a car accident.
  John, our thoughts are with you during this very difficult time.
  Once again, I urge Members to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a staunch member of the 
committee.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) for allowing me the opportunity to speak in 
support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider the Higher Education 
Technical Amendments of 2000. As most will recall, about 2 years ago we 
enacted on a bipartisan basis the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. 
Millions of students have since benefited from our efforts, and the 
minimal number of technical amendments that we are considering today is 
testimony to the fact that the bill was well written.
  The legislation we are considering today makes necessary technical 
changes, as well as a few policy changes, that the members of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce believe are necessary to 
implement the act as intended. In writing this legislation, the 
members, with the guidance of our chairman, have worked to ensure that 
the bill is bipartisan; that it will benefit students; and that it will 
be signed into law.
  One notable benefit to students is the way this bill improves the 
Perkins loan program. It modifies the loan rehabilitation programs to 
provide the benefits of loan rehabilitation to a borrower with a 
defaulted loan who pays his or her loan in full with a single payment 
if the defaulted loan has not been reduced to judgment.
  It also clarifies that loans in deferment for a student who performs 
a service resulting in loan cancellation is reimbursed for interest and 
not just for principal. Additionally, this legislation improves the 
regulatory process for schools and other program participants. This is 
important because the

[[Page 10356]]

committee continues to hear reports that the Department does not give 
the public enough time to comment on or to implement complex student 
aid regulations.
  To address this, the bill requires the Department of Education to 
allow a minimum of 45 days for comment after the publication of a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. It also prevents disclosure or reporting 
requirements from becoming effective for at least 180 days after final 
regulations are published.
  Another significant element of this bill is the change to the return 
of Federal funds provision to help students who withdraw before the end 
of a term. It corrects the Department's interpretation and clarifies 
that students are never required to return more than 50 percent of the 
grant funds that they receive. However, considering that we in Congress 
have worked hard to help our Nation's students meet some of their needs 
in order to attend the college or university, I for one would hate to 
see us being taken advantage of, or the taxpayer being taken advantage 
of. It is theoretically possible for a person to get a Pell grant to 
enroll in a low-cost local program with the full intention of dropping 
out almost immediately and pocketing half of the grant money.
  One thing I have learned in my years in Congress is that if there is 
a theoretical way for people to take advantage of the Federal 
Government, some people will find it and will do it. To address this 
concern, I intend to ask the General Accounting Office to conduct a 
study to determine whether or not this is a significant problem.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for allowing me to speak in support of the bill before us, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a strong member of the committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for his excellent leadership in the higher Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and also our distinguished ranking member 
for his years of work in this committee as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about two clarifications and one 
addition to the Higher Education Technical Amendments to the so-called 
Souder amendment to the Higher Education Act. This amendment probably 
has caused more controversy on our college campuses than all but few 
things in the Higher Education Act, and this is an attempt to clarify 
some things that I believe were misunderstood or had implementation 
problems at the Department of Education.
  First, let me thank former Congressman Gerald Solomon. For years he 
led this effort to hold students accountable for drug use if they were 
going to use taxpayer money to fund a student loan. What my amendment 
attempted to do was a very simple process and that said, if one abuses 
drugs, that is if they are convicted, not alleged but if they are 
convicted of using drugs or dealing drugs, they would lose their 
student loan for one year.
  If they went through drug treatment and took a drug test and passed 
it twice, they could get back even within that year. Our goal was not 
to get kids tossed out of college. Our goal was to get kids off drugs. 
If it happened twice, they lost their subsidized student loan for two 
years. If it happened three times, they are out. For drug dealing it 
was one and two.
  Now this caused a big rhubarb. The question was, is this punishing 
people who have already been punished once? As if our courts actually 
do more than slap on the wrist. But besides that, the question is not 
punishment; the question is treatment. How do we move to prevention, 
and how do we get those who are abusing drugs on to treatment and to 
help them with their problem?
  There is also the question as taxpayers, is why should we be 
underwriting students who are abusing and convicted of drug use in 
college? In my five trips to Colombia, I have looked and listened to 
leaders in Colombia, leaders in Mexico. I have heard people back home 
and around the country say there is only so much we can do about 
interdiction. What is being done in America about the drug problem?
  This is an effort to actually do prevention and to hold people 
accountable.
  Now there were a couple of problems in implementation that occurred 
in the Higher Education Act. One, there was limited pre-testing of the 
question. Secondly, the poorly framed question caused tremendous 
confusion in incoming freshmen and others in 1999. Hundreds of 
thousands of students left the question blank, which would have stopped 
the system to enforce it and yet they cannot have questions left blank. 
There was also no auditing. There was no checking of those who said 
that they had not been convicted of a drug crime, or who left it blank, 
which is irresponsible enforcement. It is basically a toothless bill 
without that.
  Now there was a misunderstanding as well. All the way through the 
whole debate, I never said anything differently than what I said today, 
which is that if one is going to take a student subsidized loan they 
should be held accountable. Yet for some unusual reason, and I am not 
faulting them for doing it because it was their decision to do so, the 
Clinton administration interpreted this to mean that anybody prior to 
going into college who had been convicted once, twice, or three times 
of a drug crime was, therefore, either in violation of either clause 
one, clause two or clause three, which meant that many teenagers around 
the country who had been convicted of a drug crime all of a sudden were 
either being suspended for 1 year, 2 years or out on drug loans.
  It meant people that were coming back in mid-life or adulthood all of 
a sudden were not eligible, theoretically, at least for student loans. 
There was nowhere in any record that suggested that any of us were 
advocating a reachback provision. The language was very explicit, I 
believed, which is if one takes taxpayer dollars, then they are 
expected to behave legally.
  Now, what we need to do is to try to reach to those students who 
often are young people or middle-aged people who are coming back, who 
have had a tough time in life, who have been convicted of a drug crime, 
and now they want to go to college. The goal here is not to punish 
them.
  I am a big supporter of GEAR UP, where we have technical amendments 
in this bill related to GEAR UP, and there is an unfortunate amendment 
later in the Labor HHS bill that would strike some of the clauses in 
GEAR UP which I oppose because I believe it is important to reach out 
to low-income students. We also need to have accountability.
  What these amendments do are, one, first off one is only covered when 
they receive the loan and they are accepted into a university, or 
coming back after an absence. In other words, there is a short period 
of time while one is not in school, where they would be covered.
  Also, if it is a continuous process, presumably one would be covered. 
In other words, if one took the January semester break off or a summer 
break; but they are in a continuous flow of college, they would be held 
accountable in that period. But the goal here is not if one drops out 
for 5 years to cover that period or to cover their whole years in high 
school.
  The goal is while one is clearly going to college and has been 
approved for a student loan.
  Secondly, we have made it clear now that we have had our trial run. 
If one leaves this blank, they will not get a loan until they fill out 
that question.
  Now, a third part that the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary 
Miller) added, which I think was a very wise additional amendment, was 
to make sure that all students understand that it is clear to the 
information to the Department of Education that if one is convicted of 
a drug crime, they cannot get a student loan, or they will be kicked 
off of a student loan.
  Now lastly, we had some discussions with the Department of Education. 
I want to make it clear that we did not put some amendments in because 
I believe they are moving ahead on this.

[[Page 10357]]

One is to get the question better drafted. I am encouraged, but that 
question should be pre-tested better than they have pre-tested it in 
the past because as a parent whose kids have gone through college, the 
forms are very confusing; and it is very important if they are going to 
be held accountable to have that question clear.
  Secondly, an auditing process, because without an auditing process 
this amendment is toothless. If we are going to attack the drug problem 
in this country and hold people accountable and help kids get into 
treatment and get their lives straightened around, there has to be an 
auditing and accountability process. We are either serious about the 
drug problem or we are not.
  We need to make sure that we do not just focus on interdiction, which 
I believe is important, or border control, which I believe is 
important, or legal accountability, which I believe is important, but 
to have real prevention and treatment programs; and these amendments 
will help this become an even better process and hopefully help many 
students in this country understand that this problem is real.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a couple more comments. In 
addition to the committee staff that I thanked earlier, I would like to 
thank my legislative director, Karen Weiss, for all of the work that 
she has done on this bill. This may be the last time that we stand as a 
subcommittee on the floor with legislation during this Congress; and if 
so, I want to again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), 
the ranking member of this committee. He has been a joy to work with. 
He really has the people of this country at heart. He has served a lot 
of time in this Congress and done an excellent job, and I just want to 
let him know that I appreciate greatly the ability that he has brought 
to this Congress and the opportunity that we have had to work together.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider the Higher 
Education Technical Amendments of 2000. Many of my colleagues will 
remember that in the last Congress we enacted the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1998 on a bipartisan basis. That bill was one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we considered for students and their 
parents. I want to thank Chairman McKeon again for his leadership on 
that bill. Throughout that process he kept members focused on our goal 
of improving our student financial aid system. Millions of students 
have since benefited from our efforts, and the minimal number of 
technical amendments that we are considering today is testimony to the 
fact that the bill was well crafted.
  The Department of Education has issued a majority of the final 
regulations implementing the 1998 amendments. In most cases our intent 
was followed, but in a few important instances, it was not.
  For example, I feel very strongly that the department is not 
following our intent with respect to direct loan origination fees. The 
1998 amendments were designed to provide students with the best 
possible deal under very tight budget constraints, and I believe we 
succeeded in doing that. However, the law uses the word ``shall'' and 
it is very clear in directing the Secretary to collect a four percent 
origination fee on direct student loans. This is confirmed in legal 
opinions from the Congressional Research Service and the Comptroller 
General. It was not our intent to change that, and in my view the 
department's decision to arbitrarily interpret ``shall'' to mean 
``may'' sets a very dangerous precedent. The fact that this legislation 
does not address this issue should not be taken as an endorsement of 
the department's actions.
  The legislation before us today does make a needed change to the 
``return of federal funds'' provisions in the Higher Education Act to 
help students who withdraw before the end of a term. By correcting the 
department's mistaken interpretation, we will ensure that no student is 
required to return more than 50 percent of the grant funds he or she 
received. I know there are those who would like us to go further. 
However, doing so would increase mandatory spending, and in many 
instances, would result in students leaving school with increased 
student loan debt, which I cannot support.
  H.R. 4505 includes three new provisions all related to campus 
security. The first provision is based on H.R. 3619, introduced by 
Representative Andrews of New Jersey, and requires institutions of 
higher education to have a policy related to the handling of reports on 
missing students, including the notification of parents, guardians and 
local police.
  The second provision is based on H.R. 4407 introduced by 
Representative Salmon of Arizona, It requires institutions to have a 
policy regarding the availability of information provided by the state 
under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act with respect to 
registered sexually violent predators.
  The third provision was an amendment offered by Representative 
Roukema of New Jersey that requires institutions to include in their 
annual security report a description of campus fire safety practices 
and standards.
  All of these provisions will result in greater awareness of potential 
security risks on campus, and I, for one, believe that more information 
is better.
  Finally, I want to thank Mr. Clay and Mr. Martinez for their efforts 
in crafting this bipartisan legislation. This bill will not satisfy 
everyone completely. But it does make necessary technical and policy 
changes that will improve the implementation of the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1998, and it does so in a way that will benefit students.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodling and Chairman 
McKeon and their staffs for all of their hard work on the Campus 
Protection Act, which will close a loophole in federal law that 
restricts the ability of colleges and universities to notify students 
of the presence of convicted sex offenders on campus. I am thrilled 
that the campus security legislation has been incorporated into H.R. 
4504, the Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 2000.
  What peaked my interest in this matter was a column Tamara Deitrich 
wrote for the East Valley Tribune on a sex offender roaming the campus 
of Arizona State University (ASU), which is located in my District. The 
sex offender secured a work furlough to study and do research at ASU, 
where about 23,000 young women attend classes. Campus law enforcement 
officials at ASU expressed concern that Federal law hampered their 
ability to adequately warn students about this threat. To me, it's 
unconscionable that women on campuses do not receive notification when 
a rapist or sex offender is enrolled.
  S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus, an expert in campus security 
matters, carefully evaluated the Campus Protection Act. The following 
is an excerpt from his letter:

       For too long colleges and universities have used the Family 
     Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 USC Section 1232g) to 
     withhold public safety information from their students and 
     employees that any other citizen would be able to get freely. 
     This is a situation that denies them equal protection under 
     the law and unnecessarily puts their lives and safety at 
     risk. The addition of a requirement to the campus security 
     section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that schools 
     publicly disclose information about registered sex offenders 
     who are either enrolled or employed by the institution should 
     ensure that FERPA is not misinterpreted to preclude the 
     release of this critically important information. The 
     language included in H.R. 4504 is designed to clarify this 
     point . . .

  I thank S. Daniel Carter for his contribution to this effort and am 
delighted that the founders of his organization and the family most 
responsible for the original campus security law--the Clery's--endorse 
the Campus Protection Act.
  The Campus Protection Act adds a new section to the Jeanne Clery 
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act to 
clarify that sex offender information of all enrolled students and 
employees not only can be released, but when received, must be 
released. This will ensure that the same information about sex 
offenders available to other state citizens is available to college 
students. Additionally, the Act sensibly provides that universities 
develop a policy statement regarding the availability of this 
information as part of their annual crime statistics report.
  Without a clear statement that schools are obligated to release this 
information, questions will remain about the legality of releasing sex 
offender information. Schools that withhold information because of this 
uncertainty unnecessarily put their students at risk.
  Under the Campus Protection Act, colleges are only obligated to 
report information the state provides. This is not an undue burden or 
mandate, but authority that most campus security offices, such as the 
ASU unit, will welcome. The colleges maintain full discretion on how to 
disclose sex offender information.
  The Campus Protection Act will aid campus law enforcement agencies 
and, more importantly, increase campus safety. In her letter

[[Page 10358]]

endorsing the bill, Detective Sally Miller of the Santa Rose Junior 
College District Police Department writes: ``I wish to indicate my full 
support of [your bill] which provides direction and legal tools for 
college and university law enforcement agencies to educate and inform 
our communities about sexual predators currently hidden within our 
communities. These amendments . . . are vitally important to allow 
college and university police departments to adequately provide for the 
safety of our students and staff from sexual predators.''
  Passage of H.R. 4504 will close the sex offender campus loophole once 
and for all and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4504 , as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________



    RECOGNIZING IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MARRIAGES FOR A STRONG SOCIETY

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 280) recognizing the importance of strong marriages 
and the contributions that community marriage policies have made to the 
strength of marriages throughout the United States, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 280

       Whereas one of every two marriages ends in divorce;
       Whereas children living with a single mother are six times 
     more likely to live in poverty than are children whose 
     parents are married;
       Whereas married adults, on average, live longer, have fewer 
     emotional problems, and are less likely to engage in alcohol 
     or drug abuse;
       Whereas visionary communities have adopted community 
     marriage policies to empower couples for healthy, lifelong 
     marriage and to foster an environment that has the greatest 
     likelihood of ensuring the well-being of our citizens, 
     especially our children;
       Whereas a community marriage policy is a set of guidelines 
     for premarital preparation and community support for marriage 
     to which individuals, the community, clergy, and 
     congregations voluntarily commit; and
       Whereas a successful community marriage policy is one that 
     urges clergy, congregations, and the broader community to--
       (1) encourage premarital preparation education;
       (2) train mature married couples to serve as mentors to the 
     newly married;
       (3) evaluate current practices that may unwittingly 
     undermine marriage formation and stability;
       (4) implement policies that promote marriage; and
       (5) volunteer time, expertise, and resources to support 
     initiatives that promote marriage and stable families: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes the importance of strong marriages for a 
     strong society;
       (2) commends communities that have established community 
     marriage policies for their efforts to support marriage and 
     prevent the problems of divorce; and
       (3) encourages other communities in the United States to 
     develop voluntary community marriage policies to enable 
     community members, such as clergy, business leaders, public 
     officials, and health professionals, to work together to 
     strengthen marriages and provide stable environments for 
     children.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).


                             General Leave

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 280.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of marriage and its 
benefits for individuals, for communities and for our Nation. There 
have been considerable discussion about the state of marriage in this 
Nation over the past half century because there has been such dramatic 
changes in our Nation and in the institution of marriage.

                              {time}  1500

  If we look at the details of what has happened to marriage in this 
half century and what has happened as a result, we find some very 
interesting things.
  As an example, there has been a great deal of debate in America about 
the growing gap between rich and poor; and almost all of it focuses on 
the changing job force, the cost of living, and the tax and regulatory 
structure that hamstrings businesses and employees.
  But analysis of social science literature demonstrates that the root 
cause of poverty and income is definitely linked to the presence or 
absence of marriage. Among other problems, broken families earn less 
and experience lower levels of educational achievement.
  Let's consider some of the statistics that have been offered: in 
1950, 12 out of every 100 children, in other words, 12 percent, entered 
a broken family. By 1992, 58 percent, or 58 out of every 100 children 
born, entered a broken family. Children living with a single mother are 
six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose 
parents are married.
  Of families with children in the lowest quintile of earnings, 73 
percent are headed by single parents. Ninety-five percent in the top 
quintile are headed by married couples.
  In 1994, over 12.5 million children lived in single-parent families 
that earned less than $15,000 per year. Only 3 million children lived 
in single-parent families with annual incomes greater than $30,000.
  Three-quarters of all women applying for welfare benefits do so 
because of a destructive marriage or live-in relationship. Those who 
leave the welfare system when they get married are the least likely to 
return to the welfare system.
  Co-habitation doubles the rate of divorce. Co-habitation with someone 
other than one's future spouse quadruples the rate of divorce.
  Divorce reduces the income of families with children by an average of 
42 percent, and almost 50 percent of those families experience poverty. 
Married couples in their mid-50s amass four times the wealth of 
divorced individuals, $132,000 versus $33,600.
  I think this illustrates some aspects of the current situation. But 
let us also consider, research that has been done on marriage and 
happiness and particularly marriage and health.
  University of Chicago demographer Linda Waite found that life 
expectancy is more adversely affected by being unmarried than by being 
poor, overweight, or having heart disease.
  Similarly, scholars at the National Institutes for Health Care 
Research recently compiled a lengthy report showing that divorced men 
are particularly likely to experience health problems. When compared to 
married men, divorced males are twice as likely to die prematurely from 
hypertension, four times as likely to die prematurely from throat 
cancer, twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, 
and seven times as likely to die prematurely from pneumonia. In other 
words, being married is healthy.
  Why does marriage offer such extraordinary health benefits? The 
previously mentioned demographer, Linda Waite, states that marriage 
provides individuals a network of help and support which can be 
particularly beneficial in dealing with stress and in recovering from 
illness and accidents.
  Of course the long-recognized linked between stable marriage and 
greater wealth is not simply due to the fact that married men have 
stronger incentives to work hard. It is also due to the fact that 
married-couple households benefit from role specialization and from 
pooling resources.
  Another interesting aspect, Washington State University researcher 
Jan Stets reports that women in co-habiting unions are more than twice 
as likely to be the victims of domestic violence than married women.

[[Page 10359]]

  Data from the National Institute of Mental Health shows that co-
habiting women have rates of depression that are more than three times 
higher than married women and more than twice as high as other single 
women. On and on the statistics go.
  I think a very important item to mention is that research reviews by 
UCLA Professor Robert Coombs and others find that the longer lives of 
married people cannot be explained by the fact that healthy people are 
more likely to get and stay married. The state of marriage itself is 
more important in fostering good health.
  Now, that is very important to recognize because an immediate 
response of many people to all the statistics that I have given here is 
that we simply have not done a controlled experiment. The problem, they 
would say, is simply that the healthier people and the happier people 
are the ones more likely to get married and stay married.
  But as I said here, the research by Robert Coombs of UCLA indicates 
that is simply not true. The state of marriage itself is more important 
in fostering good health.
  The conclusion is that marriage is healthy. It is good for couples. 
It is good for children, good for communities, good for the Nation. It 
improves health, well-being, and makes children's lives, on average, 
more stable.
  The question is what can we do to encourage marriage if marriage is 
so wonderful? Is there some magic wand we at the Federal level can wave 
and solve that particular problem? I think it is important to recognize 
that we cannot do a great deal at the Federal level. But we can 
certainly encourage community-level activity, particularly activity 
that is having a good effect.
  I want to make it clear I am not up here to condemn divorce; I am 
simply pointing out that marriage can be a positive factor in many 
lives and that we should try to encourage those who are married to stay 
married and those who are not married to become married.
  An example of a way to handle this appropriately is to mobilize 
religious and community support. Something that has emerged in this 
country, which is very good and has had a positive influence, is 
something called a community marriage policy.
  Let me cite some material from a recent report, ``Toward More Perfect 
Unions: Putting Marriage on the Public Agenda,'' a report from the 
Family Impact Seminar, reported by Theodora Ooms. She notes that 
perhaps the most promising and innovative marriage-strengthening 
strategy bubbling up from the community level is the community marriage 
policy. This is a strategy rooted in the religious sector and was 
originally conceived of and promoted by Michael McManus, a syndicated 
columnist and author of ``Marriage Savers.''
  In the community marriage policy initiative, clergy and congregations 
in a community get together and agree upon a set of guidelines.
  A particularly good example of such a community marriage policy is 
that of the Greater Grand Rapids, Michigan, area which I represent. I 
do not say that just because I represent it.
  In the words of the report Family Impact Seminar report, the best 
community marriage policy is taking place in Greater Grand Rapids, 
Michigan, where, in 1996, the community launched an ambitious 
community-wide mobilization designed to support children-strengthening 
marriage.
  The initiative has some core funding, an executive leader, Dr. Roger 
Sider, and institutional support from Pine Rest, a Christian Community 
Mental Health Center.
  I should point out in an aside that Pine Rest is more than just a 
center; it is the second largest private community member health 
facility in the United States.
  What distinguishes the Grand Rapids community marriage policy is that 
it involves a high caliber and breadth of community leadership, 
including many civic leaders and health professionals as well as the 
clergy. They have taken pains to be inclusive of many different views 
of marriage.
  For example, they have been careful to listen to and accommodate the 
concerns of feminists working with battered women and minority leaders 
working with single-parent families.
  Let me emphasize that this community marriage policy is voluntary; 
but the Grand Rapids one is unique in that it has involved the broader 
community, not just the religious community.
  In Grand Rapids, pastors, rabbis, priests, judges, doctors, lawyers, 
counselors, elected officials, business leaders, educators and 
concerned citizens are being asked to find ways that they can 
strengthen and support marriages throughout their life cycle.
  The chairman of the 50-person steering committee is Bill Hardiman, a 
good friend of mine, and the mayor of Kentwood, the second largest 
suburb of Grand Rapids. He has put many hours into this and has done 
exceptional work.
  After more than a year of careful planning, in the spring of 1998 the 
initiative began implementation, starting by offering training to 
ministers and courses to others.
  The Greater Grand Rapids Community Marriage Policy has set itself a 
goal of reducing the divorce rate by 25 percent by the year 2010, a 
very ambitious goal; and they are well on the way to achieving that. It 
will also establish some interim benchmarks of progress towards this 
goal.
  So the purpose of this resolution is to commend community marriage 
policies throughout this land; and, in particular, although it is not 
specifically stated in the resolution, I want to commend the Greater 
Grand Rapids community in developing their community marriage policy. 
It has worked well. It holds great promise. We hope that it will 
achieve a great increase in the stability of marriages in our community 
and eventually throughout our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 280, which recognizes the 
importance of strong marriages and community marriage policies. I think 
it is a wonderful thing if communities try to encourage strong 
marriages.
  Our communities have changed so drastically over the past 3 years, 
today it is a fast-paced world and places constant stress on families 
and couples alike.
  But today, most married couples, young married couples, one finds 
both of the couples working, dedicated to a career or a job, and that 
is a hectic life style. The hectic life style that many young couples 
are leading make it difficult for them to focus on family and each 
other, thereby putting a strain on their relationship and putting their 
marriage at risk.
  This resolution, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
for bringing it forth, bringing attention to a need for strong healthy 
marriage and community support to make that a reality.
  This support, in the form of community marriage policies and other 
efforts to ensure a network of help for couples, can greatly contribute 
toward more harmonious and happy marriages, especially churches and 
community-based organizations.
  Those who are contributing that support are various members of our 
community, including those organizations, as I mentioned, religious and 
those people's community-based organizations that put forth counseling 
service.
  In closing, I want to thank again the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) for bringing this resolution to the House today and urge 
Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined some of the reasons that our 
nation should consider as we try to strengthen marriages in our 
country. The benefits of health, the benefits of stability, the 
benefits for our Nation and particularly for our children and their 
education.
  I have stated that the purpose of the resolution is simply to commend 
communities throughout the entire Nation that have established 
community marriage policies. But I would like to point

[[Page 10360]]

out that the Congress itself should focus on ways to undue the bias 
against marriage in certain Federal programs.
  This House has already passed the elimination of the marriage penalty 
in our income tax, and we hope that that will soon pass the other body 
and be signed into law by the President. The earned income tax credit 
should also not have a marriage penalty, which it presently has.
  There are other issues in poverty programs and many other programs in 
the Federal Government where one can detect some antimarriage bias. I 
think we as a Congress should address those issues.
  In addition State governments, with their responsibility for the 
marriage laws, should do what they can to encourage proper premarital 
counseling and especially proper counseling of individuals considering 
divorce.
  In the State of Michigan, we have done that through a State law which 
sets up a mechanism for counseling at the local level, using funds from 
marriage license fees. Churches and local communities, through 
initiatives such as community marriage policies, also should encourage 
this.
  In summary, we have demonstrated there are substantial effects of 
divorce on children. There are substantial effects of divorce on the 
health of individuals. And we have also outlined a number of the 
benefits of marriage.
  It is very important that we as a Nation and as a Congress emphasize 
the importance of stable marriages for the well-being of our Nation, 
our citizens, and especially our children.

                              {time}  1515

  This resolution is one small way we can do that, and I urge the 
adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 
280, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________



      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RECEIVERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2000

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3995) to establish procedures governing the 
responsibilities of court-appointed receivers who administer 
departments, offices, and agencies of the District of Columbia 
government, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3995

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Receivership Accountability Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO RECEIVERS WITH 
                   RESPONSIBILITIES OVER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                   GOVERNMENT.

       (a) In General.--Each District of Columbia receiver shall 
     be subject to the requirements described in section 3.
       (b) District of Columbia Receiver Defined.--In this Act, a 
     ``District of Columbia receiver'' is any receiver or other 
     official who is first appointed by the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia or the Superior Court of 
     the District of Columbia during 1995 or any succeeding year 
     to administer any department, agency, or office of the 
     government of the District of Columbia.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED.

       (a) Promoting Financial Stability and Management 
     Efficiency.--Each District of Columbia receiver who is 
     responsible for the administration of a department, agency, 
     or office of the government of the District of Columbia shall 
     carry out the administration of such department, agency, or 
     office through practices which promote the financial 
     stability and management efficiency of the government of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (b) Cost Control.--Each District of Columbia receiver who 
     is responsible for the administration of a department, 
     agency, or office of the government of the District of 
     Columbia shall ensure that the costs incurred in the 
     administration of such department, agency, or office 
     (including personnel costs of the receiver) are consistent 
     with applicable regional and national standards.
       (c) Use of Practices to Promote Efficient and Cost-
     Effective Administration.--Each District of Columbia receiver 
     who is responsible for the administration of a department, 
     agency, or office of the government of the District of 
     Columbia shall carry out the administration of such 
     department, agency, or office through the application of 
     generally accepted accounting principles and generally 
     accepted fiscal management practices.
       (d) Preparation and Submission of Budget.--
       (1) Consultation with mayor and chief financial officer.--
     In preparing the annual budget for a fiscal year for the 
     department, agency, or office of the government of the 
     District of Columbia administered by the receiver, each 
     District of Columbia receiver shall consult with the Mayor 
     and Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.
       (2) Submission of estimates.--After the consultation 
     required under paragraph (1), the receiver shall prepare and 
     submit to the Mayor, for inclusion in the annual budget of 
     the District of Columbia for the year, the receiver's 
     estimates of the expenditures and appropriations necessary 
     for the maintenance and operation of the department, agency, 
     or office for the year.
       (3) Treatment by mayor and council.--The estimates 
     submitted under paragraph (2) shall be forwarded by the Mayor 
     to the Council for its action pursuant to sections 446 and 
     603(c) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, without 
     revision but subject to the Mayor's recommendations. 
     Notwithstanding any provision of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act, the Council may comment or make 
     recommendations concerning such estimates but shall have no 
     authority under such Act to revise such estimates.
       (4) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply with 
     respect to--
       (A) any department, agency, or office of the government of 
     the District of Columbia administered by a District of 
     Columbia receiver for which, under the terms of the 
     receiver's appointment by the court involved, the Mayor and 
     the Council may revise the annual budget; or
       (B) the District of Columbia Housing Authority receiver 
     appointed during 1995.
       (5) Effective date.--This subsection shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       (e) Annual Fiscal, Management, and Program Audit.--
       (1) In general.--An annual fiscal, management, and program 
     audit of each department, agency, or office of the government 
     of the District of Columbia administered by a District of 
     Columbia receiver shall be conducted by an independent 
     auditor selected jointly by the receiver involved (or the 
     receiver's designee) and the Mayor (or the Mayor's designee), 
     and each District of Columbia receiver shall provide the 
     auditor with such information and assistance as the auditor 
     may require to conduct such audit.
       (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to--
       (A) any department, agency, or office of the government of 
     the District of Columbia administered by a District of 
     Columbia receiver for which, under the terms of the 
     receiver's appointment by the court involved, audits are 
     conducted by an auditor selected jointly by the parties to 
     the action under which the receiver was appointed; or
       (B) the District of Columbia Housing Authority receiver 
     appointed during 1995.
       (f) Procurement.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out procurement on behalf of 
     the department, agency, or office of the government of the 
     District of Columbia administered by the receiver, each 
     District of Columbia receiver--
       (A) shall obtain full and open competition through the use 
     of competitive procedures; and
       (B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of 
     competitive procedures which is best suited under the 
     circumstances of the procurement.
       (2) Exceptions.--
       (A) Alternative methods for certain procurement.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a District of Columbia 
     receiver may use alternative methods to carry out procurement 
     if--
       (i) the amount involved is nominal;
       (ii) the public exigencies require the immediate delivery 
     of the articles or performance of the service involved;
       (iii) the receiver certifies that only one source of supply 
     is available; or
       (iv) the services involved are required to be performed by 
     the contractor in person and are of a technical and 
     professional nature or are performed under the receiver's 
     supervision and paid for on a time basis.
       (B) Housing authority.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with 
     respect to the District of Columbia Housing Authority 
     receiver appointed during 1995.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICABILITY OF ANTI-DEFICIENCY 
                   ACT.

       Nothing in subchapter III of chapter 13 of title 31, United 
     States Code may be construed to waive the application of the 
     provisions of such subchapter which apply to officers or 
     employees of the District of Columbia government to any 
     District of Columbia receiver.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.

[[Page 10361]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 3995, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3995, the District of 
Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000. The Subcommittee on 
the District of Columbia, which I chair, of the Committee on Government 
Reform, is currently examining the status of the City's agencies that 
are overseen by court-appointed receivers. Presently, there are three 
outstanding agency receiverships: the Child and Family Services; the 
Commission on Mental Health Services; and the Corrections Medical 
Receiver for the District of Columbia Jail.
  Each of these agencies has languished in receivership for a 
substantial period of time and has continued to be plagued by 
systematic problems in the delivery of expected services. Since these 
agencies are under the authority of the court system and not the 
District Government, expedient congressional action is necessary to 
induce comprehensive reforms within the receivership to return them to 
the jurisdiction of the District Government.
  The Child and Family Services agency was brought under the glare of 
the public spotlight with the tragic death of young Brianna Blackmond. 
While Brianna was under the care of the Child and Family Services 
agency, her life was tragically cut short, at 23 months, by a blunt 
force trauma injury to the head. As the proud father of three children 
myself, I can say that stories such as Brianna's stab us in the heart 
and leave us wondering in amazement at how this could have happened.
  Unfortunately, Brianna's death is not a story of a one-time case 
slipping through the cracks of an otherwise well-functioning child 
welfare system. Brianna is just one example of many heart-wrenching 
stories of children adversely affected by the systemic problems of the 
District of Columbia's child welfare system.
  The two other district agencies in receivership have also 
demonstrated extreme deficiencies in their operations. The Commission 
on Mental Health Services agency has actually become worse since 
becoming a receivership. There are currently more mentally ill homeless 
people on the streets than ever before. Group homes for the mentally 
ill are poorly run and neglected, and treatment is difficult to come 
by. The lack of improvement in their services has recently led the 
receiver to resign.
  The D.C. Jail Medical Services receivership's financial management is 
in dire straits as well. For example, the receiver recently issued a 
contract to a private entity which had the D.C. contract as its only 
contract and had never been in the business, at a cost of three times 
the national average.
  This year alone, these three agencies combined will cost the District 
of Columbia taxpayers $352 million in court-controlled spending. In 
answer to these deafening receivership problems, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I have joined together to 
introduce H.R. 3995, the District of Columbia Receivership 
Accountability Act of 2000 to provide management guidance to these 
receiverships and make them more accountable to the District of 
Columbia Government and the City's taxpayers. I would like to commend 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her leadership and 
compassionate interest in repairing these ailing District agencies.
  Specifically, the bill places affirmative duties on all the receivers 
in the areas of best practices. Each receiver should conduct all 
operations consistent with the best financial and management practices 
by regional and national standards.
  Annual audit by independent auditor. Each receiver must submit to an 
annual financial and program audit conducted by an independent auditor 
selected jointly by the receiver involved with the mayor.
  Controlling costs. Each receiver must ensure that costs are 
consistent with applicable regional and national standards. This 
requirement may be waived in a few exceptional circumstances.
  Consultation with City officials on the budget. In preparing the 
annual budget for the entity in receivership, the receiver must consult 
with the mayor and the chief financial officer of the District of 
Columbia. After this consultation, the receivers must prepare and 
submit their budget to the mayor for inclusion in the City's annual 
budget. The council may comment and may make recommendations on the 
receivers' budget estimates.
  Procurement practices. When entering into contracts, each receiver 
must fully comply with generally accepted procurement practices.
  Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act 
of 2000 is a significant step towards inducing progressive reforms 
within the receiverships in order to return them in proper working 
order to the District of Columbia. I urge all my colleagues to join me 
in voting to support this vitally needed piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their support of 
H.R. 3995 the District of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 
2000 and for the attention they have consistently shown to moving bills 
that affect the Nation's capital. With so much of the District's vital 
affairs dependent upon actions by the Congress, I particularly 
appreciate the attention that the chairman and ranking member have 
given to the City's bills and concerns.
  I particularly want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for his consistently strong leadership on 
District of Columbia matters and for his support in moving this bill, 
in particular, forward. H.R. 3995 was passed unanimously by the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on May 5, 2000 and the full 
Committee on Government Reform on May 18, 2000.
  I appreciate the quick action and serious attention the subcommittee 
chairman has afforded problems in receiverships that control three D.C. 
functions. When the chair learned of these problems, he asked me to 
join him in initiating a GAO study of the District's receiverships, 
beginning with the receivership for the Child and Family Services 
agency. We began there because of the tragic and clearly preventable 
death of the infant Brianna Blackmond; the confusion and uncertainty in 
assessing responsibility for the child's death; and evidence of 
disarray the tragedy brought to public view that could mean other 
children under the care of the receivership may not be safe.
  I appreciate as well the concern of the majority whip, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who came personally to testify before the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia in the first of our three 
public hearings on the outstanding D.C. receivership, the foster care 
receivership.
  In addition, the D.C. jail receivership appears to have excessive 
costs and irregular procurement practices. And the mental health 
receivership had problems that were so severe that the receiver had to 
be replaced. The public housing receivership will end this year and the 
agency will be returned to District of Columbia control. That receiver, 
David Gilmore, stands out for the success of his tenure, which took a 
very complicated agency with the longest history of failure and 
dysfunction and reformed all of its functions; operations, social 
services, physical infrastructure, and public safety.
  Action by the Congress on the receiverships is necessary because the 
courts and not the District of Columbia Government have control over 
the functions. H.R. 3995 responds to the early

[[Page 10362]]

evidence we have received regarding basic deficiencies in D.C. 
receiverships by placing best practice requirements on agencies in 
receivership in the District of Columbia in seven areas:
  One. Financial stability and management efficiency. Receivers must 
carry out the administration of the agency under receivership through 
practices which promote the financial stability and management 
efficiency of the District of Columbia.
  Two. Cost controls. Receivers must ensure that costs incurred in the 
administration of the agency are consistent with applicable regional 
and national standards.
  Three. Best practices. Receivers must carry out the administration of 
the agency through the application of generally-accepted accounting 
principles and generally-accepted fiscal and management practices.
  Four. Budget preparation. Receivers must consult with the District of 
Columbia mayor, chief financial officer, and city council prior to 
submitting the agency budget.
  Five. Annual audit. Receivers must submit to an annual fiscal and 
management audit by an independent auditor selected jointly by the 
receiver and the city.
  Six. Procurement. Receivers must use best procurement practices that 
foster full and open competition.
  Seven. Anti-Deficiency Act. This provision clarifies that the Anti-
Deficiency Act applies to District agencies in receivership.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is noncontroversial and strongly 
supported by the mayor and the city council of the District of 
Columbia. I urge passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I also want to thank the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), for his interest and his understanding and his leadership on 
the bill. He was a very active participant in helping to move this 
legislation forward and craft it so it would achieve the goals that we 
all had in mind, and that is to prevent problems like we had with 
Brianna Blackmond in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3995, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________



            SCHOOL GOVERNANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 4387) to provide that the School Governance Charter 
Amendment Act of 2000 shall take effect upon the date such Act is 
ratified by voters of the District of Columbia.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4387

       by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
     States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PERIOD FOR SCHOOL 
                   GOVERNANCE CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT OF 2000.

       Notwithstanding section 303 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act or any provision of the School Governance 
     Charter Amendment Act of 2000, the School Governance Charter 
     Amendment Act of 2000 shall take effect upon the date such 
     Act is ratified by a majority of the registered qualified 
     electors of the District of Columbia voting in a referendum 
     held to ratify such Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 4387, the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4387, introduced by my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), waives the 35-day 
congressional review period on the upcoming June 27 referendum. It will 
allow the results of that referendum to be enacted immediately. If the 
referendum is successful, the District of Columbia may move forward 
with the creation of a hybrid school board. This waiver will allow 
candidates for the new school board to be on the ballot for the 
November 7 election. H.R. 4387 will allow the choice that District 
residents make on June 27 to go forward without the delay it would 
otherwise face due to our own shortened legislative calendar.
  The mayor and the D. C. Council have come together to craft this 
compromise referendum that will return accountability to the D.C. 
school board and to the District of Columbia schools. The new school 
board will be comprised of five elected and four mayoral-appointed 
members. I believe this reasonable compromise will remove much of the 
politics that has characterized the D.C. school boards in the past.
  Most of all, this was not crafted from Congress, this was crafted 
from the city itself and the city leaders working together. I think if 
we want to continue to have democracy to be successful in the city, we 
have to allow them this flexibility. So I am eager that once this 
referendum is passed, or whatever happens to it, that we can move ahead 
and enact it immediately in time for the November 7 election.
  I hope that the new school board will return to its primary mission 
of oversight and management of the schools. It is my goal to assist the 
city in returning accountability to the schools. For too long the 
education system has not worked for the children of the Nation's 
capital. The mayor and the council have worked together to ensure that 
this situation does not continue. I commend them for their dedicated 
efforts to achieve reform.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for his expeditious 
consideration of this waiver. I urge passage of this legislation so 
that the District may move forward on June 27.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the action of the 
chairman of the full committee in moving this bill forward. Had it not 
moved, there would have been a cascading effect on a referendum that is 
required in order to settle the matter of the school board in the 
District of Columbia, the central issue facing the City at this time.
  The School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000 waives the 
congressionally mandated 35-day layover period for a D.C. referendum 
that will be considered by the voters in the special election of June 
27. The referendum restructures the D.C. School Board to have five 
elected and four appointed members.
  This local legislation is a result of an agreement between D.C. Mayor 
Tony Williams and the City Council. If the referendum passes, H.R. 4387 
would waive the layover period so that candidates can seek signatures 
and run for the new board without legal challenge. This waiver is 
necessary because petitions for signature will be available on July 7 
and the expiration of the 35-legislative-day congressional layover 
period may not come until early October. The waiver of the layover 
period will allow elections of the new school board to proceed without 
legal challenge on November 7.

[[Page 10363]]

  H.R. 4387 is also noncontroversial and was unanimously passed in 
subcommittee and full committee. It has the full support of the mayor 
and the City Council of the District of Columbia. I strongly urge 
passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just summarize. Again, I thank the gentlewoman 
for taking the lead on an issue that was very controversial at one 
point in terms of how we structure the school system in the District. 
There is no question that it has failed.
  I think we need to understand that before there was an elected D.C. 
Council, before there was an elected mayor, there was an elected school 
board. This has been a long Democratic tradition in the city.
  We also, though, recognize there is a need for accountability in the 
decisions being made at the school system. I think when we got all the 
entities together, this was the compromise that they have worked out. 
They are going to submit it to the voters. I do not think anything 
could be clearer or fairer than that. We just need to give it a chance 
to succeed.
  So, again, I thank my colleague for stepping up to the plate on this. 
I know this has been an issue of some controversy in the city, but it 
is that kind of leadership that is going to turn this city around.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I want only to 
note that at a time when it was not clear that the mayor and the City 
Council would come together, the chairman stepped back and let them see 
if they could reach an accommodation. They did reach an accommodation 
that is now before the people of the District of Columbia and they will 
decide.
  I thank the gentleman very much for his work on this bill and on so 
many other bills for the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4387.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________



                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair 
declares the House in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.
  Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess until approximately 6:30 p.m.

                          ____________________



                              {time}  1927
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) at 7 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.

                          ____________________



REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT 
  ON S. 761, ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-670) on the resolution (H. Res. 523) 
waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
Senate bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic 
means by permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of 
electronic commerce through the operation of free market forces, and 
other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to 
be printed.

                          ____________________



    REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4578, 
  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a 
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-671) on the resolution (H. Res. 524) 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4578) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, 
which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________



                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Before we move into the Committee of the Whole, I thought 
that an understanding was being reached about the sequence of an 
amendment. Is that not correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, it is our 
understanding based on our agreement of last week that we would take 
the Obey amendments as they appeared in the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. The problem is that one of the Members who would offer 
those amendments is called away to another meeting and so we wanted to 
ask unanimous consent before the House went into the Committee that 
that amendment be taken out of order simply so that she could leave.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, is that 
one of the amendments that we had agreed to in the unanimous consent?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would find no objection to 
accommodating that Member. But I expect that the same agreement of the 
time limitation would still apply.
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have no objection to that.

                          ____________________



ORDER OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 10 DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION 
  OF H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND 
        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to 
consider amendment No. 10 notwithstanding that portion of the bill may 
have been passed in the reading of the bill for amendment, but 
otherwise subject to the order of the House of June 8, 2000.

                              {time}  1930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
4577.

                              {time}  1930


                     In The Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on

[[Page 10364]]

Thursday, June 8, 2000, the amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through 
page 19, line 21.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to 
enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who is standing in 
for our distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) prepared to 
enter into that colloquy with me?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
answer is affirmative.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for his outstanding leadership of the 
subcommittee and because we have the unique opportunity of having the 
chairman of the full committee here, I also want to thank him for his 
leadership of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not in the colloquy, but I want to say with 
great assurance there is not a fairer, more thoughtful chairman of any 
standing committee in the Congress of the United States than the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who chairs the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  It is with great affection and great respect that I rise and thank 
him for participating in this colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the funding level for the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention of childhood immunizations. The 
operations and infrastructure account, which provides grants to States 
for outreach and education on immunization, has, Mr. Chairman, as you 
know, decreased from $271 million in 1995 to $139 million in 2000, 
almost cut in half.
  While this bill increases funding for the operations and 
infrastructure account by $15 million this year, it is my hope that 
this funding would increase by an additional $60 million for a total of 
$75 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the vaccine purchase account 
within the Childhood Immunization Program at CDC. The President 
requested, as you know, an increase of $10 million this year and 
funding has remained level. I would like to see funding in this account 
increased by the $10 million President Clinton requested, plus an 
additional $10 million on top of that.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his 
hard work on this bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), in his absence, for his hard work on this bill.
  Given the constraints of the budget resolution, the gentleman from 
Illinois and the gentleman from Florida have done an outstanding job of 
writing what has proved to be a difficult bill for Members on both 
sides of the budget debate.
  It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we may work together on this 
account in conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both 
appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on 
this issue.
  As the gentleman knows, our allocation was not nearly as high as we 
had hoped, and we prepared the best bill that we could while under the 
current budget constraints.
  With that said, I agree that the operations on infrastructure portion 
of the program provides the important funding for State immunization 
initiatives, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and I both 
would be very happy to work with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) on this issue as we move forward in the process.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Green), a very good friend of 
mine and someone who has been tireless in working towards increased 
funding for immunizations.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) for organizing this colloquy this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your pledge to work to increase 
funding for section 317, the immunization program.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and I have introduced 
the resolution calling for an increase in section 317 funds for 
children's immunizations, and I am pleased that thanks to the efforts 
of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), this 
year's Labor, HHS bill does include a slight increase in section 317 
funding. However, much more is needed.
  While immunization rates in most States are improving, we are not 
doing as much as we could do if one of four American children are not 
receiving the immunizations that he or she needs. In Houston, which I 
represent, and Chicago over 44 percent of the children are not getting 
one or more of the immunizations.
  Section 317 infrastructure funds are used by the States and cities to 
identify needs, conduct community outreach, establish registries, open 
clinics, deal with disease outbreaks, and undertake educational and 
tracking efforts, among other things.
  These infrastructure funds have been reduced rather dramatically, as 
my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), mentioned in the 
past 5 years from 271 million to 139 million.
  The need for increased infrastructure funding is particularly 
important in light of the recent Journal of the American Medical 
Association survey that shows over 50 percent of American children are 
either under or overvaccinated.
  The JAMA study shows that 21 percent of toddlers receive at least one 
extra immunization, while 31 percent missed at least one. In other 
words, close to 50 percent of American children are receiving too few 
or too many vaccinations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again, section 317 funding increase is supported 
by the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and this increase 
is also supported by the Association of Maternal and Child Health 
Programs, Every Child by Two, the Association of State and Territorial 
Health Officers, and the Association of County and City Health 
Officials.
  Most important, an increase in the 317 funds, Mr. Chairman, is 
supported by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and our 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), and my 
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for his support; and hopefully in 
conference committee we will get that additional funding if we can see 
the allocations increase.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green) for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I also want to 
thank him and congratulate him for his work on this subject.
  Obviously, we have talked a lot about in the previous decade, 
previous century about prevention, about how health care would be much 
cheaper if we prevented illness as opposed to treating illness. Nothing 
has been so successful, I think, in that regard as has childhood 
immunization.
  We have, in effect, eliminated some diseases that have afflicted 
children and human beings for centuries really; and, therefore, this 
investment in immunizations plays an incredible dividend. It is 
probably as good an investment as we can possibly make, so not only is 
it the right thing to do to keep

[[Page 10365]]

children healthy and to protect them from diseases, but it is also, 
from a financial standpoint, a very worthwhile investment that saves us 
a very geometric savings for every dollar invested.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership and would be glad to yield 
to him for any comment he might have.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) for yielding. I see our colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson) from Chicago, and knowing that both Houston and 
Chicago, 44 percent of our children are either getting more or less the 
immunizations they need.
  I know in my own district in Houston, our population turns so quick, 
that we may do a great immunization program 2 or 3 years ago, but we 
have so many new children who are coming in to urban areas in our 
country that this money, this infrastructure money will help create a 
registry so we will know that a child does not overimmunize or 
hopefully not underimmunize, and we will get those immunizations and 
the registry will help the States.
  I know the State of Texas is supporting this, and State health 
commissioners and, of course, our cities to provide that registry so we 
will spend a dime today and save us a dollar tomorrow.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
makes a very cogent observation. I had the opportunity to meet just 
within the last 30 days with the Secretary of the Department of Health 
in Maryland, and he made that exact point, needing such a registry. So 
that not only would it assist school officials and health officials, 
but it would preclude children from being overimmunized, as well as 
making sure that children who are not get that which they need. So that 
it has both sanguine effects from that standpoint.
  I appreciate the gentleman's observations.
  Does the gentleman from Texas want additional time?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for his efforts on the committee, and, again, I thank the chairman of 
the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
for the efforts and the commitment to try and have more money during 
conference process.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I had the opportunity to 
meet a little earlier today with representatives of PerkinElmer, a 
corporation which is a high-technology company based in Wellesley, 
Massachusetts; and we talked about neonatal screening for treatable, 
inherited disorders.
  I mention that only in the respect that, again, we were talking about 
prevention and early intervention. These dollars, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Porter) have pointed out, are dollars well spent; and the only reason, 
as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) pointed out that they 
have not been included in this bill at this point in time is because 
the budget numbers were so very tight.
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) as well 
for their willingness to work with us over the next few months to try 
to increase substantially the numbers dedicated to the immunization 
program so that we can make sure that every child in America receives 
the shots and immunizations that he or she needs to ensure at least to 
the safety that we can accord with those immunization shots.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill through page 31, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and opened to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 20, line 1 through page 31, line 14 is 
as follows:

           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, X, XII, XIX, 
     and XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of 
     the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V and 
     section 1820 of the Social Security Act, the Health Care 
     Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, and the Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988, as amended, $4,684,232,000, 
     of which $25,000,000 from general revenues, notwithstanding 
     section 1820(j) of the Social Security Act, shall be 
     available for carrying out the Medicare rural hospital 
     flexibility grants program under section 1820 of such Act: 
     Provided, That the Division of Federal Occupational Health 
     may utilize personal services contracting to employ 
     professional management/administrative and occupational 
     health professionals: Provided further, That of the funds 
     made available under this heading, $250,000 shall be 
     available until expended for facilities renovations at the 
     Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, 
     That in addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the 
     Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be 
     collected for the full disclosure of information under the 
     Act sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the 
     National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available 
     until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That 
     for the collection of fees authorized by section 1128E(d)(2) 
     of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
     1996 for the full disclosure of information under the Act 
     sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the 
     Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank, and shall 
     remain available until expended to carry out that Act: 
     Provided further, That no more than $5,000,000 is available 
     for carrying out the provisions of Public Law 104-73: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $238,932,000 shall be for the program under title X 
     of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary 
     family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts 
     provided to said projects under such title shall not be 
     expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall 
     be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended 
     for any activity (including the publication or distribution 
     of literature) that in any way tends to promote public 
     support or opposition to any legislative proposal or 
     candidate for public office: Provided further, That 
     $554,000,000 shall be for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs 
     authorized by section 2616 of the Public Health Service Act: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 502(a)(1) of 
     the Social Security Act, not to exceed $109,148,000 is 
     available for carrying out special projects of regional and 
     national significance pursuant to section 501(a)(2) of such 
     Act.
       For special projects of regional and national significance 
     under section 501(a)(2) of the Social Security Act, 
     $30,000,000, which shall become available on October 1, 2001, 
     and shall remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That such amount shall not be counted toward 
     compliance with the allocation required in section 502(a)(1) 
     of such Act: Provided further, That such amount shall be used 
     only for making competitive grants to provide abstinence 
     education (as defined in section 510(b)(2) of such Act) to 
     adolescents and for evaluations (including longitudinal 
     evaluations) of activities under the grants and for Federal 
     costs of administering the grants: Provided further, That 
     grants shall be made only to public and private entities 
     which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to whom the 
     entities provide abstinence education under such grant, the 
     entities will not provide to that adolescent any other 
     education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the case 
     of an entity expressly required by law to provide health 
     information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded 
     from seeking health information or services from the entity 
     in a different setting than the setting in which the 
     abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That the 
     funds expended for such evaluations may not exceed 3.5 
     percent of such amount.


               health education assistance loans program

       Such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of 
     the program, as authorized by title VII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, as amended. For administrative expenses to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, including section 709 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, $3,679,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $2,992,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

[[Page 10366]]



               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, XIX, and 
     XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 
     103, 201, 202, 203, 301, and 501 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977, sections 20, 21, and 22 of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, title IV of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, and section 501 of the 
     Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980; including insurance 
     of official motor vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft, $3,290,369,000, of 
     which $145,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     equipment and construction and renovation of facilities, and 
     in addition, such sums as may be derived from authorized user 
     fees, which shall be credited to this account: Provided, That 
     in addition to amounts provided herein, up to $71,690,000 
     shall be available from amounts available under section 241 
     of the Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National 
     Center for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available for injury prevention and 
     control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may 
     be used to advocate or promote gun control: Provided further, 
     That the Director may redirect the total amount made 
     available under authority of Public Law 101-502, section 3, 
     dated November 3, 1990, to activities the Director may so 
     designate: Provided further, That the Congress is to be 
     notified promptly of any such transfer: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     contract or related contracts for the development and 
     construction of laboratory building 18 may be employed which 
     collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided 
     further, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the 
     clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $10,000,000 may be 
     available for making grants under section 1509 of the Public 
     Health Service Act to not more than 10 States.

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $3,793,587,000.


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $2,321,320,000.


         national institute of dental and craniofacial research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $309,007,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney disease, $1,315,530,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

        For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $1,185,767,000.


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $2,062,126,000.


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,548,313,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $984,300,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $514,673,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $506,730,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $790,299,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $400,025,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $301,787,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $102,312,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $349,216,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $788,201,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $1,114,638,000.


                national human genome research institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $386,410,000.


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $832,027,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants: Provided 
     further, That $75,000,000 shall be for extramural facilities 
     construction grants.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $50,299,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $256,281,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 2001, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.


       national center for complementary and alternative medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to complementary and 
     alternative medicine, $78,880,000.


                         office of the director

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $342,307,000, of 
     which $48,271,000 shall be for the Office of AIDS Research: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed 20 passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this or any 
     other Act to all National Institutes of Health appropriations 
     to activities the Director may so designate: Provided 
     further, That no such appropriation shall be decreased by 
     more than 1 percent by any such transfers and that the 
     Congress is promptly notified of the transfer: Provided 
     further, That the National Institutes of Health is authorized 
     to collect third party payments for the cost of clinical 
     services that are incurred in National Institutes of Health 
     research facilities and that such payments shall be credited 
     to the National Institutes of Health Management Fund: 
     Provided further, That all funds credited to the National 
     Institutes of Health Management Fund shall remain available 
     for one fiscal year after the fiscal year in which they are 
     deposited: Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be 
     available to carry out section 499 of the Public Health 
     Service Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 
     499(k)(10) of the Public Health Service Act, funds from the 
     Foundation for the National Institutes of Health may be 
     transferred to the National Institutes of Health.


                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $178,700,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $47,300,000 shall be for the National Neuroscience 
     Research Center: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a single contract or related contracts for 
     the development and construction of the first phase of the 
     National Neuroscience Research Center may be employed which 
     collectively include the full scope of the project: Provided 
     further, That the solicitation and contract shall contain the 
     clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the 
designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman most certainly is.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.

[[Page 10367]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved under the order of June 8. 
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       Page 31, after line 23, insert the following:
       In addition, $600,000,000 for such purposes: Provided, That 
     such amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That such amount shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 
2000, the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Pelosi) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for allowing me to be the designee on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this amendment, which would 
increase funding $600 million to reduce the demand for drugs here in 
America. Specifically, it would fund State and local drug treatment and 
prevention activities.
  It recognizes that if America's drug controlled policy is to succeed, 
our policy must not focus only on supply reduction. We must balance our 
policy by including domestic efforts by including demand reduction 
services. We must address America's enormous drug treatment and 
prevention needs.
  More than 5.7 million Americans are in severe need of substance abuse 
treatment, and 3.6 million lack needed treatment; 5.7, 3.6, just over 2 
million Americans are receiving the substance abuse treatment, have 
access to treatment. And I am not even saying they have all that they 
need, but 3.6 have none.
  Just 2 months ago, I offered a drug treatment amendment during the 
supplemental appropriations bill consideration. I tried to offer my 
amendment on the House floor for a straight up and down vote. At the 
time the chairman of the committee said this amendment should go 
through the regular process and not be dealt with on the supplemental.
  It was said to wait for the appropriation subcommittee and the 
committee markups. They offered to work with me at the time through the 
appropriate process to fund domestic demand reduction strategies; 
however, this is the regular process. We had no success at the 
subcommittee/full committee and now is the time, the amendment is 
before this committee. I look for your support.

                              {time}  1945

  Please know that treatment and prevention are more effective than any 
other drug control options. A Rand Corporation study sponsored by the 
United States Army and the Office of Drug Control Policy determined 
that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in drug treatment, 
drug treatment, were 23 times more effective than source country 
control. In addition, this is 11 times more effective, drug treatment 
and prevention, is 11 times more effective than interdiction at the 
border, and 7 times more effective than even law enforcement.
  Certainly we want to reduce the supply and we want to interdict at 
the border and we must have a balance between treatment and 
incarceration, but this Rand Commission study says that treatment is 23 
times more effective. In other words, if you wanted to reduce demand in 
the U.S. by 1 percent, you could spend $24 million by having treatment 
on demand in the U.S., or you could spend over $700 million in the 
source country in order to reduce demand by 1 percent in the U.S.
  My amendment increases funding $600 million for the substance abuse 
block grant and community treatment services, it invests $400 million 
for the block grants and $200 million for local treatment services via 
competitive grants. It provides treatment for an additional 150,000 
addicted individuals and proven prevention services to an estimated 
690,000 youths. It expands existing service infrastructure.
  This investment leverages additional local and State funds, it 
strengthens State and local coordination and helps integrate service 
delivery. The amendment focuses on youth, while allowing communities to 
invest these funds according to local priorities. It helps our youth 
avoid a life of drugs and helps current drug users to turn their lives 
around. We must reduce domestic drug use and increase funding for drug 
treatment and prevention.
  In September of 1999, America's drug czar, General McCaffrey, wrote 
an op-ed stating, ``It is a sad time when the number of incarcerated 
Americans exceeds the active duty strength of the Armed Forces. A Rand 
Corporation study,'' the one I referenced, and this is the McCaffrey 
quote, ``found that increasing drug treatment was the single-most cost-
effective way to reduce domestic drug consumption.''
  We know treatment and prevention are more effective than any other 
options. How cost effective is this? Each $1 invested in drug abuse 
prevention saves $15 in reduced health, justice and other societal 
costs. Each $1 invested in drug prevention will save communities $4 to 
$5 in costs for drug abuse counseling and treatment. The National 
Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study evaluated SAMSHA's substantive 
abuse treatment services and found significant and lasting benefits, 
including 50 percent decrease in drug and alcohol use 1 year after 
completing treatment, 43 percent decrease in homelessness, and 19 
percent increase in employment.
  Mr. Chairman, I contend this is a dollar well spent, and certainly an 
investment we should make. It is a small step. We still will have 
millions of people in our country not receiving the substance abuse 
treatment that they need, but it is a step in the right direction, and, 
as we consider giving all kinds of military assistance to Colombia in 
order to reduce drug consumption in the U.S., we must consider that $1 
is worth $23 spent that way, $1 spent on treatment in the United 
States. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), the Clerk will read the subsequent paragraph which is 
being amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to program management, 
     $2,727,626,000.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to our colleagues that this amendment 
was offered in the full committee and it was debated at great length 
followed by a recorded vote. The amendment was not agreed to. It was 
not so much that we did not agree with what the gentlewoman would like 
to accomplish, but we did not have the money. The budget approved by 
this House and by the other body put a severe restriction on the funds 
available. If the gentlewoman would have offered some way to pay for 
this or offered an offset somewhere else in the bill, we might be more 
friendly toward the amendment, but, unfortunately, that is not the 
case.
  I would like to point out also for the benefit of our colleagues, 
this bill provides the President's budget request for the Substance 
Abuse Block Grant, $31

[[Page 10368]]

million more than last year's level. I know it is not as much as the 
gentlewoman would like. It is not as much as I would like, but it was 
the best we could do, given the allocation that we had.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, to speak to this amendment, and 
would say to our distinguished chairman that if we did not have to have 
a very expensive tax cut, we would have enough money to meet the 
treatment needs in our country to reduce demand for drugs.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to refresh our memories as to 
what is going on here. What is happening is that we are offering a 
series of amendments, but under the rule under which this bill is being 
debated we will not be able to get votes on those amendments. The 
reason we will not is because the majority party, in order to squeeze 
out enough room in the budget for their huge tax packages, they have 
scaled back substantially on virtually every domestic appropriation 
bill that we will bring to this floor. That is why this bill is $3 
billion below the President on education, almost $2 billion below on 
worker protection and job training, and over $1 billion below on health 
care.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do with this and other amendments 
is to illustrate that we think there ought to be a different set of 
priorities than those which are guiding the majority party. Last week 
the majority party passed a tax bill which, over the next 10 years, 
will give over $200 billion in tax relief to the richest 400 Americans 
in this society. I have nothing against those folks, but it seems to me 
that it is a much higher priority for this country to meet its 
education obligations, its health care obligations and its job training 
obligations.
  What the Pelosi amendment is trying to illustrate is that this 
Congress and the administration are apparently both supporting an 
expensive new proposition to fight a drug war in South America, but 
that this Congress is refusing to add funding to the budget to deal 
with drug treatment here at home. When we have only 37 percent of the 
Americans who are presently in need of drug treatment able to get 
treatment because of insufficient drug treatment slots, it seems to me 
that we have a terrible imbalance in our Congressional priorities.
  So I recognize this amendment is not going anywhere, because we 
cannot even get a vote on it under the rule, but I think this is just 
another example of the price we pay in terms of increased crime, in 
terms of increased drug addiction, because this Congress is hell-bent 
on providing some huge tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this 
society, while it is ignoring our needs to deal with the concrete 
problems that affect and afflict virtually every community in the 
country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
balance of my time be managed by the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Members for being late, but my plane 
was delayed. As I came over here and passed one of the television 
screens, I heard the gentlewoman from California saying that she could 
not offer this, she was told, in full committee markup, but that she 
could offer it here on the floor because this was regular order. But I 
suggest to the gentlewoman that if you do not offer an offset, it is 
not regular order. It is not fiscally responsible.
  I just heard the gentleman from Wisconsin saying that we refused to 
add money. We funded this account, which is a very important account, 
at exactly the level the President of the United States requested. So I 
would ask the gentlewoman, she is adding $600 million. Where did that 
figure come from?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the $600 million relates to what we think 
we could hopefully get passed here. If I just may say, with the 
gentleman's yielding, just to clarify what is here on the floor, when I 
offered this amendment at the time of the emergency supplemental, when 
no offset would have been required, it was rejected by the majority in 
the full committee saying that we should go through the regular order, 
even though drug use in America is an emergency, and that is why we 
were having an emergency supplemental to send military assistance to 
Colombia. It was declared an emergency.
  So then when they said go the regular order, we go to full committee 
and were defeated, and are now bringing it to the floor to point out 
the imbalance in our values, where we will give a tax cut instead of 
giving drug treatment to reduce drug consumption in America. So the 
$600 million relates to that.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman knows 
very well we are not in the process here of moving money from tax cuts 
to spending. That is not the regular order. The order here is that if 
you have an amendment to offer, you have to find an offset, because we 
live within limits.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much agree with the gentlewoman that the 
President of the United States was wrong in allocating $1.6 billion to 
drug interdiction and crop eradication in Colombia. That money would 
have been better spent on treatment programs or prevention programs 
here at home.
  The difficulty is that the gentlewoman is never willing to take the 
money from a lower priority and allocate it to a higher priority. It 
seems to me that the great flaw in the argument coming from the other 
side, on all of these amendments, is that you simply want to add money, 
without the responsibility for the bottom line of living within some 
standard. The standard is not what we need. We need a lot more in a lot 
of programs. The standard is that we have to live within a budget, and 
that is what we have to do. So we have to make the tough decisions over 
here, and over on that side you simply say, ``Let's add money to this, 
let's add money to that, let's add money to other program.'' There is a 
need; of course there is a need. But somebody has to be responsible 
that we do not go off the graph in spending.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say we tried to provide this funding on 
the same footing that the funding was provided for the drug war in 
South America. We were told by the majority party at that time, come 
back and deal with it on the regular bill. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) said that, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said 
that, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) said that, and several 
others.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may say to the 
gentleman, the gentleman did not do that. The gentleman had the 
opportunity, but he did not.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
did try to do it. We have tried on numerous occasions to cut back the 
amount of money that you are providing for your tax cuts, including the 
budget resolution we brought to the floor. All you would have to do to 
be able to fund this and every other amendment is to cut back your tax 
cuts by 20 percent.
  Now, the rules of this House prevented us from getting a vote on that 
proposition, but that does not mean that we do not have an obligation 
and

[[Page 10369]]

conscience to bring it up to demonstrate what we believe to be the 
skewed priorities of the majority.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman made that 
point over and over again, and I might agree with the point, but this 
is not the regular order. Regular order is to be responsible and to cut 
something if you want to increase something.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, in 
fairness to the gentleman, since he is being so generous with his time, 
I want to use the first phase of my time from him to praise him for his 
leadership as chair of our subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. Maybe that is all 
the time I will yield.
  Ms. PELOSI. No, I was going to say so much more about the gentleman, 
but I have another amendment, so I will spend some time then, because 
we have been very pleased by his leadership on the committee.
  So great a leader is the gentleman that he was very clever in this 
bill, Mr. Chairman, and I think it would be instructive to the Members 
of this House to know that in this bill there is money allocated for 
different programs, that the entire amount is designated to be 
emergency requirements pursuant to Section 251(b).

                              {time}  2000

  That says that one must adjust the caps if the President includes 
designation of the term as an emergency request.
  Mr. PORTER. Let me reclaim my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. This is an emergency request.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reclaim my time and reserve it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) controls the 
time. He must yield time.
  Mr. PORTER. The gentlewoman can get the time from the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have other speakers on my side. In fact, the 
gentlewoman better yield some time to us now.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a very valued member of the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this $600 million amendment 
adds $400 million to States through the substance abuse block grant 
program. It adds $200 million to local communities through competitive 
grants for critical substance abuse treatment services in collaboration 
with the States. That is what this amendment is about. It is very, very 
clear that these resources are necessary.
  Now, what is also a bit confusing is that during the emergency 
supplemental markup the President of the United States requested of 
that committee $1.6 billion for the Colombian aid package. We sought 
during that hearing to add a comparable amount of money, not just on 
the supply side of the narcotics problem, but also on the demand side, 
because we know that to reduce cocaine consumption, funds invested in 
drug treatment were 23 times more likely and more effective than source 
country control, that they were 11 times more effective than 
interdiction and 7 times more effective than law enforcement in 
reducing cocaine consumption. So we sought to match that on this side.
  Now during the course of that discussion, the majority added money 
for agricultural products, $4 billion, several billion in increased 
defense spending above the $300 billion appropriation, more than the 
Defense Department was even asking for, and the emergency supplemental 
for $1 billion on crop eradication in Colombia became a $14 billion 
bill in emergency supplemental that I believe is still stuck in the 
Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, all we have sought to do under regular order, which the 
chairman of the full committee asked us to do, was to offer an 
amendment on the demand side of the problem in our own country. That 
amendment was flatly rejected by the full committee; and we are here 
today, Mr. Chairman, raising similar concerns to show the American 
people, but also to show the full committee, Mr. Chairman, that there 
are Members of Congress who want to do something not only on the supply 
side but also on the demand side.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman for offering her amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we went through this drill in the 
subcommittee, the same 10 amendments, the same increase in every single 
one of them, just to show that Republicans want to cut.
  We have increased, including Head Start, education $2 billion, 
increased over last year.
  Let me give a good idea. One of these amendments increases special 
education. When the Democrats had control of this House, they promised 
to increase special education up to 40 percent of the funding. The 
maximum they ever funded was 6 percent. Republicans, in 5 years, have 
doubled that spending for special education. This bill increases 
special education funding $500 million; but yet we will see an 
amendment come forward to spend another billion dollars without any 
offsets, just to say that Republicans are cutting special education. 
That is the logic that they use.
  Why? Every single one of these bills is brought forward just for the 
election coming up in November, to show how those mean Republicans want 
to cut education and cut the other socialized programs.
  Well, there is a party with fiscal responsibility. There is a party 
also that wants to tax and spend and spend and spend, just like they 
did when they were in the majority.
  Let us take a look at it. Look at education. It was a disaster when 
they left office. Education construction was destroyed. The 
infrastructure is terrible. We are last in math and science, because 
they put more money into it, just kept pouring more money, more money, 
more money, without any quality or responsibility into it.
  We have changed that. Look over the 5 years, test scores are starting 
to go up but at the same time those that are entering colleges are 
still having to take remedial education. That is wrong. We need to do 
more in education. I agree with my colleagues on that. We have 
increased it $2 billion.
  Now, how did they plan on paying for this? We will hear tax breaks 
for the rich, tax breaks for the rich. Well, I want to say, any tax 
relief limits the amount that they spend on these social programs. It 
will only be for the rich. We will never find them supporting tax 
relief. Every single bill. The same liberals fought against the 
balanced budget because it limited their amount of spending. They 
fought against welfare reform because it limited their amount of 
spending. They fought against the Social Security lock box because when 
they were in the majority for 30 years they took every dime out of the 
Social Security trust fund and put it up here for new spending, and 
then they increased taxes every year so that they could pass more for 
increased bureaucracy.
  Now every one of these amendments we are going to see they want more, 
they want more, they want more. Every single appropriations bill, 
except for defense, they will increase. They will cut defense also to 
pay for more socialized spending.
  Excuse me. I know I am not supposed to have this on the floor, but 
God says he does not want this amendment. I am sorry.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the Member from California that 
personal electronic devices may not be used on the floor of the House 
and should be disabled when they are brought into the Chamber.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In 1993, they had the highest tax possible. They 
stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund, even the gas 
tax. Does one think they put it in a transportation fund? Absolutely 
not. They put it in the general fund so they could spend more money. 
There was no hope of a

[[Page 10370]]

balanced budget. Debts were destined to go up. The budget went beyond 
$200 billion every single year, but yet we will see the exercise here 
tonight from my colleagues on the other side to spend more money. 
Reject the amendments.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), a champion fighting against substance abuse in 
our country.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment 
to increase drug treatment funding by $600 million. This Nation has a 
problem with drug addiction, and we cannot continue to incarcerate our 
way out of this health crisis. With less than 5 percent of the world's 
population, the United States has one quarter of the world's prisoners. 
The rapid expansion of the U.S. prison industrial complex has been 
fueled by the so-called war on drugs. While all of our communities are 
suffering, inner city, rural, black, white, Asian, Native American, 
name it, we have a problem.
  I am stunned and outraged by a report that was released last week by 
the Human Rights Watch which said that African American men are 
imprisoned for drug crimes at 13 times the rate of white men even 
though black and white rates of drug use are similar, with overall far 
more white than black users.
  This is an American problem. In our Federal system, 60 percent of the 
prisoners are drug law violators with no violent criminal history. 
According to the latest Bureau of Justice statistics, 55 percent of 
convicted jail inmates are using drugs in the month before the offense. 
Let us stop politicizing this. Let us do something about it. Support 
the Pelosi amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi). We must focus our health and drug control 
policy on drug use prevention and drug treatment. The fact is that 
millions and millions of Americans are in severe need of substance 
abuse treatment. We can start now. We can focus not only on supply 
reduction but also on demand reduction. To do this, we must focus on 
prevention and treatment. The funding provided by the Pelosi amendment 
will help our youth avoid a life of drugs, and it will help those that 
are currently drug users turn their lives around.
  This investment will leverage additional local and State funds for 
important health services and will strengthen State and local 
coordination. This crucial amendment focuses on youth while allowing 
communities to act according to their own local policies. For each 
dollar invested in drug use prevention, we will save those communities 
4 or 5 dollars. That is the offset we should account for.
  Effective prevention programs engage youth interactively. I urge all 
my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) for allowing me to speak on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), in 
offering this amendment, correctly states that drugs are a huge problem 
in the United States. They destroy lives. They destroy lives of people 
who voluntarily get involved with drugs. I would hope that we would put 
some emphasis on self-responsibility into any debate such as this.
  I know that the gentlewoman is wanting to give assistance through 
drug treatment programs to help people that have gotten themselves 
caught in drugs to get out of it. That is good, but it is not as though 
we are not doing anything. Among the multiple billions and billions of 
dollars of tax money that is spent to combat drugs, on top of the 
private plans and the private money that goes to combat them, but one 
part of the tax money that we already have is $2.7 billion for the very 
program to which the gentlewoman wants to add another $600 million. Yet 
to hear some people talk, one would think that we are not doing 
anything and that somehow the people who are not using drugs are 
responsible for those who are using drugs.
  Now, we want to help them. We want to help them get out of that 
cycle, but it is not done by trying to say it is penny-pinching 
Republicans that somehow are at fault. No. It is the people who use 
drugs that are at fault, and we are trying to help them. We are trying 
to help society. We have a $2.7 billion substance abuse treatment 
program already. So let us not pretend that nothing is being done. For 
goodness' sakes, let us have some priorities. We have an overall budget 
of the amount to spend because one of the other things that has drained 
so much from this country is when we have had these massive Federal 
deficits that obscenely push debt on to our kids and our grandkids and 
destroy their futures, just as drugs destroy them. One of the drugs is 
addiction to Federal spending.
  When we have had deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars each 
year, it is because people offer amendments that say let us just spend 
another $600 million; I do not know where it will come from, but let us 
just spend it.
  They say, well, our proposal is do not lower anyone's taxes. We had a 
vote on lowering taxes in this House last week. It received bipartisan 
support; two-thirds of the House, on the estate tax, on the death tax. 
That is one of many tax proposals. I know some people say look, do not 
give relief to people that have been supporting the highest level of 
taxes since World War II. We have an addiction here in Washington that 
many people have to spending and just spend and spend and spend.

                              {time}  2015

  That is every bit as damaging to this country as the addiction of 
people that are on drugs. We have got to break both of those habits. So 
we are funding substance abuse programs. We are funding huge amounts of 
it. But let us also make sure that we set an example and not have 
Washington politicians that are addicted to spending and say, to stop 
one addiction, we will feed another. That is not going to work.
  This amendment, if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) wants 
to offer a cut someplace else to offset that spending, that might be in 
order. I cannot support the adoption of this amendment. I urge a no 
vote.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a Congresswoman who has 
worked very hard to fight substance abuse in our country.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, of course, we have to be careful how we 
spend money, but it is not just how much, it is how wisely we spend the 
money. We might as well put our money on programs that we know work. We 
know that treatment and prevention are more cost effective than other 
options. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention saves $15 in 
reduced health and social and criminal justice and other societal 
costs. Each dollar invested in drug abuse prevention will save 
communities $4 to $5 for drug abuse, counseling, and treatment.
  Recent studies show that substance abuse treatment services have 
lasting and significant benefits; 50 percent decrease in drug and 
alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment; 43 percent decrease in 
homelessness; 19 percent increase in employment.
  We can win a war on drugs. We know how to spend money. It is not with 
helicopters in Colombia, but it is with the Pelosi amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who is a former prosecutor, member 
of the freshman class, who knows of what she speaks on this substance 
abuse challenge in our country.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California for yielding me this time. It is

[[Page 10371]]

important that we invest money in treatment. Having served as a judge 
for 10 years and a prosecutor for 8 years, I have seen how treatment 
works.
  We spend a lot of money building jails to keep people in jail and 
spend no money for treatment. People go to jail with an addiction. They 
come out of jail with an addiction. It is important that we as a 
country recognize the need for treatment, the demand for treatment, and 
put money in treatment. That is where it works. We know it works. We 
spend money building jails. Let us spend some money on treatment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to close.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have very eloquently pointed out what a 
good investment that treatment on demand and prevention are to our 
people in need of substance abuse treatment in our country. They have 
also pointed out that it is a wise investment, that it saves money, 
that it is 23 times more effective than a source country control that 
we are proposing that is being proposed in the supplemental bill.
  But I want to make another point, Mr. Chairman; and that is that this 
Committee of the Whole could make this $600 million investment and save 
us a great deal of money in the short and long run.
  We could follow the lead of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 
our distinguished chairman. In this bill, he has reported out of the 
committee $500 million worth of spending that has been designated 
emergency, that has not required any offset as long as there is a 
request of an emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
  So this is not going afield. It is following the example. If the 
Republicans could find this emergency standing for their priorities, 
why cannot we do it for people who need help in our country on the 
substance abuse side?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we can agree about the importance of drug treatment and 
drug prevention; and for that reason, we funded this account at the 
exact amount that the President asked us in his budget to fund it.
  Someone said a minute ago, we are spending no money on drug 
treatment. We are spending $1.631 billion on drug treatment. It is a 
lot of money. I would readily admit there is more need there, but we 
are funding at the level the President requested. We are acting within 
our responsibility. That is our job. That is what we are doing.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) is correct on his point of order. The Republican majority 
has not allowed us to bring this bill, this amendment, to the floor in 
the same fashion that other priorities that the gentleman put in the 
bill coming out of full committee received protection under emergency 
standing.
  This $600 million for treatment in demand is at least as important as 
the priorities that received that emergency status coming out of the 
full committee. So the idea that this should not apply, we should not 
be able to bring this here because we do not have an offset we just 
want to be treated like the Republican priorities. By that, I do not 
mean the Republican priority of giving a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 
percent of our people, giving a $200 billion tax cut to 400 Americans, 
to 400 Americans when we have 3.5 million people in our country who 
need substance abuse.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) will 
confine her remarks to the point of order.
  Ms. PELOSI. Further to the point of order, there is a lot of money in 
the supplemental bill, if that ever sees the light of day, for treating 
the drug abuse problem in our country by sending military assistance to 
Colombia. We think this is a better way.
  So I wish that it were in order. But I have to concede that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is correct. The Republicans 
protect the tax cut, they protect their own spending priorities, but 
they do not protect that.
  Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, acknowledge the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for his kindness and hard 
work on this issue along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 
chairman of the committee.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) knows that I testified in 
front of the subcommittee on the issue of mental health services for 
children. So I had intended during this process, this appropriations 
process, to offer an amendment to do more than what the administration 
has done. Frankly, I do not think it is enough.
  The administration asked for $86 million, and I know that the bill 
has funded children's mental health services at $86 million, but let me 
explain why I have come to suggest that we need to do more. We will 
look forward to working with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), who is ably a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), who has done a phenomenal job as it relates to mental health 
across the board on expressing the consternation about dealing with 
mental health, period, in this Nation.
  First all, we have the question of parity and stigma. So I want to 
raise the issue of what is happening to our children. I fully believe 
that Columbine and Jonesboro, the 6-year-old little boy that shot his 
6-year-old classmate, the 13-year-old boy that shot his teacher, the 
little boy in Pontiac, Michigan, who shot someone at age 11, and the 
tragedy that has happened in my own 18th Congressional District where, 
just yesterday, on Sunday, a 14-year-old girl shot and killed a 16-
year-old boy tends to, not only the issue of guns, but it deals with 
the holistic approach to children.
  We need better mental health services for our children. My amendment 
was to add $10 million more to mental health services for children. It 
is because of articles like this on the front cover of Ebony, ``Out of 
the Closet, the Mental Health Crisis in Black America.'' It comes to 
the hearing that was held in my district with Senator Paul Wellstone, 
``Panel told of mental health ills,'' when over 30 witnesses talked 
about the crisis that they feel in their own families, with their own 
children, or setting the National Congress for Hispanic Mental Health, 
and the Hispanic community is crying out for more resources, or the 
Mental Health Awareness Campaign that shows that we need to do 
something about people in crisis.
  Today more than 13.7 million children suffer from mental health 
problems. The National Mental Health Association reports that people 
who commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most common 
is depression.
  Although one in five children in adolescence has a diagnosable 
mental, emotional, or behavioral problem that could lead to school 
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide, 75 to 80 percent of 
these children do not receive any services in the form of specialty 
treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
  That is why we must increase the funding for comprehensive children's 
mental health services to reach the 75 to 80 percent of children 
suffering from mental illness.
  Both the National Mental Health Association and the Federation of 
Families for Children Mental Health Services support increased funding 
for children's mental health and agree that we

[[Page 10372]]

need to focus this Nation's attention and intervention measures so that 
we can prevent tragedies like Columbine, Paducah, Littleton, and 
Jonesboro.
  I, too, believe that there can be relief for those who need some form 
of tax relief. But I do believe that we are, if you will, harvesting 
dollars for big tax cuts, rather than looking at the basic quality-of-
life needs of our children.
  The grant programs funded under the Comprehensive Community Mental 
Health Services programs are critical to ensure that children with 
mental health problems and their families have access to a full array 
of quality and appropriate care in their communities. They simply do 
not have it.
  Some of the testimony that came was the frustration of parents that 
said I do not know where to go. I cannot leave out of my apartment or 
my rental house and go down the street to a community health clinic and 
get the kind of mental health services that I need. That stifles the 
opportunity to heal and to cure these children who need us to listen 
and need us to protect them and need us to heal them. To date, there 
have not been sufficient funds to award grants to communities in all of 
the States.
  The story of Kip Kinkle, the 15-year-old student who shot his parents 
and went to school to kill several others, is tragic, yet illuminating. 
For 3 years before this horrendous event, Kip suffered from psychosis 
and he heard voices. Yet, no one did anything to address this 
situation. No teacher sent him to the nurse, and no one asked his 
parents to take him to a doctor to find out what was wrong.
  When they did, what they talked about was that he was using profanity 
in class. He was, but he was responding to the voices in his head.
  Kip Kinkle needed help. He needed help in his school. He needed help 
at home. This is not to blame the parents. It is to provide the kind of 
resources that are necessary.
  I have worked diligently to bring attention to this most devastating 
problem.
  As I indicated, I want to applaud the leadership of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his forward-thinking leadership in years 
past. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that, again, I am gaveled down 
on a important issue; but I am gratified to have the opportunity to 
make the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this Amendment to increase the 
funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration by $10 million dollars by decreasing the funding for the 
Chronic and Environmental Disease Prevention under the CDC.
  For technical reasons, I realize that this Amendment does not 
specifically earmark the funds for comprehensive children's mental 
health services, but that is the intent of the Amendment. Children's 
Mental Health needs to be a national priority in this country today.
  Currently, we spend 10 times the amount on research into childhood 
cancer, than on children's mental health, yet one of five children is 
affected by some sort of mental illness.
  Today, more than 13.7 million children suffer from mental health 
problems. The National Mental Health Association reports that most 
people who commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder. The most 
common is depression.
  Although one in five children and adolescents has a diagnosable 
mental, emotional, or behavioral problem that can lead to school 
failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide, 75 to 80 percent of 
these children do not receive any services in the form of specialty 
treatment or some form of mental health intervention.
  This is why we must increase the funding for comprehensive children's 
mental health services to reach this 75 to 80 percent of children 
suffering from mental illness.
  Both the National Mental Health Association and the Federation of 
Families for Children's Mental Health Services support increased 
funding for children's mental health and agree that we need to focus 
this nation's attention on intervention measures so that we can prevent 
tragedies like Columbine, Paducah, Littleton and Jonesboro.
  The grant programs funded under the comprehensive community mental 
health services program are critical to insure that children with 
mental health problems and their families have access to a full array 
of quality and appropriate care in their communities. To date, there 
have not been sufficient funds to award grants to communities in all 
the states.
  The story of Kip Kinkle, the fifteen year-old student who shot his 
parents and went to school to kill several other students is tragic, 
yet illuminating.
  For three years before this horrendous event, Kip suffered from 
psychosis and heard voices, yet no one did anything to address this 
situation. No teacher sent him to the nurse and no one asked his 
parents to take him to a doctor to find out what was wrong.
  I have worked diligently to bring attention to this most devastating 
problem in our society by holding not one, but two hearings on 
children's mental health. The first was through the Congressional 
Children's Caucus and the second, in my district in Houston along with 
Senator Paul Wellstone.
  At the joint hearing in Houston we had over 30 witnesses to speak on 
the need to increased diagnostic services for children's mental health. 
Additionally, we discussed the link between suicide and mental health 
disorders.
  According to the 1999 Report of the U.S. Surgeon General, for young 
people 15-24 years old, suicide is the third leading cause of death 
behind intentional injury and homicide.
  Persons under the age of 25 accounted for 15 percent of all suicides 
in 1997. Between 1980 and 1997, suicide rates for those 15-19 years old 
increased 11 percent and for those between the ages of 10-14, the 
suicide rates increased 99 percent since 1980.
  Within every 1 hour and 57 minutes, a person under the age of 25 
completes suicide. The fact that 8 out of 10 suicidal persons give some 
sign of their intentions also begs the question, why do we not make 
children's mental health a national priority.
  We know that more teenagers died from suicide than from cancer, heart 
disease, AIDS, birth defects, strokes, influenza and chronic lung 
disease combined.
  Because childhood depression is so very prevalent, we must recognize 
the dire need for increased services to treat our youth. Almost 12 
young people between between the ages of 15-24 die everyday by suicide.
  Nationwide, 20.5 percent of high school students have stated on self-
report surveys that they have seriously considered attempting suicide 
during the preceding 12 months. These are just some of the alarming 
statistics related to children's mental health.
  Last week's killing of a Florida teacher by a 13-year-old honor 
student is just a most recent attempt in a series of increasingly 
violent attacks perpetrated by adolescents in the past few years. 
Columbine, Littleton, and Paducah are just a few indicators that the 
possible lack of access to mental health services has resulted in an 
increase of children becoming involved in criminal activity and 
becoming involved in the juvenile justice or child protective systems.
  Our children need to be listened to . . . they need to be heard. 
Children are complex human beings. Although they are young, they send 
us signals when they are troubled; the real tragedy occurs when adults 
do not listen to those signals or provide them with the help that they 
need. Effective mental health resources in our communities and schools 
can help in many instances prevent these acts of violence and suicide 
among our youth.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides the 
additional funding necessary to address mental illness so that our 
children will not continue to suffer needlessly because of a lack of 
mental health resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the Houston Chronicle article 
entitled ``Panel Told of Mental Health Ills,'' as follows:

                    Panel Told of Mental Health Ills


                   suicide attempts by children cited

                         (By Janette Rodrigues)

       Alma Cobb trembled with nervous tension Thursday as she 
     told a roomful of strangers the ways her 14-year-old son, 
     David, has tried to commit suicide since his first attempt at 
     age 5.
       But her voice was surprisingly firm.
       ``He tried to hang himself, stab himself and electrocute 
     himself,'' Cobb testified during a hearing Thursday on 
     children's mental health needs called by U.S. Rep. Sheila 
     Jackson Lee, D-Houston.
       A transcript of the hearing will go into the congressional 
     record. Jackson Lee and Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who 
     also attended the hearing, hope to use the transcript in 
     getting Congress to pass legislation improving children's 
     mental health services.
       Studies estimate that 13.7 million American school children 
     suffer from mental health, emotional or behavioral problems. 
     In the Houston area alone, more than 178,000 will need mental 
     health care during their school years.
       Suicide and entry into the juvenile criminal justice system 
     are by-products, advocates say, of a society that shuns the 
     issue and hasn't exerted the political will to address 
     preventable problems.

[[Page 10373]]

       Cobb's story and that of other such parents, services 
     providers and mental health professionals was compelling, and 
     sometimes moving.
       But what Cobb has experienced is startling.
       Her daughter, Clara, 14, also suffers from emotional and 
     behavioral disorders. She first tried to kill herself at age 
     7. She and her brother have been absent from school because 
     of their diagnosed mental illness and numerous 
     hospitalizations related to suicide attempts.
       Despite documentation of that fact, Cobb said later, the 
     district where her children attend school considered her 
     children truants, not sick, and fined her more than $3,000 
     and took her to court.
       ``Sometimes, my children can't attend school because of 
     their mental illness and suicide attempts, but schools don't 
     understand it,'' Cobb said, ``They just understand their 
     regulations.''
       Regina Hicks, deputy director of child and adolescent 
     services for the Harris County Mental Health/Mental 
     Retardation Authority, is familiar with the Cobb family's 
     story. The children receive services through the agency.
       Hicks said their struggle with the school district is 
     unusual but, unfortunately, not unheard of in cases involving 
     children.
       Studies show that at least one in five children and teens 
     in America has a mental illness that may lead to school 
     failure, substance abuse, violence or suicide.
       Most such schoolchildren don't receive adequate help 
     because of the stigma attached to their condition, the lack 
     of early intervention and scarce resources, mental health 
     care professionals and service providers told the hearing.
       Speaker after speaker voiced the need for increased 
     funding.
       ``In Texas, we must be particularly concerned that the 
     state budget for children's mental health services has 
     remained virtually flat since 1993, despite growth in both 
     population and need,'' said Betty Schwartz, executive 
     director of the Mental Health Association of Greater Houston.
       ``Current budget discussions offer little hope for 
     improvement in the coming legislative session.''
       Harris County Juvenile Court Associate Judge Veronica 
     Morgan-Price said the piece of MHMRA's budgetary pie for 
     juveniles is small.
       She and others spoke of their frustration that the juvenile 
     justice system has become a surrogate for mental health 
     facilities.
       Many said it's the norm in Harris County for mentally ill 
     juveniles to get adequate help only after they commit an act 
     that ends with them in a detention facility.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 37, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 32, line l through page 37, line 12 is 
as follows:

               Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


                    healthcare research and quality

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $123,669,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom 
     of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data shall be credited to this 
     appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $99,980,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $93,586,251,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 2001, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 2001 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or in the case of section 
     1928 on behalf of States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, 
     $36,207,551,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social 
     Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $70,381,600,000.


                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, titles XIII 
     and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical 
     Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed 
     $1,866,302,000, to be transferred from the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance 
     Trust Funds, as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act; together with all funds collected in accordance 
     with section 353 of the Public Health Service Act and such 
     sums as may be collected from authorized user fees and the 
     sale of data, which shall remain available until expended, 
     and together with administrative fees collected relative to 
     Medicare overpayment recovery activities, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That all funds derived in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from organizations established 
     under title XIII of the Public Health Service Act shall be 
     credited to and available for carrying out the purposes of 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That $18,000,000 
     appropriated under this heading for the managed care system 
     redesign shall remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Health and Human Services is 
     directed to collect fees in fiscal year 2001 from 
     Medicare+Choice organizations pursuant to section 1857(e)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act and from eligible organizations 
     with risk-sharing contracts under section 1876 of that Act 
     pursuant to section 1876(k)(4)(D) of that Act: Provided 
     further, That, for the current fiscal year, not more that 
     $630,000,000 may be made available under section 1817(k)(4) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(k)(4)) from the 
     Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to carry out the Medicare 
     Integrity Program under section 1893 of such Act.


      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 2001, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families


  payments to states for child support enforcement and family support 
                                programs

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social 
     Security Act and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), 
     $2,473,800,000, to remain available until expended; and for 
     such purposes for the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, 
     $1,000,000,000.
       For making payments to each State for carrying out the 
     program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under 
     title IV-A of the Social Security Act before the effective 
     date of the program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
     (TANF) with respect to such State, such sums as may be 
     necessary: Provided, That the sum of the amounts available to 
     a State with respect to expenditures under such title IV-A in 
     fiscal year 1997 under this appropriation and under such 
     title IV-A as amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 shall not exceed the 
     limitations under section 116(b) of such Act.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), for the last 3 
     months of the current year for unanticipated costs, incurred 
     for the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.


                   low income home energy assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $1,100,000,000, to be available 
     for obligation in the period October 1, 2001 through 
     September 30, 2002.
       For making payments under title XXVI of such Act, 
     $300,000,000: Provided, That these funds are hereby 
     designated by Congress to be emergency requirements pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That these 
     funds shall be made available only after submission to 
     Congress of a formal budget request by the President that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $423,109,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act for fiscal year 2001 
     shall be available for the costs of assistance provided and 
     other activities through September 30, 2003.

[[Page 10374]]

       For carrying out section 5 of the Torture Victims Relief 
     Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-320), $10,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


   payments to states for the child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), in addition to amounts 
     already appropriated for fiscal year 2001, $400,000,000; and 
     to become available on October 1, 2001 and remain available 
     through September 30, 2002, $2,000,000,000: Provided, That of 
     the funds appropriated for each of fiscal years 2001 and 
     2002, $19,120,000 shall be available for child care resource 
     and referral and school-aged child care activities: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided for fiscal year 2002, 
     $172,672,000 shall be reserved by the States for activities 
     authorized under section 658G of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990), such funds to be in addition to the 
     amounts required to be reserved by the States under section 
     658G.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12 as the designee of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hoyer:
       Page 37, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $417,328,000)''.
       Page 39, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $600,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $600,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $400,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $416,000,000)''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment 
of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that, under the unanimous 
consent agreement propounded by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) on June 8, all points of order against each of the designated 
amendments to be offered by Rep. Obey or his designee shall be 
considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, if I may advise the 
Chair; but I simply want to reserve the point in the RECORD.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $416 million to the bill for title 
I grants, $600 million to the bill for Head Start, $400 million to the 
bill for the 21st Century After School Centers, and adds $417 million 
to the bill for child care development block grants.
  Mr. Chairman, before I start, I want to respond to a couple of the 
allegations that have been made from the other side. First of all, that 
somehow we are forced to do this. I want to say first to the chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who 
rises on the floor and says, gee whiz, we are forced to do that, and if 
the rest of us are responsible we will have to live within these 
limits. Let me tell my colleague something I learned a long time ago, 
and that is to not accept the premise of those who are arguing against 
me.
  The premise of the gentleman is incorrect, Mr. Chairman. It is 
irresponsible to accept the parameters that have been placed on this 
bill. It is irresponsible to the children that I am going to talk about 
and the families that I am going to talk about to live within the 
parameters of the bill.
  Why do we have those parameters? Not because they are in a rule, not 
because they were given to us by some extrinsic force, they are in the 
rule because of the majority party's tax cut. Now, they may not like 
that, but that is the fact. That is the fact.
  Now, let me tell my colleague from California, who talks about fiscal 
responsibility. A, I support defense; B, I supported the welfare 
reform; and, C, as the gentleman knows, I supported the balanced budget 
amendment. But the fact of the matter is I did so with the premise that 
we would keep sufficient revenues to meet our responsibilities.
  The most fiscally irresponsible administration in the history of this 
country was under Ronald Reagan. Hear me now. Here are the facts. Back 
in 1950, 125 percent of GDP we were in debt. That came down. It came 
down to less than 23 percent, 24 percent. It flattened out for a few 
years and then, guess what happened on Ronald Reagan's watch? It went 
through the ceiling, and added $4 trillion to the debt.
  Do not preach to this side of the aisle about fiscal 
responsibilities, my colleagues. At no time did we have the votes to 
stop a Ronald Reagan veto of spending. At no time. This is Ronald 
Reagan's spending. It was not a question of fiscal responsibility, it 
was what he wanted to spend the money on. He wanted to spend the money 
on defense. I happened to think he was right.
  Where he was not right was doing the same thing my colleagues are 
doing this year. He wanted to cut and did cut revenues precipitously. 
But he did not have the courage of his tax-cutting convictions, because 
the courage of his tax-cutting convictions would have been to cut 
spending. But he did not want to do that because he may have paid a 
political price for it.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what this amendment does, quickly. We 
add, as I said, $416 million for title I. The conference agreement on 
the Republican budget resolution requires $7 billion in cuts, or 6 
percent below the fiscal year 2000 level, last year's level. Premising 
large tax cuts on unrealistic spending cuts makes the conference 
agreement a fiscally unsound and risky budget plan.
  That is why we are here, Mr. Chairman. I am offering an amendment 
today to fix a few of the problems. We do not have offsets within this 
bill because the offset premise that the gentleman from Illinois wants 
us to accept would be incorrect for us to do, because it is 
irresponsible for the gentleman to have forged, well, the gentleman did 
not do it, he did not vote for it, and we admire the gentleman for 
that, but the fact of the matter is many of the gentleman's colleagues 
did. They fashioned these numbers. My amendment, as I said, adds a 
total of $1.8 billion.
  Now, that sounds like a lot of money. But let it not surprise anybody 
that that figure is approximately the figure that has already been 
adopted by the Republican majority in the Senate. So if we are 
irresponsible, I guess our colleagues in the Senate over there are as 
well.
  We ask for increases for title I funding. Head Start, 21st Century 
After School Centers and the child care and development block grant. 
The four parts to my amendment do this: Adds $416 million, as I said, 
to title I.
  Now, that $416 million means that 650,000 children in America who 
qualify for services, and who are not now getting it, 650,000 
disadvantaged children, will get services if my amendment passes. That 
is not paper, that is not rhetoric, those are real kids from real 
families who need help to compete in this world economy. Is the tax cut 
more important than those 650,000 kids?
  We add $600 million to Head Start, a program everybody says works, 
making the total increase for fiscal year 2001 equal to $1 billion. 
That is an additional 50,000 low-income children who will be served and 
3,000 infants and toddlers who will be served. That is 53,000 children. 
This is not about rhetoric and numbers, this is about real kids.
  We add $400 million to the 21st Century After School Centers. We all 
know that crime is up after school. Why? Because kids do not have 
families at home. This amendment will allow 900 additional communities 
above the gentleman's bill to establish 3,000 centers

[[Page 10375]]

serving 1 million children. Is that irresponsible, I ask my chairman? 
Is it fiscally responsible to tell those 1 million kids to get out on 
the street; that we do not have enough money in the richest Nation on 
the face of the Earth to provide them with those centers? Those 
children, 1.6 million children, will be denied service because of the 
Republican tax cut.
  Lastly, we add $417 million for the bill for child care and 
development block grant for 2001 funding. Eighty thousand more children 
will be served if we pass this amendment.
  My colleagues, we are talking about real kids here and programs that 
work. The chairman says and said in the committee when we marked this 
bill up that he thought this funding is okay. He told me that I was 
probably right, that we probably need to do this, but that we cannot do 
it because of the constraints. Those constraints are self-imposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized 
for 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I was kind of surprised. I 
thought there was an overwhelming Democrat majority during the Reagan 
years. We cannot blame him for vetoing, because he vetoed very few 
bills. So there is no argument about we did not have the votes to 
override his veto.
  But I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), since he has become the chairman 
of this subcommittee. When I think of the amount of money that has been 
spent prior to his coming on as chairman, and the fact that no one paid 
any attention about whether it was a quality program or was not, my 
hats are off to him.
  Let us talk about a couple of the areas. Child care and development 
block grant, $1.6 billion for fiscal year 2001. That is a $400 million 
increase over last year. Let us talk a little bit about Head Start and 
how we denied children for 12 years any opportunity of getting a head 
start because the only thing my colleagues wanted to talk about was 
that we must cover more, we must cover more. No one paid any attention 
to whether there was any quality in the program. What a tragedy.
  It was not until 1994 that we were able to get anybody to think about 
quality. I was able to get 25 percent of any new money at that time 
toward quality. But it was not until 1998 that we really got serious 
about it. Yet every study, every study told us over and over again that 
the children are not getting a head start. Why? It became a jobs 
poverty program. It became a baby-sitting program. What a tragedy, 
because we could have done something to help them. Many of them would 
not be in special education today because they would have had the 
reading readiness programs that they should have had at that time.
  But, again, it was not until 1998, until we seriously thought about 
quality rather than quantity. And I want to thank this Secretary, 
because she is the first Secretary who has shut down 100 Head Start 
programs. I could not get anybody to do that. Thank goodness. Rather 
than coming up, as she was instructed to do, she was to come up every 
time and say we must cover more, we must cover more, we must cover 
more, she did not say that. Because every time I would say, we need to 
talk about quality, and she would say, that is correct.
  So, again, we put a lot of money into Head Start, and the chairman 
again is increasing Head Start. It will be up to $5.7 billion. And 
finally, hopefully, they will be quality programs.
  Then technology in the 21st Century Community Learning Center 
program. Again, we have seven technology programs on the books, five of 
which are funded. When we just had a reauthorization program, they 
offered amendment after amendment to add a couple more technology 
programs. No one paid any attention to the fact that having five spread 
over every agency we were accomplishing very little.
  So if we get the other body to act, we will be talking about one 
technology program. So if they need to improve the preparation of the 
teacher to use the technology, they can do that. If they need hardware, 
they can do that. If they need software, they can do that. But instead 
of spreading them out over five different programs, spread over every 
agency downtown, we are going to make a real difference.
  But, again, we are looking at a $2 million increase, $2 million above 
the President's request, in the area of technology.
  Then, when we talk about 21st Century Community Learning Centers, 
funded at $600 million, $147 million above last year, we need to 
understand that, more importantly, this program just started in 1995 
and it was at $750,000. Now we are at $905 million.
  We just had a hearing, and in that hearing all sorts of questions 
were being raised as to whether as a matter of fact they are using the 
money the way the Congress intended it to be used. So, again, I cannot 
compliment the chairman enough for his efforts not only to bring more 
money to all of these programs but to insist that there are quality in 
those programs.
  Title I, same story. Child after child after child denied an 
opportunity to get a part of the American Dream because, again, no one 
paid any attention to quality. One of the largest school districts, 
maybe the largest, used 55 percent of their title I money for teacher 
aides. And guess what? Sixty-some percent of those did not even have a 
high school diploma. To make matters worse, they were teaching without 
any supervision. So we have tried to change and redirect that.
  So, again, hats off to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). He 
has done an outstanding job to not only give us more money but to give 
us quality in programming.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) to remind me who was in charge of the Department of Education 
from 1981, as he was lamenting that nobody cared about quality and that 
nobody cared about whether these were operating effectively on behalf 
of children. Who was in charge of the Department of Education, 
Department of Human Services from 1981 to 1993?
  Congress was not in charge. We did not run them. The fact of the 
matter is, as the gentleman pointed out, the first Secretary to tell a 
Head Start program it could not operate because it was not doing what 
we wanted for children was Donna Shalala. The gentleman was correct on 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink).

                              {time}  2045

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Maryland. We have given so much lip service and a lot of discussion 
nationwide about the importance of education. For years this has been 
the national dialogue coming from the grassroots. But in those days 
when we were talking about education, it was always there is a deficit, 
we cannot possibly add to the funding for education.
  Finally, we now have a surplus. And what do we do? We come to the 
floor with a self-inflicted strait jacket ordained from somewhere that 
we cannot spend this money as the national electorate would want us to 
spend it.
  Certainly we are for quality education. Certainly we are for quality 
Head Start and all the other programs. But quality costs money. It 
seems to me that it is absolutely tragic and reprehensible that the 
appropriators come to the floor and discuss to cut $1.8 billion from 
the President's request. It means thousands of people are going to be 
denied the opportunity to have help in Head Start, in child-care 
programs, in after-school programs, in math instruction and reading, 
all the things

[[Page 10376]]

that will narrow the divide between the poor and the rich children of 
this society.
  We always talk about equal educational opportunity. The place to do 
it is for the poor children in the early-education programs and in 
child care.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a valued member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my subcommittee chairman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really an amendment about four important 
programs: to add money to title I, grants to LEAS, to Head Start, 21st 
Century After-School Centers, and child care CCDBG for fiscal year 
2001.
  But as with most of these amendments, from my Democratic colleagues, 
it turns out to be an opportunity for discussion about Republican tax 
cuts. And for my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), just 
a few moments ago, it turned out to be an opportunity to denounce the 
record of President Ronald Reagan, who did lead this Congress in 1981 
to cut taxes on the American people so that they could keep a little 
more of their money.
  My friend from Maryland suggests, and I believe I am quoting him 
correctly, that President Reagan was willing to do without revenues, to 
cut back on revenues, so that he could cut taxes.
  Well, I have here in my hand a document entitled Table B-80, Federal 
Receipts and Outlays. It is for the past 60 past years, 1940 to the 
year 2000. And it shows very clearly, when we talk about total revenue 
to the Nation, that, back in 1981, when President Reagan persuaded a 
Democrat House to go along with the Senate of the United States in 
cutting taxes, that revenues then were $678.2 billion per year.
  This document, put out by the Department of the Treasury and the 
Office of Management and Budget, and I defy any Member of this House of 
Representatives to show me that it is incorrect, shows that, under the 
Reagan years after those tax cuts, revenues went up each and every year 
after these tax cuts that had been denounced by my friend from 
Maryland.
  In 1982, revenues went up from $678 billion to $745 billion dollars. 
They went up in 1983. They went up in 1984. Until in 1989, the last 
year of the Reagan administration, revenues, not spending, but revenues 
to the Federal Government, even after these substantial tax cuts, had 
virtually doubled to $1.143 trillion. And this is even after the tax 
cuts that Democrats supported and that Republicans supported in 1981.
  What it shows, and what it has shown every time is that when we have 
cut taxes on the people of America, that they have used the money 
wisely, that the economy has grown. It happened again in 1997. It 
happened as far back as the 1960s, when President Kennedy cut taxes. 
Every time we cut taxes, there is an enhancement of economic activity 
and revenue increases.
  Now, also, another point that my friend, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer), made is that President Reagan had an opportunity to veto 
the spending that occurred during his term in office. And that is true. 
But I will tell my colleagues one thing that President Reagan did not 
have an opportunity to veto is the increase in entitlement spending 
that went on from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1989.
  And as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) well knows, that is 
where the growth in Federal expenditures came, not in appropriation 
bills that President Reagan could or could not have vetoed, but in 
entitlement spending.
  So I will just say to my friends that, while we are hearing tonight 
and we heard last week, we can and undoubtedly we will hear again 
tomorrow before this bill is passed and probably we will hear on every 
appropriation bill, that we are having to cut back on important 
programs because Republicans want to cut taxes, actually the opposite 
is true. Every time we have cut taxes under Democrat Presidents, under 
Republican Presidents and even under this Democrat President, there has 
been more economic activity, there has been more revenue to spend, and 
the American people have been the beneficiaries thereof.
  I defy anyone from the Democratic side of the aisle to dispute the 
fact that revenues went up during the Reagan administration.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about bipartisanship in terms of the 
estate tax. And indeed that is what happened. But how about some 
partisanship in terms of the education of our children? We cannot 
balance the budget on the backs of kids who cannot defend themselves.
  I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to significantly 
increase funding for our Nation's children.
  Many of my colleagues have emphasized on both sides of the aisle that 
this amendment could be a lifeline perhaps. It will ensure that our 
children have a chance for a better education and growth opportunities.
  In my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, we have seen the tangible 
benefits of so many of the programs. These are not puristic victories. 
These are victories of substance with children who would have no other 
means of support in the classroom.
  Our Head Start and after-school programs have brought thousands of 
children into nurturing environments. In an age of unprecedented wealth 
and the lowest peacetime unemployment rate, cities like Paterson and 
Passaic still have double-digit unemployment.
  I understand tomorrow we even introduce an amendment to cut the 
after-school programs that are already in existence. This is 
unconscionable.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke that the 
amendment of the gentleman makes additions in four different line 
items; items we have increased over the last year by almost a billion 
dollars.
  There are no cuts here, none at all. They are important accounts. We 
gave them substantial increases, except in one case, $947 million of 
increases. I think we have done the very best we can within fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Hoyer amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I only have a short amount of time, but I think there is 
something we should talk about very seriously.
  After-school programs do work. Unfortunately, we are going to see 
cuts in New York State alone. I was in my schools this morning. And I 
know our schools want it, our parents want it, and certainly our 
children want it.
  We are seeing more and more children being left alone after school. 
We can take that time, and we can use that time to make sure our 
children are enriched with academic programs, making sure they are in a 
safe environment, and certainly raising their intellect on everything 
else.
  Why am I doing this? Why am I supporting this? Because I happen to 
think that is one way of reducing crime, because I happen to think that 
is one way of making sure our young people do not go into drugs and 
alcohol and then violence.
  This is a program that can work, it should work, and certainly we 
should be supporting this.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just re-edify that this 
bill increases education, if we include Head Start, $2 billion. There 
is no one wanting to take education away from kids. It increases it $2 
billion over last year if we include Head Start.
  If we take a look, it increases special education $500 million, not 
cut, but $500 million. Impact aid, which the President zeroed out, is 
increased under this bill, which is very important to Native Americans 
and also to the military.

[[Page 10377]]

  Plus, the Ed Flex bill that we passed last year with bipartisan 
support gives the schools the ability to use the dollars as they see 
fit, not as Washington rules down the mandates which ties up the 
schools. That is one of the reasons the charter school movement that we 
pushed for years is so important.
  So we have not cut education, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak to one part of the Hoyer 
amendment which deals with the Child Care and Development Block Grant.
  The Hoyer amendment would provide an additional $418 million for this 
program. This is flexible funds to our States to provide for child care 
for our children.
  The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and 
Means has held a hearing, and we found that affordable quality day-care 
is not available to too many children in our country. Only five States 
set the eligibility for the funds at the maximum allowed under Federal 
law, 85 percent of the median income.
  Forty-five States are below that. My own State of Maryland set it at 
40 percent. Only one out of every 10 children who are eligible today 
for the funds can get the money because of the lack of Federal funds.
  The Hoyer amendment provides help for 80,000 children in this 
category. We should be supporting this amendment today.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are arguing about here is not crime, is not 
child care, is not education. What we are arguing is how much of an 
increase the House mark increases funding for all these programs.
  What the Democrats are trying to do with the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) is increase it further.
  We certainly support after-school child care. We certainly support 
the block grants. We are a strong supporter of Head Start. That is why 
it has increased every year under Republican leadership.
  But the Hoyer amendment fails to make the case as to why these 
funding levels were picked. Could he explain why he decided that when 
we go from $600 million on the 21st Century After-School Centers he 
goes to a thousand, why that level?

                              {time}  2100

  Was there scientific? Was there research? Was there testimony to that 
effect? No, there was not. All the Democrats are trying to do is 
increase our increase to show that they measure compassion by dollars 
spent. It is not going to do the job.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, if we can pass a defense appropriations 
bill that is $20 billion more than last year, if we can find the money 
for nuclear weapons, if we can find funding for a misguided missile 
defense system, surely, surely, we can pass the Hoyer amendment to help 
our most vulnerable children.
  As I look at the provisions in this bill, I ask myself, who is taking 
care of our children? Where will our children go after school? Where 
will our children find the guidance they need? Who will help poor 
children prepare to enter school? The Hoyer amendment restores some of 
the most damaging cuts in H.R. 4577, cuts that deny nearly 2.4 million 
children the help that they need to get a better start in life.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), whose predecessor I might say, Mr. 
Chairman, Louis Stokes, was one of the great leaders on our committee.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. Let me say this. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) said that the studies have shown that Head Start does not 
work so we should not give any more money to Head Start. The studies 
have shown that jail does not work so why do we keep building jails? If 
I adopt his perspective of spending more money on jails, then let us at 
least spend the same amount of money that we spend on child care and 
day care and Head Start, because Head Start works and our children 
ought to have at least the benefit of a great education in the 
beginning and hopefully they do not end up in jail.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
will close as I began. First of all, I do not adopt the premise it was 
an irresponsible budget that was adopted. The gentleman from Illinois 
has acknowledged that these expenditures are good. Secondly, the 
gentleman from Georgia asked, where do these numbers come from? Frankly 
they came from the President, adopted by the United States Senate, as 
well, and I think they ought to be adopted by us. Thirdly, I would say 
to my colleagues, this is about real children, disadvantaged children, 
2.4 million children who will be served if this amendment passes that 
will not be served at the level you suggest.
  Now, maybe you think there are not 2.4 million children in America 
who need help. Maybe you think like, as the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) said, that it is those 400 people who are going to get 
$200 billion under the tax cut that are more important than those 2.4 
million children. That is quite a balance; 400 very rich people getting 
$200 billion while we cut $1.8 billion in this amendment for 2.4 
million children. What kind of Nation has that kind of priority? It is 
a Nation that will not long succeed. It is a Nation whose children will 
not compete effectively in world markets. It is a Nation who will see 
itself increasingly becoming a Nation of the rich and the poor. Let us 
adopt this amendment. Let us set our priorities straight. Let us act to 
help those 2.4 million children.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me say once again, the gentleman says that it is irresponsible 
not to adopt these amendments. The fact is the amendment are in 
violation of the budget resolution. The budget resolution was adopted 
by the majority of both Houses of the Congress. We have to live within 
it even though the gentleman does not feel bound by it.
  Let me add that the gentleman could have offered responsible 
amendments that have offsets within the limits of that budget 
resolution and within the limits of our allocation but the gentleman 
chose not to. In fact, it is crystal clear year after year that nobody 
on that side of the aisle is willing ever to cut anything, but always 
add.
  We have to operate within a budget resolution that is fiscally 
responsible. We have added $947 million, almost $1 billion to these 
four line items. We are doing the best we can. They are important 
priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois has made a 
point. Mr. Chairman, would I have been in order to offer an amendment 
to add $1.883 billion to serve those 2.4 million by reducing the tax 
cut that is proposed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not entertain a hypothetical question.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order with reference 
to whether I would be in order to offer such an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not address a hypothetical question.
  Mr. HOYER. Shall I offer the amendment and then have it ruled on?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8,

[[Page 10378]]

2000, House Report 106-660. This amendment would provide new budget 
authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under 
section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to address the point of order?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes, I do wish to address the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked the point of order. I offered an amendment. The 
amendment under consideration by the Chair now as to whether or not it 
is in order is an amendment to add $1.883 billion to the bill for the 
purposes of including 2.4 million children within the ambit of the 
bill. This bill deals at its base with individuals who are getting 
child care services, getting Head Start services, getting educational 
services generally, getting before- and after-care at school. This 
would expand that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinarily relevant to the provisions of 
this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing the point 
of order, if I may suggest.
  Mr. HOYER. I am addressing the substance of the bill and the 
relevancy of my amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will proceed.
  Mr. HOYER. I am about to say that but for the tax cut, there would be 
revenues available to have paid for this amendment. I understand the 
Chair is going to rule it out of order because the Committee on Rules 
has not protected it and therefore has dictated the ruling of the 
Chair. I regret that, but more importantly than that, the 2.4 million 
children of America who will not be served regret that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members that wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand on this 
point of order, though, and make it abundantly clear to all Members of 
the House that if this amendment had offsets to make up for these 
additional massive spending increases by simply taking the dollars and 
reducing them elsewhere in the bill, this amendment would, in fact, be 
in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not address hypothetical questions.
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee 
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an 
amendment providing a net increase in new discretionary budget 
authority greater than $1 million would cause a breach of the pertinent 
allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on 
its face proposes to increase the level of new discretionary budget 
authority in the bill by greater than $1 million. As such, the 
amendment would violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois 
as to what his intention is with respect to proceeding with this bill 
at this point. As he knows, in the discussion which occurred that was 
attendant to the approval of the unanimous consent request last week, 
when he propounded that unanimous consent request, I would read from 
page H4106 in the Congressional Record. When the gentleman asked 
unanimous consent that the agreement be approved under which we are now 
operating, I said as follows:

       Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply would 
     note under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, that I have no 
     objection to this arrangement, with the understanding that 
     when the House returns to this bill, it will not be at a time 
     when Members are still flying back to Washington on their 
     airplanes, and that it will not be debated in the dead of 
     night.

  I did that because this is the major priorities debate for the 
session. We feel very strongly on this side of the aisle that if we 
cannot get votes on amendments, at least we ought to be able to debate 
them at a time when Members are here and someone is at least paying 
attention to the debate. And we offered to have other appropriation 
bills on the floor tonight rather than this one so that that could be 
accommodated and we could still finish the scheduled work this week. We 
had been told this morning that it was understood on the majority side 
of the aisle under those conditions this bill would come up this 
evening but that we would not proceed past 9 o'clock.
  So I am asking the gentleman at this point what his intention is with 
respect to proceeding with the bill beyond this point since it is now 
9:12.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. It is my understanding that we have pending to be 
completed this week in addition to this piece of legislation the 
appropriations for the Department of Interior and the appropriations 
for the Department of Agriculture, and that we also have pending a 
conference report on military construction. As the gentleman well 
knows, tomorrow morning we have in full committee the Commerce-Justice-
State appropriation. There is a great deal of work to do. I do not know 
where we are going to get the time to get it accomplished unless we are 
willing to work to some reasonable hour. I would suggest to the 
gentleman that it would be appropriate if we would continue longer this 
evening and try to complete some of these additional amendments if we 
possibly could so that we can complete this bill by tomorrow, if 
possible.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply then observe, Mr. Chairman, that the 
unanimous consent agreement was agreed to with the understanding that 
is stipulated in the Record. There is no question about being willing 
to work, but it is not the fault of the minority that the majority 
party went home Friday without even getting a rule out of the Committee 
on Rules for the Interior bill, for instance, which could have easily 
been on the floor tonight.
  I think what is going on here, not certainly on the part of the 
gentleman because I think in his heart of hearts he agrees with me, but 
I think what is going on here is a determination by the majority party 
to debate this bill at a time of day when it will be the least noticed 
of any major appropriation bill before the House. If we cannot rely on 
each other's word around here, and I am certainly not speaking about 
the gentleman from Illinois, but if we cannot rely on each other's word 
around here, then we do not have any civility at all left in this 
place.


                Preferential Motion: Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

                              {time}  2115

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
Committee divided, and there were ayes 15, noes 17.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 202, not voting 45, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)

[[Page 10379]]


     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--202

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

                             NOT VOTING--45

     Andrews
     Baker
     Bateman
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cox
     Danner
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Hansen
     Hoeffel
     Kasich
     Largent
     Lazio
     Linder
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Myrick
     Ney
     Owens
     Payne
     Pickett
     Sabo
     Shuster
     Stark
     Toomey
     Towns
     Vento
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise

                              {time}  2136

  Mr. CANNON and Mr. BRADY of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 37, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000)''.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am in the process of offering an amendment 
to the child care section of this bill. It is my understanding that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wanted to have a colloquy. Did the 
gentleman want to have that before I offered the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Young is recognized for 5 minutes on a pro forma amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word so 
we can have this colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have been 
discussing the order of business for the balance of the evening and for 
the completion of this bill. I would like to say that this is the first 
time in 3 years that this bill has come to the floor as a separate 
independent individual piece of legislation, and I think it is 
important that we deal with it expeditiously.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a substantial number of amendments that have 
been printed in the Record. I am satisfied that Members who have had 
them printed would probably want to offer them. I think it would not be 
a bad idea if Members would let their respective subcommittee leaders 
know whether or not they intend to offer those amendments.
  I make this suggestion for this purpose: I understand that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and many Members would like for the 
committee to rise and continue our work tomorrow. It is extremely 
important that we complete this bill tomorrow. Otherwise the rest of 
our appropriations schedule will fall considerably behind, and I do not 
think any of us want that to happen. So the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and I have been discussing how do we get out of here at a 
reasonable time tonight and also be able to complete this bill 
tomorrow?
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for his 
comments on this subject.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this: On this side of the aisle, 
because this bill has not been on the floor for 3 years, we want to see 
this bill voted on. Speaking very frankly, politically, we would be 
delighted to finally see this House vote on this bill, and 
substantively we would also be delighted to see us vote on the bill and 
would like to see it done tomorrow.
  We are operating under a unanimous consent agreement under which some 
11 Democratic amendments have been laid out in the unanimous consent 
request with time limits attached to them. We would be very happy to 
attach time limits to all remaining amendments. We believe that 80 
percent of the amendments on the Democratic side will not be offered. 
Of those that will be offered, our understanding from talking to most 
of the Members is that they will be offered and withdrawn after an 
explanation of what the Member was trying to do for 5 minutes. I know 
of only two or three amendments on our side that do not fit that 
category and on which we need to do further work, but we are willing to 
work out time limits on all of those.
  The problem as we see it is that there is a significant number of 
amendments that on our list are tentatively listed to be offered by 
Members on your side of the aisle. We do not have the capacity to work 
with your Members to work out time agreements. We are happy to agree to 
time limits on those as well, but we cannot do the work on the majority 
side with your Members. Your leadership staff and you need to do that.
  All we want is what I said when I agreed to the unanimous consent 
request on Friday, that when this bill is debated, it not be debated in 
the dead of night, because it has been 3 years since this bill has been 
on the floor.

[[Page 10380]]



                              {time}  2145

  So I want to assure what I honestly believe would be best is if we 
could rise on this bill tonight, I do not know what the gentleman has 
scheduled for the remainder of the week in terms of the order but it 
seems to me that overnight your leadership staff, your committee staff 
ought to be able to get together with your members and reach an 
understanding so before we come back on this bill tomorrow we can enter 
into a unanimous consent request which we can both agree to, which 
would enable us to finish the bill tomorrow. That would be our goal as 
well, but if we waste 4 hours' time we are not going to get past this 
point in the bill tonight, I assure you. That does not do anybody any 
good, and I think the time would be better spent simply consulting with 
Members to see how much time they think they need on their amendment 
and whether they, in fact, need to offer it at all, that is 
legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, let me suggest to the 
gentleman that the unanimous consent agreement that the gentleman and I 
developed last week, had a time limit on the specific amendments but 
there was no time limit on when the House would complete its business 
today.
  Secondly, the time that we spent last week on this bill, and today, 
has been on amendments from your side of the aisle. There are a 
substantial number of amendments that will probably be offered from our 
side of the aisle that have already been printed in the Record, and 
certainly each Member has the option to offer those amendments. Now my 
suggestion would be that we take up the next amendment and during that 
time we sit down and see if we can develop another unanimous consent 
request to propound that would be agreeable to the House; that would 
put some time limits on the rest of the amendments as we did on the 
first series of amendments, and guarantee the Members that we will 
complete action on this bill by tomorrow night.
  Also, tonight we would like to appoint conferees on the military 
construction bill, which would also become a vehicle for a large 
portion of the supplemental that the House passed very early in the 
year, which is important to very many Members who are serving here in 
the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I simply want to 
repeat, and I am reading from page H4106 of the Congressional Record of 
June 8, when the unanimous consent request was propounded at that time 
under which we agreed to a time limit on the 11 amendments that we are 
now operating on, I said the following: I said, ``Mr. Speaker, 
reserving the right to object, I would note that I have no objection to 
this arrangement with the understanding that when the House returns to 
this bill it will not be at a time when Members are still flying back 
to Washington on their airplanes and that it will not be debated in the 
dead of night.''
  We were then assured today that we would be out of here on this bill 
at least by 9:00 tonight. Now I am told something else and if that is 
the case, then as the gentleman knows, this unanimous consent request 
was offered because we had 160 amendments to the bill. If we are not 
going to stick to the agreement we had, we are going to offer all 160 
amendments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman 
to read the next line and see who responded from our side to agree to 
the 9:00 adjournment tonight.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman full well knows what conversations took place 
both publicly and privately. If we cannot count on the majority to keep 
their word, then we might as well know it now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. That is what I am asking the gentleman, who 
agreed on our side to the 9:00 adjournment tonight?
  Mr. OBEY. Your leadership staff told us today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. It was not part of the Record that you just 
read, is that correct?
  Mr. OBEY. You asked for a unanimous consent agreement. I told you 
under which conditions I would give it, and I told you both privately 
and we did it in the Record, as you well know.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Is the gentleman willing to try to work out a 
unanimous consent agreement that would complete consideration of this 
bill by tomorrow night, whatever time it might be?
  Mr. OBEY. I told you, I am perfectly willing to put limits on every 
amendment, but I cannot control which amendments are going to be 
offered on your side of the aisle. We have done our work on this side 
of the aisle and identified Members who were going to offer amendments 
and they have largely agreed not to offer them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, I understand what the gentleman is saying 
and, as I said earlier, all of the time so far on this bill has been 
spent on the amendments from your side. So there would obviously be 
time required on our side to offer amendments, but I am prepared to 
make a recommendation to my side of the aisle on a time limitation in 
order to complete this bill by tomorrow night, if you are willing to 
sit down and to try to reach an agreement on that.
  Mr. OBEY. All I can tell the gentleman is that I want to finish 
tomorrow night, but I have no way of guaranteeing we are going to 
finish tomorrow night until I know what the plans are on the 
gentleman's side of the aisle with respect to amendments.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If we get a unanimous consent agreement, a 
unanimous consent agreement is binding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, the pro forma 
amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) proceeding without 
objection, and now the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) may proceed 
for 5 minutes on amendment No. 24.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the first of 160 amendments that we 
intend to offer to this bill. This amendment adds $1,000 to the Child 
Care and Development Block Grant. I am offering this amendment because 
it is the only way under the rule under which this bill is being 
considered that we can have a discussion about the effect of the 
majority party's tax cuts on each and every individual program that 
delivers services to the people that we represent. The majority party 
has decided in the last 2 months to do the following: They have passed 
a minimum wage bill that provided $11 billion worth of benefits to 
minimum wage workers but they required, as the price for passage, that 
we also add $90 billion worth of tax benefits to people who make over 
$300,000 a year.
  They took a tax bill which they called the marriage penalty and under 
the guise of providing relief for the so-called marriage penalty they 
produced a tax bill which gave 73 percent of those benefits to people 
who made over $100,000 a year. Then last week, the majority passed 
through this House an inheritance tax package that gave over $200 
billion in potential tax relief to the wealthiest 400 people in this 
country.
  Yet we are prevented, because of the budget resolution and the limits 
imposed by that resolution, we are prevented in the appropriations 
process from trying to make our case by demonstrating on a program by 
program basis what they have had to squeeze in order to do that.
  What they have done on child care is to cut the President's request 
by 400-and-some million dollars. Now they say, well, that is not really 
a very deep cut in the President's budget, and it is no cut at all 
because of what we provided last year. They forget the fact that we are 
only providing child care to about 1 out of every 10 children who are 
presently eligible for assistance under Federal law.
  I can only offer an amendment to add a thousand dollars to this.
  The $417 million cut in the President's program means that 80,000 
fewer children will be served. Under the

[[Page 10381]]

rules, I can only offer an amendment raising this amount by a nominal 
amount, and I do so simply because at this point that is the only way 
that we can make our point about the misplaced priorities in the 
majority party's budget resolution.
  I would have preferred that we go through this in a systematic 
fashion, have a short 30-minute debate on each of the major items in 
the bill at a time of day when we are not being buried, after this bill 
has been hidden from public view for more than 3 years, but that is not 
to be. So I guess instead of having the orderly subject by subject 
discussion that I had hoped we would have, we are going to have to 
offer a series of amendments to every line of this bill. In that way we 
will indicate our strong objection to what the majority party has done 
and our profound belief that their priorities are fundamentally 
misguided and misbegotten. It seems to me that child care, it seems to 
me that education, it seems to me that health care, it seems to me that 
job training are more important to the country than to provide giant 
tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country.
  I am all for targeted tax cuts, targeted at those who need it the 
worst, those who need it the most but certainly the 400 richest 
Americans are not among them and that is one of the points we are 
trying to debate and illustrate in comparative priorities this evening.

                              {time}  2200

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to add $1,000 to this 
particular item, Child Care and Development Block Grant.
  I rise in support of this meager amount because we need to show a 
sign that we are willing to support the children of this Nation. At a 
time when we have a $179 billion surplus, we are cutting programs for 
children and families.
  It seems to me in this well-performing economy where we are creating 
more and more millionaires day in and day out, we would be willing to 
support children and families. At a time when we can have Members wax 
eloquently about getting people off of welfare, it seems to me we would 
support families for safe and secure child care so that parents and 
single mothers in particular could go to work, could seek out 
additional educational opportunities, and feel comfortable that their 
children are being taken care of in safe environments. If we cannot 
support a meager $1,000 increase, then I think that we cannot be 
credible as we talk about trying to pass this appropriation from the 
floor of Congress.
  It is important that we understand that most eligible children are 
denied assistance. Nationally, only one of 10 children who is eligible 
for child care assistance under Federal law receives any help.
  No State is currently serving all eligible families. States are 
severely limiting access to assistance. Only five States set their 
income eligibility guidelines at the maximum level allowable under 
Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income in 22 States; a 
family of three earning $25,000 a year does not qualify for help. In 
three States, Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina, a family of three 
earning $18,000 a year, 130 percent of poverty, cannot qualify for 
help.
  It is unconscionable that we cannot agree from both sides of the 
aisle to do what we know we could do in this budget for children. Let 
me just add that, in addition to this cut, this denial of care for 
children in this block grant, the idea that we cannot support the 
President's budget for Head Start is appalling to me.
  I worked in Head Start prior to coming to Congress. I served first as 
an assistant teacher and went on to become the supervisor of Parent 
Involvement and Volunteer Services. Head Start is the best thing that 
ever happened to this country. We empower children and families.
  Last Friday, when I left here, I went to the 26th anniversary of one 
of the Head Start programs in my district, training and research. 
Ninety percent of the parents whose children were enrolled in the 
program that I attended last Friday were enrolled in school themselves. 
They were inspired by their involvement in Head Start to get back into 
school and to get an education so that they cannot only determine their 
children's educational destiny, but that they could better themselves 
and their families.
  Head Start has been excellent for America. We have children who have 
had an opportunity for early childhood development who never would have 
had an opportunity. At one time in this country, early childhood 
education was only for the rich and the well off. For us not to support 
the President's budget on Head Start is again unconscionable.
  This $1,000 amendment will show us for what we are if we do not 
support it. I am sorry that we have to be in a protracted debate about 
supporting child care and education and health care for children. This 
is America. This is an America that is doing extremely well.
  I would ask all of my colleagues to please support this amendment in 
an indication that they care about children.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for members of the committee to 
realize what is going on tonight. It is hard to imagine that the author 
of the amendment is serious about adding a mere $1,000 to this very 
important program. But it does give Members on both sides of the aisle 
an opportunity to get up and talk about a program which both the 
majority and the minority in this House of Representatives feel very 
strongly about; that is the Child Care Block Grant.
  But it also gives the minority party in this committee an opportunity 
to get up and say that there has been a substantial cut in child care 
appropriation when, actually, that is the farthest thing from the 
truth. The truth of the matter is that the Child Care Block Grant under 
this very bill that we are debating tonight has been increased by $400 
million over the expenditure of last year.
  Now, it is true that the President in his budget came up with an 
increase of over $800 million requested in his budget, and it is easy 
to request money in the national budget. But the fact of the matter is 
that this committee, in a responsible manner, provided a substantial 
increase to Child Care Block Grants. It is incorrect to come before 
this body and say that those funds have been cut; $400 million more 
than last year is an increase.
  Now, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the previous 
speaker, also mentioned a very valuable program, Head Start. It is a 
program that is dear to my heart. It has been supported by Members of 
both parties. It has been supported by administrations of both parties.
  But it is inaccurate to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this committee 
has cut Head Start. Indeed, we did not give the President all of the 
money he requested. But the fact of the matter is that this bill that 
we are debating, although it does not touch on this amendment, this 
bill that we are debating increases Head Start again by $400 million.
  $400 million more for Head Start in this bill, $400 million more for 
child care in this bill. That is hardly a cut. I just wish that we 
could get the facts straight and not be suggesting things that are not 
part of the bill.
  I oppose the amendment because I do not believe it is offered 
seriously, but I hope that no one in this House or no one in this 
committee will be under the mistaken impression that these two programs 
have been cut. Indeed, they have received substantial increases thanks 
to the leadership of this subcommittee.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), our ranking member, for bringing this amendment up because, not 
that I disagree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), 
because there are

[[Page 10382]]

some increases in this legislation, the problem is that when we see the 
need that we have, the increases that they have are still not meeting 
the needs of our communities.
  This is a great example of this one little amendment talking for 
$1,000 increase in child care grants that talk about where our 
priorities are here on this House floor. I am not faulting the 
Committee on Appropriations. I understand they have the rules they live 
by. We gave them those rules with the budget resolution that had the 
wrong priorities, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason this amendment is here is to talk about 
child care, and I will go into that. But let us talk about some of the 
other priorities that our appropriations process is leaving out, again 
not to fault the members of the committee or the chairman, because they 
are doing the best they can with the guidelines that we gave them.
  Expanded educational opportunity. Trying to fix the infrastructure of 
our schools in our country. Prescription drugs for seniors may be a 
part of this, we do not know. Expanded health care for our children. 
Congress made an effort in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act, for the CHIPs 
program. We still have a long way to go.
  Following the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the Head 
Start, granted there is more funding in this appropriations bill for 
Head Start, but it still falls very short of the need in my own 
district in Houston, Texas, and I am sure everywhere else in the 
country. There are so many children who are Head Start qualified that 
the money is not there because we are not willing to put our money 
where our mouth is.
  That is just to talk about a few of the human needs, Mr. Chairman. 
Let us talk about other issues that we need to address: defense of our 
Nation, protection of our borders, continue to see our crime rate drop 
needs to continue the community policing that we hopefully will see in 
the appropriations bills that come.
  The problem is our priorities are wrong. We spent last Friday talking 
about an estate tax cut which only benefits 2 percent of the people in 
this country, and then the amendments rejected that will take that down 
to 1 percent.
  So that is why our priorities are wrong. That is what is wrong. That 
is why I am glad our ranking member came up with this amendment that 
talks about the new investment in child care that is needed.
  States now cannot keep up with the need of child care assistance even 
with our TANF funds, and I know that from my own experience again in 
Texas. Most eligible children are denied assistance. Nationally, only 
one out of 10 children who are eligible for child care assistance under 
Federal law receives any help.
  No State is currently serving all eligible families with child care. 
States have severely limited access to assistance. Only five States set 
their income eligibility guidelines at the maximum allowable under 
Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income. In nearly half 
the States, 24 States, a family earning $25,000 a year does not 
qualify. In three States, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, a family 
of three earning $18,000, 130 percent of poverty cannot qualify for 
help.
  Even with low eligibility cut-offs, States have long waiting lists. 
California has 200,000 families that are waiting. In Texas, we have 
36,000 families that are waiting for child care assistance.
  That is why this amendment is so important. It gives us the 
opportunity to talk about our priorities. We need to put our priorities 
in the needs of our country, because those children that need that 
child care, Mr. Chairman, those are the ones hopefully that will be 
serving here someday. We need to prepare them for that. All of us were 
prepared when we were growing up.
  Today's children need even extra help with what we do, whether it is 
child care, whether it is Head Start, whether it is quality education. 
Again, most of the funding comes from the local level, but we can help 
our local communities and provide assistance and smaller class sizes 
and building reconstruction.
  The limited resources lead to inadequate policies and force parents 
to have to make really difficult choices. Assistance policies keep 
quality care out of the reach of low-income children. Nearly one-third 
of our States are paying rates based on out-of-date market surveys, 
making it unaffordable for programs serving low-income children that 
invest in quality.
  When one thinks about it, despite expert recommendations, over a 
third of our States, of our parents, pay 10 percent of their income. 
When one says 10 percent, that does not sound like much. But if one has 
a poor family, how much of that is housing? How much of that is health 
care? How much of that is utilities? How much of that is transportation 
hopefully to get to that job from the welfare reform bill that we 
passed on this floor.
  Basic health and safety protections are lacking in many States. Only 
10 States meet the national recommendation for child-staff ratios in 
their licensing requirements.

                              {time}  2215

  And only 10 States require all family child care providers to meet 
any requirements and regulations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, consider the case of Sue and Dan Williams. I am going 
to change the name a little bit, but they are real people. Sue was on 
welfare for several years, trapped in the hopeless welfare cycle and 
then during welfare, because of welfare reform, decided, okay, it is 
time to get a job. And she was a little scared about it, but she got a 
job and needed to have some child care. And that is a mother's primary 
concern, which it should be. And we all admire mothers for that. That 
is why in the welfare reform bill there was $20 billion in child care 
for people like Sue and Dan Williams for their children, $20 billion.
  In addition to that, when the senior citizens and their family have 
to live with them, there is dependent care, a tax credit for families 
like that. There is social services, block grants. There is child care 
to States and entitlement programs to the tune of $8.8 billion in 
Federal support for the child care programs through the year 2001.
  These programs are strongly, strongly supported by Congress on both 
sides of the aisle, programs such as Head Start, Even Start, the 
Campus-Based Child Care, IDEA Services for Preschoolers and Infant 
Programs for after school.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been to some of these after-school programs. 
These children are learning things. They are learning life skills. They 
are learning to work with each other. They are learning play acting and 
things that build their self-esteem. These are very good programs.
  The chairman of this committee has worked hard to support this stuff. 
He has gone out in the field. He has not stayed in the ivory tower of 
Washington and waited for the White House to hand down some 
irresponsible number, some risky scheme from the Gore-Clinton 
administration. He has gone out and said, how do these programs 
actually work? How do they affect real people?
  This is not a matter of political rhetoric. This is not a matter of, 
well, we are going to spend more money than them. It is a matter of Sue 
and Dan Williams and their children and their parents and caring for 
them. I think the committee and the chairman of the committee have done 
the right thing on this.
  What I would say to my colleagues across the aisle, we keep hearing 
how, well, if we have to have more money, well, maybe we do, but maybe 
we ought to look at the efficiency of these programs, as well. Is it 
possible under the Clinton-Gore model that too much of the money is 
being squandered by wasteful Washington bureaucrats? Is it possible 
that a lot of that money never leaves Washington, D.C., and if we go 
down to HUD or if we go down to some of these Federal Government 
agencies we can find the money on the sixth

[[Page 10383]]

floor, third office down to our right because it never gets out of that 
bureaucrat's hands and to the streets where it can help the children of 
the Williams.
  That is what the committee mark is all about. The committee has made 
a significant commitment in this and will continue to. Think about Head 
Start alone increased by $400 million, 8 percent above last year's in 
order to serve an additional 20,000 kids. Think about the level. It is 
the highest in the 35-year history. That is very, very significant. The 
Child Care Development Block Grant is increased by $400 million, 34 
percent.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) has gone out and 
reviewed these programs. He has asked the bureaucracies to be more 
efficient. But he has also said we have got to help as many children as 
possible and he has done it in the best interest of America's kids.
  It is sad to me that people would come up with arbitrary numbers to 
irresponsibly use children as a pawn in some political chess game. It 
upsets me. Because they know in their heart of hearts this money comes 
from Social Security, it does not come from some other area. If they 
want to spend this money irresponsibly, they have to go home and tell 
our seniors, well, do you know what we did? We did what we did for 40 
straight years, we dipped back into that Social Security Trust Fund. 
And they should not be doing that, Mr. Chairman, because Social 
Security should be handled on a bipartisan basis.
  It is not a matter of Democrat versus Republican. It is a matter of 
putting our seniors first. That is why I do not think we should just 
irresponsibly and arbitrarily come up with numbers to increase programs 
for political purposes. We have to do what is best for children. We 
have to do what is best for seniors.
  That is why I support the mark of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) on this and I think we should reject, respectfully reject, the 
Obey amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard the old adage over and over again about a 
billion dollars here and a billion dollars there and pretty soon we are 
talking about real money.
  This amendment is a real amendment because we are talking about a 
thousand dollars to people that in three States, a family of three 
making $18,000 a year, cannot qualify for help to get child care for 
their family.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members in this body are listening 
because I am sure that people out in the country are listening. A 
thousand dollars to them, when they are making $18,000 a year and they 
are working sometimes two and three jobs and the most important thing 
in the world to them is their children, this amendment is important.
  Yes, it is important because we are talking about differences in 
priorities tonight at 10:20 Washington, D.C., time. And maybe we will 
be here until 2:20 and maybe we will be here all day tomorrow talking 
about education. I hope we are. This is the most important issue to me 
and the single most important reason why I picked the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce to serve on in this body.
  A thousand dollars to a family of three making $18,000 a year in 
three States where they cannot qualify for any help to get child care 
to take care of their children while they work, this idea behind this 
amendment can help some real people with real problems address their 
dire need for quality and affordable child care.
  We have heard some people on the other side of the aisle talk about, 
oh, this bill does not cut anything, it does not cut programs that make 
a difference for working people or people concerned about getting their 
children educated.
  Let us talk about some real cuts. The adult job training program is 
cut by $93 million below last year's appropriated level. The dislocated 
workers, $207 million cut below last year's appropriated level. That is 
$300 million, Mr. Chairman, when we are in a world economy today where 
we are engaging in trade, where we all know that we are going through 
the information and knowledge revolution in America today, where 
businesses are all saying the most important thing we can do in 
Washington is help them with doing more in education, and where our 
workers, whether they be underskilled or unskilled or whether they be 
dislocated because of trade, that we do something to help these workers 
make sure that, as we engage in trade with Mexico and China and other 
countries, that we make sure we help our working families get trained 
for new jobs if they are dislocated from an old one.
  That is fairness. That is help in education in the new economy.
  Now, I also hear Mr. Chairman, and I think the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) is absolutely with us on this point, that we need 
more resources if we are going to get more accountability and quality 
in our education programs.
  I was a fighter for more charter schools, and we did that. I fought 
for more public choice in education, and we are doing that. I fought 
and authored the bill last year for education flexibility to give our 
local schools more choice over what they do with Federal money. We are 
doing many of these things, giving the local school more quality 
programs to pick from but they choose what they want to do.
  Why can we not deliver more resources for dislocated workers, 
underskilled workers, who need to move from a toolbox to a robotic arm 
in a computer. Let us help these workers out in this new economy with 
these new challenges and this new workplace that we are creating. Let 
us help our children in inner-city schools and rural schools in 
Indiana. As we improve accountability, as we improve the quality of 
these programs, let us get more resources for our local schools to 
determine whether they want to use that money for school construction, 
whether they want to use that money for new curriculum ideas, whether 
they want to use that money to try to develop more professional 
training programs to get their teachers skilled on the technology of 
the future.
  So we are hopeful that we can work with the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter), who I think wants more resources for these education 
programs, to fight for these programs.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we should first realize that this amendment is not an 
amendment that has an offset. The only amount involved here is a 
thousand dollars. And the reason it is offered is simply to gain time 
to make the points that the minority wishes to make. The reason the 
amendment is in order is that there is a small amount of unobligated 
budget authority and outlays from which to draw these small amendments.
  The point that the minority continues to make is that we are not 
spending enough money on matters that they think are priorities. I 
simply want to take this time, Mr. Chairman, to point out all of the 
ways where we are meeting needs by making very substantial increases in 
many programs that we think are very, very important.
  Let me begin with community health centers, which we have funded at 
$1.1 billion dollars. That is $31 million above the President's 
request. The Job Corps at $1.4 billion. That is $7 million above the 
President's request. Graduate medical education we have doubled to $80 
million. We have funded Ricky Ray Hemophilia at $100 million, a 33-
percent increase. We have funded Ryan White AIDS at $1.725 billion. 
That is $130 million above last year and also above the President's 
request.
  We funded the CDC at $3.3 billion. That is $189 million above the 
President's request and $369 million greater than last year. We have 
funded infrastructure needs at CDC at $145 million. That is above the 
President's request. We funded Head Start at $5.7 billion, a $400-
million increase, or 7.5 percent increase this year. We funded special 
education at $6.255 billion. That is a half-billion-dollar increase 
over last year.

[[Page 10384]]



                              {time}  2230

  We funded Pell Grants at the President's requested level, a $200 
increase to the maximum grant, to $3500. We have increased after school 
centers by $146 million to $600 million. We have funded Impact Aid at 
$215 million above the President's request and $78 million above last 
year. We have increased child care $400 million over last year, at $2 
billion in forward funding subject to a sequester to stay within the 
budget cap. We have increased the National Institutes of Health by $1 
billion over last year and funded it at the President's request.
  The point that the minority is making that we are underfunding 
accounts is simply not a valid point. There are not any cuts in the 
bill. If there are, they are very small ones. In almost all cases there 
are increases, and in some cases that I have just described substantial 
increases over the amounts that the President has requested.


                preferential motion offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 196, not voting 56, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--196

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

                             NOT VOTING--56

     Andrews
     Archer
     Baker
     Bateman
     Boehner
     Campbell
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cox
     Danner
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hoeffel
     Kasich
     Linder
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Myrick
     Ney
     Owens
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Shuster
     Stark
     Stearns
     Toomey
     Towns
     Vento
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise

                              {time}  2327

  Mr. HUTCHINSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 256, 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority and minority have come to an agreement on 
the further course of this bill. At the appropriate point, I will move 
that the Committee rise. The debate will begin tomorrow morning. Under 
that agreement, there should be no further votes this evening and the 
intention of both sides is that we proceed until the bill is completed 
sometime tomorrow.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at which point it is appropriate 
for me to withdraw the amendment now pending.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the deep cuts that 
this bill makes in Medicare contractor management. The funding is not 
just inadequate, it is grossly inadequate, so inadequate that it is 
bound to impair the quality of service delivered to millions of elderly 
and disabled Americans--many of whom rely solely on Medicare for their 
health insurance.
  Although the Administration requested $1.3 billion for contractor 
management, an increase just over 4%, the committee rejected any 
increase and instead cut funding by 6%. In years past, when there were 
funding cutbacks and shortfalls, HCFA ordered Medicare contractors to 
cut service to beneficiaries. Medicare payments for patient care were 
delayed. HCFA told its contractors to cut back human contact and make 
more use of voice mail.

[[Page 10385]]

Voice mail menus are frustrating for everybody, but imagine how 
exasperating they are for an elderly person who wants a knowledgeable, 
caring person to answer a question about Medicare or solve a problem.
  The demands placed upon contractors will only be aggravated by 
elderly and disabled Americans who are the victims of the managed care 
companies pulling out of Medicare+Choice. In just one Medicare+Choice 
company that recently announced its pullout, there are over 100,000 
elderly and disabled Americans. They will have no choice but to move 
back to the fee-for-service program, and this will increase the work 
load for Medicare contractors far more than anyone previously 
predicted.
  In making its budget request, the Administration assumed a 3.5% 
increase in claims. The pull-out of Medicare+Choice firms will add to 
that; and if funding is cut by 6%, the cuts cannot help but strain the 
Medicare contractors, who are already stretched out, and degrade the 
services they provide to elderly and disabled Americans and their 
healthcare providers. This cut in funding will:
  Curtail beneficiary and provider outreach programs that educate and 
answer questions. Delay responses to telephone calls, written 
inquiries, and reviews of ``medical necessity.'' Postpone waste, fraud, 
and abuse investigations. Make it difficult for contractors to respond 
to HCFA initiatives.
  As a consequence, elderly and disabled Americans will not receive the 
level of customer service they expect and deserve. More providers who 
participate in Medicare but are increasingly vocal in their 
dissatisfaction will leave the program. And if Medicare contractors, 
who pride themselves on their business and want to deliver a good 
product and good service do not have the resources to administer the 
program, they too will exit the business. Many of them already have, 
and more of them will if this cut in funding goes through.
  For all these reasons, we should meet the President's modest request 
for Medicare contractor management, and undo these self-defeating cuts. 
If their purpose is to impair Medicare fee-for-service, and make 
beneficiaries cynical about Medicare and seek another program, they may 
achieve that effect. But if our purpose is to give the elderly and 
disabled a Medicare program with the care, service, and attention they 
need, these cuts should be reversed, and the President's request should 
be filled.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I will get to the point, who could not 
support Head Start, a program that provides comprehensive developmental 
services for America's low-income children--ages birth to five years?
  Research has told us time and again that this is the most critical 
stage of a child's mental and emotional development. Adding $600 
million would provide additional services to 53,000 additional low-
income children.
  I represent the third-fastest growing metropolitan statistical area 
in the U.S. and yet, we have one of the highest rates of poverty, and a 
very young population.
  For almost 30 years, I have been involved with education issues. This 
experience has taught me that children, regardless of income level or 
race, have the same potential for high achievement and healthy 
development. We must give them that chance.
  Head Start has successfully served 17 million children and their 
families since 1965 * * * Lets's not jeopardize that.
  To my colleagues who say no to Head Start: I say is that your final 
answer? I hope not.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership has once again 
succeeded in bringing to the floor a labor, health and education 
appropriations bill designed to please only themselves and their right-
wing friends. H.R. 4577 fails to make needed investments in public 
education and the domestic workforce, and, as the result, would 
undermine American competitiveness in the 21st century. This bill has 
already received what has now become its customary and well-deserved 
veto threat from the Clinton administration. It is clearly going 
nowhere, and should be soundly defeated.
  This bill was doomed from its inception, because the economic premise 
upon which it is based is flawed. Earlier this year, before the 
appropriations process began, the Republican leadership decided to 
resume its efforts to push for big tax cuts for the rich. They attached 
hundreds of billions of dollars of these tax cuts to the minimum wage 
bill and the budget resolution. This decision to squander the surplus, 
rather than invest it, severely reduced the funds available to meet 
many of our nation's critical needs.
  Overall, the bill provides $2.9 billion less than the President 
requested for the Department of Education, and $1.7 billion less for 
the Department of Labor. As the result, education, job training, 
workplace safety, and other programs are either frozen or cut, 
significantly reducing the level of services that can be provided.
  For example, the bill would slash Title I funding, forcing school 
districts to cut back on assistance to disadvantaged students. The 
Clinton/Clay class size reduction initiative is gutted, leaving school 
districts without the resources to hire and train 20,000 more top-
quality teachers. Adequate funding is denied for after-school and 
summer programs intended to improve student achievement and reduce 
juvenile crime. And no funds are provided to renovate crumbling and 
unsafe schools.
  At the same time efforts are ongoing in the Congress to erase limits 
on the immigration of foreign workers to fill high-tech jobs, this bill 
would make steep cuts in the funding of training programs aimed at 
helping domestic workers fill them and other positions. Dislocated 
workers and at-risk youth are particularly hard hit by these cuts, even 
though they are the one most in need of skills training. By failing to 
adequately invest in our own workforce, the Republican leadership is 
jeopardizing American competitiveness and prosperity.
  This bill also jeopardizes worker health and safety by shortchanging 
OSHA and blocking issuance of the ergonomics rule intended to prevent 
about 300,000 workplace injuries a year. The Wilson amendment would add 
insult to injury by cutting $25 million more from OSHA.
  Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill is a disaster. It fails to 
adequately invest in education, and in the development and security of 
the nation's workforce. I urge a no vote on H.R. 4577.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4577) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________



 LIMITING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF 
    H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND 
        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT, 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
during further consideration of H.R. 4577 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 418 and the order of the House of June 8, 
2000, no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except:
  One, pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the 
purpose of debate;
  Two, the amendment printed in part B of House Report 106-657;
  Three, the remaining amendments listed in the order of the House of 
June 8, 2000, as previously modified;
  And four, the following additional amendments by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), regarding across-the-board reduction; the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), regarding reductions in 
Education for the Disadvantaged, Impact Aid, School Improvement 
Programs, and Bilingual and Immigrant Education and increase in special 
education; further, by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), 
regarding reduction in education research, statistics, and improvement 
and increase in special education; by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer), regarding reduction in Even Start and increase in special 
education for grants to States; by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer), regarding reduction in Job Corps Training and increase in 
special education for grants to States; by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer), regarding reduction in the United States Institute of 
Peace and increase in special education for grants to

[[Page 10386]]

States; by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), regarding fetal 
tissue research; by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), regarding a 
report of the impact of PNTR on United States jobs; by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), regarding NIH; by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall), regarding additional funding for Meals on Wheels; and the 
amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XXVIII and numbered 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 198, 
and 201.
  Each additional amendment may be offered only by the Member 
designated in this request or a designee or the Member who caused it to 
be printed or a designee; shall be considered as read; shall be 
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; shall not be subject to amendment; and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



  REPORT ON H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND 
  URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 
a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-674) on the bill (H.R. 4635) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, which was referred to the 
Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All points of order are reserved on the 
bill.

                          ____________________



                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 4577, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



     APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4425, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4425) making appropriations for military 
construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, 
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


           Motion To Instruct Conferees Offered By Mr. Olver

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. OLVER moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 4425, be instructed to disagree with the 
     Senate amendment and provide funding for National Missile 
     Defense Initial Deployment Facilities at a level equal to the 
     lower level as provided in the House passed bill.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion. It should not be controversial. 
These United States are on the verge of embarking on what could be a 
$60 billion National Missile Defense program. This House included more 
than adequate funding to start the early lead construction items of the 
National Missile Defense as it is now conceived. The other Chamber has 
funded this item at a substantially and unnecessarily higher level.
  This motion instructs the conferees to insist on the more prudent 
level of spending in the House bill; 367 Members of the House supported 
this level of spending when we passed the bill several weeks ago, and 
it is important that we maintain our position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and would urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  For consideration of the House bill, and Division A of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
  Messrs. Hobson, Porter, Tiahrt, Walsh, Miller of Florida, Aderholt, 
Ms. Granger, and Messrs. Goode, Young of Florida, Olver, Edwards, Farr 
of California, Boyd, Dicks, and Obey;
  For consideration of the Division B of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Messrs. Young of Florida, 
Regula, Lewis of California, Rogers, Skeen, Callahan, Obey, Murtha, and 
Ms. Pelosi and Ms. Kaptur.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________



                              {time}  2340
                             SPECIAL ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, and under a previous order of the House, the 
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

                          ____________________



               INDIA IN NEED OF THIS COUNTRY'S ASSISTANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized 
for half the time until midnight as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I take the well at this very late hour 
because I want to talk about an issue that is, I think, vitally 
important not only to this country but to the stability of peace in the 
world community.
  I had the occasion to take a trip with my wife and several others to 
Pakistan in India, and to Kashmir about a month, or month and a half 
ago, and it indeed was one of the more interesting things I have done 
in my 28 years of political life. I came away more convinced than ever 
that the United States has a proactive role to play in helping with the 
challenges that are faced in South Asia.
  I think everyone now is aware that South Asia is a nuclear flash 
point; that the Indian Government and the Pakistanis have fought now 
three times since partition in 1947 from the British, and as a result 
of those wars, the recent skirmish in addition to that in the Kargil 
region, which claimed a thousand lives this past summer, it is a very 
dangerous place, with both countries now having the nuclear capability

[[Page 10387]]

to destroy each other and inflict incredible destruction on not only 
that region of the world but the planet in general. So it seems to me 
that we need as a Nation and as a world community to focus our 
attention more and more on bringing peace and stability to the people 
of Kashmir. It is clearly in their interest.
  The people of Kashmir have suffered through 50 years of broken 
promises. If we recall our history, the United Nations called for a 
plebiscite on self-determination in Kashmir in 1948, but of course that 
has never been carried out, and this legacy of neglect has fostered 
distrust, it has fostered hopelessness among many in Kashmir, 
especially the Muslim majority, which has spawned a cycle of protest 
and of violence and of repression.
  As many as up to 70,000 Kashmiris in the last decade have died as a 
result of this war that is going on in their country. It is an 
incredibly beautiful place. Lush green valleys, enormously pristine 
sparkling lakes surrounded by the Himalayas' snow-capped mountains. Its 
beauty is only contrasted by the pain and the suffering of indeed this 
brutal repression and war that is raging now that, as I have said, has 
claimed as many, some say up to 70,000 lives. A staggering total.
  Indian security forces number in the neighborhood of somewhere 
between 500,000 and 700,000 troops in the States of Kashmir and Jammu, 
and they wage, along with the militants who are crossing the border and 
fighting in this region, a day-to-day campaign of terror and 
repression. And the Kashmiri people are caught in the middle. The human 
rights abuses are every bit as outrageous and repugnant as they have 
been in the Balkans as we have seen recently. The number of rapes and 
torture and all the things that go along with this type of 
international catastrophe is present in Kashmir.
  Independent human rights' groups report on these rapes and these 
tortures. Often they are not allowed into Kashmir. Amnesty 
International is not, and other human rights' organizations have had a 
difficult time getting in and verifying some of these atrocities. 
Common disappearances occur all the time. People lose their loved ones.
  When we were up in Srinagar, which is the summer capital in Kashmir, 
we could just see the besieged nature of this once incredibly crystal 
beautiful land. The look of weariness and longing and hunger on the 
faces of the people beg for a solution and a way out of this quagmire 
of violence that they find themselves in.
  And their most precious resource, their children, the Kashmiri 
children, are being driven away by this violence. When the young people 
are old enough to go, they go. So whole families are being broken up as 
a result of this.
  Tourism, which could be as profitable and as abundant and as 
prosperous as anyplace in the world because of this incredible beauty 
is almost nonexistent. It is in ruins. We need to do something about 
this as a country.
  When the young people in Kashmir start to immolate themselves, burn 
themselves alive, because of the hopelessness that they feel; that 
there is no way out of this, it speaks clearly and loudly to just what 
has happened and how far they have come on the road to despair.
  Violent acts, such as the massacre of dozens of Sikh villagers in 
Kashmir during the President's visit to India have shown that the 
killings will continue unabated unless something is done to stop it.
  Now, I would like to just briefly, in the short time that I have here 
before we adjourn, touch upon the significance of doing this for 
Pakistan, for India, and for the United States. For Pakistan, the 
meaning of the conflict in Kashmir goes really to the heart and the 
soul of people in Kashmir. The people of Pakistan feel a deep sense of 
kinship with their brethren in Kashmir. Muslim countries. Muslim areas 
both.
  The crisis in Kashmir has drained Pakistan of its resources, leaving 
unmet needs for efforts to alleviate their poverty, their illiteracy, 
their health care needs, their infrastructure needs. I was told, and I 
do not know how completely accurate this is, but I have a sense that it 
is close to accurate, that of the budget in Pakistan, where they have 
roughly 130 million people, 60 percent of their budget goes to just 
servicing their debt. Imagine that, 60 cents on the dollar going to 
service the debt. Thirty percent goes to the military, nuclear 
development and their military establishment, and only 10 percent of 
their meager budget goes to dealing with the problems of illiteracy, 
health care, infrastructure, and all the things a civilized society 
would want to invest in.
  With Indian troops and a nuclear capability amassed on one border, 
and with the Taliban ever present and presenting a threat on the other 
in Afghanistan, Pakistan has devoted much of its income to the 
military, and, as I say, to the development of nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  2350

  Stopping the incursions of militants into Kashmir is in the interest 
of the leaders of Pakistan so they can focus in on their internal 
concerns.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). As there is no speaker for the 
majority on his designated time, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, so unless confidence is restored with the 
Indian Government, a lasting peace will never occur.
  I had the chance when I was there to meet with the Pakistani leaders. 
I met with General Musharraf, who is the chief executive of Pakistan, 
the head of state. I came to that meeting prepared to meet a military 
man who engaged in a coup and was not quite sure what to expect.
  In my discussions with people in Pakistan, in my discussions with him 
in the meeting I had with him, I came away with the understanding that 
he wants to break the cycle of corruption and impotence on the people 
of the party politically, he wants to do something to change the 
internal dynamics of his country, and he wants to do it in a transition 
way that can lead to the reestablish of democracy in his country.
  There are some signals and some signs that he is doing some things 
that will move in that direction. While I was there, they had the first 
human rights conference that they ever have had in Pakistan. And they 
dealt with the question of honor killings, which had been ignored for a 
very long time, where male members and heads of families would kill and 
beat and torture their wives if they suspected infidelity or thought 
perhaps it might even have occurred. This he has taken on strongly and 
has enforced since that conference.
  He has taken on the question of child labor and moving in the 
direction of making sure that children are not abused at the work site 
and are provided an opportunity for an education.
  In the area of empowering people, for the first time they are redoing 
all the roles of government in Pakistan, the voter roles. They have 
allowed the 18-year-olds to vote. And in November of this year, there 
will be under these new regimes of empowerment local elections 
throughout the country. And, of course, the supreme court recently 
ruled in Pakistan that there would be national elections within a 2\1/
2\-year period in which General Musharraf has agreed to.
  So on the democracy front, on the human rights front, on dealing with 
corruption, he has commissioned people within his government to act 
forcefully at trying to stop the corruption that is so endemic to that 
society and which was responsible to a large extent for the failures of 
the Bhutto and the Sharif governments.
  So there is a strong movement to fight corruption, to establish an 
economic system that is fair and equitable and honest.
  As my colleagues can tell, Mr. Speaker, I came away with some hope 
when I was not really expecting to. But I have watched, even in recent 
days, the minister in Pakistan who deals with the question of terrorism 
issue some statements. There was an article recently on Saturday in the 
New York Times that showed that they are on the offensive to deal with 
this important aspect of their national and international obligations.

[[Page 10388]]

  So there are some things that are happening here. General Musharraf 
has offered on numerous occasions, and he did to me when I was with him 
in our visit, that he in fact wants to dialogue with the Indian 
leaders, with the Indian Government, and that he understands the 
necessity to stop this cycle of violence.
  The sense of distress between the people of Kashmir and the 
Government of India and the tensions between India and Pakistan have 
stalled every diplomatic effort that has been made to stop these 
killings. But we have a chance now, because I think it is in 
everybody's interest to get this done, Pakistan, and it is in India's 
interest. And if I could just move to them for a second. Their 
government has a compelling interest to resolve this Kashmir question, 
as well.
  India shares Pakistan's challenge with poverty, with illiteracy, with 
health care, with their infrastructure needs. They do not want 600,000 
troops stationed in Kashmir. That takes an enormous amount of 
resources, and it drains their ability to deal with these other 
problems. They do not want this continuing and escalating violence in 
Kashmir. They want, it would seem to me, to resolve this issue, as 
well.
  And there are some signs of hope. The Indian Government has allowed 
some Kashmiri political and civil leaders out of jail. I met with them 
when I was in Kashmir. I met with the conference leaders, some of whom 
just recently were let out of jail, and they are asking for a dialogue 
with the Indian Government. And while there has been intimations that 
that dialogue would occur, it has not. And I would encourage the Indian 
Government to engage in it.
  Kashmiris must have a responsible role in deciding their own fate, 
and this will only occur when we continue to build confidence-building 
measures, such as opening preliminary discussions, allowing people to 
exercise their leadership, freeing them from jail, stopping the 
violence of incursions of militants across the border. These are all 
pieces that have to take place in order for this to come together.
  The Indian Government, as I said, has participated in some of these. 
Other things they have not, they have not shown an interest. And we 
need, as a Government here in the United States, to move them in that 
direction and to get them to stop the torture and the other repressive 
measures that they are taking in Kashmir against the Kashmiri people.
  Now, I see a way forward but only if we, as the United States, are 
willing to invest more time and resources to bring these parties 
together. And I think we have an obligation to do that. I think we have 
a moral responsibility to do that.
  During the war in Afghanistan, the United States armed Pakistan's 
neighbors and the militants. And then we sort of casually abandoned the 
region, and that left the region in a state of militarism with enormous 
amounts of weapons and ammunitions.
  Now we have an obligation, it seems to me, to do our part to help 
establish stability in South Asia. It is in our interest to do so. The 
threat of nuclear conflict in South Asia is very, very real. We must 
reduce this threat and halt the arms race in South Asia. And unless 
Kashmir is addressed, that will not happen. We cannot make progress 
unless people in the world community are willing to tackle this issue.
  The United States has called for democracy to take root in South 
Asia, but this will not happen on its own and it surely will not happen 
without a resolution to this very important question.
  And by ``democracy,'' I am talking about not only democracy in form 
but I am talking about supporting democracy through helping Pakistan 
develop some of those institutions for democratic action, and we have 
ways to do that here. Instead of withholding support for Pakistan, who 
has been a great front for this country throughout its history, one of 
our best allies and best friends, instead of engaging in embargoes, we 
ought to be financially helping Pakistan move forward.
  Because democracy works well when there is an economic component. 
When you give people a sense of home for their economic life, that 
works very well with establishing and enhancing the democratic life of 
a country. Democracy by itself, without any support economically, is 
going to be a very fragile democracy.
  If we turn our attention away from the region, as we did after the 
war in Afghanistan, we risk further erosion, violence, and 
disillusionment.
  We are, as a country, as a superpower, as a country that is engaged 
in the Middle East and in Ireland and in Africa and in other places 
recently, in Latin America, we have a role to play here. And as a long-
standing ally of Pakistan as an emerging friend of India, we are in a 
position to bring people together. And given the stakes in South Asia, 
punitive economic sanctions, as I said, are clearly counterproductive.
  While we have our differences, we must never forget that Pakistan, as 
I said, has been a long-standing ally of the United States. Democracy 
will be strengthened not by economic sanctions but by economic aid and 
by taking the know-how of our democratic institutions and trying to 
provide those kinds of expertise and know-how with those who are 
struggling for an expanded democracy in Pakistan.
  So I think everything is in place to make this work. And because of 
the nuclear potential, the world needs desperately to focus in on this 
region. And because of the promise that was made to the Kashmiris over 
50 years ago, we need to desperately take hold of this issue and focus 
our attention and try to develop a process by which we can reach some 
resolve.
  People in Kashmir are exhausted from the violence. They are exhausted 
from the war. They are exhausted from the economic inactivity. We can 
make a big change in a very important part of the world if we will 
devote some of our energies, some our good will, some of our resources 
to making that happen.
  So I look forward, as I told the President when I discussed this with 
him briefly at the White House, I look forward to working with him and 
our administration and our allies in bringing Pakistan and India 
together and bringing the Kashmiris into discussions so that both 
countries can live in peace and the Kashmiris can have the right to 
express their views and work for a better situation economically and 
politically and democratically for their people.

                          ____________________



                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Ms. Baldwin (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of 
airport delays.
  Mr. Fattah (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of 
personal reasons.
  Mr. Toomey (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and until 4:00 
p.m. on June 13 on account of the birth of Bridget Kathleen Toomey.
  Mr. Watts of Oklahoma (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and 
June 13 on account of attending a family funeral.

                          ____________________



                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Member (at the request of Mr. Olver) to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________



                 SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED

  A concurrent resolution of the Senate of the following title was 
taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred a follows:

       S. Con. Res. 121, concurrent resolution, congratulating 
     Representative Stephen S. F. Chen on the occasion of his 
     retirement from the diplomatic service of Taiwan, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.

[[Page 10389]]



                          ____________________



                    BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that 
that committee did on this day present to the President, for his 
approval, bills of the House of the following titles:

       H.R. 1953. To authorize leases for terms not to exceed 99 
     years on land held in trust for the Torres Martinez Desert 
     Cahuilla Indians and the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of 
     the Guidiville Indian Rancheria.
       H.R. 3639. To designate the Federal building located at 
     2201 C Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, 
     currently headquarters for the Department of State, as the 
     ``Harry S Truman Federal Building''.
       H.R. 2484. To provide that land which is owned by the Lower 
     Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota but which is 
     not held in trust by the United States for the Community may 
     be leased or transferred by the Community without further 
     approval by the United States.

                          ____________________



                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at midnight), under its 
previous order, the House adjourned until today, Tuesday, June 13, 
2000, at 9 a.m. for morning hour debates.

                          ____________________



                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       8078. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, 
     Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of 
     Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
     Oriental Fruit Fly; Removal of Quarantined Area [Docket No. 
     99-076-2] received May 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
       8079. A letter from the Director, Office of Federal Housing 
     Oversight, transmitting the Office's final rule--
     Implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act (RIN: 2550-
     AA08) received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services.
       8080. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for 
     Regulatory Law, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule--State Energy Program [Docket No. EE-RM-96-402] 
     (RIN: 1904-AB01) received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
       8081. A letter from the Special Assistant to Bureau Chief, 
     Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 
     transmitting the Commission's final rule--Establishment of a 
     Class A Television Service [MM Docket No. 00-10] received May 
     2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee 
     on Commerce.
       8082. A letter from the Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
     Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final 
     rule--DotCom Disclosures About Online Advertising--received 
     May 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Commerce.
       8083. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative 
     Affairs, Department of State, transmitting certification of a 
     proposed license for the export of defense articles or 
     defense services sold commercially under a contract to Greece 
     [Transmittal No. DTC 013-00], pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(c); 
     to the Committee on International Relations.
       8084. A letter from the Chairwoman, Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission, transmitting the Inspector General's 
     Semiannual Report for the period ending March 31, 2000 and 
     the Semiannual Management Report for the same period; to the 
     Committee on Government Reform.
       8085. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel 
     Management, transmitting the Office's final rule--Prevailing 
     Rate Systems; Redefinition of the Southern and Western 
     Colorado Appropriated Fund Wage Area (RIN: 3206-AI95) 
     received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Government Reform.
       8086. A letter from the Director, Family-Friendly Workplace 
     Advocacy Office, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting 
     the Office's final rule--Agency Use of Appropriated Funds For 
     Child Care Costs For Lower Income Employees (RIN: 3206-AI93) 
     received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Government Reform.
       8087. A letter from the Director, Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule--Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
     and Plants; Final Determination of Threatened Status for the 
     Koala (RIN: 1018-AE43) received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       8088. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
     Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule--Concession Contracts (RIN: 1024-
     AC72) received May 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       8089. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
     Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting 
     the Department's final rule--1999-2000 Refuge-Specific 
     Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations (RIN: 1018-AF52) 
     received May 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to 
     the Committee on Resources.
       8090. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary, Indian 
     Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, 
     transmitting the Department's final rule--Currently Effective 
     Indian Health Service Eligibility Regulations (RIN: 0917-
     AAO3) received April 18, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       8091. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of 
     Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting 
     the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the 
     Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery 
     Management Plan [Docket No. 000307061-0061-01; I.D. 013100D] 
     (RIN: 0648-AN46) received May 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       8092. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of 
     Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting 
     the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive 
     Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific cod by Catcher Vessels 
     using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
     [Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D. 042400A] received May 2, 
     2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Resources.
       8093. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator For 
     Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the 
     Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Northeastern 
     United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework 
     Adjustment 33 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 
     Management Plan [Docket No. 000407096-0096-01; I.D. 040300C] 
     (RIN: 0648-AN51) received May 2, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
       8094. A letter from the Deputy Executive Secretary, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule--Refugee Resettlement Program 
     Requirements for Refugee Cash Assistance and Refugee Medical 
     Assistance--received March 23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       8095. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, transmitting the draft bill, the ``HCFA User Fee 
     Act of 2000''; jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means 
     and Commerce.
       8096. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Civil Works, 
     Department of the Army, transmitting a draft bill entitled, 
     ``Water Resources Development Act of 2000''; jointly to the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Commerce, 
     and Resources.
       8097. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Department 
     of Defense, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation 
     relating to the management of the Department of Defense and 
     to the transfer of naval vessels to foreign countries; 
     jointly to the Committees on Armed Services, Government 
     Reform, International Relations, and Intelligence (Permanent 
     Select).

                          ____________________



         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as 
follows:

       Mr. BURTON: Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 3995. A 
     bill to establish procedures governing the responsibilities 
     of court-appointed receivers who administer departments, 
     offices, and agencies of the District of Columbia government: 
     with an amendment (Rept. 106-663). Referred to the Committee 
     of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. BURTON: Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 4387. A 
     bill to provide that the School Governance Charter Amendment 
     Act of 2000 shall take effect upon the date such Act is 
     ratified by the voters of the District of Columbia (Rept. 
     106-664). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.
       Mr. GOODLING: Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
     H.R. 4504. A bill to make technical amendments to the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965; with an amendment (Rept. 106-665). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. GOODLING: Committee on Education and the Workforce. 
     H.R. 4079. A bill to require the Comptroller General of the 
     United States to conduct a comprehensive fraud audit of the 
     Department of Education; with an amendment (Rept. 106-666). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. GILMAN: Committee on International Relations. H.R. 
     4022. A bill regarding the sale and transfer of Moskit anti-
     ship missiles by the Russian Federation; with an amendment

[[Page 10390]]

     (Rept. 106-667). Referred to the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. GILMAN: Committee on International Relations. H.R. 
     4118. A bill to prohibit the rescheduling or forgiveness of 
     any outstanding bilateral debt owed to the United States by 
     the Government of the Russian Federation until the President 
     certifies to the Congress that the Government of the Russian 
     Federation has ceased all its operations at, removed all 
     personnel from, and permanently closed the intelligence 
     facility at Lourdes, Cuba; with an amendment (Rept. 106-668). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. McCOLLUM: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 3048. A bill 
     to amend section 879 of title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide clearer coverage over threats against former 
     Presidents and members of their families, and for other 
     purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 106-669). Referred to the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 523. 
     Resolution waiving points of order against the conference 
     report to accompany the bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate 
     commerce by electronic means by permitting and encouraging 
     the continued expansion of electronic commerce through the 
     operation of free market forces, and for other purposes 
     (Rept. 106-670). Referred to the House Calendar.
       Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House 
     Resolution 524. Resolution providing for consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 4578) making appropriations for the Department of 
     the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-671). 
     Referred to the House Calendar.
       Mr. ARCHER: Committee on Ways and Means. House Joint 
     Resolution 90. Resolution withdrawing the approval of the 
     United States from the Agreement establishing the World Trade 
     Organization (Rept. 106-672). Referred to the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. ARCHER: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4601. A bill 
     to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 213(c) of 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 
     to reduce the public debt and to decrease the statutory limit 
     on the public debt; with an amendment (Rept. 106-673 Pt. 1). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. WALSH: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 4635. A bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
     agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes (Rept. 106-674). Referred to the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union.


                         discharge of committee

  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the Committee on the Budget 
discharged. H.R. 4601 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.

                          ____________________



                    TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

       H.R. 4601. Referral to the Committee on the Budget extended 
     for a period ending not later than June 12, 2000.

                          ____________________



                      PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were 
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

           By Mr. WALSH:
       H.R. 4635. A bill making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
           By Mr. FATTAH (for himself, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Davis of 
             Illinois, and Mr. Owens):
       H.R. 4636. A bill to amend chapter 36 of title 39, United 
     States Code, to modify rates relating to reduced rate mail 
     matter, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Government Reform.
           By Mr. GIBBONS:
       H.R. 4637. A bill to provide for the orderly disposal of 
     certain Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and to provide 
     for the aquisition by the Secretary of the Interior of 
     enviromentally sensitive lands in the State of Nevada; to the 
     Committee on Resources.
           By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
       H.R. 4638. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
     require States to provide Federal highway funds for projects 
     in high priority corridors, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. LAMPSON (for himself and Mr. LoBiondo):
       H.R. 4639. A bill to assure that recreation benefits are 
     accorded the same weight as hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction benefits as well as environmental restoration 
     benefits; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
           By Mr. McCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. Scott, Mr. Gilman, 
             Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Weiner, and Mr. 
             Chabot):
       H.R. 4640. A bill to make grants to States for carrying out 
     DNA analyses for use in the Combined DNA Index System of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide for the 
     collection and analysis of DNA samples from certain violent 
     and sexual offenders for use in such system, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
     to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
     subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. STUPAK:
       H.R. 4641. A bill to provide trade adjustment assistance 
     for certain workers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

                          ____________________



                               MEMORIALS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       349. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of 
     Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House 
     Resolution No. 288 memorializing the Congress of the United 
     States to provide funding for increased Bovine Tuberculosis 
     Testing and Research in Michigan and for Federal 
     Indemnification and Financial Assistance for the Federal 
     Indemnification and Financial Assistance for the Federally 
     Required Destruction of Michigan Cattle; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       350. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Washington, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 8019 
     memorializing Congress to continue to help meet the unique 
     special needs of gifted students by including formula grants 
     to states for gifted and talented education programs (HR 637 
     and S 505) in its consideration of the reauthorization of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
       351. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of West Virginia, relative to House Concurrent 
     Resolution No. 42 memorializing the West Virginia 
     Congressional Delegation to take immediate legislative action 
     to amend existing surface mining laws to reverse the effect 
     of the decision in Bragg, et al. V. Robertson, et al. on West 
     Virginia mines and miners; to the Committee on Resources.
       352. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of West Virginia, relative to House Concurrent 
     Resolution No. 5 memorializing the Congress of the United 
     States to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States of America for submission to the states for 
     ratification prohibiting federal courts from ordering a state 
     or political subdivision thereof to levy or increase taxes; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
       353. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of West Virginia, relative to House Concurrent 
     Resolution No. 68 memorializing the United States Congress to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt from federal income 
     taxes the income received by the holders of bonds issued 
     pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill 175, the ``West 
     Virginia Pension Liability Redemption Act''; to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means.
       354. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of 
     the State of West Virginia, relative to House Concurrent 
     Resolution No. 68 memorializing the United States Congress to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt from federal income 
     taxes the income received by the holders of bonds issued 
     pursuant to the provisions of Senate Bill 175, the ``West 
     Virginia Pension Liability Redemption Act''; to the Committee 
     on Ways and Means.

                          ____________________



                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 363: Mr. Hinchey.
       H.R. 632: Mr. Hefley, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, and Mr. Weiner.
       H.R. 914: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky and Mr. Berman.
       H.R. 1111: Ms. Stabenow.
       H.R. 1202: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Johnson of 
     Connecticut, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr. Gilchrest.
       H.R. 1248: Mr. Quinn, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Costello, and Mr. 
     Kildee.
       H.R. 1271: Mr. Rothman.
       H.R. 1515: Mr. Mollohan.
       H.R. 1586: Ms. Carson.
       H.R. 1594: Mrs. Capps.
       H.R. 1621: Mr. Bentsen.
       H.R. 1885: Ms. Stabenow.
       H.R. 2000: Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gillmor.
       H.R. 2059: Mr. Lantos.
       H.R. 2451: Mr. Bachus.
       H.R. 2596: Mr. Calvert and Mr. English.
       H.R. 2749: Mr. Bilbray.
       H.R. 2790: Mr. Moore.
       H.R. 2814: Mr. DeFazio.
       H.R. 3059: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

[[Page 10391]]


       H.R. 3100: Mr. Souder, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Dickey, 
     Mr. Payne, and Mr. Metcalf.
       H.R. 3301: Mr. Weiner.
       H.R. 3327: Mr. Pombo.
       H.R. 3463: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Holt, and Mr. 
     Gutierrez.
       H.R. 3633: Mr. Hastings of Washington, Ms. Berkley, Mr. 
     Martinez, and Mr. Strickland.
       H.R. 3677: Mr. Canady of Florida.
       H.R. 3697: Mr. Smith of Texas.
       H.R. 3732: Ms. Lofgren.
       H.R. 3844: Mr. Chabot.
       H.R. 3891: Mr. Hoeffel.
       H.R. 3915: Mr. Baca, Mr. Riley, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Reyes, Mr. 
     Talent, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Barr of 
     Georgia.
       H.R. 4001: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
     Lantos, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
       H.R. 4071: Mr. Wynn.
       H.R. 4079: Mr. Hefley, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr. Royce.
       H.R. 4093: Mr. Pascrell.
       H.R. 4149: Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. 
     Barton of Texas.
       H.R. 4189: Mr. Blumenauer and Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
       H.R. 4210: Mr. Sisisky.
       H.R. 4246: Mrs. Morella.
       H.R. 4248: Mr. Walden of Oregon and Mr. Knollenberg.
       H.R. 4271: Mr. Weiner and Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 4272: Mr. Weiner and Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 4273: Mr. Weiner and Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 4281: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
     Nadler, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Deal of Georgia, 
     Mr. Stark, Mr. Baird, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Ackerman.
       H.R. 4283: Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Barcia, and Mr. Upton.
       H.R. 4328: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Bliley.
       H.R. 4329: Mr. English and Mr. Fletcher.
       H.R. 4357: Mr. Blagojevich.
       H.R. 4395: Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Shaw.
       H.R. 4410: Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Gilchrest.
       H.R. 4453: Mr. Wynn and Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 4483: Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
       H.R. 4492: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Kennedy of 
     Rhode Island, and Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
       H.R. 4495: Mr. Lantos, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
     Frost, amd Ms.  DeGette.
       H.R. 4503: Mr. Coble, Mr. Delay, Mr. Riley, Mr. Hilliard, 
     Mr. Bachus, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Spratt, 
     Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Norwood.
       H.R. 4504: Mr. Souder.
       H.R. 4600: Mr. Shows.
       H.R. 4601: Mrs. Northup and Mr. Gary Miller of California.
       H.R. 4621: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Kuykendall, and Mr. Nethercutt.
       H.J. Res. 56: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
       H.J. Res. 90: Mr. Traficant.
       H. Con. Res. 321: Mr. Goode, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
     Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Canady of Florida.
       H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Deutsch, 
     and Mr. LaFalce.
       H. Con Res. 343: Ms. Carson.
       H. Con. Res. 350: Mr. Farr of California.
       H. Res. 280: Mr. McKeon.
       H. Res. 388: Mrs. Maloney of New York.
       H. Res. 461: Mr. Klink, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
     Stark, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
     Olver, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Capuano, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Capps, 
     Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. DeFazio.

                          ____________________



                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 3 of rule XII,

       89. The SPEAKER presented a petition of Board of 
     Commissioners and Board of Equalizers, Ferry County, relative 
     to Resolution No. 2000-16 petitioning the federal government 
     to change the Endangered Species Act to provide incentives 
     for the protection of endangered species through empowering 
     citizens and communities to freely and voluntarily assist in 
     protection of endangered species; which was referred to the 
     Committee on Resources.

                          ____________________



                               AMENDMENTS

  Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4461

                       Offered By: Mr. Gutknecht

       Amendment No. 27: Insert before the short title the 
     following title:
                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 901. None of the amounts made available in this Act 
     for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to 
     provide to any person (including a pharmacist or wholesale 
     importer) a drug-importation warning letter issued pursuant 
     to section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Hoekstra

       Amendment No. 202: 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)''.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Schaffer

       Amendment No. 203: 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.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Schaffer

       Amendment No. 204: 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 III 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-education for the 
     disadvantaged'' for the Even Start program, and by increasing 
     the amount made available in title III under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--special education'' for grants to 
     States, by $100,000,000.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Schaffer

       Amendment No. 205: 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.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Schaffer

       Amendment No. 206: Page 84, after line 21, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 518. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available in title III 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-special 
     education'' for grants to States, and by decreasing the 
     amount made available in title IV under the heading ``RELATED 
     AGENCIES-United States Institute of Peace-operating 
     expenses'', by $15,000,000.

                               H.R. 4577

                        Offered By: Mr. Stearns

       Amendment No. 207: 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 in contravention of section 503(c) of title 10, 
     United States Code.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

       Amendment No. 10: Insert before the short title the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to assess a fine or take 
     any other law enforcement action against a person for failure 
     to pay a fee for a vehicle pass imposed under the 
     recreational fee demonstration program authorized by section 
     315 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section 101(c) of 
     Public Law 104-134; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a note), regarding 
     parking at trailheads and dispersed recreation sites in the 
     National Forest System.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

       Amendment No. 11: Insert before the short title the 
     following:
                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
       Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into any new 
     commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule 
     Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and 
     California.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 12. On page 66, line 21, strike 
     ``$67,000,000'' and insert: ``$103,740,000''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 13. On page 85, line 7, strike 
     ``$98,000,000'' and insert: ``$125,000,000 of which 
     $27,000,000 shall not become available until September 29, 
     2001''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 14. On page 85, line 21, strike 
     ``$100,604,000'' and insert: ``$110,344,000

[[Page 10392]]

     of which $9,740,000 shall not become available until 
     September 29, 2001''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 15. On page 66, line 21, strike 
     ``$67,000,000'' and insert: ``$84,260,000''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 16. On page 85, line 7, strike 
     ``$98,000,000'' and insert: ``$115,260,000 of which 
     $17,260,000 shall not become available until September 29, 
     2001''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 17: On page 52, after line 15, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds 
     made available by this Act related to planning and management 
     of national monuments, designation of new wildlife refuges, 
     or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin 
     Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity 
     which is otherwise authorized by law.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 18: On page 108, after line 3, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Any limitation imposed under this Act on funds 
     made available by this Act related to planning and management 
     of national monuments, designation of new wildlife refuges, 
     or activities related to the Interior Columbia Basin 
     Ecosystem Management Plan shall not apply to any activity 
     which is otherwise authorized by law.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 19: On page 52 strike lines 12 through 15.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 20: On page 108 strike lines 4 through 8.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Dicks

       Amendment No. 21: On page 108, strike lines 9 through 14.

                               H.R. 4578

                       Offered By: Mr. Doolittle

       Amendment No. 22: Insert before the short title the 
     following:

                 TITLE V--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to the Forest Service may be used--
       (1) to purchase a motor vehicle for the use of Forest 
     Service personnel that is painted in the base color 
     identified as Federal Standard 595, color chip no. 14260, or 
     painted in any other base color, except the color white as 
     made available by the manufacturer; or
       (2) to paint any Forest Service motor vehicle in any base 
     color other than white.

                               H.R. 4578

                    Offered By: Mr. Hill of Montana

       Amendment No. 23: Page 56, line 5, before the period insert 
     the following: ``, of which $2,000,000 shall be for 
     acquisition of Traveler's Rest, Montana''.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. Hoeffel

       Amendment No. 24: On page 102, strike Section 327.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. Hoeffel

       Amendment No. 25: On page 108, strike Section 335.

                               H.R. 4578

                  Offered By: Mrs. Maloney of New York

       Amendment No. 26: Page 24, beginning line 6, strike 
     ``transportation and gathering expenses, processing, and any 
     contractor costs required to aggregate and market royalty 
     production taken in kind at wholesale market centers'' and 
     insert ``transportation and processing of royalty production 
     taken in kind''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Royce

       Amendment No. 27: Page 66, beginning at line 21, strike 
     ``$67,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 2001'' 
     and insert ``$326,000,000 shall not be available until 
     October 1, 2001''.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. Sanders

       Amendment No. 28: Page 67, line 16, after the dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $45,000,000) 
     (increased by $20,000,000) (increased by $3,500,000) 
     (increased by $9,500,000) (increased by $5,000,000) 
     (increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $23,500,000)''.
       Page 67, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,500,000)''.

                               H.R. 4578

                        Offered By: Mr. Sanders

       Amendment No. 29: Page 69, line 10, after the dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000) 
     (increased by $10,000,000)''.

                               H.R. 4578

                         Offered By: Mr. Sununu

       Amendment No. 30: Page 5, line 17, after the first dollar 
     amount insert the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 15, line 15, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 7, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 9, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 54, line 25, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $126,500,000)''.

                               H.R. 4578

                           Offered By: Mr. Wu

       Amendment No. 31: Page 53, line 14, insert after the dollar 
     amount the following: ``(reduced by $14,727,000) (increased 
     by $14,727,000)''.

                               H.R. 4578

                   Offered By: Mr. Young (of Alaska)

       Amendment No. 32: Insert at the appropriate place:
       Sec. __. Notwithstanding 36 Code of Federal Regulations 
     223, Subpart A and Subpart B, and associated provisions of 
     law, the Forest Service shall implement the North Prince of 
     Wales Island (POW) Collaborative Stewardship Project (CSP) 
     agreement dated June 7, 1999, regarding a pilot project for 
     negotiated salvage permits.


             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

                United States
                 of America



June 12, 2000