[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9891-9902]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2001

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 518 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 518

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The amendments printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 44, line 4, through 
     ``as amended'' on line 14. Where points of order are waived 
     against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     The amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member designated 
     in the report and only at the appropriate point in the 
     reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendment printed in part B of the report are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the

[[Page 9892]]

     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may : (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points 
     of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. House Resolution 515 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518 is an open rule to provide for 
consideration of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. Traditionally, this bill has 
proven quite controversial, and this year is no exception. However, 
this rule should not be controversial as it provides for an open and 
fair debate of the many issues at hand.
  Under the rule, there will be an hour of general debate divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The amendments printed in part A of the Committee on 
Rules report will be considered as adopted, along with the rule.
  I want to make a few facts clear about these amendments before the 
rhetoric starts flying. Under the first amendment, the maximum Pell 
Grant, which will reach the highest level in history under this bill, 
will not be reduced. The second amendment provides a mechanism to 
ensure that the House complies with the fiscal restraints dictated in 
the budget resolution.
  Now, specifically, the amendment provides an incentive for the House 
to remain within the advanced appropriations cap set in the budget 
resolution. While the amendment does use the child care and development 
block grant to create this incentive, it also ensures that the child 
care block grant will not be reduced beyond a certain level, a level 
that provides for an increase above last year's spending.
  After general debate, the bill will be open for amendment under the 
5-minute rule, except that the amendment printed in part B of the 
Committee on Rules report, to be offered by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), will be debatable for 10 minutes. Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record will 
receive priority recognition. The rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule 
XXI to protect Members' ability to offer certain amendments.
  During consideration of the rule, the Chair will have the flexibility 
to postpone votes and reduce voting time as a way to expedite 
consideration of the bill and give due consideration to Members' 
schedules.
  Finally, the minority will have another opportunity to alter the bill 
through the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, before my good friends and colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle begin their expected protest of this legislation, I would 
like to point out some facts as well as the merits of this bill.

                              {time}  1100

  We will hear my Democratic colleagues claim that there is not 
adequate funding in this measure, but the bill actually spends $4 
billion more than last year.
  I think in most people's mind, $4 billion is nothing to sneeze at, 
and this funding will allow many worthwhile programs to see increased 
spending under this legislation. This bill balances fiscal 
responsibility and Government accountability with social 
responsibility.
  Making tough spending decisions and setting priorities is a part of 
responsible governing that respects the trust and hard-earned dollars 
of the taxpayer. This bill focuses on our priorities, including 
education.
  I am pleased that this legislation will provide almost $43 billion 
for education programs, which is an added investment of $2 billion over 
last year. This funding will assist students from preschool age through 
college. Head Start will receive a $400 million increase. Elementary 
and secondary education programs will receive $576 million more than 
last year. And the maximum Pell Grant for college students will be 
raised to $3,500, the highest level in history.
  In addition, the bill addresses the educational needs of the 
disabled. By injecting an extra $500 million in State special education 
grants, this bill keeps our commitment to children with disabilities.
  The Federal Government mandates that States provide a free public 
education to disabled children, but we have not kept up our end of the 
bargain in terms of sharing in the cost. This bill moves us one step 
closer to keeping our promise.
  By fulfilling this commitment, we will free up State and local 
resources, which can then be devoted to education priorities set by the 
State and local school districts who are closest to the children we are 
trying to help.
  This legislation further meets the needs of today's classrooms and 
students by preparing them for jobs in a high-tech economy through an 
increase in the Technology for Education program, bringing total 
funding to more than $900 million.
  Even more important than providing for an educated citizenry is 
ensuring their good health. That is why this legislation invests an 
additional $2.7 billion in discretionary health care spending. These 
added resources will be pumped into community health centers that have 
done such yeoman's work serving the poor and uninsured in our 
communities.
  The Ryan White AIDS Care Act programs will also see an increase over 
last year's level and above the President's request. Perhaps most 
importantly, this legislation gives hope to those who suffer from 
incurable or untreatable diseases by making a significant investment of 
almost $19 billion in biomedical research through the National 
Institutes of Health, with a commitment to do more in the future.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) 
for his dedication to the goal of doubling funding for the NIH over 5 
years. The chairman understands the great promise that this research 
holds for saving lives and conquering diseases such as cancer, heart 
disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, and many others.
  I am also encouraged by the progress made in the last couple of years 
in the area of pediatric research through an appropriation for the 
graduate medical education provided in children's hospitals. While the 
$800 million this bill provides falls short of the full authorization, 
it does represent progress, since it doubles last year's funding.
  I hope to work with the chairman through the end of the process to 
find a way to fully fund children's GME at a level of $285 million and 
put freestanding children's hospitals on par with other teaching 
institutions.
  It is critical that we recognize the differences between adult and 
child medicine and provide this support to those whom we trust with 
caring for our most precious resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the dedication this bill demonstrates towards 
these priorities within the constraints dictated by fiscal 
responsibility is to be congratulated.
  The subcommittee did not face a simple task in crafting this bill, 
but I believe it is a responsible approach; and I

[[Page 9893]]

am proud of their willingness to make tough decisions to keep our 
fiscal house in order while making wise investments in the areas of 
greatest need.
  Still, I am sure if each of my colleagues legislated alone, they 
would look at the many worthwhile programs in this bill and prioritize 
spending in 435 different ways. In recognition of the different views 
among us, this legislation is being considered under an open process 
which will allow every Member an opportunity to rework this legislation 
to their will. So there is really no reason that every single one of my 
colleagues should not support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the 
rule, as well as the subcommittee's balanced approach to this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding 
me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this annual appropriations dance is growing staler than 
the Macarena. Year after year, this leadership attempts to gut programs 
critical to working families, and year after year they are publicly 
shamed into finally passing adequate spending levels. Fiscal year 2001 
is gearing up to be no different.
  The rule for this underlying bill is a sham and deserves to be 
defeated. In the dead of night, the Committee on Rules has rewritten 
the underlying bill in the hopes it might survive a floor vote. No one 
in this body has had an opportunity to adequately review this new 
version, but I can share with my colleagues at least one little gem.
  According to the new rule, any programs that are forward-funded in 
the bill will trigger an automatic rescission. And did the majority 
pick on someone their own size in choosing the program to target for 
this rescission? Not in the least. The automatic rescission will cut 
funds from the Child Care Development Block Grant, which funds child 
care for the poorest children in our Nation.
  Passing annual appropriations bills remains the most basic and 
critical function that we perform in this body. This particular 
spending bill funds some of our most essential programs, those that 
keep Americans healthy, educate our children, and protect our workers. 
But once again, the current leadership has skirted this responsibility 
and is pushing a bill that it knows will be vetoed in its current form.
  The original bill was narrowly adopted in the Committee on 
Appropriations on a party-line vote 29-22, with every Democrat opposed. 
Moreover, the committee version of the bill would delay any new worker 
safety provisions, particularly those designed to protect workers from 
repetitive motion injuries.
  My colleagues and I have often marveled at the short-sighted vision 
the current leadership holds for the Nation, and this year's Labor HHS 
appears to be no exception.
  The bill cuts education funding at a time when school enrollment is 
exploding and education is at the top of our Nation's list of 
priorities. Education is cut $3.5 billion below the President's 
request, including the repeal of last year's bipartisan commitment to 
hire 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class size and turning that 
initiative into a block grant; denial of $1.3 billion to renovate 5,000 
schools for urgently needed safety repairs; $1 billion cut from teacher 
quality initiatives for recruitment and training; $400 million cut from 
after-school care serving 1.6 million children; $416 million cut from 
title I assistance, affecting up to 650,000 low-income children; $600 
million cut from Head Start, denying early education to 53,000 
children, elimination of funding for elementary school counselors.
  The leadership's bill cuts funding to train and protect America's 
workforce and contains a controversial rider which once again blocks 
OSHA's regulation on ergonomics for the sixth consecutive year.
  The bill cuts millions from worker protection initiatives, including 
efforts to make the workplace safer, to promote equal pay, to protect 
pensions, and to crack down on sweatshops.
  The ergonomics rider prohibits the issuance of a new OSHA rule that 
would prevent 300,000 debilitating ergonomics injuries per year. In 
addition, the bill cuts over $1 billion for the training of adult and 
dislocated workers and summer jobs for 72,000 at-risk youth.
  Moreover, the underlying bill cuts funding to protect elderly 
Americans. The bill eliminates family care support for 250,000 
Americans with long-term care needs; cuts funds to enforce quality 
nursing and family care for 1.6 million elderly and disabled people; 
cuts mental health for seniors; cuts funds to eliminate Medicare waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  In addition, the bill cuts funding for the battered women's shelters, 
for family planning, and for health coverage for uninsured workers.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Committee on Rules had an 
opportunity to correct these cuts by allowing full consideration of 
amendments offered by my colleagues. We offered amendments to increase 
funding for education and research. We offered amendments to protect 
senior citizens and attack weak labor standards. All of these efforts 
were defeated on a party-line vote.
  Thusly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of the subcommittee, who 
crafted this very difficult legislation in a very fine manner.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), that the cuts she has described, are not 
cuts. They are cuts from the President's budget. And the President's 
budget, this President, has been particularly adept at drawing a 
political document. All Presidents draw a political document, but this 
President has taken it to an art form; and it is, basically, a document 
that is not responsible.
  Let us start the debate today by being very, very clear. When the 
other side talks about cuts, they are talking about cuts from an 
irresponsible President's budget. If we look at the Department of 
Education, there are no cuts in programs. There is a $2.4 billion 
increase in spending in this bill over last year in discretionary 
programs.
  If we look at the Department of Health and Human Services, there is a 
$2.2 billion increase over last year.
  There are cuts in some programs in the Department of Labor. But this 
is an economy that is growing so fast, where we have almost full 
employment, that the need for job training is less than in the past. 
Such growth justifies a slowdown in spending.
  So I would say to the gentlewoman, let us talk not about cuts. There 
are not cuts except in certain areas where they are justified. There 
are increases. They simply are not increases of the magnitude that the 
President has suggested because the President's budget is not 
responsible, I believe; and because we have a limited allocation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my great colleague, my dear friend, 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know where their Committee on Rules was 
last night around midnight at the witching hour? When everybody else 
was nestled all snug in bed, the Committee on Rules was at work, under 
the cover of darkness, rewriting the rule for the Labor, Health and 
Human Services appropriations bill, where they once again put 
children's programs on the chopping block.
  Mr. Speaker, picking on children is becoming the pattern in the 
Committee on Rules. Two weeks ago, the

[[Page 9894]]

Committee on Rules killed an amendment that would have sent American 
medicine and American food to sick and starving children in North Korea 
and Sudan.
  Then my Republican colleagues took money from the Women, Infants' and 
Children's Nutrition Program, the WIC program, and handed it over to 
the apple and potato growers.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, they will put child care block grants at risk, 
and all to please the Republican conservatives who fear using next 
year's money to pay this year's bill because they themselves have 
imposed impossible budget caps.
  Mr. Speaker, children should not be the scapegoats of Republican 
budget cuts just because they cannot fight back. And people will find 
out what my Republican colleagues did even though it was late at night.
  If my Republican colleagues really need to come up with some more 
money, I think they should stop picking on children, pick on someone 
their own size.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. I 
thank my friend from Columbus, Ohio, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are proud to have a hard-
working Committee on Rules. I am glad that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) was able to join us last night.
  One of the challenges of dealing with a very recalcitrant minority 
that wants to obstruct any kind of progress here in this House is that 
we have to try to fashion rules that will get the majority to provide 
full support; and, unfortunately, we have a difficult time working in a 
bipartisan way.
  We try our best to do it. We try to reach out to the other side. But 
when we hear rhetoric like that that my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, just provided, it makes it really tough for us. Because, 
in fact, in the area of child care development, we have a 33 percent 
increase over last year.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, one of the things that I was proud to have worked on earlier 
this year, that unfortunately I fell short by eight votes of getting 
the support on, was something called biennial budgeting. I know that 
while one member of the Committee on Rules in the minority joined us in 
support of this, my friend from Massachusetts opposed it.
  We are talking here about all kinds of scenarios that are down the 
road and that, frankly, future Congresses will be addressing. As we 
look at this question of advance appropriations and forward funding, it 
seems to me that if we were able to have a biennial budget process, 
which it seems my friend is advocating here, it sounds like he is an 
advocate of the biennial budgeting process, he should have joined with 
us and voted in favor of that so we could have addressed this question 
in what I believe would be a really more responsible way than going 
through the annual process. But we have to deal with it as it is right 
now.
  I want to say that I believe that this is a very, very responsible 
measure. My friend from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is going to be 
presiding over the last labor, health and human services appropriations 
bill before his retirement, is to be commended for his hard work. I 
think that his words just a few moments ago put it right on target when 
he said that all kinds of rhetoric is going to be out there trying to 
claim that cuts are being made when, in fact, we are bringing about 
responsible increases to address these issues. I commend him for his 
very fine work.
  There are a number of very important issues that are being addressed 
in this measure. I want to particularly compliment him for the $900 
million that is for technology, for education programs which will help 
today's students have the potential to be competitive when it comes to 
dealing with our global economy. We have a responsibility to ensure 
that we pursue that. I think we have been right on target in doing 
that.
  There are a wide range of very good measures in this bill. What we 
need to do is recognize that we are complying with the budget 
resolution that passed, not, as the gentleman from Illinois said, the 
very irresponsible budget package that was put forward by the President 
of the United States. That is not what is providing us with direction 
here. We are following the budget resolution that passed. We are 
increasing responsibly in areas where need is taking place.
  Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the other side of the aisle talk 
about Draconian cuts. We went through this in the middle part of the 
last decade right after we won the majority and they tried to claim 
that we were cutting the school lunch program when we were increasing 
it, they tried to claim that we were cutting programs for seniors. They 
were trying to describe us as being somehow inhumane. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. We are, in fact, responsibly dealing with 
societal needs while at the same time dealing with the fiscal 
constraints that are imposed with the budget process that we have.
  I strongly support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support it and 
the very important appropriations bill that we will be moving ahead 
with.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democrat leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on this rule and 
if it does pass, to vote no on this bill. Everyone in America knows 
that the most important issue in front of us is education and training 
children, the way we raise children. Go into any business in America 
today and they will tell you they need trained people. They do not have 
enough trained people to fill the jobs. We constantly are asked by 
businesspeople for legitimate reasons to open up immigration rolls to 
bring in trained people to fill the jobs that Americans are not 
available to fill today.
  Every family knows that raising a child today is more difficult in a 
very busy and different world that we live in. Parents have less time 
with children by about a third than they did 15 or 20 years ago. This 
bill walks away from all of those concerns. There is not enough money 
in it for the teachers that we need to teach our children in elementary 
and secondary schools across the country. It zeros out the funds that 
are supposed to be there for the 100,000 teachers that we should be 
trying to help the local districts with. It provides no funds for the 
effort to try to repair and rehabilitate and expand school building 
structures, so we can get smaller class sizes to go with the teachers 
that are all designed to get smaller class size. It guts the 
President's proposal to improve teacher quality and insist on teacher 
recruitment and school accountability.
  Denying all of this funding is frankly inexcusable and unnecessary. 
Part of the reason, I guess, that we are not able to put enough money 
into these efforts is that tomorrow we have a bill to wipe out the 
estate tax entirely. Everything that we do here is a choice. We have a 
choice. We can wipe out the estate tax entirely or we can simply modify 
it and make it more reasonable, thereby not spending as much money on 
that effort and using those moneys that we do not use on that effort to 
deal with schools and children and teachers and standards in public 
schools.
  We are making a choice this week that we want the top 10 percent of 
the top 1 percent of Americans to get an incredible tax cut rather than 
spending the money on our children, on our future, on our ability to 
keep this economy which is white hot going in the right direction. That 
is the choice we face today.
  I urge Members to vote against this rule, to vote against this bill 
so that we can make the right choice for America's most precious 
resource which are our children.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the

[[Page 9895]]

distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in about 6 months from now, I will be back in my medical 
practice in Oklahoma. The one thing I will not miss is a lack of 
integrity and straightforwardness about when we discuss these issues.
  Everybody in this House knows that the funding in Labor-HHS bills 
have climbed faster than in any other thing that we have funded in this 
House under Republican control. We are $40 billion more under this 
appropriation bill than we were in 1995. There is $14.3 billion more 
for children, for health, for education to be available, to be spent in 
2001 than was available last year. And for anyone to come to the House 
floor and to say that there is a cut in programs, it is not only untrue 
but it smirches the integrity of this entire House.
  We have a bill that spends much more than I want to spend on many of 
these programs because the accountability is not there, but we are 
going to spend the money to fulfill the needs even though the 
accountability is not there. It is important for us to make sure when 
we talk about priorities that what we are really talking about is a 
difference in the amount of increase in spending in priorities, not in 
cutting any major program. My heart aches for my grandchildren, because 
if we progress in this House with statements of untruth for political 
demagoguery purposes, we do neither party any positive benefit and we 
undermine the very value of this institution.
  So I would beg that as we debate this bill the next 16 hours, to tell 
the Members of the House and tell the people in the country the same 
thing you would tell your grandchildren. Would you lie to your 
grandchildren? Would you be untruthful about what is really going on? 
We can have an honest debate about the differences in priorities. But I 
beg you, do not undermine the integrity of this House by baseless 
claims of cuts in spending.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk here today from 
people who understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. 
When someone says that we do not have cuts in this bill for education 
and health care and job training, what they ignore is what happens to 
real people.
  This budget is not the last budget for the Clinton administration. 
This budget is the first budget for the next decade. We do not have a 
society or a country frozen in time. We have a growing population. They 
have growing needs. We are going to have over a million additional 
students in college needing Pell grants, needing Work Study. We are 
going to have about a million and a half additional students in high 
school, needing title I and all the rest. We are going to have more 
people needing medical services, because our population is growing 
larger and it is aging. We are going to have about 25 million more 
people in the coming decade. It would be kind of nice if the people's 
bill, which this bill is, responds to those growing needs. But it does 
not. That is why it cuts the President's educational request by $3 
billion. It cuts worker training and other worker protection programs 
by $1.7 billion. It cuts health care by $1 billion from the President's 
request.
  Why does it do that? Because we are moving into a new era. We have 
been in an era of huge deficits. We are now moving into an era of large 
surpluses. We have some choices. The choices are whether you use those 
surpluses to cut taxes or to buy down debt or to invest in national 
security, education, health care, science and the like or whether you 
do a reasonable combination of all of them. What we are doing in this 
bill today is making these cuts because the Republican majority in this 
House has decided that rather than provide a prescription drug benefit 
under Medicare, rather than invest larger amounts in teacher quality, 
rather than investing larger amounts in smaller class size, rather than 
strengthening job training, they want to provide $90 billion in tax 
relief to people who make over $300,000 a year. That is why these cuts 
are being made. I think that is wrong.
  I have no objection to legitimate tax cuts aimed at farmers who are 
on the edge or aimed at trying to help small businessmen provide health 
care for their employees. But when those tax cuts are so large that 
they prevent us from eliminating the debt and prevent us from making 
needed additional investments in child care, in health care, in after-
school centers and in enforcement of international child labor 
standards, then this bill is misguided and misbegotten.
  This rule denies us the opportunity to offer 11 amendments to add 
funding to restore teacher quality, school facility repair, early 
childhood education, child care, after-school initiatives, better 
nursing home care and all the items that I just mentioned. It tries to 
hide it, but when you adopt this rule, you are also voting to cut by 
over $800 million the child care block grant. You can deny it, but that 
is the fact. All of the amendments we want to be made in order could be 
financed by simply having the Republican majority in this House cut 
back their planned tax cuts by 20 percent and you would have enough to 
do all of the things we think that are necessary to move this society 
into the 21st century and to respond to the growing population and the 
growing need that accompanies that growing population.
  This vote more than any other vote defines the differences between 
the two parties. It tells us what your values are. It tells us whose 
side you are really on. In our view, the majority party ought to scale 
back its tax promises so that we can meet the education and health care 
and job training responsibilities of this society.

                              {time}  1130

  We did not get to have the greatest economy in the world by nickel-
nursing on these needed training programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to have 35 million more people knocking on 
the doors of national parks over the next 10 years, we are going to 
have 40 percent more commercial airline flights, we are going to have 
millions of more kids in school. We need to respond to that. If we do 
not provide these increases, then on a per-person basis and on a per-
family basis, we are cutting back the amount of help we are giving to 
working families trying to share in the American dream.
  This is the bill more than any other in the Congress that attempts to 
do that. It is a sad commentary on the priorities of this place that we 
are denied the opportunity to even offer the amendments, to even offer 
the amendments. They provided protection in the rule for all kinds of 
unauthorized programs that are in the bill itself, but they will not 
provide that same protection under the rule for the amendments we seek 
to offer. It is an unbalanced rule; it is an unfair bill. It should be 
defeated.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend and colleague, 
that he is going to offer all 11 amendments as we have agreed, and the 
reason that the rule denies him the right to offer them is because none 
of them have any offsets. They contain $10 billion of additional 
spending that would, obviously, breach our allocation and therefore 
violate the budget that was adopted by the majority of this House. The 
amendments are irresponsible.
  Sure, we would like to add $10 billion of spending to this bill. It 
has very important priorities. But somebody has to be responsible for 
the bottom line and put some restraint on adding spending at any level 
to our bill or any other bill. So it seems to me that the gentleman is 
going to have an adequate opportunity to offer the amendments. We will 
make a point of order because they do not have offsets as our rules 
require. This does define the difference between the two parties. We 
are responsible for the bottom line.

[[Page 9896]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response that yes, we 
can offer the amendments, we just cannot get votes on them. That does 
not help a whole lot.
  Secondly, they are offset. We suggest that we pay for them by cutting 
back tax plans by 20 percent. If we cut the outlays on the tax plans by 
$2.4 billion, we can pay for every single one of the amendments we 
would like to have votes on.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be in the well 
supporting the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I am very proud to 
be here supporting him for the last 4 years. I will tell the minority 
leader why you are going to bring in 200,000 people from other 
countries. For 20 years I sat here in the minority, and the only thing 
I ever heard from the majority was quantity, quantity. No quality. No 
quality. The only thing they ever talked about was quantity. If we can 
just cover more children, if we can just have more programs, if we just 
spend more money. Nobody ever went out to see whether they were doing 
any good, so we spent $140 billion in title I.
  So what do we have now? Do you close the achievement gap? No, Mr. 
Minority Leader, you did not close the achievement gap one bit. In 
fact, it has increased. So for the first time in the last 4 or 5 years 
we have been talking about quality, not quantity. We have been talking 
about results, not process. Every time they would come and say we need 
more money, and I would say, for what, they would say, to cover more 
children, and I say, with what, mediocrity? You are not helping them.
  So yes, now we have the highest Pell grants; and yes, now we have the 
lowest interest rates. Yes, now we have more money for college work 
study, all of these things. We also took 166 job-training programs 
spread out over every agency doing nothing to prepare our people, 
because there was so little money and so many programs. But again, it 
was the same mindset: more programs, more programs, and somehow or 
other, all of our problems will go away.
  Well, we have changed this. We are now moving toward quality, not 
quantity. We are now moving toward results, not process; and we are 
going to see a big difference.
  So again, I am proud to be here supporting the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) in this effort. We want to close that achievement 
gap. More money for Even Start, more money for Head Start; but we 
reformed Head Start. For 10 years we heard, more money for Head Start, 
more money, but nobody said, are we accomplishing anything? Lo and 
behold, we discovered all over this country we were accomplishing very 
little to get them reading-ready to go to school. Now we have changed 
that, and so the word is quality. The word is also family literacy. For 
the first time we are now talking about if we are going to break the 
cycle, we deal with the entire family.
  So again, we are on the right road, and thanks to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the last several years we have been moving in 
the right direction. The whole emphasis is on quality, not quantity; 
results, not process.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, we should reject this appropriations bill 
which turns its back on our children and our veterans. It demonstrates 
a lack of commitment to our Nation's veterans which we should not stand 
for, but maybe even more troubling is the degree to which this grossly 
underfunds Federal education programs.
  The Republican bill is a giant step backward for American education. 
It eliminates funding for two programs that are critical for giving 
students the tools they need to flourish: the class size reduction 
initiative and the Elementary School Counselors Demonstration Act. Over 
the next 10 years, we will need 2.2 million new teachers nationwide to 
keep pace with enrollment. The Republicans want to play politics with 
children and slash the Democratic initiative to hire 100,000 additional 
teachers. This will jeopardize more than 1,000 teachers already hired 
in my home State of Illinois; it will leave kids packed in overcrowded 
classrooms.
  The elimination of the Elementary School Counseling Demonstration 
program will deny counseling services to more than 100,000 elementary 
students. These essential services help troubled students overcome 
problems, promoting the mental health of our students and the safety of 
our schools. In April, I was joined by over 80 Members in calling for 
the funding of the school counselor program at $100 million in fiscal 
year 2001. In addition, the bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence 
recommended that we fund school counselor programs to help reduce 
school violence. Despite the support and to the detriment of the school 
safety and our children's well-being, no funding was provided for this 
initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include the Working Group's report 
and the letter to the appropriators for the Record.

Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence--Final Report--November 17, 
                                  1999

       Members of the Bi-Partisan Working Group on Youth Violence:
       Republicans: Jennifer Dunn, Chair, Zach Wamp, Vice-Chair, 
     Heather Wilson, Jim Greenwood, Mark Souder, Sue Kelly, Marge 
     Roukema, Judy Biggert, Buck McKeon, Bob Barr, Tom Tancredo, 
     and Rob Portman.
       Democrats: Martin Frost, Co-Chair, Robert Menendez, Vice-
     Chair, Bud Cramer, William Delahunt, Sander Levin, Bobby 
     Scott, Bart Stupak, Bob Etheridge, Ruben Hinojosa, Patsy 
     Mink, Tim Roemer, and Sheila Jackson-Lee.


                              V. schools.

     Findings
       C. Often one adult can make a difference by taking an 
     interest in a child and nurturing him or her. This might be a 
     teacher, an administrator, a counselor, or others.
       Students with behavior disorders account for a majority of 
     problems encountered in schools today. Additional resource 
     staff in our schools, such as counselors, school 
     psychologists, and social workers are needed, not only to 
     help identify these troubled youth, but to work on 
     development skill building. (Emphasis added.)
       There is no real infrastructure of support for our kids 
     when it comes to mental health services in our schools and no 
     national models for how best to structure school community 
     mental health programs. Currently, there are only 90,000 
     school counselors for approximately 41.4 million students in 
     our public schools--roughly 1 counselor for every 513 
     students. In California, there is only one counselor for more 
     than 1,000 students. That is simply not enough. As Mr. Porter 
     stated during this presentation, current school counselors 
     are unable to address students' mental health needs since 
     they are responsible for such large numbers of students. 
     Instead, their role is relegated to administrative, 
     scheduling, and career counseling
       Additional resource staff is needed to address specifically 
     the personal, family, peer level, emotional, and 
     developmental needs of students. By focusing on these mental 
     health needs, these staff members will pick up early warning 
     signs of troubled youth and improve student interaction and 
     school safety.
       The resource staff can also provide consultation with 
     teachers and parents about student learning, behavior and 
     emotional problems. They can develop and implement prevention 
     programs, deal with substance abuse, set up peer mediation, 
     and enhance problem-solving skills in schools. In short, 
     resource staff can provide important support services to 
     students, parents, and teachers.
       There are a number of different ways to enhance the 
     availability of emotional support and mental health services 
     in schools. Schools can partner with community-based mental 
     health organizations or enhance staff training by providing 
     more opportunities at school for the development of informal 
     adult-child mentoring relationships. We expect that there are 
     a number of models that may vary in effectiveness at 
     different schools and age levels. The federal government 
     should initially support the development of research-based 
     models for school mental health programs that could then be 
     built upon.
       Furthermore, schools and communities should incorporate 
     programs that encourage parents to become involved in their 
     child's educaiton. Improving parenting skills through 
     federally-funded programs like WAC, TANF, Food Stamps, 
     Medicaid, public health clinics, teen parenting, child 
     welfare,

[[Page 9897]]

     juvenile delinquency and homeless programs may be an 
     effective way to reduce juvenile violence in the long term.
       Finally, teacher quality has been shown to have a profound 
     impact on the success of a child. Because teachers are on the 
     front line, there is a great need to help them understand how 
     to identify and intervene in the life of a troubled child. 
     Studies indicate that by the school year 2008-2009, we will 
     need an additional two million teachers in our schools. We 
     can ensure that we have quality teachers in the future by 
     creating incentives for educators to continue teaching and by 
     encouraging people to begin teaching after careers in other 
     professions through such programs which help mid-career 
     professionals become teachers.
       Recommendations:
       Congress should provide grants to States and local 
     educational agencies to recruit, train, and hire school-based 
     resource staff, such as school counselors, school 
     psychologists, and social workers. (Emphasis added.)
       Congress should authorize the Department of Health and 
     Human Services to work with schools and the mental health 
     community in developing models that enhance the availability 
     of mental health services in schools. (Emphasis added.)
       Congress should encourage local educational agencies to 
     implement professional development activities designed to 
     assist teachers in identifying and assisting at-risk youths. 
     (Emphasis added.)
       Congress should authorize the Departments of Health and 
     Human Services and Education to develop a public awareness 
     campaign aimed toward parental involvement in schools.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2000.
     Hon. John Porter,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
         and Education, Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.

     Hon. David Obey,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
         Services and Education, Appropriations Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Porter and Congressman Obey: We write to 
     request funding for the Elementary School Counseling 
     Demonstration Act (ESCDA) under Title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act at $100 million in FY 2001.
       At a time when our communities are experiencing surges in 
     school violence, we have an obligation to do all that we can 
     to provide communities with the resources they need to keep 
     their schools and students safe. School counselors are an 
     integral part of this effort.
       School counselors, school psychologists, and school social 
     workers provide some of the most effective prevention and 
     guidance services available to our nation's children. These 
     highly trained professionals help improve students' academic 
     achievement, provide students with essential mental health 
     services and intervention, and help students cope with the 
     stresses of youth.
       Across the country, school counseling professionals are 
     stretched thin and students are not getting the help they 
     desperately need. Studies indicate that, although 7.5 million 
     children under the age of 18 require mental health services, 
     only 20 percent receive necessary counseling. This lack of 
     access to counseling services is having detrimental effects 
     on both the students and the community. Of those students who 
     most need, but do not receive, mental health services, 48 
     percent drop out of school. Of those who drop out of school, 
     73 percent are arrested within five years of leaving school.
       America's schools are in desperate need of qualified school 
     counselors. The current national average student-to-counselor 
     ratio in our elementary and secondary schools is 561 students 
     to every school counselor. According to the American 
     Counseling Association and the American School Health 
     Association, the maximum recommended ratio is 250:1. Every 
     state in the nation exceeds this recommended student-to-
     counselor ratio.
       Congress can ease the pressing shortage of school 
     counselors by investing in this important initiative. The 
     Elementary School Counseling Demonstration Act (ESCDA)--
     expected to soon be expanded to the Elementary and Secondary 
     School Counseling Program--enhances schools' ability to 
     provide much needed counseling and mental health services. 
     ESCDA is a small program that awards funds through a 
     competitive grant process to only those schools most in need 
     of counseling services.
       And the best news yet--this worthy initiative gets results. 
     Under the model ESCDA program, Smoother Sailing, counseling 
     services have proven to decrease the use of force, weapons, 
     and threats against others; decrease school suspensions; 
     decrease the number of referrals to the principal's office by 
     nearly half; and make students feel safer. Further, school 
     counseling and mental health services improve students' 
     academic achievement and reduce classroom disturbances. 
     Studies on the effects of small group counseling for failing 
     elementary school students found that 83 percent of 
     participating students showed improved grades.
       In FY 2000, ESCDA was funded at $20 million. This funding 
     will only provide grants to approximately 60 of our nation's 
     14,000 public school districts. We believe that we must do 
     better and increase funding for elementary and secondary 
     school counseling services under ESCDA to $100 million for 
     fiscal year 2001.
       We understand that you are under considerable pressure to 
     manage requests for the FY  2001 Education Appropriations. 
     However, we urge you to give serious consideration to this 
     important request.
       Sincerely,
         Lane Evans; Nancy Pelosi; Lynn Woolsey; Nancy L. Johnson; 
           Connie Morella; Bernard Sanders; Lois Capps; Sherrod 
           Brown; Debbie Stabenow; Harold Ford, Jr.; Steve 
           Rothman; Elijah E. Cummings; Nick Rahall; Carolyn B. 
           Maloney; Patrick J. Kennedy; Dennis J. Kucinich; John 
           Spratt; Eliot L. Engel; Diana DeGette; Edolphus Towns; 
           Adam Smith; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Anthony Weiner; Earl 
           Pomeroy; Melvin L. Watt; John D. Dingell; Corrine 
           Brown; David Wu; Earl Blumenauer; Carlos Romero-
           Barcelo; Grace F. Napolitano; John Conyers; James 
           McGovern; Marcy Kaptur; Tom Lantos; David Price; John 
           E. Baldacci; Ike Skelton; George Miller; Cynthia 
           McKinney; Jerry Costello; Michael Doyle; Robert T. 
           Matsui; Julia Carson; Bennie Thompson; James L. 
           Oberstar; Alcee L. Hastings; Jerrold Nadler; Barbara 
           Lee; Jan Schakowsky; Donald M. Payne; Michael E. 
           Capuano; James H. Maloney; Karen L. Thurman; Danny K. 
           Davis; Gene Green; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Sam 
           Gejdenson; Henry A. Waxman; Joseph Crowley; Robert 
           Wise; Dale E. Kildee; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Martin Frost; 
           Thomas Allen; Bob Clement; Leonard L. Boswell; Mark 
           Udall; Chaka Fattah; Fortney Pete Stark; Collin C. 
           Peterson; Bruce R. Vento; Joe Baca; Brian Baird; Tom 
           Sawyer; Robert Menendez; Juanita Millender-McDonald; 
           Jim Davis; Ted Strickland; John Larson; Ciro D. 
           Rodriguez; Peter Deutsch.

  Mr. Speaker, all in all, this bill fails our students and does not 
reflect the priorities that Americans place on investing in quality 
education. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to the other side talking about cuts 
in this bill, it is really very hard for me to fathom this. This is 
like hearing that black is white, that up is down. I think George 
Orwell would find this rhetoric very, very familiar.
  I would suggest that my colleagues turn to page 277 of the committee 
report. It simply says, it shows quite clearly that in fiscal year 2001 
the program administrators, the people actually spending this money, 
are going to have $12.3 billion more money to spend than they had in 
fiscal year 2000; $12.3 billion. That is an increase. The 2001 number 
is bigger than the 2000 number. It is not just a little bit bigger. It 
is 14.5 percent bigger. That is three times the rate at which the 
economy is growing. It is about five times the rate of inflation. But 
what we are hearing from the other side is that even that increase is 
not enough. Frankly, I think it is too high, but it is consistent with 
the budget resolution that we passed in this Chamber and in the other 
Chamber, and I am going to support it. But to hear the other side 
complaining about cuts is shocking to me.
  Now, if the other side really finds programs that they feel need more 
funding, which no doubt they do, they are free to offer amendments to 
reshuffle this money around, to transfer from one account to another; 
but they cannot do that to their satisfaction, even with a 14.5 percent 
increase in the money that is available.
  I think what is clear here, the difference between the two parties is 
that there is no amount of money that is enough. We have a record high 
level of spending, record high discretionary spending. This bill is at 
a record high level, and we have record high taxes. Despite that, they 
want more money and more spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule, which 
simply keeps the bill consistent with the budget resolution and then 
vote yes on final passage.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  This bill cuts the heart out of opportunities for education, for 
health, and

[[Page 9898]]

for the well-being of our families in order to be able to provide for, 
in the long run, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this Nation.
  Let me give my colleagues one example of one area of cuts. It 
dramatically will cut the Child Care Development Block Grant. It 
specifically singles out child care funding to be the first on the 
chopping block. Our Nation's children on the chopping block.
  Not long ago, a group of Members, 120, wrote to the committee urging 
an increase of funding for this critical program. They were a 
bipartisan group of Members, I might add. Now we have to stand here 
today, and we have to stand and oppose a proposed cut in funding. How 
can this be? The Child Care Development Block Grant provides access to 
quality child care to thousands of working families. It allows parents 
and in many cases single working mothers as they leave home each day to 
be able to support their families, to be able to make sure that their 
children have child care.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow working families, but most importantly, 
the children of these families, to fall through the cracks. Even the 
current funding levels serving only one in 10 eligible children are 
completely inadequate. Studies show that serious problems with child 
care quality persists, leaving children at risk of important 
development and school failure.
  Mr. Speaker, children are our Nation's most precious resource; they 
are our future. In these times of great economic prosperity, how can we 
leave these youngsters behind? Where is our commitment to child care in 
our country if we ignore the needs of children zero to 3, we ignore the 
needs of children 3 to 5, we ignore the needs of working families in 
this bill? Let me just tell my colleagues that budgets, in fact, are 
not just numbers on a piece of paper. Budgets are a reflection of our 
values and our priorities as a Nation. Defeat this rule and defeat this 
bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how the people on the other 
side of the aisle can continue to come forth with such statements that 
Republicans are cruel to children. Most of these education programs are 
actually being increased in spending, so I do not understand where the 
rhetoric is coming from.
  The reason I am here today is to advise that last April I invited the 
OSHA administrator to visit Zenith Cutter in my district. Zenith Cutter 
is a small manufacturer of industrial knives and has about 175 
employees. Mr. Jeffress saw firsthand, with Cedric Blazer, the owners, 
what industry is already doing in the area of ergonomics without any 
government mandates. It makes no sense to finalize the ergonomics rule 
by the end of this year, because nobody at OSHA understands the rule.
  In fact, we held a hearing in our congressional district the day 
after a blizzard. Over 100 people showed up from small to large 
industries. The OSHA people came in from Chicago, and as well-
intentioned and as kind as they were, they could not adequately 
describe exactly what these ergonomic rules are or the standards that 
would be promulgated with the resulting rules.
  So I therefore support the decision of the Committee on 
Appropriations to hold off any action on the proposed ergonomic rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in Austin, Texas, working families of over 
2,000 children rely on Federal assistance to cover part of the cost of 
their child care. Unfortunately, almost as many families cannot get 
child care assistance and are on a waiting list. Countless others never 
apply because they know the wait is so long. For those working 
families, this vote does not represent a tough choice; it is the wrong 
choice. It says these families will have to wait a little longer.
  Child care that is safe, affordable, and of high quality is essential 
for our families, and it is essential for our Nation. This bill makes 
the wrong choice on this vital need.
  For older children, working parents know that the period after school 
and before they return home from work is a critical time. It is prime 
time for juvenile crime, and a top need for constructive, after-school 
care. The cuts in this bill to after-school care are not a tough 
choice, they are the wrong choice for those students as well as their 
neighbors.
  For students who advance all the way through school and who deserve 
to be able to get all of the educational opportunity for which they are 
willing to work, college student financial assistance in the form of 
Pell grants is essential. The cuts to Pell grants in this bill are not 
a tough choice, they are a wrong choice for our students and their hope 
for the future.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these wrong choices being forced on the 
House today are not by accident; they are directly related to the next 
bill that this House will take up. That is a bill to cut the taxes for 
poor old Steve Forbes, for poor old Ross Perot. Seventy-three percent 
of this huge, Republican-proposed tax cut would go to the wealthiest 17 
percent of taxpayers. In order to give this huge tax cut to the very 
richest people in this country, they propose their so-called tough 
choice, which is the wrong choice on child care, the wrong choice for 
after-school care, and the wrong choice on grants for college 
education.
  The two bills are closely intertwined. And they are wrong on both. We 
ought not to cut Ross Perot and Steve Forbes' taxes in order to inflict 
so many cuts on the working families of this country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to 
this bill. The committee unfortunately included a prohibition on the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, this is hard to believe, 
to stop OSHA from implementing protections against repetitive stress 
disorder, carpal tunnel syndrome, and the litany of physical injuries 
workers sustain every day because of the dangerous design of their jobs 
and workplace.
  Many of these workers are women. They are our mothers, our aunts, our 
sisters, and our daughters. Each year, according to the AFL-CIO, 
400,000 women workers suffer injuries from dangerously designed jobs. 
Sixty-nine percent of all workers who suffer from carpal tunnel 
syndrome, and I think everyone knows this, are women.
  The bill therefore represents a betrayal of promises made to the 
women of America. In fiscal year 1998, the Committee on Appropriations 
report stated that ``the committee will refrain from any further 
restrictions with regard to the development, promulgation, or issuance 
of an ergonomic standard following the fiscal year 1998.''
  In the following year, Chairman Livingston and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) signed and sent a letter reiterating Congress' 
promise. The letter stated, ``It is in no way our intent to block or 
delay issuance by OSHA of a proposed rule on ergonomics.''
  So why does the bill before us prohibit OSHA from protecting women 
workers who are hurting and being crippled by dangerous workplace? A 
promise was broken, and Congress is on the verge of leaving America's 
working people, the vast majority of our citizens, unprotected from 
dangerous workplaces.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule, and 
I am also in strong opposition to the provision in this bill which 
would bar OSHA from implementing its ergonomic standard. This standard 
would protect hundreds of thousands of American workers suffering from 
musculoskeletal disorders every year. As a public health nurse, I know 
the debilitating effects these disorders can have.

[[Page 9899]]

They are the most prevalent, expensive, and preventable workplace 
injuries, accounting for more than one-third of all occupational 
injuries and illnesses serious enough to result in days away from work, 
affecting more than a half a million workers each year, and costing 
businesses over $15 billion.
  Congress has prevented OSHA from issuing an ergonomic standard since 
1995. So many medical and professional organizations have strongly 
encouraged OSHA to act without further delay on this ergonomics rule.
  Medical and professional organizations have strongly encouraged OSHA 
to act without further delay on this ergonomics rule. These groups 
include: The American College of Occupational and Environmental 
Medicine, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American 
Association of Occupational Health Nurses, the American Occupational 
Therapy Association, the American Nurses Association, the American 
Public Health Association, and the AFL-CIO and all of their affiliated 
unions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this appropriations process has 
once again become the means by which we leave our workers without the 
safety protections they deserve. I believe it is irresponsible to 
prohibit OSHA from acting in the best interests of American workers. I 
object to the rider on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a wasted opportunity. H.R. 4577 is 
a bad bill, and we should have a rule that would include an amendment 
to guarantee every one of our students and all of their schools the 
resources and the assistance they need to perform at the very, very 
highest standards.
  Instead, we have a bill that repeals last year's bipartisan agreement 
to hire 100,000 new teachers. This bill rejects the funds needed to 
make urgent safety and health repairs to 5,000 schools. It denies 
after-school services to more than 1 million students, and actually 
eliminates Head Start for 53,000 children.
  The one amendment that does bring funding to education does it by 
taking funds now used to keep American workers safe on their jobs.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and insist 
on a new rule that allows the House to vote for education funds so that 
our students and schools will not be left behind.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and see a bill 
that would do little for the educational system of our country. This is 
a result of the budget that the Republican majority has given us. It 
emphasizes cutting taxes, but it hurts the future of our Nation.
  This bill does not provide for the President's plan for school 
modernization, and ensures our children will continue to suffer from 
substandard school facilities.
  In my home State of Texas, where my wife teaches high school algebra, 
we have 4 million students in almost 7,000 schools. Of these schools, 
76 percent need repairs or upgrades to reach good condition; 46 percent 
need repairs in building features such as plumbing, electrical, 
heating, or cooling; 60 percent have at least one environmental 
problem, air quality, ventilation, or lighting; and the student ratio 
to computers stands at 11 to 1.
  Over the next decade it will get worse, not only in Texas but across 
the country. Over the next decade, the number of Texas students in 
elementary and secondary schools will increase by 8 percent.
  What we need to do is not underfund $1 billion in teacher quality 
improvement and recruiting, as this bill does, cut 40 percent of after-
school programs, underfund Head Start. We need to provide for the 
future of our Nation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about national defense, and it is an 
issue on which we can be a little more bipartisan. But, unfortunately, 
today is a day when we have to put on our partisan hats. My friends 
from both sides of the aisle have seen this happen already today.
  Let me just take this time, as a member of the subcommittee, to thank 
someone, my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter), and also the full authorizing committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), two people who are retiring 
this year, for working and trying to work on a bipartisan basis for 
education and for health care over the last 5 years. We have a good 
record to show. We have a record of a 46 percent increase over 5 years 
in education.
  We will today put on our partisan hats and define the differences in 
the parties. We have had references to the American dream, and 
certainly the American dream is embodied in this very fine piece of 
legislation today. The American dream includes a good education. I 
mentioned the 46 percent increase that we have had over the last 5 
years of Republican governance in this House of Representatives.
  The American dream means good health care. The American dream means 
good jobs and good job training. I am proud of everything we have done 
in that respect.
  The American dream, Mr. Speaker, also means a sound economy. It means 
being fiscally responsible and living within our budget, and giving the 
people of America back just a little bit of their hard-earned income in 
the form of a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the President's budget being 
slashed. It is easy for the President of the United States to float a 
figure out there when he knows that this House of Representatives and 
this Congress has got to live within a budget, and at the end of the 
day we are going to live within the bottom line.
  It is easy to say, yes, the President had a budget and we have cut 
numbers from the budget, but look what the President did and his party 
did when they had it all to themselves. This is spending for special 
education, cumulative growth in funding. Look what happened in 1993, 
1994, in fiscal year 1995, when the President and his party had it all 
to themselves. Then look at the increase in special education, 
cumulative growth funding since Republicans have been in office and in 
the majority in this House. We have a record. These are real figures 
for real people. I am proud of our record in special education growth.
  With regard to Job Corps funding, again part of the American dream, 
the figures are right here for us. Look at the increases that the 
Democrats had when they were in control, when they ran the Committee on 
Rules, when they had vast majorities in this House of Representatives. 
These were the small increases in Job Corps training. This is what a 
Republican Congress has done on the other side of the page. The numbers 
speak for themselves.
  Vote for the rule. Vote for fiscal responsibility and vote for a 
continuation of the American dream.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, two exemplary students apply to 
the school of their dreams. Both are accepted. Both are overjoyed. But 
one will not be attending this institution of higher learning for one 
reason and one reason only: He or she did not receive enough financial 
aid.
  Who is going to tell this well-deserving student, I am sorry but the 
money just is not available, even though we now live in the greatest 
fiscal times in our history?
  I will vote against this rule, and one of the reasons is because of 
the example of the reduction of Pell grant money by $48 million. Do we 
even know how many children's lives this would affect? We are cutting 
funding to students who otherwise would not be able to go to college, 
many of whom are our summer interns.
  This grant provides an opportunity. It provides for a future for 
students

[[Page 9900]]

who otherwise would not have the resources to attend college. We tell 
our children that education is a means of success and a better way of 
life. If we take away the funding that Pell grants provide, we are 
taking away students' chances for a better life. We should increase 
these opportunities, not take them away.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  I just want to tell the gentleman who just spoke that Pell grants in 
the bill are increased by $200 to the requested level, and the only 
reason that there is an adjustment in the amount of money spent for the 
Pell grants is that there is estimated to be less demand for them in 
the next fiscal year.
  There is increase in the Pell grants. We are not cutting them, we are 
increasing them, exactly as the President put in his budget.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, all of us say we have education as a 
priority, and we understand education is a priority of the American 
citizens, but when we come to appropriations, it does not seem that 
way. Maybe it is just in North Carolina. My State tells me we will lose 
almost $92 million. Please, Mr. Speaker, I beg for people to correct 
me, to say that this is not true. I want to make sure that that is not 
true.
  They say we will lose $1.4 million in adult training; in youth 
training, again, $1.2 million; in disabled workers, again we will lose; 
just down the line; Head Start, $11 million; development block grants, 
another $11 million plus; and Title I, Title I, even there, it is 
$39,000; ESEA Title I migrant programs, more than $1 million; again, 
the Eisenhower/Teach to High Standards grant, $15 million; class size 
reduction, and we all know smaller classes mean indeed that we are able 
to teach better, $36 million.
  I must vote against this rule, and I urge my colleagues, please 
allocate those resources for those children we say we love.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as you visited local schools, and talked 
to teachers, students and school administrators during our most recent 
recess, you heard their cry for additional teachers, more training and 
smaller class sizes. They shared with you the challenges they face 
daily to accommodate the ever increasing enrollments.
  We must provide adequate funding to hire 100,000 new teachers to meet 
the enrollment needs. This is especially important for our nation's 
poor, minority and rural community children.
  I don't know if you had an opportunity to analyze the effects of this 
bill on your state.
  Our state would be facing devastating reductions in:
                                                                Dollars
Adult Training...............................................-1,401,000
Youth Training...............................................-1,298,000
Dislocated Workers...........................................-4,134,000
Re-employment Services.......................................-1,557,000
Unemployment Insurance.......................................-1,967,000
Head Start..................................................-11,935,503
Child Care and Development Block Grant......................-11,439,157
ESEA Title I LEA Grants..........................................39,586
ESEA Title I Migrant Grants..................................-1,030,448
Eisenhower/Teach to High Standards Grants...................-15,225,126
Class Size Reduction........................................-36,217,944
Vocational Education Tech-Prep Grants........................-5,771,250
Leveraging Educational Assistance (LEAP).......................-868,140
Preparing Teachers to Use Technology..................................?
21st Century Community Learning Center................................?

  Passing this bill in its current state could be devastating to the 
state of North Carolina, netting more than a $92,000,000 loss for the 
state. North Carolina would receive no support under this bill. It 
doesn't assist the state improve its dilapidated schools or poor 
performing schools.
  Ninety-two million dollars is a lot of money and could make a major 
difference in improving education in our state.
  This bill seems to me to say, it's okay if we continue to ignore the 
needs of our children.
  My colleagues, I urge you to fully fund the President's proposal.
  Because of the tremendous lack of support and vision for education 
and health of children and teachers, I must vote ``no'' on this bill.

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 weeks, we have seen a 
systematic attack by this House on public investments that make this 
economy the flourishing growing economy that it is today. Just 
yesterday in the committee, we put together a bill which cut deeply 
into the President's request for National Science Foundation funding. 
That is the basic scientific research that underlies all the advances 
we eventually make in health care through the National Institutes of 
Health, in developing new technologies, such as the Internet, which was 
developed through an investment by the Defense Department and the 
National Science Foundation.
  This bill itself says that it wants to have a 15 percent increase in 
the National Institutes of Health, but then it has a language provision 
in the bill which prevents that money from actually being spent. This 
bill ignores the fact that we have growing school populations and 
growing senior populations who need added services, not less.
  This bill denies us the opportunity to support the President's 
program to strengthen teacher training. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) for years has said do not just put money into class 
size, put money into quality teachers. The gentleman is right, and that 
is why we have tried to do both in the amendments that we wanted to 
offer but are being denied the opportunity to get a vote on in the rule 
today.
  So I would suggest there are all kinds of reasons why, if you care 
about the future economic strength of this country, if you care about 
equal educational opportunity, if you think people ought to get health 
care without begging for it, there are all kinds of reasons to vote 
against this bill.
  This bill makes all of these reductions in order to finance your huge 
tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country; 73 percent of the 
benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent. That is a high price to pay to 
give those folks a bonus.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues again that this is an open 
rule. The bill before us will be debated under an open process that 
will allow Members who disagree with the bill's priorities to change 
them. Also, despite my colleagues warnings of dire consequences, this 
bill actually increases spending to the tune of $4 billion over last 
year.
  The extra investment will allow for increases, not cuts, but 
increases in many priority programs including National Institutes for 
Health, Job Corps, Community Health Centers, Ryan White AIDS Care 
programs, the Centers for Disease Control, the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health programs, Services Administration, Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance, Childcare and Development Block Grant, Head Start, the 
Technology for Education Program, Special Education, Impact Aid and 
Student Financial Assistance, and that is just to name a few.
  Mr. Speaker, at the same time, this bill is responsible, balancing 
the need to fund worthwhile programs while keeping our budget balanced. 
It is this kind of responsible governing, where priorities are set, 
waste is eliminated, and fiscal prudence is maintained that will keep 
our Nation's economy on track.
  I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule as well as 
the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule 
because it is a stealth attempt to reduce funding for Pell Grants for 
education by $48 million. This is ridiculous, particularly at a time 
when our nation and our world is moving at warp speed with new 
technologies, globalization, and innovations and change. Changes which 
affect how we live, how we work, how we learn.
  It is a quality education that has allowed America to master these 
rapid changes and move forward in this new economy.

[[Page 9901]]

  Education has helped us move forward from the days of the horse and 
buggy to the information superhighway.
  It is education that has allowed us to move from horse stables into 
stable careers and success in the new economy. And, for millions of 
Americans the Pell Grant has made education possible.
  We know that our continued economic prosperity depends on two 
things--businesses getting the skilled workers they need for our 
growing economy, and workers getting the skills and training they need 
to keep working smarter. If this backwards rule passes, we will have 
turned our backs on both the American public and American businesses 
who depend upon a highly trained, well educated workforce.
  By voting to slash Pell Grants, Congress will be saying ``no'' to 
millions of students trying to gain the skills necessary to move 
forward, and compete in the 21st century. And, ``no'' to the businesses 
that tell us everyday how desperate they are for a highly skilled and 
well educated workers.
  During this period of economic prosperity and budget surplus, we 
should be seizing the opportunity to advance the well being of our 
citizens by training and educating our students and workers instead of 
shortchanging them.
  Let's not say ``no'' to the 67 percent of our high school graduates 
who are now going on to college, and struggling to pay college tuition.
  Vote against this rule (bill) and in favor of needy students across 
this country, and in favor of American businesses who desperately need 
a well educated workforce. Let's keep our American economy growing.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule for H.R. 4577, 
the FY 2001 Department of Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act, 
to offer my strong objection and concern with the addition of another 
amendment to part A of the Rules Committee report, providing for a 
rescission from the child care and development block grant (CCDBG) of 
any funds appropriated in excess of the $23.5 billion advanced 
appropriation cap contained in the FY 2001 concurrent budget 
resolution.
  The child care development block grant (CCDBG) is a major source of 
child care assistance for low and moderate working families. Usually 
out of necessity, not choice, mothers are working outside the home in 
greater numbers than ever before. Moreover, with many employers having 
difficulty finding the workers they need, due to a 30-year low in 
unemployment; and the continued demand generated by welfare reform. It 
is imperative now more than ever that the availability of affordable 
and quality child care services exist.
  Accordingly, now is not the time from Congress to limit the amount of 
funding available for CCDBG.
  Regretably, as I read the language found in the Rules Committee 
report it is essentially placing a marker which states that the House 
of Representatives does not support the need for this important 
program.
  While, I will vote for the rule as I believe it is important that the 
House have the opportunity to debate the important provisions in the 
Labor, HHS appropriations bill, I strongly oppose the Rules Committee 
report language on the CCDBG. And I intend to work for additional 
funding for this necessary, beneficial program.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 204, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               YEAS--218

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

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     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
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Clay
     Danner
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gejdenson
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Klink
     Markey
     Meeks (NY)
     Myrick
     Smith (MI)
     Vento

[[Page 9902]]



                              {time}  1224

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________