[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10501-10583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) in full committee markup of this bill, this amendment, of 
course, tests my resolve more than any other of your theme amendments.
  I consider the funding for NIH to be of the highest priority I would 
very much have liked to put into this bill the full 15 percent increase 
that I believe is necessary and proper. Such funding is among the best 
spent money in government to continue on our path of doubling NIH over 
a 5-year period.

[[Page 10502]]

Unfortunately, the allocation was not sufficient to do so.
  We have in the bill a limitation to limit the obligation to the 
President's budget, which is a $1 billion increase less the cap and 
comes out to probably 4 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 15 
percent that we favor.
  However, the gentlewoman has just used this amendment to make a 
number of political points, and I would simply say to the gentlewoman 
she ought to look at the history of funding for NIH. It indicates that 
the President of the United States has put this at a very, very low 
priority in all of his budgets for the last 5 years, while the majority 
party has put it at a very, very high priority.
  Congress has provided a total of $7.8 billion in cumulative increases 
for NIH as opposed to the $4.3 billion requested by the President over 
the last 5 years. We have put NIH on a funding path to double its level 
in 5 years, we have made two down payments and are committed, within 
the fiscal responsibility, to making the third payment this year.
  We cannot do it within the allocation that we have, but we are 
committed to making that third payment this year.
  I would not say that this was done on a partisan basis. It has been a 
bipartisan effort. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. I 
know, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) knows that there 
are more scientific opportunities today. Increased funding can lead to 
cures for major diseases like Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease, 
forms of cancer, diabetes and a host of other diseases is closer than 
it ever has been before.
  We are doing all that we can to get to achieve the 15% increase, but 
we are constrained by a budget allocation that is not sufficient to 
allow us to do it at this point.
  I know that the gentlewoman herself is committed to reaching that 
point. What I do not like to see is making political points. This leads 
us away from the importance of this funding and makes this seem a 
political clash.
  I would simply point out that we have made great progress. We are 
committed to making continued progress. We believe that this funding 
can lead to scientific discovery that will help people who need help. 
It will lead to longer and more healthy lives for all the American 
people and, perhaps, all the people in this world. This is the best 
spent money, because it leads ultimately to driving down health care 
costs in our society. If we work together, we can achieve a result that 
we can all be proud of in doubling funding for NIH over a 5-year 
period.
  In the 5 years that I have been chairman, 1995 to now, we have 
increased funding for NIH by 58 percent. If we can double it this year, 
we will be at 82 percent over that 6-year period, and I simply believe 
that this is not the proper context to raise political issues. This is 
something that all of us are committed to accomplishing.
  We have made great progress, and we are very hopeful that we will 
make the kind of progress that all the American people can be proud of 
in the end.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I, too, agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is unfortunate that this debate 
is being used to make political points. NIH and health research has 
certainly been something that this committee and this subcommittee has 
approached on a bipartisan basis. And I must say that the gentleman in 
the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is in his last 
year as subcommittee chairman, is leaving a rich legacy of 
bipartisanship and also support for real programs for real people, 
improving their health.
  Under his leadership, this subcommittee and this committee have shown 
their support in terms of the dollars indicated there.

                              {time}  1115

  I would like to ask the chairman though about the chart there. Do I 
understand that the red figures are the cumulative amounts of money 
proposed by President Clinton in his budget; is that correct?
  Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then 
the large amounts above and beyond that in blue amount to the actual 
appropriations that we have been able to get through this subcommittee 
and through the Congress of the United States for the National 
Institutes of Health?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WICKER. As far as the cumulative increases, since the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has been chairman, the cumulative increases 
are almost double those requested by the President of the United 
States?
  Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
  Mr. WICKER. Finally, let me ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, with 
regard to this appropriation in this bill, which I agree is regrettably 
low, how does it compare to the amount requested by President Clinton 
in his budget this year for NIH and health research?
  Mr. PORTER. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, the 
President requested $1 billion in increased funding for NIH this year. 
We have placed in the bill numbers indicating a $2.7 billion increase, 
but, then, because of our budget allocation, we have been forced to 
limit that amount to the President's request.
  Mr. WICKER. The amount contained in this bill is precisely what the 
President requested; is that correct?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question 
regarding his chart?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the question I had, and I can barely read 
it, but the chart starts with fiscal year 1995; is that correct?
  Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Does that chart reflect what the appropriations are, or 
does it reflect concurrent budget resolutions? My question is would 
that reflect what the fiscal 1995 concurrent budget resolution as 
adopted by the House and Senate did, which would show a dip of 5 
percent?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, budget resolutions do not have any effect. 
They are only advisory. These are appropriations.
  Mr. BENTSEN. If the gentleman will further yield, part of the budget 
allocation we are dealing with today, the fact that the gentleman 
raised, is the fact that the budget resolution passed by the House does 
not provide sufficient allocation to meet the doubling of the NIH, and 
we had a problem with the budget resolution in fiscal year 1995 as 
passed by the House and the other body that called for a 5 percent 
reduction in NIH in real terms.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should remember that the only 
jurisdiction the Committee on the Budget has is to set overall spending 
numbers. The rest is advisory.
  Mr. Chairman, reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1-3/4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for what every member of this subcommittee knows 
to be the truth, that no one in this Congress has had a greater 
commitment to expanding and increasing NIH funding than the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter). If the entire House were present during 
this part of the debate, I would ask at this time for all of them to 
stand and give the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) an 
outstanding round of applause for his interest and for his commitment 
and dedication in this area.
  I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), we have 
enormous respect for his efforts in this particular area, and I 
certainly rise to salute the gentleman.
  Let me also indicate that this is the first time since I have been in 
Congress

[[Page 10503]]

for 5 years that I am not going to dispute any of the facts that were 
offered by the majority in the brief demonstration that we had here 
from the chairman. But I want to make it very, very clear that the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter), if he had been dealt the 
appropriate hand in this particular allocation, that we would be 
looking at increases in NIH consistent with the effort to double 
resources as consistent with our 5-year objective.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment raises our investment in biomedical 
research at the National Institutes of Health. Fiscal year 2001 is the 
3rd year of this ``doubling NIH in 5 years'' initiative. For 2 straight 
years we have agreed to provide NIH the 15 percent increases needed to 
double the budget. This year, the House fails to do so. Staying on 
track to double NIH's budget requires a $2.7 billion increase for 
fiscal year 2001. The House bill provides the increase, then takes it 
away in a general provision and reduces that increase to the 
administration's request.
  Mr. Chairman, it is one thing in an era of deficits to say we cannot 
afford to invest additional resources in these programs; but now that 
we are in an era of surpluses, we no longer have that excuse. All we 
need to do to pay for this amendment is to scale back the size of the 
tax cut for the wealthy by 20 percent. We can leave the middle-class 
tax cuts alone, just scale back the tax cuts for the individuals at the 
top 1 percent; and we can do just that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a member of the Committee on 
Commerce, an expert on health issues, and a health professional before 
she came to the Congress.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi 
amendment, which seeks to increase funding for the National Institutes 
of Health. I commend the committee and Congress for the commitment that 
has been made to double the NIH budget in 5 years specifically by 
providing necessary 15 percent increases in appropriations each year. 
But this year, we are going off track. Our budget is throwing us off 
our 5-year track.
  Mr. Chairman, there is not a family in this country that does not 
feel the promise and the hope of the research that is done under the 
auspices of the NIH. A year ago it was the deputy director who told my 
daughter, recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, that if she 
could hold on for 2 years, there was such promising research coming 
down the pike through NIH.
  So many families in this country hold their hope in the research that 
is done and is spawned by our funding for the NIH. Research in the real 
life miracle areas of Parkinson's disease, cancer research, 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, these are situations that people across this 
country are dealing with on a daily basis. We have established a 
wonderful track record for funding. We need to keep our resolve now and 
stick to our promise to double the funding in 5 years.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
to provide a $1.7 billion increase to the NIH in order to keep us on 
track to double its budget by 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, the last century will be remembered as the century in 
which we eradicated polio, developed gene therapy, and discovered some 
treatments for breast cancer. At the center of this research has been 
the NIH.
  NIH funded scientists have learned how to diagnose, treat and prevent 
diseases that were once great mysteries. The decoding of the human 
genome, soon to be completed, will lead to yet more opportunities for 
research that will revolutionize how we look at and treat diseases. Our 
efforts will shift increasingly to the genetic level, where we will 
learn to cure diseases now untreatable.
  We should not abandon our commitment to double the NIH budget in 5 
years. Let this new century see humanity vanquish cancer and heart 
disease and genetic diseases and AIDS. Let us not start reversing that 
goal now. We are now the most prosperous society in the history of this 
planet. We have unparalleled budget surpluses. We should not deny 
medical research the funds it needs because of artificial budget 
restraints in an artificial and politically motivated budget 
resolution.
  In the names of the thousands, perhaps millions of people whose lives 
will be prolonged and saved by adoption of this amendment, I urge its 
adoption.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offered this same amendment when the 
House Committee on the Budget marked up the budget resolution, and I 
was told at the time that we had put enough money into NIH, that this 
year we just could not do it.
  It is ironic that a few weeks ago we passed the China PNTR bill 
because we wanted to gain access to more markets where we have a 
comparative advantage. In the world of medical research, where the 
United States leads the world and has a comparative advantage, we do 
not want to provide the resources to do that. I know the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Porter) wants to do it, but he is constrained by the 
budget.
  How can a sophisticated, mature economy like the United States not 
provide the resources that are necessary? It is all part of this budget 
fallacy, because the Chairman well knows that the Senate is going to 
mark up the full amount and we will go to conference and we will do it. 
But we are living under artificial constraints by a budget resolution 
that is not going to hold water at the end of the year. We should do 
the right thing today, adopt the gentlewoman's amendment, and move 
forward where we do enjoy a comparative advantage and bring these cures 
to the American people, because we know we can do it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of 
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of 
the Committee on Appropriations, and a person who is an expert on 
health policy.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I support a 
strong national investment in biomedical research. The reason being is 
that I am alive today due to the advancements in biomedical research. I 
am a 15 year survivor of ovarian cancer. I know how it feels to be the 
person behind the statistics.
  We are on the brink of tremendous breakthroughs in cancer and many 
other areas. We have committed ourselves as a Congress to doubling the 
funding for the NIH over the next 5 years. Why then would we want to 
fall short of that goal this year?
  All the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is asking for is the 
$1.7 billion that will allow us to get to meeting that goal this year, 
and the trade-off is, the trade-off is, a tax cut that is going to only 
benefit the most wealthy people in this country. The lives, the health, 
the safety of American people all over this country is not to be traded 
away, not to be traded away, because of a tax cut that will only 
benefit the wealthiest.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very, very strong 
supporter of NIH and biomedical research.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman well knows that I am a 
champion for medical research. I have got a goal. My daughter scored a 
perfect 1600 on her SATs this year as a senior at Torrey Pines. She is 
going to intern in cancer research at NIH this summer.
  I am a cancer survivor. There is nothing worse than a doctor looking 
you in the eye and saying, ``Duke Cunningham, you have got cancer.''
  I am a survivor. And if the gentlewoman would have offsets in this, I 
would be with her in this amendment. I would hope in conference we can 
add to this and somehow come up with the additional dollars in this.

[[Page 10504]]

  Unfortunately, the politics in this, that is being shown in all these 
amendments, is what is discouraging, because the gentlewoman, the 
ranking minority member, Democrats and Republicans, have come together 
on NIH funding to support it, and I still hope in some way we can add 
these particular dollars down the line.
  In cancer, Dr. Klausner, and you see what he is doing at NIH, I would 
say I was saved because of a PSA test. Do you know that right now, 
because of this research, there are markers for ovarian cancer which we 
have never had before? Women had no markers in this.
  I met a gentleman at NIH that contacted HIV in 1989. The only thing 
he ever thought about was dying. And now he has hope. He has bought an 
apartment. He has even bought stocks. This is what we are talking about 
when we talk about NIH funding.

                              {time}  1130

  If the gentlewoman would offer offsets on this, we would support it. 
She is right. But I want to tell the Members, fiscal responsibility 
down the line, where we balance the budget and we pay off the national 
debt as soon as 2012, we spend $1 billion a day, a day, $1 billion a 
day on just the interest. Think what we are going to have in the future 
for the Americans for education, for crimefighting, for NIH, just by 
keeping our fiscal house in constraint.
  The death tax that we passed, a little bit out of touch, saying tax 
break for the rich, passed on a bipartisan vote; the social security 
tax that my colleagues put in in 1993 we eliminated, a little bit out 
of touch by saying that is a tax break for the rich; taking a look at 
the marriage penalty for people who are married, that is sure not a tax 
break for the rich.
  My colleagues on the other side wish to politicize this and say, tax 
break for the rich. I think some people actually believe that, after 
saying it 10,000 times, someone is going to believe it. It is just not 
so.
  Let us come together and support this NIH increase in conference, if 
there is some way we can do it, and work in a bipartisan way on this 
particular issue.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), another distinguished member of 
our Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Pelosi amendment.
  Over the last 2 years, with the strong leadership of the gentleman 
from Illinois (Chairman Porter) and broad bipartisan support, we have 
made tremendous progress in our goal of doubling the NIH budget.
  Dr. Kirschstein and the Institute directors have done an outstanding 
job of describing how they have managed large increases and used them 
to fund good science.
  We have to continue our bipartisan effort to increase funding for 
biomedical research. Whether it is breast cancer, diabetes, autism, or 
heart disease, we have made real progress towards better understanding 
and treatment.
  My good friends are saying this is politics. They are right. What 
politics is about is making wise decisions. We have that choice. We can 
have a smaller tax cut and invest in the National Institutes of Health, 
and invest in the continued extraordinary challenges that are ahead of 
us.
  We have the opportunity on our subcommittee in this Congress to face 
the extraordinary challenges in health care ahead. Let us do it. Let us 
do it now. Let us support the Pelosi amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished 
ranking member of our subcommittee and the ranking member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, who, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), has been a champion for increased funding at the 
National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is not what the Congress and the President 
did on this issue in the last decade. The issue is what we are going to 
do in the next decade.
  This bill appropriates $2.7 billion above last year to the National 
Institutes of Health. But then it has a provision in the bill which 
says it can only spend $1 billion of that, so the committee has it both 
ways. It can say yes, we have provided $1.7 billion when they pull this 
piece of paper out of their pocket, and then they go to the other 
pocket and say, oh, no, we did not spend that much money, we held the 
budget down.
  The result of this budget is that it cuts $439 million below current 
services, and that means that it reduces the new and competing grants 
that go out to scientists to do research on cancer, Alzheimer's, 
diabetes, and everything else, by about 15 percent.
  In real terms, this bill is a reduction from last year. A lot of 
people on that side of the aisle keep saying, well, this is just the 
second step in the process. Do not worry, down the line we are going to 
try to fix this.
  What we are saying is that it makes no sense for them to say, well, 
at some point somebody else is going to be responsible. We are asking 
the majority side to be responsible now. They keep talking about fiscal 
responsibility.
  Two weeks ago I was at Marshfield Clinic in my district. I had a 
number of senior citizens talk to me about the miracles that had 
occurred when they had strokes that disabled them, and they were able 
to recover from those strokes because of new medical research.
  My question to them and my question to the Members today is this: 
What is more important to this country, to have more success stories 
like that, more success stories, like the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham), or instead to continue the path that the majority 
party has been following in providing huge tax cuts, with over 70 
percent of the benefits aimed at the wealthiest 1 percent of people in 
this society?
  Members gave away in the minimum wage bill $90 billion in tax cuts to 
people who make over $300,000 a year. All we are saying is they could 
finance this amendment on health care, they could finance our amendment 
on education, on child care, on all the rest if they simply cut back 
what they are providing in those tax packages by 20 percent. Leave the 
middle-income tax cuts in place, just take the tax cuts that they are 
providing for the high rollers, cut them back by 20 percent, and they 
can meet all of these needs.
  It is not enough to have budgets at last year's level, or around last 
year's level. This is a growing country. It is a growing population. We 
have new medical discoveries. Every time we make a new medical 
discovery, we ought to build on it, not use it as an excuse to slack 
off. That is what we are saying. To me it is outrageous that this 
amendment cannot even get a vote on the floor of the House today.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for presiding over this very 
respectful, I think, debate. We have acknowledged the leadership of our 
chairman and our ranking member in supporting the highest possible 
funding levels for the National Institutes of Health.
  We have recognized that despite the priority that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Porter) gives to the National Institutes of Health, 
that the budget allocation does not allow him to put the additional 
$1.7 billion in the bill which keeps us on track of doubling the NIH 
budget in 5 years.
  Members have shared their personal stories about themselves and their 
children, and pointed to the need for us to invest in this research. 
There is no argument about that. But when Members say that we are 
politicizing this debate by saying because we have a tax cut because we 
cannot afford this funding level for NIH, they are being political.
  The fact is, bad budget numbers necessitate a bad appropriation. If 
we did not have the tax cut, we could afford

[[Page 10505]]

the NIH funding. It is that simple. That kind of decision is what 
people send us to Congress to make. We must recollect the values of the 
American people, which say that it is a good investment to invest in 
basic biomedical research. It saves lives. It adds to the productivity 
and the quality of our lives.
  This is the most fiscally sound vote a Member can make is to invest 
further in the National Institutes of Health to save lives, to create 
jobs in the biomedical industry, and to help us balance our budget by 
having less money have to be put out because of illness, loss of work 
days by people who become sick or disabled.
  I urge my colleagues to think in a fiscally sound way and support the 
additional appropriation for the National Institutes of Health.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry and I think it is very ill-advised that 
this subject has been raised in this political context. The work to 
raise NIH funding over the last 5 years has been bipartisan, and I am 
sorry that it is being used as a point of departure to make a political 
point. It constrains me to have to make a political point, as well.
  The minority party was in charge of this House for many, many years. 
During the previous 5 years the minority was in charge, and President 
Clinton was also in charge. If we look at the commitment made for 
increasing funding for biomedical research during that period of time 
and compare it to the last 5 years when the majority party has been in 
control of the Congress, I think we can easily see that we have placed 
this at a far higher priority.
  To me, however, this is not a political matter and should not be 
raised in a political context. This is a matter that is of utmost 
importance to our country and to its people. As I said earlier, this is 
among the best funding anywhere in government, and we should continue 
to work together on a bipartisan basis to increase it.
  However, to propose such increases is easy when you do not have 
responsibility for any constraints and can spend whatever you want to 
spend, which is basically what all these amendments do. They say, 
``here is what we ought to do.''
  We cannot do that. We do not have that luxury. We are the majority 
party and responsible for the bottom line. We have to live within a 
budget resolution that was adopted by the majority of the Congress.
  So we do the best that we can within that context. We have done the 
best we can. I would much rather we had a 15 percent increase in the 
bill for NIH. Unfortunately, we simply do not have the funds to do 
that. We intend, in this process, to achieve that priority and 
hopefully we will get there, but it is easy simply to say, well, we 
ought to spend more money in this area.
  This is an important area. Sure, we would like to provide a 15 
percent increase, but in the end, somebody has to be responsible for 
the overall spending of this government and to live within fiscal 
restraints. We are taking that responsibility, and we are doing the 
very best that we can within it.
  I believe very strongly, and I think the gentlewoman believes very 
strongly, that in the end we will reach our goal of doubling NIH and 
providing the third year of a 15 percent increase to get there.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my 
good friend and colleague from California, Nancy Pelosi. This amendment 
increases NIH funding by $2.7 billion and would restore the funding 
level to the amount the Congress agreed to two years ago when it 
decided to double the NIH budget within five years.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is truth-in-budgeting legislation. In 
1998, and again in 1999, this Congress decided it was critical the 
National Institutes of Health be funded at a level which doubled the 
NIH budget by Fiscal Year 2003. Now we are in year three and this 
appropriations bill seeks to back off from that promise.
  Let me remind my colleagues why we decided to double the NIH budget. 
According to a Joint Economic Committee report issued just last week, 
15 of the 21 most important drugs introduced between 1965 and 1992 were 
developed using knowledge and techniques from federally funded 
research.
  If the Pelosi amendment does not pass, the funding cuts in this bill 
mean there will be 1,309 fewer federal research grants. Mr. Chairman, 
my district has the largest concentration of biotechnology companies in 
the world. The scientific advancements they are working on are moving 
at revolutionary speed. We cannot afford to cut back on the 
groundbreaking work they are doing.
  The need for increased research grants at NIH has never been greater. 
Infectious diseases pose a significant threat as new human pathogens 
are discovered and microorganisms acquire antibiotic resistance. In 
today's Washington Post, the front page story was about a World Health 
Organization report which said that disease-causing microbes are 
mutating at an alarming rate into much more dangerous infections that 
are failing to respond to treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, in the story the WHO warned

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

  A WHO official said,

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

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of Section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget 
totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, House Report 106-660. This 
amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee's suballocation made under Section 302(b), and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I would ask a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is 
recognized.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman lodged a point 
of order on the basis that this is outside the budget allocation. On 
that score, he may be correct. But the fact is that despite the 
expressions of priority for the funding at the National Institutes of 
Health, which the chairman has very sincerely made and others have made 
in this Chamber, we had other choices in this bill.
  In fact, if this is of the highest priority, why was it not given the 
same status that other Republican priorities are given in this bill?
  As we know, there is a $500 million budget adjustment to accommodate 
$500 million of other spending in this bill. That could have been done 
for this $1.7 billion and we could have ensured, guaranteed, given 
peace to the American people that their health and that the research to 
ensure it to be protected.
  Instead, the only thing protected in this bill is the tax break for 
the

[[Page 10506]]

wealthiest people in America. That is the decision that Members have to 
make. It is not about this being fiscally responsible. We all want to 
be that. Indeed, our alternative Democratic budget resolution had this 
$1.7 increase and it was fiscally responsible.
  Two things, Mr. Chairman. Because the distinguished chairman has said 
he is calling a point of order because this is beyond the allocation of 
the budget, it could be protected just the way this other funding had a 
lifting of the budget, had an adjustment of the budget figure.

                              {time}  1145

  Secondly, I would say that if we are not going to go down that path 
then it is not the priority we say it is, and we have to answer to the 
American people for that.
  Technically, on the point of order, the rule protects the wealthiest 
1 percent at the expense of the National Institutes of Health, and I 
concede the point of order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, can I be heard further on the point of 
order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is recognized.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the gentlewoman 
that she had every opportunity to make those choices by offering an 
amendment within the rules that would have taken money from lower 
priority accounts and put it in this account if that was her desire. 
She did not take that opportunity to operate within the bounds of 
fiscal restraint and has simply offered an amendment without any 
offset, which is clearly out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since the gentleman characterized 
my remarks, if I may?
  The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly the gentlewoman from California may 
respond.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman knows that I 
had no opportunity to have an offset of the $1.7 billion. All I am 
saying is give this the same treatment as has been given to other 
Republican priorities by making a budget cap adjustment so that this 
can be afforded in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 
conceded the point of order, but the Chair would say that he is 
authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget, 
pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an amendment providing 
any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a 
breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, by 
proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority, 
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the 
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

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

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

[[Page 10507]]

Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part an appropriation may not 
be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman offering an amendment?
  Mr. STEARNS. I am going to offer an amendment. Also, Mr. Chairman, I 
wanted to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter).
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the chairman designate the gentleman to strike the 
last word?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to move $10 
million into the Adoption Incentives Program. I decided not to offer 
that amendment today, but I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) regarding the importance of 
funding this program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Adoption Incentives Program has helped to 
dramatically increase a number of children adopted out of foster care. 
I certainly appreciate all the good work he has done in the Labor, 
Health, and Human Services appropriations bill, including the $2 
million increase for the Adoption Incentives Program.
  I would like to ask the gentleman to continue his hard work in 
conference and build on this program by further increasing funding for 
this program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) for highlighting the importance of the Adoption Incentives 
Program. I will continue to work with him and with my colleagues in 
conference to ensure States receive the funding they need to help more 
kids move from foster care to permanent and loving, caring homes.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his commitment to 
providing more money for adoption. I strongly support the positive 
steps Congress has taken in this area and believe we should do even 
more. That is why I am here this morning. President Clinton supports 
increasing funding for this program. Adoption is also a positive 
alternative to abortion, and I hope the gentleman is successful in 
finding additional money in funding for the Adoption Incentives 
Program.


                Amendment No. 189 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

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

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sensitive subject. I have a Congressional 
Research Report here, which I worked with in doing this amendment. My 
amendment has three components to it. The first identifies and asks NIH 
to identify amounts that are distributed, given to individuals and 
corporations seeking funds from the Institute to conduct research. We 
have had constituents who have applied to NIH and who have been unable 
to find out, after great frustration, why they did not get the money. 
They could not find out who the individual was who got the money, or 
corporations, and they did not know or find out how much it was. So my 
amendment, first of all, asks NIH to identify the monies that are given 
to individuals and also then the amendment asks that they identify the 
individuals so that we see the money expended, the individuals who 
received it and then we would like to see some justification for why 
the NIH gave this money.
  Now I have a report from the Congressional Research Service that sort 
of confirms what my amendment is talking about. It concludes, and I 
would just like to read the conclusion from this Congressional Research 
Report, that there is no question that NIH is an esteemed institution 
that subsidizes biomedical research and is a value to the people the 
world over, but that does not remove it from its vast agenda and 
continuing controversy over how the agency should allocate its ever-
increasing appropriations.
  As a public agency, supported through tax revenues, NIH will, in all 
likelihood, face even greater scrutiny in the future. That is what my 
amendment does.
  It attempts to bring NIH into the next millennium with more 
transparency.
  I have been a long-time advocate of NIH. In fact, I have supported 
the idea of doubling its funding over the next 5 years. A lot of 
universities in Florida, particularly the University of Florida and 
Florida State, have benefited from NIH research grant money. So I am a 
great supporter of NIH, but we are talking about Federal tax dollars 
here, and I am concerned we are not making public the information from 
grants that NIH has given the individuals, the amount of money 
provided, and how they made their decisions on these grants.
  So I hear in my congressional district in Central Florida from 
doctors that they have not been able to succeed in getting NIH funding 
and they do not know why and they have to apply 5, 6, 7 times with no 
answers. There is just sort of a huge Federal bureaucracy. They say we 
just need to have much more transparency there.
  Let me share what I have learned about the research grants and how 
these decisions are made. In reviewing steps that could or should be 
taken by NIH, I discovered that NIH is starting, just starting, to move 
in the right direction with a peer review process. There are several 
areas that Congress must look at when assessing NIH approaches and 
decisions that are made by them and how research dollars are to be 
spent.
  First of all, how effective is its peer review system and the 
agency's ability to identify proposals with the greatest potential? 
Another issue is why the agency has not installed an electronically-
based grant application award system. This is pretty basic today. So I 
urge them to do so. This would be exceedingly beneficial to everybody.
  Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself, would like 
to

[[Page 10508]]

see a greater accountability of the NIH director and to make its 
planning and budgeting reporting process more open.
  In 1998, Mr. Chairman, a report was issued by the Institute of 
Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences entitled Scientific 
Opportunities and Public Needs. This report highlighted several issues 
that needed to be addressed by NIH, including its peer review process. 
So we have on the books documentation that shows that NIH needs to be 
more scrupulous in how they award grants and make the information 
known.
  I think NIH's policies and reviews and procedures should be expedited 
and this amendment simply is saying to NIH, let us have some more 
transparency and make the number of people, their names available, who 
the research grants are given to, how much money they were given and in 
the end what was the process that was used. If this was done, Mr. 
Chairman, I think this would move this Agency towards this transparency 
concept I envision.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment would 
require a report to: (1) identify amounts disbursed to enhance 
competitiveness of entities seeking funds from the Institutes to 
conduct biomedical and behavioral research; (2) to identify the 
entities receiving funding, including a separate statement on 
expenditures for individuals who have not previously served as 
principal researchers of projects supported by the Institutes; and (3) 
to provide an explanation for such funding decisions made by the 
National Institutes of Health to entities seeking funds to conduct 
biomedical and behavioral research. Money is available under Section 
403 (42 U.S.C. 283) of the Public Health Service Act for the purposes 
of carrying out such a report.
  First, I want to say that I am a long-time supporter of NIH because I 
know how valuable the research being conducted by this illustrious body 
has been to our nation in finding the causes and cures of diseases. The 
NIH has and will continue to greatly benefit our nation.
  In fact, I am a cosponsor of the resolution to double the NIH budget 
over a five year period. We are currently in our third year in that 
effort. There are many fine universities in the State of Florida that 
benefit from NIH research grant money, including the University of 
Florida, which I once had the privilege of representing. That being 
said, however, I have heard from numerous individuals about the 
difficulties involved in securing research grants through NIH. These 
are federal tax dollars we are talking about! I am concerned that we 
are not making these grants available to new graduates who need this 
important seed money to continue their biomedical and behavioral 
research in their chosen fields.
  We all know that universities and colleges across the country are not 
having students enter the hard sciences as they once did--we must 
ensure that those that do are not discouraged from putting their 
talents to work in research efforts being conducted by the federal 
government.
  There is a positive note to all this. Let me share with you what I 
learned about the research project grants and how these decisions are 
made. In reviewing steps that could or should be taken by NIH, I 
discovered that NIH is moving in the right direction in its peer review 
process. There are several areas that Congress must look at when 
assessing NIH's approach to decisions that are made by them in how 
research dollars are to be spent. First, how effective is its peer-
review system and the agency's ability to identify proposals with the 
greatest potential. Another issue is why the agency hasn't installed an 
electronically-based grant application and award system. This would 
certainly be beneficial.
  Supporters of NIH, and there are many, including myself would like to 
see a greater accountability of the NIH Director, and to make its 
planning, budgeting and reporting process more open. In 1998 a report 
was issued by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of 
Sciences entitled, Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving 
Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. 
This report highlighted several issues that needed to be addressed by 
NIH, including its peer review process.
  As a result, the NIH Council of Public Representatives (COPR) was 
created by former NIH Director Dr. Harold Varmus. The IOM committee 
recommended steps to make the agency more welcoming to public input, 
including the establishment of COPR. There were 20 public members 
selected to COPR and the first meeting was in April 1999. The committee 
members have participated in the NIH budget retreats, the NIH 
Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA), hearings on patient 
protections, health research related to diverse populations, health 
disparities, performance reviews of Institute Directors in addition to 
the regular COPR meetings and conference calls. The council has taken a 
life of its own and taken its role very seriously reviewing NIH's 
policies and procedures, research priorities, research funding, public 
input, and input to the public.
  The Council sets the agenda and directs the discussion items. During 
these meetings we have learned the difficulties involved in the budget 
process and with the uncertainty of each year's appropriations bills, 
and the difficulty in making multi-year research commitments. Most 
directors have played it conservatively to make sure they will have the 
funds to continue projects. In addition the need to increase young 
researchers has been a priority at NIH. The research training program 
and mentorship program has been increased to meet this important 
crisis.
  My amendment would require a report to identify and provide an 
explanation for funding decisions made by the NIH to entities seeking 
research grants. I would urge the NIH to continue in its efforts to 
ensure that our nation's best and brightest receive the dollars 
necessary to conduct important life saving research. While it is good 
to know that some steps have been taken, I believe it is incumbent upon 
Congress to continue to serve as a watch dog since taxpayer dollars are 
involved. I believe that we have benefited by finding out more about 
this newly formed Council, but I would remind my colleagues that this 
did not come about until the IOM and the National Academy of Sciences 
brought these issues to light.

                              {time}  1200

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

[[Page 10509]]


  Mr. STEARNS. I know, Mr. Chairman, but part of the thinking he had 
was the council was there to make this agency more transparent. So I 
urge the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the committee to 
continue this peer review and the process of making this more 
transparent.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law by 
imposing additional duties.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is raised by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) against the Stearns amendment. Does any Member 
wish to be recognized on the point of order?
  In pertinent part, the amendment earmarks funds in a manner not 
supported by existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


                            education reform

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


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 49, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $65,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 7, after ``titles'' insert ``II,''.
       Page 52, line 12, after each of the two dollar amounts, 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $960,000,000)''.
       Page 52, strike the proviso beginning on line 17 and insert 
     the following:
     : Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $960,000,000 
     shall be for title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for State formula grants and other competitive grants 
     subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of 
     Education shall establish to improve the knowledge and skills 
     of such individuals as early childhood educators, teachers, 
     principals, and superintendents, and for teacher recruitment 
     and retention activities: Provided further, That of the 
     amount appropriated, $2,115,750,000 shall be for title VI of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which 
     $1,750,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to reduce class size, particularly in the 
     early grades, using fully qualified teachers to improve 
     educational achievement for regular and special needs 
     children in accordance with section 310 of Public Law 106-113

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) reserves a 
point of order on the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House on Thursday, June 8, 2000, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, last year during the debate on education issues, 
Democrats focused primarily on the need to reduce classroom size. On 
the Republican side of the aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Goodling) said, and he made a good point, he said, look, it 
does not do any good to have smaller classrooms if the teachers in 
those classrooms are not well trained to teach. I happen to agree with 
that.
  So this year, President Clinton added $1.1 billion in his budget for 
teacher training and $1.7 billion to reduce classroom size.
  In my view, there ought to be room in this budget for both Republican 
and Democratic priorities. This amendment adds a little over $1 billion 
to teacher-training programs and to teacher-retention programs. It 
strikes the action that the committee has taken in block granting 
teacher training funds into a solid single block grant rather than 
identifiable programs.
  Why do we do that? Because we have seen what happened before. What 
happens with this Congress is that, if they take individual programs 
and block grant them, then the next time down the road, they cut them. 
They do not have to take the heat for cutting the individual programs 
because the effect of those cuts on those programs are masked. So we 
want that to remain visible.
  Secondly, I offer it because one out of every 10 teachers in this 
country is teaching a subject that they are not trained to teach. We 
are about to lose 20 percent of the teachers that we do have in the 
country to retirement.
  When parents get up in the morning and they send their kid to school, 
it seems to me they have got a right to know four things: first of all, 
that their child is going to spend that day with a well-trained 
teacher; secondly, it is going to be in a decent school; thirdly, that 
school is going to be equipped with modern 21st century technology; 
and, fourth, the class size is going to be small enough so that you 
have got enough discipline so that the kid can learn. I think that is 
what they are entitled to.
  Now, we have heard a lot of talk about the need for special 
education. I agree with that. What we have to recognize is that these 
funds that we are trying to add today help teachers prepare themselves 
to be able to deal with children with disabilities who are mainstreamed 
in regular classrooms.
  As this chart demonstrates, we are going to see an increase in the 
number of students in high schools from a little less than 15 million 
children to a little over 16 million children over the next decade. 
This budget needs to respond to that increase, and we are not doing it.
  I would suggest that, if our schools work, that our society will 
work. I happen to have the old-fashioned belief that, if our churches 
are able to function, if our schools are able to function well, that 
everything else in society will take care of itself. Then if our 
schools do not work, nothing will eventually work in this society.
  Our schools cannot work without well-trained teachers. Our schools 
cannot work without having the resources to put an additional 100,000 
and even more teachers in the classrooms, every one of them well 
trained.
  So that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to double, 
essentially, the Eisenhower training programs. We are trying to 
increase technology training so teachers know how to use technology in 
educating, and we are trying to put an additional $270 million in to 
help the highest poverty schools in the country to recruit, to train, 
and to mentor qualified teachers.
  We will not be able to get a vote on this amendment today because of 
the rule under which it is being debated. The issue to me is very 
simple. Do my colleagues think it is more important to respond to this 
coming challenge in the classroom, or is it more important to give away 
$90 billion in tax cuts to people who made over $300,000 last year? 
That is the choice. I think my colleagues ought to be on the side of 
the kids.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to make sure that I 
do

[[Page 10510]]

not think there is any Member of Congress that does not understand that 
if we can reduce class size in the early grades, and if we have a 
quality teacher in that classroom, children will probably do better. 
The problem is the quality of the teacher has not been the driving 
force.
  Now, when we think about 100,000 teachers, that is a sound bite. 
Somebody did a poll, and somebody said, ``Boy, that is sexy. Let us get 
that out there.'' Why is it kind of silly? Well, it is kind of silly 
because there are 15,000 public school districts. There are a million 
classrooms, 100,000 teachers, a million classrooms. So my colleagues 
know very well it is a sound bite issue more than anything else.
  I pleaded with the President when he started it not to indicate that 
that is the direction to go, but to indicate whatever one needs in the 
local district. If one can reduce class size, fine. If one can prepare 
teachers who one already has who have potential, that is even better.
  The very day last year when we finished negotiating the 100,000 
teacher business, the New York newspaper whole front page said, 
``Parents, 50 percent of your teachers are not qualified.''
  Now, probably many of those 50 percent might have had potential, but 
of course no, no, no, one just hired. What did they do with the first 
group that we allowed the President to hire? Thirty-three percent had 
no qualifications whatsoever. They did this in California, spent $2 
billion, and ended up again where they needed the most qualified in Los 
Angeles, for instance, over 30 some percent were totally unqualified.
  Now, I do not know where the 18 came from, this magic number that 
somehow or other 18 will really give one quality education. Every piece 
of research that I have ever read has indicated that, if one cannot get 
class size down to 12 or 13, one is probably not making much 
difference. However, the important thing is that, even if one has five 
and the teacher is unqualified, one has not done anything to help the 
students.
  That is why it is so wrong to move away from the Teacher Empowerment 
Act. The Teacher Empowerment Act is a bipartisan effort. What do we do 
in the Teacher Empowerment Act? We reform teacher certification. We 
have mentoring programs to help retain beginning teachers. We have 
expanding alternative groups to teacher certification. We work with 
teachers to reform tenure systems so we can reward those who do well. 
We support initiatives to use technology to deliver professional 
development. We support partnerships between high-need schools, higher 
education institutions, businesses, and other groups to promote and 
deliver high quality professional development programming.
  In our Teacher Empowerment Act, hiring much-needed special education 
teachers is allowed, providing professional development for math and 
science teachers, implementing projects to promote the retention of 
highly qualified teachers, and attracting professionals from other 
areas to teach.
  All of these things are in the Teacher Empowerment Act. In other 
words, we are trying to make very, very sure that we are talking about 
quality, and this is the way to go. As I said, it was a bipartisan 
effort just passed last year. If we get the other body to move, we will 
finally get around to this business of saying, not only can we reduce 
class size, which we now allow, and that is part of the Teacher 
Empowerment Act, part of the money must go to reduce class size; but we 
say we will only do that if one replaces a teacher that is there with a 
quality teacher, or any new teacher is a quality teacher.
  I mention, again, we are dealing with education technology. I 
indicated yesterday, we have seven programs on the books, five are 
funded, spread out over every agency downtown. The amounts are so small 
that no one can do anything worthwhile.
  What we say again in our reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act is we will combine it. If one needs equipment, 
one will get equipment. If one needs to better prepare one's teachers 
to use technology, use one's funds for that. If one needs software, do 
that. If one needs hardware, do that.
  But let us not proliferate existing programs and even add more 
programs so that, again, we spread the money so thinly that it does not 
help anybody anywhere.
  Now, again, our teacher program makes very, very sure in a bipartisan 
way that we prepare teachers for the 21st century, that they are 
quality teachers. We realize that reducing class size means nothing 
unless there is a quality teacher in that classroom.
  Now, last year, the Secretary mentioned three or four superintendents 
who were so pleased to get this amount of money to reduce class size. I 
called each one of those superintendents. Do my colleagues know what 
each one said? Thank you for the money. We appreciate the money. 
However, had we been able to use the money to help all of our children, 
these are the ways we would have used it.

                              {time}  1215

  One said they would have improved their homework hot line; another 
said I would have had in-depth professional training.
  We have to get away from this program of where we meet in an 
afternoon or we meet in the evening and somehow or other we are going 
to improve the quality of teaching. They need in-depth summer programs; 
they need in-depth semester programs. All of these things we do in TEA.
  So I would say let us reject this amendment and let us move on with 
the IDEA reauthorization.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  I hope that all Members of the House heard the words of the Chair of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He said that there is 
absolutely no doubt that if you lower class size and improve the 
quality of the teacher that the children will learn better. That is 
exactly what we are talking about today.
  The gentleman makes reference to what the committee reported out in 
terms of improved conditions for our teachers and the quality of their 
service, but he forgets to tell us that we are talking about an 
authorization bill. My colleagues, today is the time to put those words 
into reality and to provide the money. That is what this amendment is 
all about. We are trying to improve the conditions upon which our 
children are now faced with in thousands of classrooms across this 
country.
  In one of my schools, we have 120 children with four teachers; a 
ratio of 30 to 1. By the acts of this Congress, I got two teachers into 
that school for this third grade. It immediately lowered the classroom 
ratio to 20. There is absolutely no doubt that those children will be 
better educated because of the funding priority of this Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I cannot believe that any Member would support a bill that would 
repeal last year's bipartisan agreement to hire 100,000 new teachers in 
this country. Communities all across America had faith in that 
agreement. They hired new teachers to give their youngest students 
smaller classes. Almost 3 million children could be denied the benefits 
of smaller classrooms unless we pass the Obey amendment.
  And what about our teachers? H.R. 4577 cuts funding for improving 
teacher quality, and it also cuts the funding for recruitment of new 
qualified teachers. The Obey amendment will put top quality teachers in 
small classrooms. Our students will get the assistance they need to 
perform at the very highest standards.
  The Obey amendment is a wise investment in this Nation's future and 
it deserves a vote.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 10511]]

  Mr. Chairman, to clarify what we have done, we have taken the $1.3 
billion that is in class size and we have added it to the $335 million 
in Eisenhower Professional Development. We have added other small 
programs to reach a total of $1.75 billion; and we have appropriated 
that for the Teacher Empowerment Act, pending its enactment into law.
  As the chairman just said, the Teacher Empowerment Act strikes a 
balance between hiring more teachers to reduce class size and 
recruiting, and retraining quality teachers. It also empowers teachers 
to choose the training that best meets their classroom needs. It 
encourages States and localities to implement innovative strategies, 
such as tenure reform, merit-based performance plans, alternative 
routes to certification, and differential and pay bonus for teachers. 
Ninety-five percent of the funds would go directly to the local level.
  The President has eliminated funding for Eisenhower Professional 
Development in his budget and then proposed a number of new national 
programs related to teachers, as well as consolidations and 
restructuring of existing teacher training programs. What he has added 
is a number of different programs with nice sounding names; all 
unauthorized, while zeroing out the money for an authorized program, 
the Eisenhower Professional Development.
  We have met the President's request for teacher training and quality 
teachers in the classroom. We believe this is a very, very high 
priority. It is very much a part of our education agenda. Our 
difference here is that we are operating within the constraints of a 
budget resolution while the amendment, of course, does not and simply 
adds another billion dollars.
  I believe that this amendment simply is another politically motivated 
amendment that tries to create an issue over teacher training. We agree 
on the importance of teacher training and development. We believe that 
the Teacher Empowerment Act will do that far better than the number of 
categorical programs that are unauthorized, as the President has 
suggested, and far better than his 100,000 teachers sound bite. We are 
hopeful that the Teacher Empowerment Act will be enacted into law and 
we can fund it fully, as the President has requested.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  All I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that the Senate has brought out its 
authorization bill and it has not included the Teacher Empowerment Act. 
So that may be false hope.
  Secondly, with respect to block granting, what the majority has done 
with the social service block grant, which was at $2.4 billion 2 years 
ago, they cut it to $1.7 billion under the TEA-21 legislation. Then the 
Senate cut it in the labor-health bill this year to another $600 
million. It has become the incredible shrinking block grant, and we are 
afraid we are going to do the same thing to education by first blocking 
them and then shrinking them.
  Thirdly, I would point out that it is incorrect to say that the 
President is zeroing out the Eisenhower Teacher Training program. He is 
doubling that program essentially from $335 million to $690 million, 
and then adding some features that strengthen it as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair of the time 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  It gets awfully tiresome on this side of the aisle to listen to the 
fact that we may have constraints in the budget when, in fact, the 
architects of the budgets are the ones who have tied themselves in 
knots and now are leaving us without the proper amount of money to fund 
both the quality of our teachers as well as the size of our classrooms.
  I was one of the people who worked in a bipartisan manner with the 
chairman on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and understand 
full well that the best, the optimum situation is to have a qualified 
teacher teaching a class of proper proportion so that the job gets 
done. By underfunding both aspects of that, we are not getting it done. 
Making it conditional on the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
particularly in light of the Senate's action leaving out part of that 
equation, is the wrong way to do. We need to make sure we can fund both 
the teacher quality aspects of this and the size aspect of it.
  There are 533 new teachers in Massachusetts because of the classroom 
size initiative that the President put in place with the help of this 
Congress. To jeopardize that is unfair to those children and those 
parents as well as the teachers and the principals and superintendents.
  That is the direction to go. Fund this. Stop giving us this stuff 
about how we are constrained by the budget when my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are, in fact, the architects of a bad piece of 
work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Class sizes are way too large and we all know that, but it is not 
right to pit teacher training against class size reduction or any other 
education priority. The reason that we cannot do both class size 
reduction and teacher quality enhancement, and all of our other 
education priorities, is because of the trillion dollar tax cuts which 
have been proposed in this House. If we jettisoned these irresponsible 
trillion dollar tax cuts, we could do both class size reduction and 
teacher quality enhancement and all of our other educational 
priorities.
  We need to take a more common sense approach to our budget to achieve 
our education priorities: Reducing class size and enhancing teacher 
quality. These are all things that can be done if we jettison these 
irresponsible tax cut proposals.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the other 
side. They are doing an outstanding job of sticking to the political 
line. There is no question about that.
  I did want to mention block grant. Those are two words that the other 
side despises more than any other words. But who built title I? My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Do my colleagues know what 
title I is and was? The biggest block grant that ever came from the 
Congress of the United States.
  Do my colleagues know what did not happen? We have not closed the 
achievement gap after $140 billion. So I would hope we would put that 
argument to rest.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the recent remarks of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, why would we then go from one block grant program that he 
feels has failed our American children and move to another block grant 
philosophy with a variety of other programs if they are not, in fact, 
working?
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I rise 
in support of the Obey amendment. We know now that, other than the 
active involvement of parents in their own child's education, the next 
most important determinant of how well kids are going to perform in the 
classroom is the quality of the teacher and whether that teacher has a 
manageable class size in which to work. That is exactly what the Obey 
amendment addresses, and we know that this is working.

[[Page 10512]]

  In our own State of Wisconsin, we have a very successful SAGE program 
of class size reduction and teacher training with reports and studies 
coming out to show student achievement in this area. Down in the State 
of Tennessee we have the STAR program as well, which is working very 
effectively.
  We had hearings in the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
showing the importance of class size reduction. But over the next 10 
years, we are going to have a 2.2 million teacher turnover. That 
presents both an opportunity and a challenge, a challenge that we can 
address here today with the Obey amendment to make sure that there are 
the professional development funds to get quality teachers in the 
classroom come see students succeed in those classrooms.
  That is why we need to stress teacher quality when authorizing 
teacher training and professional development programs. That is why we 
need to demand accountability to the federal investment in public 
education. And that is why so many of us here believe in the commitment 
to class size reduction, which is thwarted by the majorities' bill.
  And that is why my own State of Wisconsin started a program in 1995 
designed specifically to improve the achievement levels of students in 
grades K- through 3 in disadvantaged schools. The program, known as the 
Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or S.A.G.E., incorporates 
four components into a comprehensive effort at raising student 
performance: class size reduction, teacher professional development, 
challenging curriculum, and community involvement.
  In 1998, a study by the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee 
discovered dramatic improvements in student test scores from those 
schools participating in the S.A.G.E. program S.A.G.E. has been so 
successful that it has been expanded statewide and has secured 
significant funding increases by the state's legislature. This focus on 
reduced class size and teacher quality not only works, but is extremely 
popular among participating students, teachers and parents.
  Wisconsin is not alone in working to reduce class size in order to 
improve student scores. In Tennessee, the STAR and Challenge projects 
have produced good data indicating a general educational advantage for 
students in smaller classes. Similar programs in North Carolina, 
Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, as well as initiatives either started or 
planned in at least 20 other states show clear indication that a focus 
on reducing class size helps students, particularly those in areas of 
higher need, achieve greater performance goals and standards.
  I am profoundly disappointed that this underlying bill does not 
maintain a solid Federal commitment to class size reduction and teacher 
quality. The Federal role in education is to provide targeted 
assistance to those students and schools with high economic need, and 
to identify and address issues of national significance. In terms of 
class size reduction, this bill is simply another attempt to turn the 
Federal commitment to education into a new form of general revenue to 
State Governors.
  This bill is anything but education friendly. The Majority has 
squandered a unique opportunity to address the pressing needs of our 
Nation's schools and leverage wise investments in our children's 
learning environment. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey 
amendment. It's time we approach our commitment to education seriously.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this. There are few 
things that we can point to that have more of an effect on a student's 
performance than personal attention from teachers, and this is 
critically important.
  I have with me here today in Washington representatives of school 
boards from across central New Jersey, and they have pointed out again 
and again, wherever I go, whenever I visit schools, that class size is 
getting the better of them. They want, help and we should be helping 
them. This is important across the country and we must do It.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be making a national priority today reducing 
class size, and we ought to take the lead to provide some support to 
our local school districts that want to do this.
  Anyone who has visited elementary schools today knows that one of the 
most fundamentally important things we can do is to support the teacher 
in developing that personal relationship with the student to really 
excite and engage them about learning.
  We face major challenges ahead. We are having a problem now retaining 
a lot of people who have chosen to go into the teaching profession. And 
what do teachers need and want more than anything? They want control 
back in their classroom. And we can give control of the classroom back 
to them by giving them a workable class size, around 20 students per 
teacher to teach.
  The third thing we need to keep in mind is we have to hire over 2.2 
million new teachers over the next decade, just 7,000 alone in my home, 
the Tampa Bay area. We are not going to be able to attract the type of 
teachers we need and keep them unless we can give them a manageable 
class size and invest in professional development to give them the 
tools they need to use technology and the curriculum to excite kids 
about learning.
  That is why we need to adopt the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I am astounded to hear the 
majority say that our proposal for 100,000 teachers to reduce class 
size is nothing more than a sound bite. They cannot tell the students 
in my school that have two teachers in the third grade that reducing 
the class size from 30 to one to 20 to one is a sound bite. This is a 
reality.
  It has not only improved the educational opportunities for the 
children that got the two new teachers, but it improved the classroom 
quality, also, of the remaining three classes.
  So this is an amazing statement that the chairman of our Committee on 
Education and the Workforce has propounded today. The 30,000 teachers 
that have been spread across the country have dramatically improved the 
educational opportunities of these youngsters.
  Let us not just talk about what we are going to do for education. If 
title I is a block grant, wonderful. It was block granted for the poor 
children in this country based upon a very precise formula. That is 
what we are doing here today. We are asking this Congress to 
appropriate money to reduce class size and improve teacher quality.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Post-
Secondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the 100,000 teachers sounds like a great idea, and it 
may be a great idea. But a Federal 100,000-teacher mandate does cause 
problems in the local area.
  We set out last year in a bipartisan way to really find out how our 
committee could help do a better job of education across the country. 
We held hearings across the country, and we listened to people. We 
listened to parents. We listened to teachers. We listened to school 
board members, superintendents. We asked them, what is the most 
important thing in education? And they said, first of all, the parent; 
and, secondly, a qualified teacher.
  Now, I have six children. I have 19 grandchildren. It is important to 
me that they have a good education. When our children were going to 
school and my wife was active, she was PTA president. She was very 
active in the local schools, most of the parents know who the best 
teachers in the schools are. Most of the parents know which teachers 
are the most qualified and which can help their students learn the 
most. And they try to get their students into the classroom with the 
best qualified teacher.
  Now, it is very important, it is very popular right now to talk about 
reducing class size. And in California, our

[[Page 10513]]

governor did this a few years ago. He cut all class sizes from K 
through three down to 18. We thought would be very helpful. But the 
problem was we did not have enough qualified teachers available to be 
hired, just as there is not 100,000 qualified teachers right now to be 
hired. And so it resulted in over 30,000 underqualified teachers in the 
classroom in California to get that class size down to 18.
  I asked parents, I said, if they had a choice of having their child 
in a classroom of 15 students with a brand new teacher just out of 
school, maybe not quite as seasoned, quite as qualified as some that 
had been around a little longer, or if they had their chance to have 
the very best teacher in that school of a class size of 25, where would 
they have their child go? And every time they say, I would take the 
class with the best qualified teacher even if we had 25 students.
  The thing is, with the Teacher Empowerment Act, we do not have to 
make that kind of decision. We could have both. We say in the Teacher 
Empowerment Act, use this money for class size reduction. If they 
cannot get enough qualified teachers, then they can use that money to 
help their teachers become better qualified. They can give them a 
voucher. They can let them go get the training that they need.
  In one of our hearings here in Washington, D.C., we had a young 
African American teacher that had been teaching just a few years; and 
he told us that he was hired to teach reading in the third grade and he 
was very frustrated. His first year he had not had a class in how to 
teach reading. But he was told that he knew how to read, he can teach 
reading. He said he was very frustrated. He was not able to teach. His 
students were not learning. He was ready to give up the teaching 
profession.
  Fortunately, he had an administrator that helped him get the teaching 
that he needed so that he was able to adequately teach his students. 
But it took a few years of preparation. He said now he felt better 
about what he was doing, his students were learning, and he was able to 
progress.
  That is what we do with the Teacher Empowerment Act. We help teachers 
become better teachers so that they are qualified and able to really 
help young children learn, which is what we are all trying to achieve.
  But instead of having a mandate out of Washington saying they have to 
hire 100,000 teachers, we give the local jurisdictions the opportunity 
to make the best use of that money.
  I oppose this amendment and encourage all of my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I swear that the previous speaker has not read this 
amendment. This amendment says, instead of spending $700 billion 
dollars on tax cuts, instead of spending $90 billion in tax cuts for 
people who make more than $300,000 a year, instead of giving $200 
billion in tax cuts to the richest 400 people in this country, instead, 
do two things: provide an increased number of teachers so you can have 
smaller classes and it says provide more teacher training.
  The gentleman who just spoke acts as though we do not have anything 
in here for teacher training.
  Under the law, under the 100,000 new teachers effort which the 
President is trying to move forward, 25 percent of that can be used for 
training; and if you reached 18 kids per classroom, you can use it all 
for teacher training.
  This amendment that we are trying to add would add 1 billion 
additional dollars for teacher training, not for class size, for 
teacher training. We add $690 million to help upgrade existing teachers 
in the classroom, and we use the other money to help recruit and 
retrain new teachers in high-poverty areas. That is what it does.
  We are taking the criticisms from that side of the aisle last year 
and responding to them. We are saying, do not just do smaller class 
size, do both smaller class size and additional teacher training.
  The question really is, when you blow the smoke away, are you trying 
to save this money for your high-roller friends on their tax cut, or 
are you willing to put it into the classroom, recognizing we have got a 
million more kids that we have to teach and we need the best teachers 
in the country to do it?
  So it is a choice between your high-rollers and your kids, and I 
think you know what side you ought to come down on.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman 
of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me remind everyone that 
that amendment says nothing about tax cuts. So I do not know what that 
discussion is all about.
  But let me say again to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), yes, 
I want to repeat, it was positively a political sound bite; 100,000 
teachers, 15,000 school districts, one million classrooms, and they 
talk about class size reduction. But they got embarrassed because the 
President never once mentioned quality when he started that. I pleaded 
with him to talk about quality. And then they got embarrassed because 
of the first 20,000 hired, 33 percent were totally unqualified.
  Now, was that not something to do to children, stick them in a 
classroom with fewer people with a totally unqualified teacher. Shame. 
Shame. Shame.
  And so, we say in the Teacher Empowerment Act, we are not interested 
in this quantity business that we have talked about for all these 
years; we are only interested in quality.
  In 1970, yes, I reduced class size in the early grades as a 
superintendent. I did not come to Washington. I went to my school 
board. That is where I went. And, yes, I did not put any in there until 
there was a quality teacher to put in there to reduce class size.
  Let us stick with the Teacher Empowerment Act. Get the most for your 
money. Get quality. Get class size reduction. Get everything that is 
needed to improve instruction in the classroom. That is what we are all 
about.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if it changes existing law.''
  The amendment directly amends existing law. I would ask for a ruling 
from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) raises a point 
of order against the Obey amendment.
  Does any Member wish to be heard?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule, we are not able to offer an 
amendment that adds to the funding level assigned to this subcommittee 
through the budget resolution because the budget resolution set aside a 
huge amount of money for tax cuts, which the majority party would 
prefer to see instead of funding for programs like this and Social 
Security and Medicare and all the rest.
  That means that all we can do is offer these amendments, but we 
cannot get a vote on it. It is a pretty strange way to run a railroad, 
but that is the way we are going to be railroaded, I guess. And so, I 
reluctantly concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) proposes 
to change existing law, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The amendment in pertinent part includes a provision directly waiving 
``any other provision of law.'' By seeking to waive any other provision 
of law, the amendment constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill 
in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 10514]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, a complaint was filed with the 
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 
because of discriminatory practices against limited English speaking 
persons as well as hearing impaired clients who applied for TANF and 
Medicaid benefits.
  In October 1999, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights 
(OCR) found the New York City Human Resources Administration, the New 
York State Department of Health, the New York State Office of Temporary 
and Disability Assistance, and Nassau and Suffolk Counties guilty of 
discriminatory practices against limited English speaking and hearing-
impaired persons.
  These local, county, and state entities were found in violation of 
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as well as the Americans With 
Disabilities Act.
  Those who already are challenged with navigating a massive 
bureaucracy should not have to be penalized further because they do not 
speak the language and dared to ask for help. This is appalling.
  The Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Health and Human 
Services came to some very troubling revelations. Limited English-
speaking clients were asked to bring their own language interpreters.
  This pattern of misconduct was so prevalent and well known to the 
community that clients seeking assistance made arrangements to bring 
their own interpreters before going to a public assistance office.
  Bilingual staff people were limited or non-existent, and staff were 
often not aware they were required to provide such assistance. This is 
unacceptable.
  Investigators from HHS found that public assistance offices failed to 
provide necessary assistance and services to hearing-impaired clients 
and staff members lacked the ability to ensure effective communication 
with hearing-impaired clients.
  The basic conclusion of the Office of Civil Rights was that clients 
were denied access to federal funds. Specifically, they were denied 
access to Medicaid and TANF funds.
  The Office of Civil Rights required the Human Resources 
Administration to submit a corrective plan of action.
  To add insult to injury, the plan submitted by the agency was totally 
devoid of any serious intent to correct its conduct. The plan submitted 
was so inadequate, that the Office of Civil Rights rejected it. The 
Office of Civil Rights then drafted a plan for the agency which the 
agency has yet to agree to.
  As the Representative of one of the largest Hispanic constituencies 
in New York City, one of the largest Asian populations nationally, and 
the largest number of Eastern European immigrants in Brooklyn, I am 
very concerned that my constituents are being denied their rights.
  New York City is not an island unto itself. I dare to think, how 
prevalent such behavior may be on a national level. We have a 
responsibility to ensure that funds which we deem as necessary for the 
well-being of our constituents reaches them.
  In a nation that is founded upon the diversity of its people, this 
conduct cannot be tolerated. Because of this, our capacity for 
tolerance and understanding of all people should be a foregone 
conclusion.
  Mr. Chairman, it is for this reason that I ask that you consider the 
inclusion of language in the Committee Report to urge the Department of 
Health and Human Services to examine this matter on a national level.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:


                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, $8,816,986,000, of which 
     $2,569,823,000 shall become available on July 1, 2001, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2002, and of 
     which $6,204,763,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2001 and shall remain available through September 30, 2002, 
     for academic year 2001-2002: Provided, That $6,783,000,000 
     shall be available for basic grants under section 1124: 
     Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall 
     be available to the Secretary on October 1, 2000, to obtain 
     updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data 
     from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That 
     $1,158,397,000 shall be available for concentration grants 
     under section 1124A: Provided further, That $8,900,000 shall 
     be available for evaluations under section 1501 and not more 
     than $8,500,000 shall be reserved for section 1308, of which 
     not more than $3,000,000 shall be reserved for section 
     1308(d): Provided further, That $190,000,000 shall be 
     available under section 1002(g)(2) to demonstrate effective 
     approaches to comprehensive school reform to be allocated and 
     expended in accordance with the instructions relating to this 
     activity in the statement of the managers on the conference 
     report accompanying Public Law 105-78 and in the statement of 
     the managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law 
     105-277: Provided further, That in carrying out this 
     initiative, the Secretary and the States shall support only 
     approaches that show the most promise of enabling children 
     served by title I to meet challenging State content standards 
     and challenging State student performance standards based on 
     reliable research and effective practices, and include an 
     emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement.

                              {time}  1245


                Amendment No. 192 Offered by Mr. Vitter

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 
2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I bring before the House today an amendment to fully 
support over time our Federal commitment to IDEA, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. This has been a long-running frustration in 
the education community and across our country, Mr. Chairman, the fact 
that since 1975, the Federal Government has created an enormous burden 
and mandate with IDEA but has not kept its commitment to adequately 
fund that mandate.
  In 1975, IDEA was passed, and part of that passage was the notion 
that the Federal Government would fully fund over time that additional 
mandate on local government by funding 40 percent of the national per-
pupil expenditure for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, we 
have never come close to that mark.
  Now, recently, just about a month ago, we took an important vote on 
H.R. 4055 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I was a 
cosponsor of that measure. That measure, which passed overwhelmingly, 
421-3, said that over the next 10 years, we would increase IDEA funding 
by $2 billion per year, and, therefore, over that 10-year period, we 
would get to our full Federal commitment on the issue of IDEA, 
something we have promised to do but have failed to do since 1975. That 
was just a month ago. 421-3.
  Also this year, we passed a budget resolution, the fiscal year 2001 
budget resolution. That committed us to the same thing, an increase in 
$2 billion per year to, over a reasonable amount of time, get us to our 
full funding commitment. In fact, that budget resolution went further. 
It said that we would commit ourselves to fully funding special 
education before appropriating funds for new Federal education 
initiatives.

[[Page 10515]]

  My amendment, which I bring before the House today, lives up to that 
promise, lives up to the promise of the budget resolution that we 
passed recently and lives up to the promise of H.R. 4055 which we 
passed recently by an overwhelming margin.
  It is really quite simple. It would take any increases in funding on 
education initiatives and shift those increases, only increases in 
funding over last year, to IDEA, and that would fully fund our $2 
billion per year commitment so that we will stay on track to get to 
full Federal funding of our Federal commitment over 10 years.
  Now, I know some of these increases in other areas are very 
warranted, are very popular. But we need to keep this fundamental 
Federal commitment which we have just restated this year twice through 
both the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
fiscal year 2001 budget resolution before we move on to new programs 
and to new spending in existing programs. My amendment will do that.
  In summation, Mr. Chairman, there are many good reasons to pass this 
amendment. Number one, we should keep our commitment, a commitment 
restated twice this year. Number two, we should support Federal 
education initiatives and our special education students. Number three, 
and perhaps even most importantly, we should give local systems 
additional flexibility, because every time we give them more special 
education dollars to keep our Federal commitment, we free up local and 
State money, and that gives more flexibility, more power to the local 
level where it belongs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There is no one in this House who would like to see funding rise for 
special education more than I would. I have a nephew that benefits from 
special education. But this amendment is a Johnny-one-note approach to 
education, and it ought to be defeated.
  We will be offering an amendment later on in the process which 
attempts to add a billion and a half dollars to special education by 
asking the majority to consider cutting back its tax cuts by about 20 
percent in size. That is the best way, in my view, under present 
circumstances to strengthen special education.
  This amendment is opposed by the National Association of State 
Directors of Special Education, it is opposed by the National PTA, it 
is opposed by the American Association of School Administrators, the 
National Education Association, and the National Education of Federally 
Impacted Schools. Why? Because it cuts the maximum Pell grant award for 
every working-class kid trying to go to college $275 below last year's 
level. It cuts education for the poorest kids in this country who are 
having the most trouble getting an education, the disadvantaged, by 
$116 million. That means 178,000 fewer kids will be served. It cuts the 
increases in this bill for Even Start literacy services, comprehensive 
school reform and high school equivalency and college assistance for 
migrant students. It cuts services to the deaf and blind students at 
Gallaudet and at the Printing House for the Blind and at the National 
Technical Institute for the Deaf. It cuts Impact Aid by $78 million.
  The National Association of State Directors of Special Education says 
as follows:
  ``While we support full funding for IDEA and welcome increases in 
funding that take us toward that goal, we are concerned that these 
increases are the result of cuts in proposed spending on Federal 
education programs that also serve the needs of children with 
disabilities, including title I, 21st century community learning 
centers, and vocational education. As a result, taking money from one 
education program and putting it into special education will not 
increase the total amount of funding available to support children with 
special needs. These proposed amendments demonstrate the fundamental 
problem with this appropriations bill. It lacks sufficient funding and 
support for education programs across the board. This deficiency will 
not be fixed by moving dollars from one program to another.''
  I could not have said it better myself. I would urge rejection of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time. I would like to say to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, he has got the right idea, he is just taking it out of the 
wrong pot of money.
  What we are trying to do with this debate in education today and 
yesterday and last week is say that the majority budget where they have 
put so much money, a trillion dollars, aside for a tax cut, we need to 
make sure that some of that money can go toward new ideas with 
accountability, with good quality, for education. Nothing is more 
important than the title I program for the poorest of the poor.
  This bill funds it at about $8.5 or $8.6 billion. I offered an 
amendment with 39 Republicans on the authorization process that 
increased title I by $1.5 billion. This does not increase it by $1.5 
billion. This amendment takes money away from the poorest kids, puts it 
into a good account, but we should not be forced to take it from poor 
kids to put it in special education programs. We should be able to do 
both.
  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing on this side, I want to make two fundamental points. First 
of all, this amendment only involves cuts by the Washington definition 
of the term. In the real world, across the country, people know what a 
cut is, and they know the difference between a cut and a lack of 
increase in spending. This keeps our same level of spending on other 
vital education programs as last year, and it only moves what would be 
new and additional spending dollars to special education. So it is not 
a cut except in the old, stale Washington definition and Washington 
sense of the term.
  We do this in the amendment, we move that money, those additional new 
funds to special education for a very good and compelling reason, 
because we voted twice this year, in the bill of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) by an overwhelming margin and in the fiscal 
year 2001 budget resolution to put special education and meeting our 
Federal commitment to special education at the top of the priority 
list. It is time we did that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no enterprise that is more important and no 
responsibility that is greater for any public official than to see to 
it that our public schools are our first priority, not just for some 
kids but for all kids. That means kids who need special education; that 
means kids from wealthy families. It means kids from middle-class and 
poor families.
  The only thing you have got when you start out in life is 
opportunity. The question is how much you are going to be given by your 
society as you grow or how much is going to be taken away. This 
amendment seeks to give additional opportunity for some kids at the 
expense of others.
  That is not the way we ought to be doing things in this country. We 
should not be making it more difficult for 178,000 kids who are most at 
risk of failing in education to lose help under Federal education 
programs. We should not be taking funding away for the National 
Technical Institute for the Deaf. We should not be taking it away for 
Gallaudet, the university for deaf and deaf/blind. We ought to be able 
to find a way. And sooner or later before this year is over, we will. 
Before this year is over, the majority will have to recognize that more 
money is going to have to go into this bill for education. It is $3.5 
billion below the President's request.
  If you want to fix this bill, take care of that and you will fix most 
of the problem.

[[Page 10516]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 202 Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

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

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

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

                              {time}  1300

  It is also very consistent with what educators, school 
administrators, and parents have said at the local level as we have 
gone around the country, because what this mandate does, without fully 
funding it, is it saps resources from local school budgets.
  Governor George Ryan in Illinois: ``The support of increased Federal 
funding is a key element in assuring successful compliance with IDEA in 
the future.'' Representative Alice Seagren told us this last week in 
Minnesota: ``One of the most positive things Congress could do is to 
fund the Federal Special Education mandates before you consider any new 
programs.'' Bob Selly who is superintendent of the East Yuma County 
School District in Colorado: ``My suggestion, if it is going to be 
mandated by the Federal Government, figure out what is it is going to 
cost the schools and fully fund the Federal mandate.''
  Eric Smith, superintendent of the Charlotte Schools in Charlotte, 
North Carolina: ``Based on a lack of funding, there are systemwide 
struggles which directly affect the quality of service we can provide 
to our students.'' From a parent in Pennsylvania: ``I believe that a 
lack of funding is a major detriment to fulfilling the promise of IDEA 
giving children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate 
education in the least restrictive environment.''
  This amendment seeks to move us in the direction that the budget 
resolution has said we should go, that this House has said we should 
go, and that Congress in 1975 said that we should go by funding 40 
percent of the mandate that we imposed on some State and local schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, the choice we face is this, both parties want to 
increase support for special education. The question is, are we going 
to do that by scaling back by just a tiny amount the size of the tax 
cuts that the majority party is pushing through this place, or are we 
going to do that by cutting back on funding for disadvantaged children? 
Are you going to do that by cutting back on Impact Aid to local school 
districts?
  Are you going to do that by cutting out increases for charter schools 
in this bill and the increases for education for homeless children? Are 
you going to really cut $31 million from Indian Education, 29 percent 
below the House bill and 33 percent below the request?
  I do not know how many times you have had the occasion to have Native 
American children either in your office or just talking to them at 
home. So often we see that they lack confidence. They are not sure of 
themselves. They do not want to speak up.
  They have not been treated very well in this society, and this 
amendment provides that that treatment is going to be just a little bit 
worse.
  I do not think that it makes sense fiscally. I do not think it makes 
sense in terms of human values. This amendment is opposed by the 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the very 
people that it purports to help. And it is also opposed by the Easter 
Seals Society. It says Easter Seals does not support amendments that 
propose to reduce funding of Federal general education programs in 
order to provide an increase for special education. Every child in 
America benefits when all educational programs are adequately funded. 
Moreover, Easter Seals is working to ensure that students with 
disabilities have the opportunity to benefit from general education 
programs, including the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, GEAR-
UP, and title I.
  Mr. Chairman, we know in the end this bill is going to have to 
provide more funding for special education and for a lot of other 
education programs. That, unfortunately, is not going to happen today, 
because of the rule under which this bill is being brought to the 
floor, but this is not a vote that you want to cast. This is not a vote 
you want to go home and explain to your constituents.
  We should not be picking on the most defenseless and most troubled 
children in this society in order to help other defenseless and 
troubled children. I would urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to take a look at the funding and the 
taking away from different groups to fund others. Title I since 1998 
increased 19 percent. Impact Aid since 1998 increased 22 percent. 
Indian Education since 1998, an increase of 80 percent. School 
improvement programs since 1998, an increase of 110 percent.
  What we are saying is these programs have been funded and increased 
over the last 3 years, but let us meet and fulfill the commitment that 
this House said, which was special education funding is our number one 
priority. Let us fully meet our commitment as we fully met our 
commitment, then let us take a look at the other programs. But

[[Page 10517]]

these other programs have been receiving increases. What we are saying 
this year is let us take a focused approach, and let us put our money 
where our promises and our commitments were.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me the time and would simply state that, I believe, while 
well-intentioned, this amendment might jeopardize the $30 million 
increase that we have worked so hard for a program that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and I have had hearings on; that we both 
agree should be supported at a higher level of funding, and that is 
charter schools.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who I have the deepest of 
respect for, we work together on the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, have 
had a hearing, an extensive hearing on what a wonderful innovation is 
being brought forward on charter schools in this country.
  They are accountable. They are innovative and creative. They allow us 
to do new things at the community level with parental involvement. We 
need more funding. And we hear from the business community and the 
high-tech community that starting a new charter school, the upstart 
costs are one of the most difficult barriers to get them going, so we 
have a $30 million increase; the Senate has this at $210 million. Let 
us keep that in the bill; let us not threaten that with taking money 
away from that charter school program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said that 
special education should be our highest priority. I agree that special 
education, teacher training and small class size all ought to be our 
top priorities, but I do not believe that special education ought to be 
our only priority; and I do not think it ought to be funded by dealing 
another heavy blow to other children who in some cases are even more 
disadvantaged than some of the children who need special education.
  It seems to me in the end we will recognize what we all have to do, 
that will not happen until conference; but this approach is a beggar-
thy-neighbor approach, and I do not think it would be well received by 
the public; and I urge its rejection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) a 
designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I had previously intended to offer an amendment to this 
bill, which would increase the Star Schools Program up to last year's 
funding level of about $51 million. My amendment would have increased 
this program a little over $5\1/2\ million with offsets proposed for 
administrative costs in the Department of Education.
  I have decided not to offer the amendment formally, but to enter into 
a colloquy with the chairman of our subcommittee to get some assurance 
that this issue will be considered in conference. The purpose of the 
Star Schools Program is to capitalize on new interactive communication 
technologies which allow educators to improve instruction in 
mathematics, in science, foreign languages, adult literacy and other 
subjects, especially to traditionally underserved students.
  The Stars Schools Program was first authorized in 1988 and was 
reauthorized most recently under title III of the Improving America's 
Schools Act. The program allows the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement to make grants for a duration of 5 years, allows the 
authority to make awards to special statewide projects and special 
local projects.
  The program has been really a very effective program in my district, 
the east side of the State of Washington. It has provided services to 
more than 6,000 schools in every State, the District of Columbia, and 
several territories.
  About 1.6 million learners have participated in the student staff 
development parental and community-based activities produced under the 
Stars Schools Program. I visited the STEP Star Program in Spokane, 
Washington, which is the Star Schools Program offered by Educational 
Service District 101 in my 5th Congressional District of Washington. 
The program is tremendously impressive, and I must say we held a town 
hall meeting with several schools in rural communities outside of the 
Spokane area, and it was very effective. I especially commend the work 
of ESD 101 Superintendent Terry Munther and Government Affairs manager 
Steve Witter.
  We could have interactive communication and discussion of not only 
issues of the day, but the opportunity for students in local, rural 
communities to have the same opportunities to learn as students in 
urban communities.
  It is a very great program. It is well operated. It services children 
as it should, regardless of geographic location. So I am delighted that 
the chairman of the subcommittee is willing to enter into this colloquy 
and to talk a little bit about this, and allow me to say a few words in 
support of the program, because I think if we had a vote on it, we 
would have a good chance of passage; but I do respect the process here 
of trying to make sure we stay within our budget limitations, but also 
try to solve the funding issues that affect very serious programs like 
this one in the conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the assurance of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) that we will seek to increase funding for the 
Stars Schools Program up to the level of last year to the extent that 
we can during the conference with the other body.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) for bringing this good program to the attention of the 
subcommittee, and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter), gives his assurance that he will work to 
increase the line item for this particular program, the Stars Schools 
Program in conference.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                               impact aid

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


                      school improvement programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles IV, V-A and B, VI, IX, X, and XIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (``ESEA''); 
     the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964; and part B of title VIII of the Higher 
     Education

[[Page 10518]]

     Act of 1965; $3,165,334,000, of which $1,073,500,000 shall 
     become available on July 1, 2001, and remain available 
     through September 30, 2002, and of which $1,515,000,000 shall 
     become available on October 1, 2001 and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2002 for academic year 2001-
     2002: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, 
     $1,750,000,000 shall be for the Teacher Empowerment Act, if 
     such legislation is enacted.


                Amendment No. 185 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

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

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

                              {time}  1315

  So I do not know what the majority's opposition to this is. It is a 
brand new program based on a successful program that is currently 
working called Troops-to-Teachers. The Troops-to-Teachers idea was to 
help people move from the military to the teaching profession. Right 
now that 1994 program has 3,300 former military people teaching in 
schools, and 83 percent of them have stayed in inner-city school or 
rural school hard-to-teach areas.
  What is the difficulty? It is a bipartisan amendment. It is offset. 
It is based on a successful idea to bring new people into the teaching 
profession.
  Now, we might hear from the majority that this is legislating on an 
appropriations bill. Only in Washington do you hear such terminology, 
``legislating on an appropriations bill,'' which means a bipartisan 
bill with a good idea and a solid track record might not even get a 
vote on it.
  So I am exasperated. I cannot figure out why an education 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations would rule out of order 
an innovative, creative idea, with such promise for quality in the 
teaching profession.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) wish to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is 
not going to claim the time in opposition, then I will claim the time 
in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 10519]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. I very 
much support where the gentleman wants to put this money, but I do not 
agree with where he wants to get it. I think the same problem lies with 
this as it lies with other amendments. So, at the proper time, if it is 
pursued to a vote, I would have to urge the House to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer), and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and neighbor, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my Hoosier colleague and friend for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to lend my support to the gentleman's amendment. 
I agree with the offset, and I believe it is commendable that the 
gentleman has an offset. But I also think that there are few issues 
that are of importance to our education system as much as where we are 
going to get the math, science and technology teachers for the next 
generation.
  We do job training through the Federal Government, we do transitions' 
training through the Federal Government, and we do teacher training 
through the Federal Government. This crosses all different categories. 
This is not a new innovation.
  I hope that if we cannot get it done today, we can move it through 
the authorizing committee. I think it is a great idea. Our only hope 
really to address this question is how we can get people moving from 
the private sector, many of whom have made their money in the private 
sector and may be willing to come back and teach our young people, or 
we will not able to compete worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
the State of Florida (Mr. Davis), who has worked so hard on this bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we face, over the next 10 years, 
a need to hire over 2.2 million new teachers in this country. In my 
home, the Tampa Bay area, 7,000 new teachers we will need over the next 
10 years. The problem is there is already a cut. School districts 
around the country are already starting to experience a lot of 
difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.
  Well, today we can adopt a solution to that. We can adopt an 
amendment that is a Transition to Teaching Act, that will allow people 
who aspire to be teachers to go back to school to qualify for up to a 
$5,000 grant to cover their tuition and fees. In return, they must meet 
the same high standards that anyone else would need to be certified in 
their particular State, and they must spend at least 3 years teaching 
in a school with a high level of poverty, the schools having the 
greatest difficulty attracting the teachers we need today.
  Most importantly, we are finding that around the country people that 
are prepared to move from the boardroom to the classroom, from the 
police station on Main Street to the school on Main Street, are 
valuable teachers. They are using their life experience to reach out to 
kids, to help them get excited and engaged in learning.
  This amendment adopts the President's budget proposal of $25 million 
to start this program. It has bipartisan support. It has passed 
unanimously in both the House and the Senate. This is something we can 
do today to begin to equip our school districts and States to deal with 
this teacher shortage problem; not just to replace teachers, but also 
to bring more quality in the classroom by allowing these professionals 
to use their life experience to succeed as teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is 
recognized for 3 minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
as well as his hospitality on that issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue I close on in this bipartisan debate is we 
are trying to be innovative, and we are piggybacking on a successful 
idea called Troops-to-Teachers that has transitioned thousands of 
people from the military sector into the teaching sector. Now we are 
trying to transition people, from accountants, police officers, people 
in high technology jobs, into the teaching profession. It is a 
bipartisan idea, supported by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis), and me. It has an offset, so it is fiscally responsible.
  I would like to ask somebody on the Republican side to tell me 
substantively why they disagree with this issue? I would be happy to 
yield the next 10 seconds to them to disagree with it.
  Nobody rises on the Republican side to show any opposition to this 
amendment, which we have worked on, which the House has passed, which 
the Senate has passed, which we are trying to get through procedural 
obstacles and distractions, some way of bringing a good idea from the 
floor of the House to the American people.
  We would hope that there would be some kind of bipartisan support 
between Republicans and Democrats, since both support this idea, that 
we could get this bill on the suspension calendar or as a separate 
piece of legislation through this body to help the critical need for 
more teachers in America.
  We have a digital divide, Mr. Chairman, with too many poor kids not 
having access to technology. We have a teaching divide in this country, 
where so many teachers may not get access to technology, or, when they 
get a donation of a brand new computer, they do not know how to use it. 
They are not equipped with the software and the skills to teach that 
technology to young people in inner-city or rural areas. This amendment 
deals with that shortage and that paucity, but, because of obstacles by 
the majority side, we cannot get this amendment voted on today.
  So I would hope in the future when we have an education idea that is 
bipartisan, that is based on a successful idea that is working, that 
has been passed by the House and the Senate, I would hope that we could 
get some cooperation to support this legislation in the future.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wanted somebody to stand up 
in opposition. I could not get any time. My problem is the gentleman is 
authorizing on an appropriations bill. The gentleman helped us create 
TEA. Get the gentleman's two Members of the other body to move, and all 
of these things that the gentleman wants to do here are included in 
that, and then it will be done properly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes in part a good idea. 
It wants to take the concept of using retired military people in the 
classroom and add to that the concept of also using retired civilians 
in the classroom, especially to deal with problems like math and 
science. That is a terrific idea, and we ought to do it. The amendment 
that we will be offering later in the bill will do it; it just will not 
do it by damaging some of the programs that would be damaged if we 
funded that increase by reducing the programs the gentleman is trying 
to reduce.

[[Page 10520]]

  I understand that the gentleman is forced to do that because of the 
rule under which we are operating. That is not his fault. But 
eventually we are going to have to do it the right way, and at that 
point I will look forward to the gentleman's full support, because I 
think the gentleman will be happy with the product that we produce 
after the President eventually is able to convince the majority party 
that they are not going to go home until they restore the money which 
they have cut from his education budget. I will predict that will 
include initiatives such as this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) 
reserved a point of order. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on 
the point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
This does that.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, with your patience and diligence, only in 
Washington, D.C., can you have a point of order on legislation on an 
appropriations bill on a bipartisan amendment that is on a successful 
idea that has an offset and does not take money and harm other 
programs.
  I reluctantly, very reluctantly, concede the point of order on a 
technical Washington, D.C. term.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                           reading excellence

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


                            indian education

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


                   bilingual and immigrant education

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


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

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

                           school renovation

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

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

                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to include a package of $1.3 
billion in grants and loans for urgently needed repair and 
modernization at our Nation's crumbling schools.
  The desperate need to repair America's school schools is not a new 
issue for any of us. Four years ago, I conducted a survey of New York 
City schools and discovered that one in every four schools holds 
classes in areas such as hallways, gyms, bathrooms, janitors' closets. 
Two-thirds of these schools had substandard critical building features 
such as roofs, walls, floors.
  This is an outrage. This is a disgrace. In response to that shocking 
study, I worked with the administration to author the very first school 
modernization bill in 1996. It is now 4 years later. School enrollment 
is skyrocketing.
  High-speed modems and the wiring to support them is no longer a 
luxury. We have kids in the United States of America attending classes 
in rooms with asbestos-filled ceilings and in rooms heated with coal 
stoves. It would be laughable if it was not so disgraceful and 
potentially tragic.
  Some of my colleagues will say this is not a Federal responsibility 
but the fact is that the States are doing the best they can. They need 
a partnership. They need Federal dollars to fill in the holes. In fact, 
the National Education Association estimates that the unmet school 
modernization need in America's schools totals over $300 billion, and 
that is on top of what school districts and States are already 
spending.
  The problem is simply too big for local and State officials to handle 
alone. Simply stated, the need for school modernization is a national 
problem that demands a national response.
  The Federal government, in my judgment, has a responsibility to 
ensure that public education is more than a promise, and our students 
cannot learn when the walls are literally crumbling around them. That 
is why we just should not end this session, Mr. Chairman, without 
providing at least this proposal for emergency school repair.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue where we will either pay now 
or we are going to pay later. If we do not provide the resources even 
for this targeted emergency assistance, we will continue to undermine 
our students and teachers as they struggle to meet standards and 
achieve academically.
  We can spend the money now, targeted at the most urgent repairs 
first, and its reach will be broad. Through loans and grants, $1.3 
billion would be leveraged with local dollars to provide $7 billion for 
approximately 8,300 school projects. The funding will go to high-need 
school districts for critical repairs such as ceilings, leaky roofs, 
and removing asbestos.
  Pay now, or pay later in lower student achievement, even more 
burdened teachers, and potentially, even accident or injury in 
crumbling schoolrooms.
  America's children need us to make the right choice now, to use this 
opportunity we have in this time of unprecedented prosperity to rebuild 
their schools and lift up the quality of their education. If we fail as 
a Congress once again to take action to meet our school modernization 
needs, it is wrong and we are going to pay.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, acknowledge the shameful physical 
condition of our schools, give some relief to our States and 
localities. We cannot give our students a 21st century education in 
19th century schools.

[[Page 10521]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the order of the 
House, points of order are reserved.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) wish to claim the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for at least 212 years of our Republic the schools in 
our country, the public schools, have managed to handle their own 
construction. They have done a pretty good job of it. It has never ever 
been a Federal responsibility, nor should it be.
  As the gentlewoman points out, there is an estimate of over $300 
billion in unmet needs. I do not doubt the needs at all. The needs are 
there. The question is, who should be funding it? I think, as 
throughout our entire history, our local school districts, aided by the 
States, should provide for this need.
  If we had an allocation of $300 billion more, Members might be able 
to make an argument that there are sufficient funds to do this right 
now. But we do not have an allocation anywhere near that. To get the 
Federal government into this area of responsibility would undermine 
local control of public education. Local control is at the heart of our 
educational system in America. This is not another area where the 
Federal government ought to go in.
  One of the things that was done in the last Congress was to pass the 
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. This Act included the national 
public school construction initiative. This initiative would have made 
permanent changes in bond rules so that State and local governments 
issuing public school construction bonds could take increased advantage 
of arbitrage rebate rules to help finance school construction and 
renovation.
  Unfortunately, the President of the United States vetoed that 
legislation when it was laid on his desk.
  I cannot see the possibility of the Federal government undertaking 
the kind of spending responsibility contemplated in this amendment. The 
States are doing very well. The economy is performing very well. State 
coffers are overflowing. The money is actually being spent by many of 
our States to support this State responsibility and to improve the 
condition of the schools, as it should be.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this matter is a responsibility of 
another level of government, not a Federal responsibility. It will be 
undertaken properly and carried out by States and localities. We should 
not get the Federal government into yet another area of local control.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but briefly, as the gentleman 
well knows, after World War II, the United States did respond to the 
tremendous demand for schools and we built schools. We understood at 
that time that education was a priority.
  All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a tremendous problem 
in this country. Two hundred years ago we did not have computers in 
every classroom. Pencils and pens were adequate. We need to wire our 
schools. We need to provide computers. We need to ensure that every 
youngster has the best education they can.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 90 seconds to my good 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment. Our local school districts cannot raise sufficient funds to 
do all that is needed, desperately needed school construction funds to 
repair schools and to improve the overcrowding situation.
  The city of Santa Maria lies in the heart of my Central Coast 
district. It has some of the worst overcrowding problems in the 
country. They have tried repeatedly to raise bonds, funds for this, and 
were not able to do it.
  I recently visited Oakley School in Santa Maria, a school built 
originally for 400 students with an enrollment now of over 900. The 
school is forced to use precious playground space for 14 portable 
classrooms, which requires them to hold three different lunch periods. 
The first lunch period starts at 10:30 in the morning.
  Mr. Chairman, I am so disappointed that we have done nothing in this 
106th Congress to address the overcrowding and needed repairs in our 
schools across the country. The families of the Central Coast of 
California have told me again and again that school construction 
funding is their number one priority.
  Just this morning I met with some middle school students from Santa 
Lucia school in Cambria where they carved up their multipurpose 
building into classrooms, and they have used their library for 
classrooms. I myself as a school nurse know what it is like to do 
vision and hearing screening in the janitors' closets.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this Congress has to treat school 
construction in a manner that reflects the importance of our schools 
and of our education in society and in our communities today. I ask 
Members to show their support for schools and students in need. Support 
the Lowey amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused as to where the 
administration stands on school construction.
  Back in 1995, we had a rescission of the funding that was already 
appropriated, and then in the President's 1996 budget he put no money 
in for any kind of construction. We got out of his language in that 
budget request, ``The construction and renovation of school facilities 
has traditionally been the responsibility of State and local 
governments financed primarily by local taxpayers,'' and now, this is 
the administration I am quoting, not me, ``primarily by local 
taxpayers. We are opposed to the creation of a new Federal grant 
program for school construction. No funds are requested for this 
program in 1996. For the reasons explained above, the administration 
opposes the creation of a new Federal grant program for school 
construction.''
  That is the administration doing the talking here. Then, of course, 
we passed legislation that would have made permanent changes to bond 
rules, so that State and local governments issuing public school 
construction bonds could more easily comply with the arbitrage rebate 
rules. Guess who vetoed that?
  So it is a little confusing as to where the administration stands on 
school construction. All schools would be eligible to take advantage of 
that change in the arbitrage rules, unlike the President's proposal, 
which is a limited eligibility.
  We already provide school construction assistance for schools that 
show a need for additional funds. The qualified zone academy bonds 
program provides $400 million of tax credits to investors who purchase 
bonds issued by qualified zone academies for school renovation 
projects.
  What is also confusing is when they offer an amendment like this with 
so little money, and then they do not prioritize. I do not understand 
that. It seems to me with that small amount there certainly would be a 
priority list. Otherwise, it gets misused.
  Again, it is confusing because I am reading what the administration 
is saying, and the administration is saying over and over again, both 
in their veto of the tax bill and also back in 1996, that they thought 
that this is a place they do not want money because they thought it was 
the for local taxpayers.
  Last night I was amazed because the gentleman said, oh, but it was 
your administration that was administering these programs. I have news 
for them, they administered the programs just exactly as the majority 
said they had to administer the program. They had to send the money, 
that is all they said. They never went out to look to see what was 
happening with the money. They said, you send the money

[[Page 10522]]

where we said the money goes. So do not give me that foolish, facetious 
argument.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a member of the 
committee
  Mr. HOYER. Briefly, the distinguished chairman talked about waste, 
fraud, and abuse. They did not cancel one Head Start program under 
their administration, I told the chairman, and he said that, as well. 
It was Donna Shalala that came along and said if Head Start is not 
working, we are going to shut down programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our committee continually says, 
regrettably, we do not have the money. He does not say we ought not to 
do it. He says, regrettably, we do not have the money. That is a self-
imposed tax-cutting limitation. That is why we do not have the money, 
because they have determined that the wealthiest in America needed more 
than the children in America.
  The President does have a program, as the chairman knows. For the 
jurisdictions that have the money to sell bonds he allows a tax credit, 
which makes them a little cheaper and therefore easier to sell, and 
therefore easier to proceed to provide the classroom space that our 
children so desperately need and that teachers need to have safe 
schoolrooms in which to teach.
  This program supplements it for the neediest children in America. Are 
we so parsimonious that we will not do that for the neediest children 
in America?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) 
claim the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone in the 
Chamber that the Secretary only made that decision after we said, from 
the Congress, we are not interested in quantity anymore, we are 
interested in quality. It did not matter whether it was the Johnson 
administration, it did not matter whether it was the Reagan 
administration, they did not have that edict from the Congress. They 
now do, and she is taking advantage of what we have given her.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another one of these theme amendments 
from the other side and basically what has happened, the goal is to 
basically undermine the budget process that we have. The budget process 
was adopted back in the 1970s to try to put some fiscal discipline in 
our spending programs here in Congress. It did not work for the first 
couple of decades, while the Democrats controlled this House, and once 
we started getting a handle on our fiscal problems and now we have a 
surplus, the idea is let us forget about the budget process and let us 
just spend, spend, spend.
  The way the budget process works is, we propose a budget in the House 
and in the Senate. We agree to a budget. We agree to a set of numbers. 
This was passed by a majority in the House and a majority in the 
Senate. Now we have to live with these numbers. I know some do not like 
the budget that was adopted but the majority of the Congress adopted 
this budget and we have to live within this budget.
  So that is what we are doing is saying are we going to believe in the 
budget process or are we going to just undermine it? That is what the 
basic objective we are talking about here is.
  Now, when we have a surplus, the question is what do we do with all 
of our extra money? I mean, it is exciting to spend money and there are 
a lot of good programs in the Federal Government but the problem is we 
have to establish priorities. There are some, I think, very high 
priorities.
  For example, I am a very strong supporter of the National Institutes 
of Health, as I think many of my colleagues on the other side are. We 
want to attack cancer with research. We want to go after the problems 
of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. That is a high priority. We 
are concerned about world health problems with the CDC, but all of a 
sudden now we have a new program.
  Last night we just appointed conferees to the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction. Maybe we are moving in the direction of having a 
school construction subcommittee, because this is a slippery slope. 
When one starts putting a billion here to start with, it is not too 
much; a billion in Washington it does not seem like a lot of money to 
some people but it is a slippery slope.
  There is a need. There is a problem with education. There is a 
problem with our school systems, but this is traditionally done at the 
State and local level. That is where we need it to remain. If we want 
to help our schools, let us relieve them with special education funding 
but we have to still live within the principles of a budget. If we want 
to stay responsible and keep this surplus and preserve it and not get 
ourselves in the hole where not too many years ago we were looking at 
$200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see, let us start 
spending money.
  I mean, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars in 
these theme amendments that totally destroy and undermine the budget 
agreement. This is a totally new program. It is not authorized. It is 
my opinion it should be defeated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a fighter on school modernization, who 
understands how important it is.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we get called back here every week to name post offices 
and to even fund unwanted aircraft carriers, but when it comes time for 
us to confront education head on we begin to fiddle, Mr. Chairman. We 
send money from the Federal Government to build roads, to build 
highways. I am always fascinated when I hear my colleagues on the other 
side suggest that this is a local issue, this is local control. They 
did not complain when the home builders came before us recently asking 
that local land disputes be decided in Federal courts. Neither did I. I 
supported it.
  They do not come complaining that building prisons is a local issue 
when those at the local level say we need more money to throw criminals 
in jail, which I support. But when it comes time to build schools, to 
provide children with an opportunity to learn in a safe and clean and 
learner-friendly environment, they begin to buckle, they begin to 
flinch. They begin to point fingers and suggest that it is not our 
responsibility.
  Name me a prison in America, Mr. Chairman, that closes early, as 30 
of my schools do during the summertime because they have no air 
conditioning. There is not one.
  I would hope my colleagues on the other side could do better by our 
kids. We ought to be thankful they cannot write campaign checks like 
the gunmakers, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry. 
If they could, perhaps we could give a better answer than the answer we 
are giving today.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as the individual who heads the subject matter of K 
through 12 education, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
there are a few figures we need to trot out here in the overall 
understanding of what we are doing.
  One figure is simply this: In the five previous years, including two 
Presidents, the Republicans have put an increase of 48.2 percent in 
education

[[Page 10523]]

funding K through 12, or 8.2 percent per year. In the 5 years before 
that, when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress under two 
Presidents at that time, the total was 32.9 percent or 6 percent a 
year, a lesser percentage than the Republicans have been putting in, in 
the last 5 years.
  There are a lot of reasons for this: A President who cares about 
education; a Congress which cares about education; both parties which 
care about education, but we need to be very careful in saying who is 
slighting education because the last 5 years have been the highest 
increases in K through 12 education in the history of the Congress of 
the United States.
  Now we get to the issue of school construction here. There is a lot 
of room for expenditures. That is being done in this budget, as in 
other budgets. We also can, frankly, afford some of the tax cuts that 
have been talked about and debt retirement. I understand we are 
probably going to have an extra trillion dollars here very shortly.
  The real issue is what are we supposed to be doing about this? I know 
when I was a governor, we fought hard to reduce the size of the 
classrooms in K through 3 because we thought that was so important, but 
we also fought hard for school construction; mostly done at the State 
level. That indeed is a State function, something which we thought a 
great deal about in terms of what we had to do.
  Yet in Delaware, a State which has, according to all the studies, 
relatively good schools, we need a billion dollars for new schools. If 
we take that and extrapolate that over 435 congressional districts 
because that is just one congressional district, that is $435 billion. 
If we put together a program like that, it is probably $500 billion. 
Others will say it is $300 billion.
  In the event, that is the low. I would say it is something higher 
than that.
  We are talking here about $1.3 billion. Maybe if it can be leveraged, 
some more; but if it is leveraged, money is owed. So even if one gets 
to $7 billion, they are talking about an absolute drop in the bucket. 
That is the problem with this. We are buying into a program which is a 
State and local responsibility, with a very small sum of money, so that 
we can stand up politically and say that we have solved the problems of 
construction of our schools.
  This does not even begin to do that. We all need to understand it 
and, in my judgment, it probably should not be a Federal 
responsibility. If it is, let us look at what the Federal Government 
has mandated or facilitated to the States, including dealing with IDEA, 
dealing with technology, dealing with safety, dealing with the OSHA 
requirements, whatever it may be. Maybe in that area we could do 
something but, in my judgment, an open-ended construction bill is not 
the way to go, and we need to be very careful about this. We need to 
have further discussions. Perhaps something can be done, but I do not 
think this is the solution right now.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I brought this chart up here because we 
talk about numbers. I want people to understand, we are not talking 
about a static number. We are talking about the growth in the number of 
students in high school over the next 10 years, the greatest we are 
facing in this Nation's history in terms of numbers.
  So if we are talking about how much we have increased the budget, we 
need to reflect. We have not increased it anywhere near what we need to 
be increasing it to meet the needs.
  We need to pass the Lowey amendment, to restore the administration's 
plan to assist our local schools in repairing the schools that need to 
be repaired instead of this massive tax cut that we are talking about.
  As a former superintendent of my State schools, I know firsthand that 
we need to invest in schools to help our children get individual 
attention, to have proper discipline and instruction that they need to 
meet the skills of the 21st century, and this $1.3 billion will restore 
5,000 local schools that badly need it.
  We can see from this chart that would only be a scratch in where we 
need to go.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that needs to be done. I grew up on a 
farm, and there is one thing a person understands. One does not eat the 
seed corn, and this Congress is about to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment that 
restores the administration's plan to assist repair plans for local 
school buildings. This bill would kill that plan to finance the 
majority's massively irresponsible tax scheme. I strongly oppose those 
misplaced priorities.
  As the former superintendent of my state's public schools, I know 
firsthand we must invest in our schools so that students get the 
individual attention, discipline, and instruction they need to learn 
the skills to succeed in this New Economy. This amendment will restore 
to the bill $1.3 billion for 5,000 local school districts across the 
country to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing, and bring schools into 
compliance with local safety codes. Common sense tells us that no 
school can provide an adequate education if children are subjected to 
substandard facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, budget choices come down to a question of our values. 
Do we value investment in our nation's future by providing our children 
the best education in the world? Or do we fritter away that future by 
acting like drunken sailors when it comes to tax cuts? I support 
responsible tax relief for middle class families, but we must not raid 
the Treasury and jeopardize our ability to make necessary investments.
  Mr. Chairman, I grew up on a small farm. The farm teaches you hard 
lessons. I believe cutting education to finance massive tax breaks is 
as dumb as eating your seed corn. I call on my colleagues to reject the 
Republican majority's misguided values, reject this bill and vote for 
the Lowey amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) for yielding me this additional time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is nice to have all these Johnny-come-latelys. For 
22 years, I tried to get 40 percent of excess spending back to the 
local districts as far as special ed is concerned. If the majority had 
done that for all these years, Los Angeles, for instance, would have 
been getting an extra 100 million dollars every year. Can one imagine 
what they could have done in school construction, what they could have 
done in class size reduction? Chicago would have gotten $76 million 
extra every year. New York City would have gotten $170 million extra 
every year. Imagine what they could have done.
  Again, I could not get them to move to get that 40 percent of excess 
funding back to those local districts, so their money would be freed to 
do just the things that we think now is our responsibility: Class size 
reduction; school construction. All the money would have been 
available, but they had to take their money for our mandate and so they 
could not do the kinds of things they should have been doing in 
relationship to class size reduction, in relationship to construction.
  Again, I am confused about where the administration stands on 
construction.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend and leader.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to show my strong support 
for the Lowey amendment. This is a crisis. When we have had crises 
before, the Federal Government has, in fact, stepped in. Over the last 
4 years, I visited many of the schools in my district and, frankly, I 
was shocked by the conditions I found.
  Our teachers are holding classes in trailers because their classrooms 
aren't safe. Students crowd into these rooms. They sit on floors. They 
sit on radiators. They have classes in closets. Just this morning, a 
gentleman came into my office. He said his daughter in high school went 
into a classroom, 40 chairs, 60 students.
  Schools in my district are being forced to trade teachers for bricks 
and mortar. These children cannot afford the trade-off and they should 
not have to expect to choose between safe and adequate classrooms and 
more teachers.

[[Page 10524]]

  Studies show that on the average, students who attend schools in poor 
conditions score lower on achievement tests. This is just one more 
hurdle our students should not have to jump through.
  One-third of all of our schools need extensive repair and over half 
of our schools need repair of at least one major building. Please 
support this amendment. It provides the States the much-needed 
assistance to renovate the decrepit schools.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), my good colleague, and a leader on school 
construction. I have seen his district and the need is clear.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support, in strong support, of 
the Lowey amendment. School renovation and construction is of the 
utmost importance to our children and to the future of our country.
  My colleague from New York has been a leader in the fight for Federal 
funding for school renovation and construction assistance.
  Schools, as part of our Nation's infrastructure, are in desperate 
need of repair and modernization. One-third of our Nation's schools 
were built prior to World War II. In the city of New York, the average 
age of a school is 55 years of age, and one out of five schools is over 
75 years of age.
  I have the most overcrowded school district in New York City, School 
District 24, which is operating at 119 percent of capacity. 
Additionally, enrollment is increasing by 30,000 every 5 years. My 
colleagues from New York are seeing similar problems arise.
  How can we expect our children to work hard and care about their 
education and their future when they have classrooms that were formerly 
closets or bathrooms? That is not showing that we care about our 
children.
  I ask, would someone allow their child to attend a school that has a 
roof falling in or fire alarms that do not work? Congress is allowing 
their children to go to school under those conditions.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Owens), my colleague who knows firsthand what a 
tremendous problem we have in our city schools.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, $1.3 billion is a very tiny amount, but it 
is one step forward. $1.3 billion is $1.3 billion above zero.
  The Republican majority has offered nothing. This small step to take 
care of emergency repairs will open the door, I hope, to an 
understanding that our schools are a part of our national security 
system.
  We had 300 personnel short of an aircraft carrier launched last year 
because we did not have the right personnel to put on. They could not 
meet the high-tech requirements. We have a bill coming up next week to 
bring in people from outside the country to take jobs in our high-tech 
industries. Those same people came from countries that built their own 
nuclear industry on the basis of what they learned here as students and 
as workers here.
  We need to deal with the problem of $254 billion needed to bring up 
our school infrastructure as determined by the National Education 
Association survey, which was completed recently.
  The General Accounting Office in 1995 said we needed $110 billion at 
that time. Enrollments have grown. We need to spend on a level which 
understands that we are going into the 21st century, a cyber 
civilization.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey) has 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member 
of the committee, who has been a leader on education.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who are we trying to kid? I have been in this 
House 31 years, and there has not been a year when the Republicans in 
this House have not favored less funding for Federal education than 
Democrats.
  Over the last 5 years, first they wanted to abolish the Department of 
Education. Then they tried to savage every education program that they 
can get their hands on. Now that the polls are showing that education 
is increasing in popularity, they are backing away.
  Now they act as though somehow the idea of the Federal Government 
helping local school districts with renovating buildings is a new idea. 
Franklin Roosevelt, for goodness sake, helped local school districts 
build 5,200 new schools when he was President in the 1930s. He helped 
them renovate 1,000 schools that needed renovation.
  My colleagues passed a minimum wage bill just a few weeks ago that 
gave $11 billion in wage benefits to low-wage workers but gave $90 
billion in tax cuts to people making over 300,000 bucks a year.
  What does one have to do to finance this amendment? Cut back that $90 
billion to their wealthy friends to $89 billion. Is not that a terrible 
thing to ask to them do?
  My colleagues ask why the administration opposed the Archer arbitrage 
position. It is very simple. Because that provision encouraged delays 
in construction because delaying construction would mean that schools 
could have earned additional interest by leaving the money in the bank 
rather than putting it in the school. That is why the administration 
opposed that provision and supports this one.
  If my colleagues are for education, if they are for helping kids in 
lousy school buildings get a better deal, support this amendment. I was 
in a school 2 weeks ago where the furnace room looked like it was in 
the Titanic, for God's sake.
  It is about time my colleagues recognize this is a growing 
population. There are some communities that do not have the financial 
power to do this job without Federal help. It is about time my 
colleagues give it to them.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to forget the old stereotypes. We 
need a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments. 
This is an emergency. I visited a school in New York just a couple of 
weeks ago where the kids had to move from one side of the gymnasium to 
the other side of the gymnasium when it was raining. This in the United 
States of America; this at the time of our greatest prosperity.
  Franklin Roosevelt responded to the emergency. If we can build roads, 
if we can build highways, if we can build bridges, if we can build 
prisons, Mr. Chairman, let us work and be a partner to the State and 
local government; and we can reduce the taxes at the same time.
  We just do not have to have as large a tax cut as we are proposing. 
We can respond and make sure that we are really educating every 
youngster. This is the least we can do. Shame on us if we do not. Shame 
on us if we do not pass this amendment.
  This is $1.3 billion, and we have a responsibility to all the 
youngsters in this great country of ours. I ask for my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I am a person who can recall back when I 
started high school in the late 1960s that, not only did we have a 
problem with facilities, we had no facilities with which to attend high 
school classes, and they had to split the class size up. Freshmen and 
sophomores went in the morning, and juniors and seniors went in the 
afternoon.
  I would venture to say that because of the disarray with the local 
school board back then, that even if we had a program in place like 
this, they would have squandered that money; and they would have never 
seen the light of day and created one single classroom.
  The myth exists in this country that some people, and with good 
intention,

[[Page 10525]]

stand up and try to say, if we give Washington the power, they can 
solve all problems locally for us, education, health care, school 
construction, child care, all of these things, if only Washington will 
create one more program.
  But I venture to say this, the solutions for these problems do lie 
back in the neighborhoods, and they will not be easy problems to solve. 
But they must be done at the grassroots level, or the true solutions 
will never be found. Solutions like this will only, at best, provide a 
Band-Aid for very temporary relief for a very serious problem.


                             Point of Order

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


                           special education

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


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

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

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

[[Page 10526]]

percent of Americans. If we reduce that tax break by only 20 percent, 
we could add this funding for IDEA and still provide tax relief for 
working middle-class families, the families who need it the most.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We will not sit 
quietly while IDEA receives only lip service while crumbling schools 
are ignored and while the health care needs of seniors and the 
uninsured are disregarded in exchange for a tax break for the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans in this country. Support this 
amendment and oppose the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), a very valued member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Chairman Porter) for yielding me this time; and, of course, I 
commend him for the great work he has been doing for these past 6 years 
chairing this committee.
  This particular amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) is a little different than the last amendment because it 
advocates increasing spending on a program that is, in reality, is a 
favorite for Republicans. We have done very well over the years in the 
past 6 years and the past 5 years in appropriations for this program 
because we really believe very strongly in special education.
  However, this is another attempt to undermine the budget process that 
we have here in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Congress 
passed a budget process bill back in the 1970s that said we must pass a 
budget, and we must live within it.
  Now that we have a surplus, and now that the budget process is 
working, let us spend money. It is kind of like kids in a candy store. 
Hey, we have got a surplus. Let us spend more money.
  Well, there are good spending programs, and this is certainly one of 
the good spending programs in Congress. The Republican Congress in our 
control of the Congress in the past 5 years has certainly shown our 
favorable interest in special education.
  For me personally, I have a niece who is a special ed teacher back in 
Manatee County, Florida. I have a sister who is a mother of a special 
ed student who wrote a book of a mother's perspective for special 
education. So I have a very personal, committed interest to special 
education.
  That is one reason we continue to see the Republicans have done very 
well. Look at the chart. The Republicans were in control the 5 years 
prior to our control in 1995. The President proposed increases of 4 
percent, .3 percent, .1 percent, 5.8 percent. We have given double 
digit increases every year.
  For the previous 5 years prior to the Republican control, spending 
went from $1.5 billion to $2.3 billion. In that 5 years is an $800 
million increase. When we took over, spending went from $2.3 billion to 
$5.4 billion. We have more than doubled the spending of special ed in 
the past 5 years.
  So we have made some great strides, some great progress in funding a 
program. Look what it compares, again, to what happened when the 
Democrats were under control. In the 1993, 1994 years, they had total 
control of the White House and Congress and barely increased spending 
of special ed.
  Now they want to undermine the entire budget process to try to score 
some political points when, in reality, they are kind of Johnny-come-
lately. We are the ones who are doing such, I think, a good job. We can 
use more money. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) 
has been advocating for years, we need to take up the full 
responsibility to 40 percent. And we are making great strides in that.

                              {time}  1415

  Because we have gone from pushing 7 percent now to 13 percent. Not as 
far as 40 percent, but we are moving in the right direction. If the 
Democrats had been in control and we followed the President's budget, 
we would have seen a decline in special education.
  It is a very important program, one that we strongly support, but 
this is not fiscally responsible. It does not fit in with the budget 
agreement and so it does not fit in the emergency category, and I 
advocate the defeat of this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Special education is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue or a 
partisan program. The fact of the matter is that the introduction of 
the tax proposal was by the Republican leadership. It seriously 
underfunds special education only because the Republicans want to 
provide a tax cut to the richest 1 percent of the people in this 
country.
  It was also a Republican resolution to fully fund IDEA over the next 
several years, a 421 to 3 vote, one which, I might add, demonstrates a 
sham to the reality of what this budget is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), who sits on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding me this time and for this amendment.
  In my district, like all districts around this country, parents of 
children with special needs are frantic. They are frantic about their 
children's education. They often feel that their schools are giving 
them the runaround, while the schools are worried about having the 
resources to do the job that is needed.
  At the same time, the parents of students without special needs are 
fearful that special ed kids are taking precious resources from their 
children. Therefore, we are pitting family against family. This cannot 
continue.
  Congress must step up to our responsibility, and we can do it this 
year while the economy is good and we have a surplus. The DeLauro 
amendment gets us on the road towards full funding for IDEA without 
taking one penny from other good programs. By scaling back the proposed 
cuts for the very wealthiest taxpayers, IDEA can be funded to the 
Federal commitment.
  I urge my colleagues to put education for children with disabilities 
before tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Support the DeLauro 
amendment and help all of our children and all of our families.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, my only regret, as I leave this 
institution, is that the first 20 years I sat there in the minority 
trying to make everybody understand that the thing that is driving 
local school districts up the wall more than anything else is the fact 
that we are only sending them about 6 percent of the 40 percent we 
promised them in excess costs to educate special needs children.
  Let me review, however, the last 5 years. I am very pleased with the 
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). The President 
asked, in 1997, for $2.6 billion; the final appropriation $3.1. The 
President asked, in 1998, for 3.2 level funding; he got 3.8. Level 
funding means that he cut in his budget special education, because the 
increased numbers that came in to special ed, as well as inflation, of 
course, meant it was a cut.
  In 1999, again he sent a budget up here cutting IDEA. At a Christmas 
function, I asked him if he realized he was cutting IDEA. He said they 
were putting a lot of money in IDEA. I advised him that he was cutting 
it with the budget request that he was sending up. Fortunately, under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois, not his 3.8 in 1999 but 
4.3 billion.
  He cut it again in his fiscal year 2000 budget, again asking for 
level funding,

[[Page 10527]]

which is a cut because of the increased numbers that have come in to 
special education and the costs of living increases. But thanks to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois, he did not get that cut down 
to 4.3. He got an increase to $4.9 billion.
  Again, in this budget, he has requested $5.2, and under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Illinois it is $5.4.
  These increases are dramatic. We have doubled the amount that we have 
been sending in the last 5 years. We do have a long way to go, but, oh, 
my, I am glad these born-agains have now understood that the greatest 
problem facing local school districts is our unfunded mandate in 
special education.
  So I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for the dramatic 
increase; a 92 percent increase over the President's 1997 budget 
request. Those are big bucks. I thank him, and all the school districts 
thank him as well.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just say to 
my colleague who spoke, that the President of the United States is not 
offering this amendment. This is my amendment. This is our amendment.
  It was just several weeks ago when the Republicans offered a 
resolution on this floor to fully fund IDEA, and we are just trying to 
get there from here. That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to 
strengthen special education, and I thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for introducing it.
  Special education students have particularly acute needs which begin 
early in childhood. We know that the right attention can make an 
enormous difference in children's lives and impact their future. 
Teachers' aides are needed to provide one-on-one support. Counselors 
can help disabled children follow often very difficult paths through 
childhood, adolescence and into adulthood.
  Right now schools are forced to make terrible choices. They can put 
limited funds into special education and deny other basic needs, or 
they can neglect those children and try to meet the basic needs of 
other children. Those are choices our schools should not have to make.
  Last month the House overwhelmingly passed the IDEA Full Funding Act, 
so why are we not appropriating the funds to meet the needs of some of 
our most vulnerable children? This is not right.
  I support the DeLauro amendment to increase special education funding 
without denying other vital programs. Our children must be our national 
priority, not huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, just for 2 seconds I wish to indicate to 
the gentlewoman that I know it is not the President offering the 
amendment, but she missed my point. For 20 years I sat here trying to 
get her side to do something about it and they did nothing.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I alluded to this earlier, but I think it is very 
important to understand where we are with respect to spending on 
education in terms of both political parties.
  Basically what this chart shows is a period of time starting with 
1990 as a base year that shows the years of 1991 through 1995, in which 
there was a Republican President and there was a Democrat president. We 
also had a Democrat Congress during that period of time. It shows what 
all those expenditures are.
  The important thing to understand in all this is that the average 
increase during that period of time was 6 percent in K through 12 
spending. Six percent. What is K through 12? It includes Goals 2000, 
school to work, ESEA, and vocational education. For a total of a $32.9 
percent increase.
  In that year, in that particular election, Republicans took over 
control of the Congress of the United States. And the statistics since 
that time, with the same Democrat President who was President during a 
couple of those years before, has been average annual increases in K 
through 12 education of 8.2 percent. Six percent versus 8.2 percent, or 
an overall increase of 48.2 percent.
  Now, I say all this because we had a whole evening last night, a 
whole discussion of the rule last week as well as discussion today in 
which the basic message has been that the Republicans are sacrificing 
education because, A, they do not want to spend or, B, they want to 
give tax cuts to whomever, the wealthy or whomever it may be. The 
bottom line is that the totals show that Republicans have done more for 
education in 5 years while in control of the House and Senate, in this 
Congress, than in any other 5-year period of time, probably in the 
history industry of the Congress of the United States of America.
  Now, I will be the first to say that there is a presidential 
influence, and there are many other things which are out there, but 
this is not a Congress which has exactly shirked its responsibilities 
with respect to K through 12 education.
  I am a total believer that that is, of all the programs that we have 
that could help people, K through 12 education is the one that could 
help the most. I also believe it is a State and local responsibility, 
but there is some Federal responsibility. We see it in IDEA, we see it 
in title I and in a variety of programs that we need to support here, 
and I believe that we are supporting them.
  I am going to borrow the chart of the gentleman from Florida for just 
a moment, which also shows something else, and that is where we have 
gone with respect to the subject of this amendment in that special 
education funding. It shows a tremendous increase by dollars and by 
percentage since Republicans have taken over control of the Congress of 
the United States. The very subject matter of this amendment.
  This amendment, by the way, is empty. This amendment will probably be 
stricken down on a point of order. The bottom line is that Republicans 
have come through on the funding for special education.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) has 6 minutes remaining, and has the right to close.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  What is before the House this year is not what has been done in the 
past but, in fact, what it is we are going to do in this year. The 
majority party may have been on the right side of the issue in the 
past; this year they are on the wrong side. We need to deal with the 
surplus that we have and take care of children's needs today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens), a champion of education.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is to be 
congratulated for speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of 
the Members of this House, the 421 Members who voted to follow the 
wisdom of the head of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
increase the funding for special education. She is only asking in this 
appropriations bill that we follow the authorizing move that we made a 
few weeks ago.
  I accept the reasoning of the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce. If we put money in to special education, we are 
allowing the local education agencies to move that money that they were 
spending on special education somewhere else. That is a back-door 
approach, but I will accept any approach to get additional funding for 
education. So let us do it. Let us not back away from the commitment of 
$1.5 billion that we made

[[Page 10528]]

and only, instead, have a $500 million commitment.
  Let us go all the way and let us realize that the big issue that has 
been repeated here over and over again is that there is more money for 
education if my Republican colleagues will yield on their tax cut. 
Instead of a tax cut commitment, let us have a smaller tax cut and let 
us dedicate 10 percent of the surplus to education. That is reasonable. 
Ten percent of the surplus this year and 10 percent of the surplus for 
the next 10 years will solve the funding problems for the Federal 
Government with respect to education.
  We now only contribute 7 percent. Of the total education bill each 
year, the Federal Government takes responsibility for only 7 percent. 
Seven percent is too little. That is a Stone Age, a Neanderthal 
approach. We need more Federal assistance to education at the local 
level. The Federal Government is now where the money is. We have a $200 
billion surplus this year, and we will have a $200 billion surplus for 
the next 10 years. Let us dedicate 10 percent of that. We can put part 
of it into school construction, 5 percent, and another 5 percent can be 
used for special education and more teachers. Ten percent of the 
surplus is our answer to all of these problems.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, just this Monday, I met with the 
Superintendent of Schools in Lynbrook and the Chair of their school 
board, and they expressed to me the urgency of mainstreaming youngsters 
in their community. They have been so successful. But it costs money. 
They had a quadriplegic who cost them $100,000 a year. And because they 
have been so successful, they are attracting other youngsters.
  It is because of the leadership of this administration that we are in 
a time of great prosperity. This is the time to respond to the urgent 
need in education.
  I applaud the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling). And that is why I am so puzzled. Frankly, I do not get it. 
On May 3, the House passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 421-3 
a bill calling for a $2 billion increase in 2001 and full funding by 
2010.
  Even with the additional $1.5 billion provided by the DeLauro 
amendment, we will still be providing only 17 percent of the national 
average per pupil.
  Please, we should be supporting the DeLauro amendment on both sides 
of the aisle to move forward on our commitment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we should commend the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for bringing up a very important issue. 
Special education funding is the top priority for the governor of 
Kansas. It is the top priority for the largest school district in 
Kansas, headed by Superintendent Winston Brooks. They have found 
themselves all over the State of Kansas trying to fund special ed by 
taking money for other programs that are very important. So I think 
that we should focus on special education.
  I am disappointed that this amendment was not within the guidelines 
so that it will be struck on a point of order, as is my understanding. 
But I think that we should continue our efforts through the course of 
this bill and as we progress further in this session to try to focus 
our efforts by getting the appropriate funding for the Department of 
Education special education portion.
  If we look at the amount of money that gets spent right here inside 
Washington out of the budget the Department of Education gets, about 35 
percent of it does not even get outside the beltway, it is spent right 
here in Washington, D.C.
  So if we can direct the money for special education specifically to 
the school districts, then it will free up some of their money, it will 
not be wasted here in Washington, D.C., and those students that truly 
need help are going to receive it.
  At the local school district level, it gives them the opportunity to 
fully fund the programs that are helping the average student and the 
other students. But those with special needs are going to get the help 
from Washington if we can focus our resources here.
  There are several amendments that will follow. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and myself have one where we are going to have, 
under the appropriate guidelines, taking some money from a program that 
has grown dramatically, take a small portion of that and move it over 
toward special education to help us achieve our goal. I hope that 
Members of the House will take that into consideration in the future, 
because it is very important that we meet the needs of these special 
students.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has said that we 
are trying to break the budget process. The majority party has already 
obliterated the budget process.
  Last year alone, the majority provided $40 billion worth of budget 
gimmicks to hide $40 billion worth of spending in the budget.
  With respect to special education numbers that have been cited on the 
floor, let me simply state the facts. Under the Reagan and Bush 
presidencies, in nine of the 12 years, the Congress provided more money 
for special education than President Reagan and President Bush asked 
for.
  When the Republicans took over in 1996, they tried to provide $400 
million less than the President provided in special education. And it 
has only been in the last 2 or 3 years that they have had a road-to-
Damascus conversion.
  With respect to the overall education numbers cited by the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the fact is all that chart shows is that he 
is bragging about the fact that his own party lost the budget fights 
with President Clinton the last 5 years. Because if you take a look at 
what you tried to do before the President forced you to change your 
mind, you tried to cut in fiscal 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000; and now 
this year, you have tried to cut a total of over $14 billion from the 
President's education budgets.
  And then you have the gall to come to the floor and show what you 
have provided. You provided it after the President dragged it through 
the room. I know; I was in the room for the last 5 years. I was the 
Democratic negotiator. And each year he had to drag it to the table to 
drag those numbers up for education so you could finally do right by 
America's children.
  So let us not hear any more hurrah about either budget responsibility 
on your side or about how dedicated you are to education. You are the 
party that started out your stewardship here by trying to wipe out the 
Department of Education.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we mentioned Nate from Minnesota. When he entered the 
first grade, his parents told him he had severe mental retardation. 
School officials, using testing funded by IDEA, found Nate actually had 
an extremely high IQ but had serious learning disabilities. They made 
accommodations for his needs. He graduated from high school and went on 
to college. With support from his family and school and services 
through IDEA, he has a very bright future.
  All we are asking our colleagues to do is to scale back the tax cuts 
for those in the top 1 percent of all earners. All they need to do to 
pay for this $1.5 billion is to cut back the size of that tax cut for 
the wealthy by 20 percent. In that case, we can in fact meet the needs 
of youngsters with serious disabilities.
  We are in an era of surplus. It is one thing if we are in an era of 
deficit, but we have no excuse not to move to fully funding the IDEA 
program, as we said on the floor of this House on May 3, 2000.
  Let us put our money and our resolve where our mouths are.

[[Page 10529]]


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


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, 
House Report 106-660.
  This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order because the 
House of Representatives rules dictate that, unfortunately, the budget 
priorities of the majority will shortchange our youngsters and, in 
fact, tax cuts ought to go to working middle-class families.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded and 
sustained.
  Are there further amendments to this section?


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bass

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

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

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

                              {time}  1445

  And, number two, how to prepare for it at an early enough time to 
make a difference, and help build a support structure between the child 
and the family so that they understand that financial aid will be 
available to them. There are a lot of families in this country who 
never dreamed that they could

[[Page 10530]]

afford to send their kids to college. This is one of the few programs 
around that helps. It intervenes at an earlier age than the other 
programs mentioned by the gentleman. That is why the budget increases 
for programs such as TRIO are irrelevant. What we are trying to do is 
to intervene at an early enough time so that we reverse the trend of 
minority students getting less higher education than they were 5 years 
ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of speakers talk about 
tax cuts and perhaps using a little bit of their tax cut to pay for 
some of these initiatives. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
is a good man, but for the life of me I cannot understand how he could 
be opposed to a program which takes entire groups of kids, classes of 
kids whom early in life many of us would suggest because of the dire 
economic conditions and social conditions they may face may have a more 
difficult time getting to college than perhaps some of their cohorts.
  Study after study shows that high-achieving students from low-income 
families are five times as likely not to attend college as high-
achieving students from middle- to higher-income families. I do not 
mean to discriminate against middle- and higher-income families by any 
means, but we know that kids who come from other circumstances often 
face different challenges.
  It amazes me to hear the gentleman from New Hampshire and some of 
them suggest that we have another program that addresses this problem, 
because I do not think we can have enough programs to address this 
problem, Mr. Chairman. I say that understanding that the Federal 
Government cannot go out funding each and every program, but we offered 
tax cut after tax cut. I voted for the estate tax reduction. But it 
would be nonsensical of me to say, Well, we've given people an estate 
tax reduction so we don't need to give them a capital gains tax 
reduction. There are different issues and different challenges here.
  In my State alone, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga 
received over $200,000 to help identify entire groups of classes to 
bring them through high school and to help them go to college. The 
numbers show, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) knows, 
that a young person's ability to earn over a lifetime increases by 
$600,000 with an opportunity to go to college, $300,000 at Dyersburg 
State Community and $650,000 at Memphis City schools.
  I ask my colleague from New Hampshire, and perhaps we can engage in a 
colloquy, explain to me why not, if we can do it for wealthy Americans, 
we ought to be able to do it for poor children in this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The time of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) who has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be 
given 30 additional seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair can provide additional time to 
both sides. Is that the gentleman's request?
  Mr. BASS. That is fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, both sides are granted 30 additional 
seconds.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Pardon my passion on this issue, Mr. Chairman, and I ask 
the House's forgiveness for violating our rules, but it is just hard 
for many of us to comprehend, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) is a good man as many on the other side of the aisle are, why 
we would argue taking precious dollars at a time in which we are 
moments away from increasing the quota on H1-B visas because we are 
unable not to find workers but to provide workers with the skills they 
need to fill the jobs that we are creating here at a record number in 
this Nation.
  This program, like many others, seeks to do that. I would hope that 
the gentleman would rethink his amendment and even those on his side 
who may support it. I would hope they would reconsider their support of 
it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire my friend from Tennessee's passion 
about this issue. I also appreciate the fact that he has not dwelt with 
the phony theme issue of tax relief.
  There is a difference here in priorities. I believe that funding of 
special education provides broader funding for more people. I certainly 
agree that it might be a good idea in some school districts for sixth, 
seventh, and eighth graders to receive counseling preparatory to 
college. But I also feel that providing services for developmentally 
disabled students is a higher priority for me.
  That is essentially a difference that we have between the two of us. 
The fact of the matter is by providing more funding for special 
education, we free up local funds so that local school boards in his 
district or mine can provide counseling if they want to for sixth, 
seventh, and eighth graders to prepare themselves for college.
  Mr. Chairman, I support my amendment. I think, as the gentleman from 
Tennessee has pointed out, it is a question of priorities. I think this 
GEAR UP program is a troubled program. It is a new program. The TRIO 
program already funds it. I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass 
amendment. Many people learn about how to get on the college track at 
home at the kitchen table from their mother and their father. But there 
are a lot of children, a lot of young people in this country who do not 
have someone sitting at the kitchen table who has been to college. GEAR 
UP is about giving that young man or that woman someone to talk to 
about that issue. It works. It should be given a chance to work. The 
TRIO argument, frankly, is irrelevant. This is a different program with 
a different set of parameters.
  I agree with my friend from New Hampshire that wants to fund more 
special education. I would support a $200 million increase in special 
education. We could pay for it by eliminating less than 2 percent of 
the tax cut that his budget resolution put forward in this House. That 
is the way to pay for it, not choosing between education programs. That 
is the right way to do this and it would be paid for in that way. We 
should all join together and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment because this amendment, unlike the previous 
amendment that was offered, has a real offset. We debated earlier about 
the importance of special education and how it is critical and both 
sides support special education. Now we have an opportunity to actually 
increase it by cutting a program that is of questionable merit and has 
not got a proven track record. Let us put the money where it is most 
important and flows directly to the school districts to help the most 
needy kids.
  I commend the gentleman for having a real amendment, not a rhetorical 
one that is going to be kicked out because of a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest opposition to this 
amendment. I am astounded that we are even debating the elimination of 
funding for a program as critical as GEAR UP. Although it is a new 
program started only last year, it has had phenomenal success in my 
congressional district. It offers a solution to raise the graduation 
rate of many of the Hispanics. As

[[Page 10531]]

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


            rehabilitation services and disability research

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

           Special Institutions for Persons With Disabilities


                 american printing house for the blind

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


               national technical institute for the deaf

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


                          gallaudet university

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


                     vocational and adult education

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


                      student financial assistance

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


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

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

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

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

[[Page 10532]]

college since the GI bill in 1944. Financial aid has evolved over time 
into a safety net of programs that have made college possible for 
generations of Americans, including many of the staffers who work in 
this House, and perhaps some of the Members, too. The Pell grant 
program is the cornerstone of that safety net, providing grant aid to 
nearly 4 million needy students. It is one of the few sources of grant 
aid still available to help cut down on the crushing college debt 
burden assumed by so many students and their families today.
  When President Clinton took office in 1993, the Pell grant maximum 
award was $2,300, the same as it was in 1989. The maximum Pell grant in 
this current fiscal year is $3,300, an increase of 43 percent since 
1993. The bill before us today proposes an increase in the maximum to 
$3,500 as the President requested. This is good news but it is still 
not enough. A $200 increase in Pell equals less than the cost of one 
semester's required books for a full-time student. The Pell funding in 
this bill is simply inadequate to meet the costs of higher education 
today.
  The authorized ceiling for these grants is now $4,800, a full $1,500 
above this year's appropriated level. The real dollar value of a 
maximum Pell award has declined 18 percent since 1975.

                              {time}  1500

  To get to the level we were in 1975, the Pell Grant award would have 
to be merely $4,300. My amendment will get us closer to that, setting 
the maximum award at $3,800; but leaving us room for improvement.
  Over the next 10 years, my colleagues, more than 16 million students 
will be enrolled in our Nation's colleges and universities, preparing 
for the challenges of a high-tech economy and a highly educated and 
productive workforce.
  We must do better to demonstrate our commitment to Federal student 
aid, and we can do that by increasing the maximum grant to $3,800.
  We can also do better by improving the allocation for this 
subcommittee. Once again, our subcommittee was not provided adequate 
resources to meet the significant human needs addressed by programs 
under our jurisdiction.
  In this time of surplus, in this time of prosperity, the failure to 
provide sufficient resources puts this committee at risk of failing a 
course in logic, because we know that education is a lifelong 
investment in our people and our future; yet this bill does not live up 
to our responsibility to make that investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida, (Mr. Miller), a valued member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, we have one of these so-called theme 
amendments. It is an amendment that is not going anywhere, but it is to 
try to score some political points to try to show that Republicans are 
not really the big supporters of this programs, but they are. Well, 
once again, it is not going to work. It is just like with special ed.
  Special ed, the Republicans have been the big supporters of the 
special ed over the years; and since Republicans took control, we have 
seen the increase for special ed go up much, much faster than when the 
Democrats controlled it.
  And once again, under Pell Grants, Members will find Republicans have 
strongly supported Pell Grants for the past 5 years. Just as this chart 
shows, back in 1991 and 1992, the maximum Pell Grant was $2,400; then 
it dropped down to $2,300 for the first 2 years of the Clinton 
administration.
  Look what happened since the Republicans took over, we are going up 
to $3,500 now, Johnny come lately. The Democrats say, hey, we want to 
even increase it more. They always use this argument, oh, my gosh, tax 
cuts.
  Last week we did pass tax cuts and one-third of the Democrats, and I 
congratulate them, one-third of the Democrats supported it. So I guess 
they are one-third of the Democrats that was bad. Someone mentioned 
capital gains. Oh, my gosh, capital gains helps the rich. Capital gains 
is one reason we have a surplus.
  When we cut capital gains, we increased the revenue to the Federal 
Government. We talk about tax cuts on the Spanish American War, tax on 
telephones. Luckily the Democrats support that one. Marriage penalty, 
they talk like they support getting rid of the marriage penalty, and we 
should take care of that.
  So the thing is let us talk about specifics. The Committee on Ways 
and Means handles tax cuts. We are in an appropriations, this is 
spending. Appropriations follow-up with a budget resolution. The budget 
resolution, of which a majority of Members of this House and a majority 
of the Members of the Senate passed earlier this year, tells us we have 
to live within our means, and that is exactly what we are doing right 
now.
  Now, we talk about this issue of Pell Grants. I am a former college 
professor. I taught college at Louisiana State University, Georgia 
State, University of South Florida. I worked with lots of students. I 
know the importance of financial assistance to students.
  It is very important that we provide the most opportunity for every 
kid to get the highest education they can, so that is the reason 
Members find Republicans have continued to provide an increase every 
year more than the President has requested.
  Now, all of a sudden, they say oh, my gosh, the Republicans do not 
like this program. Let us live within our means. Let us do the right 
thing. This is important for our youth in this country.
  One of the most important things we can do for the youth of our 
country is to get rid of this national debt that we have that has been 
accumulated over the past several decades and provide the most 
educational opportunities every student can get.
  We have increased Pell Grants by over 50 percent in the past 5 years. 
I am proud of that accomplishment. I am proud of the leadership that 
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) has provided and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has on these issues. 
And I do not take any second seat to anybody in support for higher 
education.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member and leader of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Lowey 
amendment. For a lot of people, the difference between succeeding in 
higher education and not succeeding in higher education is the Pell 
Grant. The amount that is proposed in this increase is modest, a few 
hundred dollars. But it can be the difference between being able to pay 
for your books or not pay for your books or have your computer access 
or perhaps take another course that gets us that much closer to your 
ultimate educational goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the choice that we should have 
made about this would not have been made today on the floor. It should 
have been made several months ago when an unrealistic budget resolution 
was passed by a majority of this House.
  The costs of this proposal by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) is under $1 billion this year. It is important to understand how 
that fits into the scheme of things.
  The costs of the majority's tax scheme is about $13 billion this 
year. So for 7 percent of the costs of the majority's tax scheme, we 
would be in a position to make this substantial investment in better 
education for more Americans. So the majority could still give 93 cents 
on the dollar of tax relief that they want to give and approve the 
Lowey amendment. That is a good deal

[[Page 10533]]

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

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment. 
Slowly, but surely, we are shifting the higher educational financial 
aid system away from low-income working families who need it the most. 
We all know that college costs are skyrocketing and that these costs 
are particularly burdensome for working class

[[Page 10534]]

and minority families trying to send their first child to college.
  Pell Grants are the one program specifically designed to help these 
low-income students get their foot in the door of a college or 
university. Since 1980, adjusted for inflation, tuition has more than 
doubled, while the value of the maximum Pell award has dropped by 25 
percent.
  So I do not buy the Republican argument that we have done enough 
financial aid for needy kids. None of us should buy the argument put 
forth by some, including Governor Bush, that says, well, if they cannot 
afford school, let them just take out loans. For a low-income family, 
particularly one that has never sent a child to college, the prospect 
of taking out $15,000, $30,000, or $50,000 of loans is often 
unthinkable. That option is simply not in the cards. In many cases, if 
the family cannot afford the tuition bill, these kids simply do not 
enroll at all.
  So I support the modest Lowey amendment to raise the Pell Grant by 
$300 to $3,800 a year. A yes vote on this amendment sends a message 
that Congress is willing to give the neediest, hard working kids an 
extra boost into college. It is not a handout, but a helping hand, to 
those students who need it the most.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, appropriations for Pell Grants have 
increased by 24 percent under the leadership of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter). The maximum Pell Grant has gone from $2,340 to 
$3,500, again an increase of almost 50 percent under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). 237,000 more students receive 
Pell Grants. For fiscal years 1987 to 1995, when the appropriations 
were written by the other side, the maximum Pell Grant increased by an 
average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), that annual average rate is 7.1 
percent.
  In addition to funding, the funding for work study has increased by 
52 percent under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) and would increase much more if we had not gotten into this 
community service business and set up all those bureaucracies. All of 
that money could have gone into work study, and the college students 
would have done the public service work.
  Funding for Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants has increased 
by $70 million. Funding for TRIO programs has increased $115 million, 
for a total of $760 million. The Perkins capital contributions are 
level funded at $100 million, but the cancellation fund has been 
increased to $40 million. Aid for institutional development has 
increased by $95 million, for a total of $388 million, and that will 
assist hundreds of institutions with their efforts to improve academic 
instruction, in technology upgrades and institutional management.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, the students at the colleges and the universities 
today and the proprietary schools say, Thank you, Mr. Porter, for 
making higher education a priority during your reign, and the students 
who wish to be college and university students and proprietary school 
students also say, Thank you, Mr. Porter. I will be able to realize my 
dream, thanks to your making higher education one of the priorities in 
your leadership.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York to increase the maximum Pell 
Grant level to $3,800. This is a reasonable and modest amendment; and I 
would like to see the increase, quite frankly, be even greater. I have 
even introduced a bill that would fully fund Pell and restore its 
original purchasing power. To do that, the maximum Pell level should be 
at $6,900.
  Everyone in this Congress talks about increasing funding for Pell 
Grants, but somehow there is never enough money to fully fund this 
program. Somehow our students always get shortchanged.
  This is a debate over national priorities. The majority in this 
Congress believes we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on tax 
breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Certainly then, Mr. 
Chairman, we can afford $938 million for the working families of this 
country, so that we can move closer toward that day when every single 
child in America will be able to get the higher education that they 
need.
  With an increasingly global economy, our students must be prepared to 
face the challenges of the future. A college education is key to that 
success. We will not continue to be the world's economic superpower if 
we do not have a well-educated workforce.
  All young people, regardless of income, deserve the opportunity to go 
to college. Mr. Chairman, to do that, we must increase the funding for 
Pell Grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey) for her leadership and courage in bringing this issue up for 
debate, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put 
students first and to support the Lowey amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to call a spade a spade here 
today and recognize what is happening. The majority party in 1995 tried 
to shut down the government in order to force President Clinton to cut 
$270 billion out of Medicare and to make deep cuts in education and 
health care and a number of other domestic programs just to finance 
huge tax cuts which were primarily aimed at the highest income 
Americans. You got burned. Since then, you have been a little shy about 
attacking education.
  We have seen charts today that brag about what the Republican Party 
has done to raise Pell Grants. This chart shows in the blue graphs what 
the President has asked for in Pell Grants since 1985. The red chart 
shows what the Republicans have provided, or what the Congress has 
provided. As you can see, it has been the presidential demand that has 
driven the number up each year, except for 2 years when the President 
asked for more money and the majority party one-upped him by a tiny 
amount of money. So it has been the President driving this upward 
increase in Pell Grants.
  The question is not so much what you did yesterday; it is what you 
are going to do today and tomorrow. In 1976, Pell Grants paid for over 
70 percent of the cost of sending a working family's kid to college. 
Today it pays for less than 40 percent.
  We think now that we have surpluses instead of deficits we ought to 
do something about that. We are afraid that you are not going to make 
higher education a priority because your standard bearer, George Bush, 
said on March 22: ``Higher education is not my priority.'' He also said 
when he came to my State, when he was asked by a student, what are you 
going to do about the huge debt overhang that kids have when they leave 
college, he said, and this is an exact quote: ``Too bad. That is what 
loans are; they are to be paid back. There is a lot of money out there, 
if you just go looking for it. Some of you are just going to have to 
pay it back, and that is just the way it is.''
  That is a ``let them eat cake'' attitude, and we do not subscribe to 
it. I urge that the House recognize the wisdom of the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to do the right thing, to support this amendment. I have heard my 
good friends say live within our means, do the right thing. I heard 
other good friends on the other side of the aisle saying this is just 
an exercise. This is just politics.
  I just wish my good friends were with me at Westchester Community 
College just a few weeks ago talking to the students who are benefiting 
from student

[[Page 10535]]

aid. One of them was in tears. She desperately wanted to be a teacher. 
Now, maybe it is hard for people on the other side of the aisle to 
understand that this young woman could not put together the $2,500 she 
needed to pay her tuition. She just could not do it, and we were there 
just trying to figure out how we could respond to these problems.
  It seems to me that we have to get beyond the politics, get beyond 
the partisan politics and focus on what are the real needs. You cannot 
say that a tax cut is irrelevant. You are saying there is a limited pot 
of money. Well, in my judgment, at this time of such prosperity in this 
country, at a time when people are in need and they are struggling to 
pay their tuition, not only should we be funding GEAR UP to motivate 
young people, to help them understand that getting an education, 
working hard, will provide them with the opportunities of a good life 
in the United States, not only must we support IDEA, which helped those 
disadvantaged kids, to give them the opportunity to reap the rewards of 
this society; but it seems to me that we have a responsibility to do 
what we can to get as close as we can to the authorized level.
  That is why I offer this amendment. These youngsters work two and 
three jobs. They are not just depending on public assistance. Let us 
support this amendment. Let us support our youngsters. Let us invest in 
education. Let us get real.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the matters that the other side has conveniently 
failed to address, and both the gentleman from Massachusetts and my 
colleague from Wisconsin failed to address it as well, is the fact that 
what we are attempting to do by increasing funding for Pell Grants is 
to get more access for more young people of modest means to get a 
higher education. One of the difficulties is that every time we raise 
the Pell Grants, the colleges and universities across this country 
raise their tuition and expenses, and we buy no new access. So simply 
raising the money, unfortunately, does not get us greater access. In 
fact, as one of the speakers said earlier, education inflation has 
outstripped the increases that all of us have strongly supported in 
Pell Grants. We really ought to all be concerned about this trend.
  Now, I would say to the gentlewoman offering the amendment, our bill 
increases student financial aid by $763 million, an increase of 8.1 
percent. That is about what we have been trying to do every year. That 
is a 6 percent real increase: a large increase. We are, obviously, 
concerned, as you do not have to be, with the bottom line.
  Now, budgets are meant to give limits. Limits are something that my 
colleagues in the minority paid no attention to for years and they are 
not paying any attention to those limits today. For the 30 years that 
they controlled the House, they spent as if there were no limits. They 
spent the Social Security reserve, all of it. They spent us into huge 
deficits, some years nearly $300 billion, until finally the American 
people said, ``We don't think you ought to be in control any longer. 
You are not responsible.''
  So here we are again. You are offering no limits, no restraint with 
the budget. You will not even recognize it, even though it is adopted 
by both sides of the House. Unfortunately, somebody has to be 
responsible. We are trying to be responsible.
  We have met the President's goal in raising funding for Pell Grants. 
In some years we have exceeded the President's suggested funding level 
for the maximum grant. We put this at an extremely high priority. We 
believe that young people across this country who want to go on to a 
higher education ought to have that opportunity. Kids of modest means 
need that kind of support.
  All of us ought to be concerned about the fact that this money is 
just absorbed in our education system. There seems to be no restraint 
on education inflation, and the access we are trying to get for more 
kids often is lost in higher costs and higher tuition.

                              {time}  1530

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


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) insist on a point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, 
House Report 106-660.
  This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b), and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
motion?
  The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee 
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an 
amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget 
authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such 
authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) 
proposing to strike a provision scored as negative budget authority on 
its face proposes to increase the level of new discretionary budget 
authority in the bill. As such, the amendment would violate section 
302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title III of the bill through page 63, line 19, be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title III of the bill from page 57, line 
4, through page 63, line 19, is as follows:


             federal family education loan program account

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


                            higher education

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


                           howard university

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


         college housing and academic facilities loans program

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


  historically black college and university capital financing program 
                                account

       The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 344 
     of title III, part D of the

[[Page 10536]]

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


            education research, statistics, and improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 
     1994, including part E; the National Education Statistics Act 
     of 1994, including sections 411 and 412; section 2102 of 
     title II, and parts A, B, and K and sections 10105 and 10601 
     of title X, and part C of title XIII of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, and title VI of 
     Public Law 103-227, $494,367,000: Provided, That $50,000,000 
     shall be available to demonstrate effective approaches to 
     comprehensive school reform, to be allocated and expended in 
     accordance with the instructions relating to this activity in 
     the statement of managers on the conference report 
     accompanying Public Law 105-78 and in the statement of the 
     managers on the conference report accompanying Public Law 
     105-277: Provided further, That the funds made available for 
     comprehensive school reform shall become available on July 1, 
     2001, and remain available through September 30, 2002, and in 
     carrying out this initiative, the Secretary and the States 
     shall support only approaches that show the most promise of 
     enabling children to meet challenging State content standards 
     and challenging State student performance standards based on 
     reliable research and effective practices, and include an 
     emphasis on basic academics and parental involvement: 
     Provided further, That $30,000,000 of the funds provided for 
     the national education research institutes shall be allocated 
     notwithstanding section 912(m)(1)(B-F) and subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C) of section 931(c)(2) of Public Law 103-227: Provided 
     further, That $45,000,000 shall be available to support 
     activities under section 10105 of part A of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, of which up 
     to $2,250,000 may be available for evaluation, technical 
     assistance, and school networking activities: Provided 
     further, That funds made available to local educational 
     agencies under this section shall be used only for activities 
     related to establishing smaller learning communities in high 
     schools: Provided further, That funds made available for 
     section 10105 of part A of title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall become available on 
     July 1, 2001, and remain available through September 30, 
     2002.

                        Departmental Management


                         program administration

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


                        office for civil rights

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


                      office of inspector general

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

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

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


           Amendment No. 186 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

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

       Amendment No. 186 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       Page 64, after line 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are 
     revised by decreasing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--education reform'' for the 
     21st Century Community Learning Centers, and by increasing 
     the amount made available under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     EDUCATION--special education'' for grants to States, by 
     $300,000,000.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan)
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in short, my amendment that I bring forward is an 
amendment to make special education a priority by increasing the 
funding for IDEA by $300 million and by reducing the 21st Century 
Learning Centers by the same amount, an appropriation which is $600 
million at this time.
  My reason for offering this amendment really comes down to the 
promise made to special education students and their parents and 
teachers by the Federal government. When Congress passed the IDEA law 
in 1975, we did so with the stipulation that the Federal government 
would fund 40 percent of special education and the State governments 
would fund 60 percent of special education.
  Sadly, that is not the case today. This new law from 1975 on amounts 
to an unfunded mandate being placed upon our local school districts. It 
is a law where every single dollar in local school districts being 
chased to fund this unfunded mandate comes at the expense of every 
other local resource decision allocation made in our local school 
districts.
  This funding formula right now stands at 12.6 percent, meaning the 
Federal government is funding 12.6 percent of IDEA, where it promised 
in 1975 to fund 40 percent. It is a huge funding shortfall, which is a 
large unfunded

[[Page 10537]]

mandate being placed on our local schools.
  Last month the House passed legislation authorizing the IDEA Grants 
to States program, which is where the bulk of the IDEA funding comes 
from. It is $7 billion. Many voted in favor of this legislation. 
However, the underlying appropriations bill being debated here provides 
$5.49 billion for IDEA.
  As I mentioned earlier, the increase for special education will be 
offset by a $300 million decrease in 21st Century Learning Centers. 
This is a program that was created by a Wisconsonite, Steve Gunderson, 
in 1994. The purpose of this program at that time was to allow local 
communities in rural areas like western Wisconsin to have the chance of 
using the facilities, the libraries, the computer systems in high 
schools and other areas where those kinds of facilities do not exist.
  Well, this program has gone well beyond its original intent to the 
point where, Mr. Gunderson has said, if we examine both the 
Department's publicity for this program and its allocations of funds, 
we discover little of the legislative intent.
  This program has grown in function and in funding beyond the scope of 
why it was created in the first place. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, this 
program has grown 800 times in 5 years, from $750,000 to $600 million 
in this budget year's budget, an 80,000 percent increase in just 5 
years. Yet, this program is unauthorized. This program has had no IG 
reports, no GAO reports, no reports discovering whether or not this 
program is using its money wisely.
  There is another very important point which the authorizers have 
pointed out. That is that it vastly mirrors and duplicates other 
existing programs in the Federal government; namely, the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Act.
  That bill that has been passed through the authorizing committee, 
H.R. 4141, would add these two programs together, would put 21st 
Century Learning Centers in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. Even 
with this amendment passing, it would provide a 50 percent increase in 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act with the authorizing language.
  My point is this, Mr. Chairman. Almost every Member of Congress, on a 
vote of 413 to 2, voted for House Concurrent Resolution 84 earlier this 
year, stipulating that the highest priority of Federal spending in 
education would be IDEA, would be special education. All this amendment 
does is seek to go down the road of trying to cover that unfunded 
mandate Washington is placing on our local schools.
  It says to other Members, ``Be consistent. If you voted for House 
Concurrent Resolution 84, as 413 Members did, then be consistent and 
vote for this amendment putting $300 million into IDEA and leaving the 
growth of the 21st Century Learning Centers to be a 50 percent growth 
for fiscal year 1999.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to claim time in 
opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. We have done more to 
increase IDEA than any other governmental account. It has been placed 
at the highest priority. It has the highest dollar increase of any 
other educational account. There is half a billion dollars in this bill 
of increase. We bring up the account to $5.5 billion.
  Over the last 5 years we have doubled the funding for IDEA. It is a 
high, high priority for us, Mr. Chairman. But there are other programs 
that are important, as well. The 21st Century After-School Learning 
Centers provide kids who are in high-risk neighborhoods with an 
opportunity to be off the streets. It places them in an educational 
environment where they are not going to get into trouble. They are not 
going to end up in prison. They are not going to be able to lose their 
chance for an education. They will get an opportunity to get ahead in 
our society.
  This is where the money is going. It is providing them safe havens at 
a time when crime is often being committed by young people. We want to 
get them off the streets.
  While I respect the gentleman and his amendment, I believe that we 
have done everything we possibly can do for IDEA. I think this is a 
very important and effective program, and I think the amendment 
therefore is misguided.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
reclaim the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 
1 minute remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is important because 
we are taking a program that is going to increase. We are not taking 
away the large portion of the increase. We are still leaving $100 
million as an increase in the 21st century learning program. We are 
simply redirecting the remaining money to a higher priority. That is 
the special education program.
  I think it is a good amendment. I think it meets the priorities of 
this House as was voted on just last May. I would ask the Members to 
support the Ryan-Tiahrt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. Forty 
days ago this very body stood up and by an overwhelming vote of 421-3 
passed H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Fund Act stating this Congress' 
commitment to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. Many of my fellow colleagues joined me at this podium and asserted 
our responsibility to live up to our promise to our school districts. 
Additionally, last May we passed H. Con. Res. 84, again by an 
overwhelming vote of 413-2, which urged Congress and the President to 
give programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the 
highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education 
programs. The highest priority.
  The legislation increases IDEA funding by $500 million from FY2000 
funds, continuing the Republican Congress' record of consistently 
adding money to the IDEA program. I commend Chairman Porter for his 
drastic increase in IDEA funding from 13 percent to 25 percent. It is 
under his and Chairman Goodling's guidance that we have stepped up our 
efforts to help local school districts comply with IDEA mandates. 
However, even this great increase is still about $1.5 billion short of 
the 40 percent funding we promised to our school districts. This is a 
good bill that will improve our nation's schools. I just believe that 
we have an opportunity to do even more to ease the burden IDEA has 
placed on school districts.
  My home state of Kansas can expect to see about a quarter of the 
promised $69 million this year for IDEA mandates. Anyone who has spoken 
with school officials in their districts know that this is inadequate. 
While school districts are forced to rob Peter in order to pay Paul to 
meet IDEA mandates, at the expense of both children with and without 
disabilities, Congress has increased funding for Department of 
Education programs that are not vital to our children's education. One 
such program, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, has ballooned 
800 percent in the last 4 years. This program was originally funded at 
$750,000 to help rural areas maximize their resources. I am not looking 
to eliminate the 21st Century Learning program. I am only looking to 
cut the increase in funding by $300 million, about half of the $600 
million it was funded, and still a 400 percent increase from FY1996 
funding.
  I don't know how many Members have toured special education 
facilities in their home districts. I have. I have toured Levy Special 
Education Center in Wichita and seen these special children. I have met 
with special education teachers and listened to their frustration about 
the lack of funding combined with the burden of increased paperwork.
  Twenty-five years ago with the passage of IDEA the Federal Government 
mandated that our local school systems educate all children, even those 
with severe mental and physical disabilities. IDEA has placed an 
extreme financial burden on our public schools which could be partially 
alleviated by keeping our commitment to fully fund 40 percent of the 
program. To not do so, and instead increase funding for

[[Page 10538]]

programs like the 21st Century Learning Centers, we are completely 
ignoring the needs of our local school districts. I challenge my fellow 
colleagues to live up to their vote last month and support our effort 
today to put more money into IDEA.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control 2 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan 
amendment, and support the chairman's opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a measure which would cut the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers program by $300 million. This amendment is a 
wolf in sheep's clothing. This wolf is ready to attack our students.
  By drastically cutting this program, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) and other Members of this House would be responsible for 
pulling our children out of safe educational settings and sending them 
to empty homes and to unsafe streets.
  The gentleman's State, Wisconsin, has 19 programs. Our State, New 
Jersey, has seven. We have been planning for this for over 6 months. 
Now the gentleman is going to pull the rug out from what we believe is 
going to be a very successful program because it has brought together 
many segments of the community for something that is worthwhile, 
something very tangible, and something very educational.
  Mr. Chairman, this would dismantle new programs. It would stop us 
looking to other places where these programs should be implemented. 
This amendment would cut over $260,000 in one system alone. That is 
Passaic, New Jersey. I ask for the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason this bill is here is because 15 million kids 
go home every day to an empty house because so many of them have two 
parents working outside of the home. That is why we are providing 
after-school centers.
  If this amendment passes, we will be ignoring the fact that most of 
the juvenile crime in this country occurs between the hours of 3 
o'clock in the afternoon and 7 in the evening. We will be ignoring the 
fact that this amendment would cut back by 27 percent each and every 
one of the grants that now serves some 3,000 centers in the United 
States.
  If we take a look at the way this program works that the gentleman is 
trying to cut, 28 percent of the kids who are participating in these 
after-school activities have been identified as kids with disabilities.
  In terms of need, if we want to measure it, just recognize the fact 
that there are 2,200 communities which have requested that we provide a 
total of $1.3 billion in assistance for after-school centers. The 
agency has been able to fund only 310 new grants. That is not enough to 
meet the problem.
  I would suggest to the gentleman, I appreciate where he wants to put 
the money, but where he wants to take the money from is a tremendously 
bad idea. If Members care about youth discipline, if Members care about 
crime, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  A few brief points. This program goes vastly beyond its original 
intent, even stated by the author of the program.
  Two, even with this amendment, after-school programs will be vastly 
increased. Even with this amendment, in fiscal year 1999 there is a 
$100 million increase.
  Number three, it really comes down to an issue of local control. If 
we vote to fully fund IDEA and get as close to that goal as possible, 
we are voting for any program that helps local school districts, 
because we are voting to put those dollars in the hands of local 
education decision-makers. It is a vote for after-school programs. It 
is a vote for local control.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members do not know how good it is to 
work on a bipartisan basis on an amendment with the other side.
  Both sides, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and my colleagues, have worked for 
after-school programs, not just baby-sitting, but to make sure there is 
education going on. I laud that from both sides.
  Alan Bersin is the Superintendent of Schools in San Diego. I support 
him 100 percent. He is one of my champions. He is a Clinton appointee 
on the board, and before now he was superintendent.
  If we really want to help special education, we are losing thousands 
of good teachers that just want to teach in special education. But 
there are trial lawyers that are using and abusing the schools and 
forcing many of these teachers out.
  This is an area where we can come together and work to actually 
enhance special education, instead of having trial lawyers take all the 
money that we are trying to help with that.
  I laud my colleagues on the other side for supporting the after-
school programs. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired. The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) will be postponed.

                              {time}  1545

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


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

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Ready-to-Learn television program was created by 
the Improving America's School Act of 1994. It was intended to support 
the first national educational goal of Goals 2000, that by the year 
2000 all American children begin ready to learn for school.
  The Ready-to-Learn television program authorizes the Secretary of 
Education to award grants to enter into contracts or cooperative 
agreements with nonprofit entities to develop, produce, and distribute 
educational instructional television programming and support materials.
  The target age group is pre-school and elementary age children. In 
the past, it has gone to a collaboration between the U.S. Department of 
Education and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

[[Page 10539]]

  We are transferring money from one Federal agency to another.
  We are not against funding quality educational television programs. 
This vote is not a referendum on the validity of spending $16 million 
on the Ready-to-Learn television program. This vote is about 
prioritizing our limited educational dollars as we go. Meeting the 
direct needs of our local districts should be our first priority.
  Labor HHS also increases the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's 
budget by an additional $15 million, as requested, for a total of $365 
million. That does not include the $16 million.
  Special education has been chronically underfunded. In 1975, Congress 
passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  The Ready-to-Learn television program basically supports two shows, 
Dragon Tales and Between the Lions. Cutting the Ready-to-Learn 
television program does not cut Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' 
Neighborhood, Teletubbies, Barney, Arthur, Theodore Tugboat, Noddy, 
Zoom, or any of the programs children watch.
  We need to prioritize our dollars. We need to vote for special 
education. I ask for support for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment 
would eliminate all funding for the Ready-to-Learn TV program and puts 
the money into IDEA State grants.
  Now I just indicated on the last amendment that we have made IDEA 
State grants a high priority in our bill. We increased it up by half a 
billion dollars this year. I am at a loss to understand why the 
gentleman would target the Ready-to-Learn service that serves 132 
public television stations in 46 different States, including his own.
  Ready-to-Learn TV currently provides a minimum of 6.5 hours of 
nonviolent educational programming each day. The number of 
participating stations across the country has grown from 10 stations in 
1994 to 132 in the year 2000, reaching 90 percent of American homes.
  In addition, two new daily children's educational programs, Dragon 
Tales and Between the Lions, and two parenting initiatives, have been 
developed as a result of this project.
  The program was recently reauthorized as part of both the House and 
the Senate ESEA bills.
  I believe that while the gentleman has a very wise intention to 
continue to increase IDEA funding, we have certainly done a far better 
job in this area than the President has suggested in his budgets, which 
are after all political documents. Nevertheless to zero out this 
effective program that is subscribed in almost every State in the Union 
and by so many of our public television stations, seems to me to be 
unwise. I would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for his work on IDEA. He has 
done a commendable job, and this is in no way to impugn his efforts in 
that direction, but we have a limited amount of funds. We have to say 
when a child spends a little over 4,000 hours in front of a television 
before they start school, does the Federal Government need to fund an 
additional $16 million each year for Dragon Tales and Between the Lions 
when we need to prioritize our funds?
  The money should go to the classroom. This is reasonable. It is 
established by offsets. We are not trying to drag monies in that do not 
exist and we are just saying we have made a promise to fund special 
education. We have not complied with that promise. We have left local 
districts underfunded. This is a small amount of money, $16 million, 
but when we are dealing with monies that are not available it can be a 
large amount of money, and I ask for support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) control 2 minutes of my time, for the purpose 
of yielding time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I will simply say this is the kind of amendment that 
should be supported if you believe that our young children are being 
exposed to too much quality television. If you think that they are not, 
then I think it is an amendment that one ought to oppose.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
the position expressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  I think one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for special 
education is to improve reading skills for very young children. $16 
million for a program that reaches every corner of the country is a 
very modest, and I believe very wise investment.
  Many of the special education problems in our public schools are 
actually misidentified because they are reading problems. They are 
children that are struggling in school because they never built the 
building blocks of reading skills in the early ages.
  Now getting children to a quality pre-K program is a noble goal. It 
is something I believe we ought to do, but for many families it is an 
impossible goal. It is much more possible for the family and the 
children to gather at the appropriate time in front of a television set 
and begin to pick up some of those skills in the privacy of the home.
  This is a very small investment in a very great need, and I believe 
that the amendment is misguided. It is certainly wise in trying to add 
to special education but reducing the need for special education is 
what we get when we invest in reading.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting the concept that government must 
provide quality television. It is the first time I have heard an 
argument maybe children should come home at night and watch TV instead 
of do homework. I think dollars belong in the classroom. When we have a 
shortage of dollars and we have made a commitment and a promise to 
special education classes that we are going to fund them, and we have 
yet to do that, to make an argument that we need to provide more 
television time for children at home rather than an opportunity for 
them to learn in the school is a different argument, an argument I am 
unaccustomed to hearing.
  It is interesting that the House budget in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 
allocated zero dollars for this program. It came back from the Senate 
with a final appropriation bill in 1997, 1998, allocating $7 million.
  There are a lot of sponsors in this country looking for an 
opportunity to sponsor good television shows. We argue against tobacco 
companies for advertising and encouraging young people to smoke. 
Obviously, advertising works. Sponsors will put their money where it 
works. If money works in good television shows for young people, they 
will sponsor those shows. But when we are dealing with the government 
having to fund television and when we have special education fundings 
that should be provided for and we are not providing for them, that is 
not a very good argument. I think

[[Page 10540]]

we need to put our money in the classroom, put our money where our 
mouth is and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, once again I find myself up here in 
support, and I would say to my colleague, the ranking minority member 
on the committee, in the regards to Archie the Cockroach, which I have 
right here, in this bipartisan support against this amendment, children 
do watch too much television. They are going to watch television. If we 
look at the violence and the things that are out there, I want my 
children watching something that is going to improve their literacy, 
that is going to improve their knowledge on education, especially for 
those who are going to enter kindergarten. This has been proven the 
case.
  If we were talking about some of the other programs, yes, I would 
support this, but in this particular case I reluctantly oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. In the spirit of Archie the Cockroach, I support 
the gentleman's position.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  This amendment robs Peter to pay Paul, and will gut the Ready to 
Learn program that serves as an educational tool for millions of school 
age children.
  The sole PBS station in my home city of Jacksonville provides quality 
educational, cultural, and information programming services that 
directly affect the quality of life of my constituents. They have been 
doing a tremendous job of providing top notch outreach and pro-children 
programming with the limited Ready to Learn funds they receive. They 
are partnering with the local public library and children's commission 
to provide outreach and training to underserved communities, and have 
been recognized by the county school systems Teen Parent Program for 
providing outstanding service to young mothers. All of this with a 
meager $12,000.
  It's unbelievable to me that we can stand here on the House floor and 
talk about tax cuts while we strip funds from our PBS stations. I agree 
that we need more funding for special education programs, but not at 
the expense of a program that serves millions of young children.
  I ask my colleagues to do the right thing. Oppose this amendment and 
save these valuable funds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gary Miller) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
said before that Democrats are operating without limits, and that is 
why the deficits got out of control. I was really puzzled by those 
comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
our ranking member, to clarify for the record that statement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not do this but because we have 
repeatedly heard the statements that it is the uncontrolled spending of 
the Democrats that have caused the deficits, I want to repeat a little 
history lesson.
  This graph shows that at the end of World War II our national debt, 
as a percentage of our total national income, was more than 100 percent 
because we fought World War II first and thought about paying for it 
afterwards. If we had not done that, Hitler flags would be flying all 
over the world.
  That dropped under a succession of Presidents, Republican and 
Democrat, until the debt was down to about 23 percent of our total 
national income. Then it stalled out between, say, 1973 and 1979 with 
the two energy crises under President Ford and President Carter.
  President Reagan got elected. The Congress passed his budgets which 
doubled the defense spending on borrowed money and which cut taxes by 
very large amounts at the same time. As a result, as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out last night, the debt exploded as a 
percentage of our national income and in all other ways. We added over 
$4 trillion to the debt, and it was pushed back up to about 50 percent 
of our annual national income.
  Since that time, the President has recommended budget changes and the 
economy has resurrected itself at a remarkable rate, and at this point 
we are rapidly on our way to eating into that debt both as a percentage 
of our national income and in terms of its overall dollar amount.
  What we have been doing the last 18 years, we have been spending the 
last 18 years trying to eliminate this debt bubble that was caused by 
the irresponsible spending of the President and the Congress under the 
Reagan administration.
  President Bush signed a budget agreement that began the downturn and 
President Clinton got his budget package through the Congress by one 
vote in both houses, which substantially reduced that debt.
  So all I would say, in response to the gentlewoman, is that I will 
never again listen to any lectures on the other side of the aisle about 
being responsible in terms of spending and debt, because we have spent 
the last 18 years trying to get back to a budget which is reasonably in 
balance, and thankfully we now are. So the issue is not what happened 
yesterday but what we ought to do tomorrow. We think that since we have 
moved from an era of deficits to an era of surpluses that not all of 
those surpluses should be used for tax cuts; that some of them should 
be reserved to deal with Medicare, with education, with health care, 
with child care, and that is what we are trying to do in these 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her question.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to bring Archie out this 
time. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of Archie, I have got to oppose the 
statements of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  First of all, the proof is in the pudding right here today. The 
Democrats controlled this House and Senate almost exclusively for 40 
years. Spending is controlled within Congress, not the President of the 
United States. We sent him the bills.
  The President in every one of his budgets, not many Democrats ever 
supported it, nor Republicans. We brought it up to show how ridiculous 
it was. It was a political document. I would say in the spirit of 
Archie, Republican Presidents have done similar things.
  But the proof is in the pudding right here today. No matter what we 
put as a mark within the balanced budget, within a budget frame, they 
want more. They want more and more and more. Just like they have in 
every single one of their appropriations bills, every single time, 
which drives up the debt.
  For 40 years, did they have a balanced budget? Absolutely not. They 
had $200 billion deficits as far as one can see. Welfare reform, which 
limited their spending, welfare, they spent trillions of dollars in 
just dumping more money into it. Sixteen years is the average. Now, we 
have people working, bringing home a paycheck instead of letting the 
children see them bring home a welfare check. Billions of dollars of 
revenue in, and not the Democrats when we talk about policies that 
increased.

[[Page 10541]]

  President Kennedy, along with Ronald Reagan, recognized that tax 
refunds to the American people, they are going to go out and buy a 
double egg, double cheese, or double fry burger, or a car or buy real 
estate; and that money is going to turn over. That revenue is going to 
provide tax money to the general fund. That has always been the case.
  But, yet, my colleagues on the other side, tax increases, look at 
1993 in the tax increase. Then we have eliminated many of those tax 
increases on the American people. Look what has happened to the 
economy. But they cannot help themselves increasing taxes, and then 
every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund they spent and put in 
IOUs, which drove up the debt over $5 trillion.
  We said no more. Let us put it into a lockbox. Guess what, we are 
paying off the debt by the year 2012. Forty years they had to do that. 
We have been in leadership for 5 years. Look at the difference.
  The chart of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is almost 
laughable, because in every single appropriations bill we bring up, 
except for defense, watch my colleagues try and increase spending above 
a balanced budget.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Porter) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), I appreciate the talk. I was elected in 
1996. But in 1993, the tax bill that was passed by the Congress, there 
were those on the other side of the aisle who suggested it would cause 
unemployment to rise, interest rates to rise, and the economy to move 
in the wrong direction.
  But if I am not mistaken, 8 years ago, the DOW was at 3,500; it is 
now three times that amount. We had a $390 billion projected deficit 
for last fiscal year. We are now running $180 billion plus surplus. 
According to the front pages of newspapers around the country, those 
projections are conservative.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California trying to take credit. I 
think there is a lot of credit to be given here, as entrepreneurs and 
innovators deserve a lot of it as well. But to suggest that we are at 
fault here, I think, is somewhat of a misnomer.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) will further yield, the fact is that one can spend it any way 
one wants. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) is my friend, and he 
knows that. One can spend this any way one wants. But increasing the 
taxes on the American people does not stimulate the economy. Not 
operating under a balanced budget does not.
  Those taxes that Democrats supported without a single Republican 
vote, we have repealed the Social Security tax. We have balanced the 
budget. We brought revenue in with welfare reform. We saved Medicare. 
We put Social Security in the trust fund. Those are the economic 
stimulus that I think have stimulated the economy, not a tax increase.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
will further yield, I would just contend that we all deserve a little 
credit for that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


               Amendment No. 203 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for favorable consideration of the amendment I 
have offered. What that amendment does is shifts approximately $10.3 
million toward the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act 
funds, special education as we know it.
  Mr. Chairman, this House has acted three times in recent months on 
establishing for ourselves and for the country a priority of fully 
funding the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. This first 
was initiated in the first session, about a year, a little over a year 
ago, where 413 of us said that this is the highest priority in the 
Department of Education.
  Let me reemphasize that, because the funds I am shifting come from 
the Office of Education Research and Improvement and some research 
expenditures; I might also add, the same funds that the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) proposed to move $25 million from earlier.
  That is a priority for some clearly, but I would submit and defy 
anyone to challenge my statement that IDEA is the highest priority 
established by this Congress. I say that because 413 of us voted for 
those exact words, that the fund I am proposing to increase by $10 
million is the highest priority that we have.
  So I do not want to get into the debate of whether the funds we are 
moving are coming from a priority, only whether it is true that we are 
shifting funds from a lesser priority to a higher priority. I think 
when viewed within that context, I hope that the numbers will be 
similar on this amendment that they were when we established that 
priority a little over a year ago.
  Now, just a month ago, we passed a similar resolution where we 
suggested that we would fund this year's IDEA to the tune of $7 
billion. Well, we have not really done that. We have added, I think, a 
half a billion dollars, which is a billion and a half short of where we 
promised the American people we were headed. In fact, in that 
resolution, the schedule is lined out right in the bill itself. My 
colleagues can take a look at it. It was H.R. 4055. It says right here, 
in 2001, we will authorize for appropriations $7 billion. We are a 
billion and a half short of that, despite the heroic efforts, I might 
add, of the chairman and others who believe that IDEA is a high 
priority.
  I am here to make a case that it is, in fact, the highest priority. 
When we make the promise to the American people, not once, not twice, 
but in fact three times, then we ought to fulfill that promise and make 
a stronger effort. I am suggesting at least to the tune of $10 million 
how we might be able to do that.
  Then, finally, in the budget resolution, which just passed days ago, 
we assumed at least a $2 billion increase in fiscal year 2001 over the 
current fiscal year as part of our commitment to get us to 40 percent 
of full funding, the congressional promise to the Individuals with 
Disabilities in Education Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge favorable adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 
1 minute of that time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and 
ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is a 
very strong supporter of IDEA. All of us are.

[[Page 10542]]

We put it at the very highest priority. Other programs are a priority 
also. We cannot know whether educational programs, including IDEA, work 
unless somebody evaluates how they work.
  The Federal Government is the primary source of funds for long-term 
investment in national education research and development. Much of what 
we know about how to improve schools, much of what we know about how 
kids learn has come from investments made over the past 30 years.
  The education industry is a $584 billion industry. It absorbs 7.2 
percent of our gross domestic product. But we spend only three-
hundredths of 1 percent of that money on R&D, education research and 
development, learning what works and what does not work and how to 
improve the learning of our children. Most of that spending is cut by 
this amendment.
  The President's 1997 Technology Advisory Report and Senator Frist's 
1998 Budget Committee Education Report and this year's Republican Main 
Street Partnership paper all call for more spending, not less, on 
education R&D.
  Cutting education statistics will eliminate the retesting of students 
who took the TIMS exam, which found our students lacking in math and 
science knowledge. This will prevent our Nation from knowing whether 
our students are getting better or worse in those very, very important 
areas.
  Mr. Chairman, the desire to increase IDEA is one we certainly share 
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). But taking money from 
this account is not wise. We need to know what works and what does not 
work. This is very, very important spending. I urge Members to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, we spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on 
education. We spend it on programs with various groups in the education 
community promoted as being good ideas.
  We spent a fraction of that amount to actually determine what works 
and what does not. Each Member brings to this floor his ideology, his 
biases, his prejudices. Once in a while, maybe a few facts. But the 
fact is that, without education research, we are flying blind. We are 
spending the taxpayers' money blindly, and we are more likely rather 
than less likely to put it in the wrong places.
  That is why I think the amendment is wrong and should be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
has 2 minutes remaining and has the right to close.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of points. One, it was 
said that this amendment cuts most of the funds where research is 
concerned. The reality is this cuts a fraction of the funds from our 
research efforts, about 10 percent to be exact. In fact, much less than 
what was proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) earlier 
today.
  Secondly, the notion that this is a reliable use of funds today is 
also errant in my estimation. I would point to the testimony given by a 
witness that was called before the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce by the Democrats. This is Dr. Robert Slavin, who was the co-
director of the Center for Research on Education of students placed at 
risk. He says, ``OERI does have a good deal of money, but very little 
of it is for anything like research. This must change. We can talk all 
we want about standards or assessment or governance or charters or 
vouchers or other policy initiatives. But until every teacher is using 
better methods and materials with every child every day, fundamental 
change is unlikely.''
  I guess, Mr. Chairman, this really is the focus of the decision I am 
asking us to make now. We have established for the country the high 
priority of getting funds to those children who have various 
disabilities where education is concerned.
  The Supreme Court has ordered the Congress to make sure that those 
children have equal access to an equal education. Do not steal funds 
from those children for programs of questionable merit and value. 
Again, research funds may have some merit to some, but they do not 
achieve the high priority of disabled children. Please fund them first.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. The 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is correct. What I meant to say 
was that most of the money involved in the gentleman's amendment comes 
from the spending cut by this amendment.
  I would say to the gentleman, he quoted Dr. Slavin of Johns-Hopkins. 
If one looks at the models contained as suggestions in the Porter-Obey 
comprehensive school reform legislation, half the model cited in the 
legislation were Federally funded including Dr. Slavin's own model 
itself.
  Another example, the Nation's only nonbiased paper on class size 
reduction and one that is cited by Republican and Democratic Senators 
alike during last month's ESEA debate over in the Senate was done 
through education research and development.

                              {time}  1615

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

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

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES


                      armed forces retirement home

       For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid 
     from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
     Trust Fund, $69,832,000, of which $9,832,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for construction and renovation of 
     the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and 
     Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a single 
     contract or related contracts for development and 
     construction, to include construction of a long-term care 
     facility at the United States Naval Home, may be employed 
     which collectively include the full scope of the project: 
     Provided further, That the solicitation and contract shall 
     contain the clause ``availability of funds'' found at 48 CFR 
     52.232-18 and 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government 
     Obligations.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


        domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses

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

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

       For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as 
     authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which 
     shall

[[Page 10543]]

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


                 Amendment No. 182 Offered by Mr. Oxley

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, June 8, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin first, Mr. Chairman, by thanking my good friend, the 
gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Porter), for his service to this 
institution for so many years. We will all miss his great leadership on 
the Committee on Appropriations. It has been a pleasure to work with 
him on a number of issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that reduces the funding for the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 1 percent. Let me begin by 
saying that it is unfortunate that the last authorization for the CPB 
expired in 1996 and, as a result, in the failure of the authorization 
process, the Committee on Appropriations has basically been 
appropriating funds for CPB during that time, including today's bill.
  The CPB funding makes up approximately 14 percent of public 
broadcasting's budget. Last year's appropriations bill increased CPB 
spending by some $10 million and this year the bill that my friend from 
Illinois brought forward has another $15 million increase. With this 
kind of increase each year that appropriators have provided for CPB, I 
would argue that it leaves little room or any incentive for reform by 
CPB. And, indeed, they need reform.
  All of us are familiar with last year's fiasco, when it became 
obvious that PBS had swapped donor names with Democrats for a number of 
years and affected thousands and thousands of members of public 
broadcasting stations all over the country. And while the stations 
ultimately apologized, it turned out it was a far more widespread 
scandal than anyone could have anticipated. But the fact is that this 
Congress, nor anybody else, has really reacted to provide some kind of 
incentive for CPB to look at some real reforms and some accountability 
for what went on.
  These were illegally shared lists of donors with Democratic 
campaigns. Many of my colleagues will recall that when we had the 
hearing in the Committee on Commerce, CPB came in and initially said 
that this was also shared with Republican groups. Those Republican 
groups turned out to be nonexistent and, in fact, this was clearly an 
effort by CPB to work with the Democrat campaigns and Democrat donors. 
I wrote language in last year's satellite bill to protect the privacy 
of contributions to PBS and NPR stations but there was never any 
sanction for the violation of this public trust.
  In 1997, it was discovered that senior executives at NPR and PBS had 
evaded a statutory cap on their pay by granting themselves bonuses of 
up to $45,000 a year, which gave them more pay than the Secretary of 
State, other cabinet officials, and Members of Congress. Rather than 
complying with the law, they hired expensive lobbyists to get the cap 
lifted. Public records show that PBS alone payed Covington & Burling 
$60,000 to get the cap removed.
  Last year, it was revealed that PBS headquarters in Old Town 
Alexandria employs a professional masseuse as part of its ``preventive 
health'' program. So much for providing cultural content as part of 
public broadcasting.
  Now, many of these NPR stations and public stations have, I think, 
started to understand that maybe some time in the future the Federal 
largess will end. And as they expand into Internet ventures, satellite, 
radio, and digital cable, I think, frankly, this provides the 
opportunity that we have all been looking for to wean public 
broadcasting away from the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers' money. 
And, indeed, the digital conversion that is mandated in the 
Telecommunications Act sets up the possibility for public broadcasting 
to go digital and to have the capability, at least in part of their 
digital programming, to provide the necessary funding that can wean 
them away from this dependency on taxpayers' dollars.
  So, for that, I applaud them. I think it makes a lot of sense, if 
they will continue to follow through, make those kind of changes 
necessary. And, in fact, as I told our worthy chairman, I support the 
concept of digital transition for public broadcasting. I support the 
money necessary, the $10 million. I wish we had authorized a program in 
the Committee on Commerce so we could have done exactly that, and I 
would have been the first to support it. Because I think it provides 
the magic key to separating the tax dollars from the members.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the 1 percent cut that we have 
proposed, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and myself, be 
accepted.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I claim time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  Do I understand the gentleman's time has expired?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, I have the highest regard for the 
gentleman from Ohio. He is an expert in this area as a member of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection. But 
I think I am correct in saying that the scandal, and that is a proper 
designation for what happened, involved 53 public television and public 
radio stations. Twenty-nine were TVs and 24 were radio grantees who 
exchanged or rented donor lists with political entities. Clearly, this 
activity should not have taken place. But it was 53 out of over 1,000 
stations, and it certainly was not as widespread as the news reports 
first indicated.
  In July of 1999, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting adopted a 
policy to ban such practices and worked cooperatively with Congress on 
a statutory prohibition, which we passed in November 1999 as part of 
the Satellite Home Viewers Act. A thorough investigation determined 
that the motives of the minority of stations who were involved in this 
activity were not political but financial.
  Now, clearly, there was wrongdoing involved. But cutting the 
appropriation, it seems to me, will undoubtedly hurt a lot of the very 
small stations that serve rural communities in the most isolated areas 
in our country. It will not provide the kind of sanction that I am sure 
the gentleman intends, to those larger stations that undoubtedly were 
part of this process.
  We have a lot of large stations and large metropolitan areas that are 
not dependent at all on the Federal funding. They have a small amount 
of Federal funding and they can leverage funds. We also have a number 
of smaller stations in smaller markets that depend very heavily upon 
the grants from CPB through its affiliates, and those are the ones that 
an amendment like this can most likely hurt. They really need the 
money.
  So while I certainly agree that the gentleman has put his finger on 
something that I deplore and all Members, I would hope, deplore, the 
misuse of political donor lists by certain stations. I would urge 
Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

[[Page 10544]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is 
absolutely right. I think that we should require of every other program 
administrator in government the same pristine perfection that we 
demonstrate in the Congress every day.
  I am being sarcastic. I assume people understand that. I mean, the 
gentleman is suggesting that because a tiny handful of stations allowed 
somebody to exchange fund-raising lists, that somehow they ought to pay 
a penalty for that by cutting back on funds which will assist them to 
deliver programming to every American.
  Now, if Members are satisfied with what they get on the private TV 
networks, then, fine, be my guest and vote for this amendment. But all 
I would say is that I think, in general, the quality provided on public 
television is considerably less violent, considerably less ridden with 
sexuality than the programs that we see on any of the major networks.
  I would simply say that if Members of Congress had 1 percent deducted 
from their office budgets every time we did something stupid, we would 
be operating on budgets of zero. So I think that public broadcasting 
has already paid a very large penalty for what happened. They lost the 
momentum of their reauthorization bill that they had been working on 
for the last three sessions. They lost $15 million for DTV conversion 
in 1999 that was appropriated contingent upon that authorization.
  So it seems to me that, while the gentleman is perfectly within his 
rights to offer the amendment, I think it is ill-advised, and I will 
urge its rejection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 84, line 17, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 66, line 6 through page 84, line 17 is 
as follows:

               Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service


                         salaries and expenses

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

            Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

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

                Institute of Museum and Library Services

         Office of Library Services: Grants and Administration

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

                  Medicare Payment Advisory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

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

        National Commission on Libraries and Information Science


                         salaries and expenses

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

                     National Council on Disability


                         salaries and expenses

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

                     National Labor Relations Board


                         salaries and expenses

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

                        National Mediation Board


                         salaries and expenses

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

            Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission


                         salaries and expenses

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

                       Railroad Retirement Board


                     dual benefits payments account

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


          federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts

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


                      limitation on administration

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


             limitation on the office of inspector general

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

[[Page 10545]]

     Office; used to pay any salary, benefit, or award for any 
     personnel of the Office; used to pay any other operating 
     expense of the Office; or used to reimburse the Office for 
     any service provided, or expense incurred, by the Office.

                     Social Security Administration


                payments to social security trust funds

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


               special benefits for disabled coal miners

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


                  supplemental security income program

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


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger 
     motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, not more than 
     $6,367,036,000 (increased by $70,000,000) may be expended, as 
     authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Soc ial Security Act, 
     from any one or all of the trust funds referred to therein: 
     Provided, That not less than $1,800,000 shall be for the 
     Social Security Advisory Board: Provided further, That 
     unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2001 not 
     needed for fiscal year 2001 shall remain available until 
     expended to invest in the Social Security Administration 
     information technology and telecommunications hardware and 
     software infrastructure, including related equipment and non-
     payroll administrative expenses associated solely with this 
     information technology and telecommunications infrastructure: 
     Provided further, That reimbursement to the trust funds under 
     this heading for expenditures for official time for employees 
     of the Social Security Administration pursuant to section 
     7131 of title 5, United States Code, and for facilities or 
     support services for labor organizations pursuant to 
     policies, regulations, or procedures referred to in section 
     7135(b) of such title shall be made by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, with interest, from amounts in the general fund not 
     otherwise appropriated, as soon as possible after such 
     expenditures are made.
       From funds provided under the first paragraph, not less 
     than $130,000,000 (increased by $70,000,000) shall be 
     available for conducting continuing disability reviews.
       In addition to funding already available under this 
     heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions, 
     $520,000,000 (reduced by $70,000,000), to remain available 
     until September 30, 2002, for continuing disability reviews 
     as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121 and 
     section 10203 of Public Law 105-33. The term ``continuing 
     disability reviews'' means reviews and redeterminations as 
     defined under section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended.
       In addition, $91,000,000 to be derived from administration 
     fees in excess of $5.00 per supplementary payment collected 
     pursuant to section 1616(d) of the Social Security Act or 
     section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66, which shall remain 
     available until expended. To the extent that the amounts 
     collected pursuant to such section 1616(d) or 212(b)(3) in 
     fiscal year 2001 exceed $91,000,000, the amounts shall be 
     available in fiscal year 2002 only to the extent provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts.
       From funds previously appropriated for this purpose, any 
     unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     available to continue Federal-State partnerships which will 
     evaluate means to promote Medicare buy-in programs targeted 
     to elderly and disabled individuals under titles XVIII and 
     XIX of the Social Security Act.


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

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

                    United States Institute of Peace


                           operating expenses

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

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended 
     balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to 
     current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That 
     such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and 
     for the same periods of time, for which they were originally 
     appropriated.
       Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in 
     this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized 
     executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or 
     propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or 
     use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, 
     television, or video presentation designed to support or 
     defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature, except in presentation to the Congress or any 
     State legislature itself.
       (b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or 
     contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, 
     related to any activity designed to influence legislation or 
     appropriations pending before the Congress or any State 
     legislature.
       Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are 
     authorized to make available not to exceed $20,000 and 
     $15,000, respectively, from funds available for salaries and 
     expenses under titles I and III, respectively, for official 
     reception and representation expenses; the Director of the 
     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from the funds available for 
     ``Salaries and expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service''; and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board 
     is authorized to make available for official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds 
     available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation 
     Board''.
       Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry 
     out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes 
     for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
       Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests 
     for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents 
     describing

[[Page 10546]]

     projects or programs funded in whole or in part with Federal 
     money, all grantees receiving Federal funds included in this 
     Act, including but not limited to State and local governments 
     and recipients of Federal research grants, shall clearly 
     state: (1) the percentage of the total costs of the program 
     or project which will be financed with Federal money; (2) the 
     dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program; 
     and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of 
     the project or program that will be financed by non-
     governmental sources.
       Sec. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this 
     Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds 
     are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any 
     abortion.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none 
     of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health 
     benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
       (c) The term ``health benefits coverage'' means the package 
     of services covered by a managed care provider or 
     organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
       Sec. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding 
     section shall not apply to an abortion--
       (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or 
     incest; or
       (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a 
     physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an 
     abortion is performed.
       (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or 
     private person of State, local, or private funds (other than 
     a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching 
     funds).
       (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as 
     restricting the ability of any managed care provider from 
     offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or 
     locality to contract separately with such a provider for such 
     coverage with State funds (other than a State's or locality's 
     contribution of Medicaid matching funds).
       Sec. 510. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for--
       (1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research 
     purposes; or
       (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are 
     destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of 
     injury or death greater than that allowed for research on 
     fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
       (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo 
     or embryos'' includes any organism, not protected as a human 
     subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, 
     cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or 
     human diploid cells.
       Sec. 511. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of 
     Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used for any activity that 
     promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance 
     included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled 
     substances established by section 202 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply when there is significant medical evidence of a 
     therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other 
     substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are 
     being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.
       Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract 
     with an entity if--
       (1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United 
     States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d) 
     of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an 
     annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment 
     of certain veterans; and
       (2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by 
     that section for the most recent year for which such 
     requirement was applicable to such entity.
       Sec. 513. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     unobligated balances remaining available at the end of fiscal 
     year 2000 from appropriations made available for salaries and 
     expenses for fiscal year 2000 in this Act, shall remain 
     available through December 31, 2000, for each such account 
     for the purposes authorized: Provided, That the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations shall be notified at 
     least 15 days prior to the obligation of such funds: Provided 
     further, That the provisions of this section shall not apply 
     to any funds appropriated to the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention or to the Department of Education.
       Sec. 514. Section 5527 of Public Law 105-33, The Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997, is repealed.
       Sec. 515. (a) Dates for Evaluation.--Section 
     403(a)(5)(H)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(H)(iii)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Interim Report Required.--Section 403(a)(5)(H) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(G)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(iv) Interim Report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Congress an interim report on 
     the evaluations referred to in clause (i).''.
       Sec. 516. Section 403(a)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``1999, 2000, and 2001'' and inserting 
     ``1999 and 2000''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) for fiscal year 2001, a grant in an amount equal to 
     the amount of the grant to the State under clause (i) for 
     fiscal year 1998.''.

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

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

                              {time}  1630


               Amendment No. 205 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to request the rest of the 
amendment be read by the Clerk?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the reading of the 
amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read the amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask favorable adoption of this amendment. This 
is an amendment that moves approximately $42 million to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act.
  I have spoken on this topic before and proposed to increase the 
funding for IDEA in a previous amendment, and the philosophy here is 
quite the same. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is, 
quite frankly, a well-established priority, not only a priority, but 
the highest priority of the United States Congress. We have established 
that as the highest priority three times.
  My colleagues, what we have accomplished, basically, is, if we fail 
to fulfill our obligation to fully fund the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act to the extent that we have promised 
previously, we have done the following:
  In May of 1999, we promised about $2 billion this year in increases 
for IDEA. We held the cash out to the American people for special 
education and we said, we are going to give this money to them.
  About a month ago we came to the floor here and passed a similar 
resolution and said, we are going to fully fund the IDEA program; we 
are going to give this cash to them.
  Just days ago we passed the budget resolution, where we suggested an 
authorization of a $2 billion increase; and, for the third time, we 
said to the American public, those who are concerned about IDEA, we are 
going to give this money to them.
  And today, the point at which it is time to actually give the money 
to

[[Page 10547]]

those who care about special education, we are not going to do it 
because there are other priorities.
  I will agree with those who say there are other priorities. But the 
fact is we have voted three times to say that there is no higher 
priority than fully funding IDEA.
  Now, this is a long-term goal; but the first installment on that 
payment occurs right now. We promised $2 billion this year in 
additional funding for special education. And by the end of the day, I 
suspect that this amendment fails, as others who are proposing the same 
that we keep our pledge, we will only increase funding by about half a 
billion dollars, a substantial amount, a good gesture, to be sure.
  But the reality is that principals, superintendents, State 
legislators, and parents are asking us to fully fund the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. It is the largest Federal mandate that 
every school administrator has to deal with. By our failure to fully 
fund these children who need our help and assistance and who have been 
promised three times and where we have been obligated by the Supreme 
Court, they are being left high and dry.
  I would ask our colleagues to find it in their hearts to reach out 
and just fulfill the promises that we have made and support this 
amendment. It is one that I think is reasonable and modest. In fact, it 
does not go nearly far enough to fulfill the promises that we have 
made. But these are the children who need the dollars most, who have 
every right to an equal access to a quality education, and they are 
denied that because this government has foisted a mandate upon the 
States and upon the people in it, and it has refused to pay for its 
share of the cost.
  This amendment moves us in that direction. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I understand why the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer) wants to increase IDEA, as we did in the bill and we 
have in prior bills. I do not understand why he would want to cut a 
very, very successful program that the majority has strongly supported 
over the last 6 years and has become the centerpiece of our work on job 
training.
  There are many young people who in their home neighborhoods generally 
have little or no hope of participation in the prosperity of this 
economy. They lack the opportunity to get work experience and get 
ahead.
  Job Corps has taken young people out of such neighborhoods and put 
them into a situation where they can learn skills, get a work ethic, 
get an opportunity to get a job, get a job, hold a job, have a family, 
participate in the American dream.
  To cut funding in this area seems to me to be very misguided. The 
young people that have been served by this program have done amazingly 
well. It is a program that we have consistently increased more than the 
President has included in his budgets. We increased funding because we 
believe there is a real chance for young people who otherwise are so 
much at risk to get an opportunity to get ahead in our society. I 
believe that it would be extremely unfortunate if this program were cut 
and this money were transferred.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I reject the characterization of this 
amendment as one that cuts Job Corps. The reality is this amendment 
shifts the new funding in Job Corps that the program does not have 
today, essentially leaving the funding at the current level without any 
change. That is not a cut. That is an amendment that holds the program 
harmless.
  Secondly, as to the value and the merit of the Job Corps program, let 
us keep in mind that, even with my amendment, we will still spend $1.4 
billion on the Job Corps program. And that is not to mention several 
other job-seeking types of programs that the Federal Government 
maintains.
  I would love to offer for consideration of our colleagues and perhaps 
submit for the Record a report by Mark Wilson of the Job Corps program; 
and in it it finds that Job Corps is government's most expensive job-
training program and continues to receive increases despite serious 
questions raised about the program by the U.S. General Accounting 
Office.
  There are several other findings that Job Corps has a spotty record 
in. In some parts of the country, it seems to work well. In other 
spots, it is hemorrhaging cash without providing results.
  All of that being put aside, Job Corps may be a persuasive priority 
for some. I merely maintain that the highest priority should be those 
children who are in classrooms today suffering from various 
disabilities that impair their ability to receive a first-rate, quality 
education.
  The reason it becomes so challenging for these children is because 
this Congress has mandated rule after rule after rule and regulation 
and failed to put the cash forward. That is what this amendment 
accomplishes. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that when we talk about 
the Job Corps, we are talking about young people who up to that moment 
in their lives are 100-percent failures and the Job Corps manages to 
salvage about 50 percent of those young people. That is a better 
batting average than Babe Ruth had.
  I must say, I am amused by the fact that just 3 days ago we saw on 
the floor a chart by one of the Members of the majority side and that 
chart was used to brag about how much the Job Corps was being increased 
by the majority party; and now this amendment seeks, I guess, to rip up 
that chart. And I guess maybe those speeches on behalf of the Job Corps 
that were given on the other side would have to be ripped up, as well.
  This just is not something we ought to do. It goes at people who have 
no hope without help, and I think we ought to turn the amendment down.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say, in closing, as the chairman of 
the authorizing committee just said to me, this is an expensive 
program. But the alternative is much, much more expensive both to the 
individual and to our society.
  I believe in this program. I think it has made a difference in so 
many young people's lives in this country. It is the model, I believe, 
for overcoming poverty and gang neighborhoods and violence and getting 
young people an opportunity and a chance. And God knows what this 
country stands for is people getting an opportunity and a chance to 
reach their level of achievement. If we do not provide that 
opportunity, we are short changing the very things we believe most 
deeply in.
  I oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote against it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 7 
offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), amendment No. 
186 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), amendment 
No. 203 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), 
amendment No. 182 offered

[[Page 10548]]

by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and amendment No. 205 offered 
by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Bass

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 259]

                                AYES--98

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

                               NOES--319

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1705

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


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

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


           Amendment No. 186 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--124

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Ewing
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce

[[Page 10549]]


     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--293

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1714

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

                              {time}  1715


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 267, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--150

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Foley
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Payne

[[Page 10550]]


     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

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

                              {time}  1722

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


               Amendment No. 203 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 287, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--132

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

                               NOES--287

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

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

                              {time}  1729

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


                 Amendment No. 182 Offered by Mr. Oxley

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110, 
noes 305, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--110

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Everett
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kuykendall
     Largent
     Latham
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh

[[Page 10551]]


     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Upton
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--305

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

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

                              {time}  1736

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


               Amendment No. 205 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               AYES--103

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

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush

[[Page 10552]]


     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

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

                              {time}  1744

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

                              {time}  1745

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


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio will state her 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the point of order, if at 
the end of our brief period of discussion the point of order is called, 
then that means our amendment cannot be offered; is that correct, will 
not be voted on?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the point of order has been reserved, 
the gentlewoman can proceed with her 5 minutes. If the gentleman 
insists on his point of order, at that time the Chair will make a 
ruling on whether the point of order is well taken.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Just so I understand it, if the point of order is upheld, 
then our amendment could not be offered; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to make that very clear in the beginning.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few days ago on May 24, this House voted to 
extend permanent normal trade relations to the People's Republic of 
China without restriction. Yet based on projections by our own 
government, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the approval of 
that agreement threatens to eliminate more than 870,000 jobs in this 
country, predominantly in the manufacturing area.
  They estimate over 742,000 jobs will be lost to China. In my own 
State of Ohio, over 34,500 jobs are projected to be lost. America has 
an obligation to assist working people and their families who will 
suffer from the devastating consequences of job loss due to this deal 
with China.
  What this amendment does is it would help meet our obligations by 
establishing the China PNTR transitional adjustment assistance program, 
or China TAA, modeled after the trade adjustment assistance that locked 
into place when NAFTA was passed.
  We have all seen how important that program has been with the 
hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been moved to Mexico.
  Under our proposal, workers could petition for critical reemployment 
services such as job training, job search, training for important 
employment in other jobs or careers, and certainly in many cases direct 
income support.
  The very least this Congress should do, and I cannot understand why 
it was omitted from the base bill that came out of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, we ought to respond to the basic needs of people who 
want to work when their jobs disappear. If advocates for PNTR truly 
believe that America's workers will only benefit from PNTR for China, 
then they have nothing to fear from this amendment.
  We should have a vote on this amendment. However, it is my 
understanding that this amendment may be struck by a point of order; 
and therefore, I want to ask my colleagues to join me in establishing a 
formal China TAA assistance program in a bill that I will drop into the 
hopper right after this debate today. And I urge Members to join me, 
along with a growing list of original cosponsors, in making a stand for 
the workers of this country by cosponsoring this important bill and 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell), who has been such a strong voice for working Americans from 
coast to coast.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for yielding me this time.

[[Page 10553]]

  Congress has made its bed and now we want some accountability as we 
begin to sleep with the enemy. I rise today to voice my strong support, 
Mr. Chairman, for the amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  When the House passed PNTR, American job loss was an issue that was 
merely pushed aside by those who voted for business as usual and for 
business interests in the low-wage Chinese workforce. Now workers are 
coming to me and asking what we will do in the aftermath.
  With this amendment, we have an answer for those who will lose their 
jobs. The administration admits there will be a loss, net loss of 
872,000 jobs, in America. Twenty-two thousand of those jobs will be in 
New Jersey. We have no program set up in that interim period when those 
people lose their jobs.
  What are we going to tell these workers, that they have lost their 
job to the low-production jobs in China? That is no answer. We need to 
train people to move on to other jobs.
  I ask that we support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do not claim the time in opposition. I would reserve my 
point of order and ask if the gentlewoman would like to make a 
summation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a very distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Lorain, Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has worked 
with us so much on this issue and whose district has suffered directly 
from job losses to both Mexico and China.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time, and also thank her for her 
amendment on the Trade Adjustment Act, monies in support for the China 
PNTR bill.
  Everyone knows that our trade deficit, $70 billion and counting, with 
China will grow after the passage of PNTR. Ten years ago, it was $100 
million. Three years ago, it passed $40 billion. Today it is $70 
billion. We know it will continue to grow. Everyone also knows that the 
China PNTR vote will cost American jobs. It is only right when we see a 
plant close, we see a Huffy Bicycle plant close, jobs move to China. 
Phillips TV job plant closes in Ohio, jobs move to Mexico; one after 
another after another.
  We know we must do something for those workers. Passing these trade 
bills, this Congress has done. It passed NAFTA in a close vote. It 
passed PNTR in a close vote. At least with NAFTA we had some trade 
adjustment assistance. We should do the same thing with PNTR.
  This amendment makes great sense, the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for coming 
to the floor, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and I 
would say that I have a sinking feeling that the Republican leadership 
of this House is about to call a point of order against our amendment 
and not permit us to pass a program to help American workers who are 
going to lose their jobs to China.
  I think that is unconscionable. I have the greatest respect for the 
gentleman who chairs this particular subcommittee, but I know that the 
leadership of his party approached me prior to this vote and asked if I 
was really going to offer that amendment. I said, yes, we are.
  I would ask the American people to know what is about to happen here. 
We need to help America's workers who are going to lose their jobs to 
China.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.
  The amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a 
ruling from the Chair.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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


                Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Boehner

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today and offer an amendment to protect the 
interests of taxpayers, as well as thousands of native students in the 
State of Hawaii.
  Like all States, Hawaii currently receives funds under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act for struggling schools and students, but 
unlike other States Hawaii also receives an additional $20 million each 
year in addition to its allocation for the native Hawaiian education 
programs.
  The name is misleading, I think, to say the least. The recipients of 
these funds are not Hawaii's native students but much of this money 
goes to an entity known as the Bishop Estate Trust.
  It was created over a century ago to carry out the legacy of a 
beloved Hawaiian princess who died in 1884 and left her fortune for the 
education of Hawaii's native children. That was a noble mission. 
Unfortunately, the princess would not recognize the Bishop Trust if she 
were alive to see it today.
  The Bishop Estate is now the richest charitable trust in the United 
States and the largest landowner in Hawaii. The Bishop Estate's 
holdings include a pair of Hawaiian resort hotels, the Royal Hawaiian 
Shopping Center, several assets in Las Vegas, two of the largest 
shopping centers in Wisconsin, large expanses of timberland in Michigan 
and, until last year, owned 5 percent of Goldman Sachs.
  In 1999, its annual revenues were $460 million, with assets that 
totaled an estimated $10 billion. Incredibly, this vast empire spends 
only a tiny share of its resources on its purpose, its only mission as 
given by the princess, to educate native Hawaiian children. Last year, 
it spent just $100 million for that purpose.

[[Page 10554]]

  As the program 60 Minutes reported this spring, and I will quote, 
``What was supposed to be a tax-exempt charitable trust devoted to 
education was behaving very much like an international conglomerate. 
While it was raking in hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the 
Bishop Estate was spending less than half of that on the school and 
serving just 6 percent of eligible children in Hawaii,'' end quote.

                              {time}  1800

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Who has the right to 
close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 
the right to close. The gentleman from Ohio is the proponent of the 
amendment, and no manager controls the time in opposition.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), 
all the members of the committees that have looked at this issue have 
decided that justice and equity resides with this appropriation.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has been at odds with the 
trustees of the Bishop Estate for some 6 years now. Those trustees are 
no longer in place. The argument that he has had with the Bishop Estate 
no longer applies. Not one single penny, as he well knows, goes to the 
Bishop Estate.
  Why the gentleman from Ohio has this obsession to come to Hawaii, why 
he has the time to leave his district in Ohio and try to come to the 
floor of this House to act on behalf of Hawaiian children, I do not 
know. But I do know that his characterization to my colleagues is 
something that I take great offense at, because not one penny for these 
children is going to either those trustees or into that estate.
  The people who are handling the funds that my colleagues have put 
forward in this bill are the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Leeward 
Community College, the Maui Community College, the Kauai Community 
College, the Hawaii Community College, and four Hawaiian nonprofit 
organizations, none of whom have anything to do with the Bishop Estate.
  Now, if my colleagues want to make this into a Republican versus 
Democratic issue, I most emphatically plead with them, do not do this. 
This is an educational issue that everyone in every district here can 
relate to on the basis of what is good for the children of one's 
district.
  This is not a partisan issue unless the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) is

[[Page 10555]]

able to make it that and unless he is able to convince my colleagues 
against the evidence that this has something to do with the estate with 
which he has had an argument in the past.
  Every issue raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) with 
respect to the estate has been addressed. Every single issue now is 
moot.
  So I plead with all the Members, Democrat or Republican here, to 
trust the judgment in this instance of Democrats and Republicans alike, 
leaders on both sides, and a plea from me and the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) that my colleagues allow us, as we do for any Member 
in this House, to trust us as we trust them to address the particular 
circumstances in their districts that require congressional attention.
  I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) not to make this an issue 
that would divide this House along partisan lines and to recognize that 
his arguments have been met, his arguments have been addressed.


              native hawaiian education assessment project

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


                      status of kamehameha schools

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


                native hawaiian education act objectives

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


             native hawaiian education act--seven sections

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


            nhea programs administered by kamehameha schools

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


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

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


                    rep. boehner previous arguments

  During the October 1999 markup of a section of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act reauthorization, Representative Boehner offered 
his amendment to repeal the program. He stated:
  His comments would focus on Bishop Estate, its mission, its history 
of scandal, its budget, and potential for success with the recent 
reforms
  He said there are 15,000 Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii--Patsy 
corrected him with Census data in her testimony, stating that there are 
actually 47,282.
  He said Bishop Estate was worth $10 billion and they own 10% of 
Goldman Sachs, numerous Hawaii hotels, Las Vegas casinos, and shopping 
centers. Kamehameha Schools budget data reflects a net worth closer to 
$5 billion.
  He said that the former trustees were involved in kickback schemes, 
mail fraud, drug use, and improper credit card use, but their biggest 
fault was their $1 million annual compensation. He also mentioned the 
continuing probe of the estate's activities by the IRS and the State 
courts.
  He said that there are 3,200 students in Kamehameha Schools and that 
only one-eighth of those that apply are accepted. Patsy corrected him 
that there are actually 5,000 children attending Kam Schools--my 
statistics show that the number is 4,444 kids.
  He also made a point that the Estate should try using their interest 
income on educating Native Hawaiian children. That would raise the 
amount they spend by $400 million annually.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my two colleagues from Hawaii. 
We have been involved in this fight for some 6 years. The fact is that 
the largest charitable trust in the United States is the Bishop Estate. 
Their only mission in the trust document is to provide for the 
education of the native Hawaiian children. The fact is that, last year, 
they bring from $460 million, and they only spent $100 million for the 
benefit of those children.
  As a matter of fact, the IRS has gone in to investigate them, almost 
took away their tax exempt status because of the corruption in the 
estate. The fact is that why should taxpayers in Washington, D.C., 
provide an additional $20 billion to one State that other States do not 
get when, in fact, they have got a $10 billion trust that has no other 
mission, there is no other use for this money than to help these 
children that they seek to help.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we end this, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:

[[Page 10556]]

       Page 84, after line 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 518. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title III of this Act may be used to prohibit a 
     State vocational rehabilitation agency from counting a blind 
     or visually-impaired person as successfully rehabilitated 
     under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 if the person is placed 
     in a noncompetitive or nonintegrated employment setting at 
     the Federal minimum wage or higher.

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


                Amendment No. 198 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

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

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

                              {time}  1815

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

[[Page 10557]]

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


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

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

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

[[Page 10558]]

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

                              {time}  1830


                Part B Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

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

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

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

[[Page 10559]]

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


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

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

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

[[Page 10560]]

their premiums skyrocket to $85 dollars or $100 or $120 a month. This 
is a serious problem.
  The way to address it is for us to bring to the floor of this body 
legislation that would create for the first time a real and meaningful 
and comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare.
  While we await that hopeful action, there is some repair work that I 
believe needs to be done on Medicare+Choice.
  In my region, we have the indefensible situation where constituents 
are paying $120 a month in premiums for the same benefit under the same 
program where people who are literally a mile away living across the 
river in Pennsylvania are paying $15 or $20 or $25.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, they are living in the same regional economy. They 
pay the same hospital costs. They pay the same prescription drug costs. 
But the difference of ZIP code separates this price increase and 
imposes upon my constituents in southern New Jersey a price increase 
that is substantially higher than that of our neighbors.
  Earlier this year, I spoke, Mr. Chairman, to the leadership of the 
Health Care Financing Administration and asked them, as they have under 
statutory authority, to conduct an audit to determine whether the 
managed care plans in southern New Jersey are charging the appropriate 
rates under this program. It has been represented to me by the 
leadership of the Health Care Financing Administration that this audit 
will be done in an expeditious fashion.
  But I am concerned. The contracts for calendar year 2001 must be 
renewed this year by September 1, 2000. It is imperative that these 
audits be finished in a fashion so that adjustments can be made and 
contracts can be properly renegotiated so these premium increases can 
be rolled back in time for the September 1, 2000, contract deadline.

                              {time}  1845

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


               Amendment No. 191 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today on the floor of the House we have had a number of amendments 
offered on the same issue. This issue, of course, is the transferring 
of funds from someplace in this bill to IDEA, or the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act. They have been uniformly turned down by our 
Members at the point in time on which they were voted, so I recognize 
full well that I am here in a way perhaps as a beau geste. I believe so 
strongly that we should be reorganizing our priorities in this 
particular bill that I feel it is worth the effort to once again bring 
it to the attention of my colleagues. However, I would also say, Mr. 
Chairman, that I intend to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment at the appropriate time.
  While Congress over the last 5 years under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Porter) increased the Federal share of IDEA to 12.6 
percent, we have much further to go to reach the promised 40 percent. 
That is why I was so disappointed to see the underlying bill, the bill 
which we are debating here, includes only a $5.5 billion appropriation 
for special education grants to State programs, only a $500 million 
increase over last year's level.
  While I commend the House Committee on Appropriations for increasing 
the program, it is well short of the over $16 billion level needed to 
reach the full 40 percent promised to States and localities and less 
than the $2 billion increase promised in the budget resolution. The 
lack of adequate funding for special education in H.R. 4577 comes even 
as the bill increases funding for many education programs which are 
inefficient and have yet to produce reliable results.
  It is for this reason that I and many of my colleagues come down to 
the floor today to offer the amendments to increase funding for special 
education which should be our first priority in the education part of 
this bill.
  Today, I offer this amendment to increase IDEA funding by $30 million 
by reducing funding for the comprehensive school reform program by $20 
million, for OSHA by $5 million, and for the Department of Education 
administration by $5 million. The amendment does not cut the 
comprehensive school reform program, it merely reduces the funding 
increase in the current bill and transfers that extra funding to 
special education.
  In this case, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am almost as concerned

[[Page 10561]]

about this constant attempt, or not just attempt but accomplished fact 
of appropriating money to unauthorized programs where now we are up to 
over $200 billion a year. So it does call into question the need for 
authorizing committees in the first place, that is for sure, and once 
you recognize that this is another one of those programs, the 
comprehensive school reform program, it may be a wonderful program, we 
have never authorized this program, never from its inception. We have 
not the slightest idea how this program really is supposed to work 
against anything else. There are no rules and regulations that really 
the Department can operate on to determine whether or not it is doing 
well. It is now appropriated at about $170 million. That is what it is 
going to be in this year. It is an extremely expensive program, again, 
never authorized. And so we do withdraw $20 million in funding just 
bringing it down to last year's level.
  The program was authorized at $145 million per year to help low-
performing schools raise student achievement by adopting research-
based, schoolwide approaches. It is important to remember that under 
the schoolwide program approach of title I, schools with 50 percent or 
more poverty can use their regular title I funds to serve all students 
in the school and to change the whole school. But rather than debate 
all the different places from which this money is taken, I want to 
concentrate on the need for the Congress of the United States to live 
up to the commitment it made to the people of the United States when it 
enacted the first special education laws, because that is really where 
we should be focusing our attention.
  That was the mandate. We tell every State in the Nation what they 
must do and how they must do it. And it is an extraordinarily expensive 
undertaking for them that drains money away from other very important 
programs. And so I suppose I will be here as often as I can to make the 
case for us to live up to the commitment in special education, even if 
it means reducing our commitment to these other programs which have in 
the past shown absolutely no improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment which 
would cost $20 million in funding in the bill for the Comprehensive 
School Reform Demonstration Program.
  Funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Program is authorized 
under the title 1 demonstration program (section 1002) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition, the program has 
been included in bills passed by the House and reported by the Senate 
Education Committees to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  I would like to insert at this point in the Record some preliminary 
findings of the Department of Education--data on early CSRD 
implementation from the national longitudinal survey of schools--on the 
first year of implementation of the comprehensive school reform 
program. This program is beginning to accomplish significant results in 
schools in Wisconsin and in other States across the country.

                                 [Memo]

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

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


                   school and student characteristics

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


                Adoption of Externally-Developed Models

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


                      Leveraging Title I Services

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

[[Page 10562]]

     Title I schoolwide principals to report greater integration 
     of funds. Fewer CSRD schoolwides than Title I schoolwides 
     reported challenges to coordinating federal resources with 
     other funding sources. For example, in citing barriers, 55 
     percent of Title I schoolwide principals said they were 
     unsure of what was allowed in combining funds compared to 38 
     percent of CSRD schoolwide principals.


                        Professional Development

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


                           parent involvement

       Sharing information. CSRD schools are more likely than 
     Title I schools to share documents, including school 
     performance profiles with parents; provide homework hotlines 
     to parents; and ask all parents to participate in a school-
     parent compact.
       Support services. On the whole, CSRD schools resemble 
     schoolwide Title I schools with respect to parent involvement 
     strategies with one exception--a far higher number of CSRD 
     schools provide social support services to parents.
       Parent involvement strategies. CSRD teachers were more 
     likely than Title I school teachers to report using certain 
     parent involvement strategies such as home visits (20 percent 
     to 15 percent), showing parents models of successful work (82 
     to 75 percent), and initiating phone calls to parents (74 to 
     69 percent).


                                concerns

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


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


                                colorado

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


                                 maine

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


                                montana

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


                                  OHIO

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


                                 OREGON

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


                                  UTAH

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


                               WISCONSIN

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

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

       ``Comprehensive school reform is not just another school 
     improvement strategy--it is a significant leap forward in 
     reforming today's public schools. Comprehensive school reform 
     addresses all students, all academic subjects and all 
     teachers. When done well, a school is overhauled from top to 
     bottom. Adding one program on top of another is thrown out in 
     favor of the much more difficult work of reorganizing 
     schools, targeting professional development for teachers and 
     principals, changing curriculum and making tough budget 
     decisions.

[[Page 10563]]

       ``In short, comprehensive school reform transforms the way 
     a school functions to accomplish one goal: improved student 
     achievement for all students. Comprehensive school reform is 
     a breakthrough that allows schools, districts and states to 
     move beyond finger pointing and blame to real improvements in 
     student learning. Implementing this reform strategy is not 
     easy, however. There is nothing tougher than spending money 
     differently, sticking with an approach long enough to see 
     results, and overcoming turf battles along the way.''

                   Wisconsin CSRD Evaluation Findings

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

                     CSRD Schools and the AIR Study

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

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

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

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


            Blackstone Primary School, Blackstone, Virginia

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

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a very simple bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Baldacci). When I last introduced a version of this amendment in 
1996, it received 180 votes. I hope we can win tonight with strong 
bipartisan support. This amendment is supported by Families USA, the 
National Council of Senior Citizens, and the Committee to Preserve 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, over the years, the taxpayers of this country have 
contributed billions of dollars to the National Institutes of Health 
for research into new and important drugs, and that research money has 
paid off. Between 1955 and 1992, 92 percent of drugs approved by the 
FDA to treat cancer were researched and developed by the NIH. Today, 
many of the most widely used drugs in this country dealing with a 
variety of illnesses were developed through NIH research, and that is 
very good news.
  The bad news is that, by and large, these drugs which were developed 
at taxpayer expense were given over to the pharmaceutical industry with 
no assurance that American consumers would not be charged outrageously 
high prices.
  Mr. Chairman, the pharmaceutical companies constitute the most 
profitable industry in this country. Yet while their profits soar, 
millions of Americans cannot afford the prescription drugs they 
desperately need because of the high prices they are forced to pay. In 
fact, Americans pay by far the highest prices for prescription drugs 
than the people of any other country on Earth, and many of these drugs 
are manufactured right here in the United States and their research was 
done through taxpayer dollars.
  While there are many reasons for the crisis in prescription drug 
costs in this country today, in this amendment I want to focus on one 
small part of that problem, and, that is, that it is totally 
unacceptable for the taxpayers of this country to provide billions of 
dollars through the NIH in research money for the pharmaceutical 
industry and get nothing in return in terms of lower prices for the 
products that they help to develop.

[[Page 10564]]

  Mr. Chairman, the reality is that taxpayers spend billions of dollars 
for research and development of prescription drugs and they deserve to 
get a return on that investment in terms of lower prices.
  Let me cite some examples. Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed drug for 
breast cancer, received federally funded research, and NIH sponsored 
140 clinical trials to test its efficacy. Yet today the pharmaceutical 
industry charges women in this country 10 times more than they charge 
women in Canada for a drug widely developed with U.S. taxpayer support. 
Many, many other drugs were developed with NIH support: Zovirax; AZT, 
the primary AIDS drug; Capoten; Platinol. And Prozac, the blockbuster 
antidepres-
sant, was made possible by the basic NIH-funded research that 
discovered the brain chemical triggering depression. And on and on it 
goes.
  The reality is, and The New York Times in a front page story made 
this point, that much of the drug research in this country comes from 
taxpayer support.
  Our amendment requires that the NIH abide by current law and ensure 
that a company that receives federally owned research or a federally 
owned drug provide that product to the American public on reasonable 
terms. This is not a new issue. During the Bush administration, the NIH 
insisted that cooperative research agreements contain, quote, a 
reasonable pricing clause that would protect consumers from exorbitant 
prices of products developed from federally funded research. The NIH 
several years ago abandoned the clause under heavy pressure from the 
pharmaceutical industry.
  While a reasonable pricing clause is not the only device that will 
protect the investment that American taxpayers have made in numerous 
profitable drugs, this amendment makes clear that Congress will not 
stand by while NIH turns over valuable research without some evaluation 
that the price charged to consumers will be reasonable as is required 
by current law.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I need to know 
what amendment he is offering because the amendment we have talks about 
licensing, and he has just talked about reasonable pricing. I do not 
know which one he is offering.
  Mr. SANDERS. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very, very clear.
  Mr. Chairman, am I on his time or my own?
  Mr. PORTER. The gentleman is still on his at the moment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Why does the gentleman not take his own time, if he 
would.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me first say a few things. First, this amendment has gone through 
about four different iterations, and we are not quite sure which one 
the gentleman is offering. I have the one in front of me dealing with 
licensing. That is the correct one.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct.
  Mr. PORTER. First, I understand the point the gentleman is trying to 
make. I think the amendment misses the mark. First of all, let me say 
that we have this wonderful synergy in our country where a great deal 
of the basic research which provides the foundation for applied 
research is done through NIH grants and we build this body of knowledge 
and then our pharmaceutical industry and our biotech industry build on 
that knowledge to develop products that they take to market. I think 
that that is a wonderful system that does more to develop the kinds of 
drugs that help eliminate disease or prevent it than any other place in 
the world. But what the gentleman's amendment attempts to do, and if I 
can read it, I would read it this way, it says, ``None of the funds 
made available in this Act for the National Institutes of Health may be 
used to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license pursuant 
to,'' et cetera, dealing with the licensing of drugs.
  The funds that NIH makes for grants are never involved in licensing 
operations. The licensing is done by the institution subsequent to the 
completion of the grant. So that while the gentleman, if this amendment 
passed, might think he is accomplishing something, I believe that the 
amendment as written would not hit the mark he is trying to hit. I 
think under those circumstances, and I know how hard it is to fashion 
an amendment that is in order on this subject under this bill, but this 
is really an authorizing matter that the gentleman really ought to 
address in an authorizing forum and not on an appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) for his thoughts, but I respectfully disagree. And here is the 
bottom line: the bottom line is that as a result of taxpayer-funded 
support, very important and wonderful drugs are developed. But the 
problem, Mr. Chairman, is that millions of Americans who paid for the 
research to develop those drugs cannot afford the product.
  I think it is totally responsible for the United States Government to 
say to the private companies we are giving you important research. But 
in return, we have to make some guarantees to the public that we are 
going to serve the public interests in terms of controlling the prices 
that are charged. I think that that is something that the taxpayers of 
this country deserve.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to do. My point is that this amendment does not do 
that; that it deals with the grant funds for licensing, and grant funds 
are not used for licensing. So the amendment will be ineffectual to 
achieve the ends that the gentleman is seeking to attain, in my 
judgment; and where this whole discussion belongs is not on an 
appropriations bill but on an authorizing bill where that subject is in 
order.
  Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PORTER. It is my time, but I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SANDERS. I am sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) has 30 seconds remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) has the right to close and has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute and yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will entertain a request to grant 
1 minute to each side.
  Is there objection?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and let me say that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has been trying to propose an amendment of this purpose for several 
years now. But it seems that every time he proposes it, there is just 
something wrong with it, that it just is not exactly right.
  I do not know about these details about the little loopholes of 
intricacies of the writing of the bill, but I do know that the 
fundamental principle he is trying to advocate here is right, and, that 
is, if a pharmaceutical company takes money from the taxpayers to 
develop a new drug, they have taken on the taxpayers as a partner; and 
thus they cannot then turn around and exploit the taxpayers and soak 
them for all money that they can get out of them because the taxpayer 
has paid basically for their research and development.

[[Page 10565]]

  Research and development is the risk that a company takes, and if we 
are going to pay for that risk, the taxpayers should get something back 
in return. And fairer prices that are affordable prices is certainly a 
reasonable assumption for companies that are taking that money.
  By the way, let me note, many pharmaceutical companies do not take 
research and development money; and they should have every right to 
charge what they want for their product. But in this case, the 
principle is absolutely sound, whether you are conservative or a 
liberal or a capitalist or a socialist. The fact is that the people 
have paid a certain amount of money, they deserve some rights with that 
money and protecting the consumer at the same time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) hit it 
right on the head and, that is, at a time when millions of Americans 
cannot afford the outrageously high costs of prescription drugs, they 
need to know that when their tax dollars went to develop these drugs, 
that the United States Government is saying to the private drug company 
they cannot charge anything they want; that they are going to go 
through the NIH, going to negotiate with you for reasonable prices.
  This is nothing more than asking for a fair return for the taxpayers 
of this country on their investment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), again, I understand what he is talking about, but I think 
that it misses the mark. If NIH is working on joint research with a 
pharmaceutical company in developing a drug, then clearly the NIH 
shares in the royalties or the profits from that drug.
  What the gentleman is talking about is when basic research is done 
and then that body of knowledge, which is disseminated to everyone and 
available to all sciences, then picked up by the pharmaceutical 
industry from which they do research and develop a product that somehow 
we ought to somehow measure what that contribution is; and the fact is 
that there it is simply adding to a body of knowledge that is available 
to all science everywhere. That is the role of NIH research.
  This amendment, even if the gentleman's premise was correct, this 
amendment will not accomplish what he is seeking to do, and it is the 
wrong place. It should be offered on the authorizing legislation 
dealing with the subject matter. So I would oppose the amendment and 
hope Members would not support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for having some excellent provisions for 
giving education a priority.
  I understand that an amendment that was going to take money out of 
Even Start and put it into IDEA is now not going to be offered, and I 
just want to emphasize how important I think that we move ahead with 
the concept of Even Start. Even Start brings parents in to make sure 
that parents are part of that encouraging effort.
  Just briefly, what happened in Michigan, I put in some appropriations 
for what we call the HIPY program in Michigan, it is Home Improvement 
for Preschool Youth, and that program helps teach parents how to react 
to their kids to help their kids do a better job before they went in 
school.
  What was exciting, it increased the reading comprehension for those 
children by 80 percent; but even more significant, it increased the 
reading comprehension for the parents by an equal amount. And 60 
percent of those parents went on to get their GED.
  As we move ahead with Even Start, as we move ahead with Head Start, 
it is important that we continue to bring parents into the picture to 
be part of that coordinated effort to encourage better education for 
their kids.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Obey

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

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, points of order are 
reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to read this amendment: ``It is the sense 
of the House of Representatives that tax reductions for taxpayers in 
the top 1 percent of income levels should not be enacted until the 
Congress enacts a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all 
Americans under Medicare.''
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that for the last 18 years we have been 
digging out from deficits created when Ronald Reagan pushed through a 
supine Congress legislation which doubled military spending on borrowed 
money and made very large reductions in tax cuts.
  And over the past 18 years, we have been desperate to finally work 
down these deficits that were built up and this increase in the 
national debt that was built up.
  And now finally after 18 years of deficits, which gave us an excuse, 
a collective institutional excuse to do diddly for millions of 
Americans who needed help, we finally have an opportunity to provide 
some help. This House passed a number of tax bills in the last 2 
months.
  First of all, we passed a minimum wage bill that gave $11 billion in 
benefits to minimum wage workers; but as a price for passing that, it 
included $90 billion in tax cuts for people who made over $300,000 a 
year.
  They just passed an inheritance bill last week which gave $50 billion 
per year when fully operative to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in 
this country. I observed at the time if we did not do that, we instead 
could provide a universal prescription drug benefit for every single 
senior citizen in this country. In fact, we could do it for a lot less 
than that cost.
  In fact, what we could do, if we did not spend that $50 billion on 
these folks, we could provide a universal health coverage for every 
single person in this country that does not have it.
  Very simply, I would ask one thing. I have held a number of meetings 
in my congressional district. I run into senior citizens. I ran into a 
person just last Saturday, who spent $24,000 a year on prescription 
drugs fighting cancer. I talked to another woman who spent over $6,800 
a year. I have talked to doctors who tell me that seniors have to 
choose between heating and eating, and

[[Page 10566]]

that they have known many a patient who has decided they would cut 
their dosage in half because they could not afford to buy their 
medicine.
  Now, this Congress is very good at saying, oh, you should offset your 
spending increases. What we are asking you to do today in an amendment 
that we can offer, but which we cannot get a vote on, what we are 
asking for is to recognize that there are two parts to a budget: what 
you recognize in revenue and what you spend in expenditures.
  We are asking you for a change like the outside world would, where 
you live in reality to put those two pieces of the budget together, and 
recognize that what you do on one half has an impact on what you can or 
cannot do on the other half.
  Now, we cannot under the rules of the House get at that action today; 
and so this is, in essence, a symbolic amendment, because we have no 
opportunity to offer any other kind. This is a symbolic amendment that 
says decide who we ought to put first.
  Now that we finally have some surpluses and can start meeting some of 
the Nation's challenges again, decide whether the wealthiest 2 percent 
of people in this country need that money more than someone who is 
living on $16,000 a year on a fixed income. If you have a conscience, 
the answer is clear. That is why this amendment, though it will not be 
adopted by this House tonight, should be.
  It would be a signal that at long last we are putting the needs of 
working people and retirees ahead of the economic establishment in this 
country. There are only 6 percent of the people in this country who 
contribute to political campaigns; that is why you get $50 billion a 
year put here instead of here. And that, I think, is the most 
disgraceful thing you can say about this session of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and everyone on 
his side of the aisle have stayed very much all the time that we 
debated this bill on their political point, which they have made over 
and over and over again. They do not like tax cuts for the wealthy; and 
if we would only not have put those in the bill, we could do all kinds 
of things that they would like to do with the money.
  Let me say something that I know that they will not like to hear, but 
I personally do not believe that we should every hear in this Chamber 
the kind of language that divides us. It is wealthy against working 
people, over and over and over again in their vernacular; and I do not 
believe that is what this country stands for or what we believe in.

                              {time}  1915

  It is not a crime to work hard and become a wealthy person. In fact, 
I would say that universally Americans accept the principle that they 
value the opportunity to do exactly that. That is what they want to do. 
And I think this divisive language of setting class against class and 
saying over and over again that it is one group against another is 
really not what we ought to be engaged in in debate here, ever.
  We ought to talk about the principles that we believe in, and the 
policies that advance those policies. I do not think we believe in 
class warfare, and I do not think we believe in dividing people by 
economic means.
  We do believe, and I agree with the gentleman, that there are people 
in this country that are really put to the test as to whether they can 
afford the drugs that they need even to stay alive, and very clearly 
there are people that are having to make very difficult decisions in 
their lives in order to pay for those drugs that they should not have 
to make.
  We ought to have a program to address the needs of those people. We 
ought not to have a program to provide universal coverage for 
prescription drugs, because there are lots of people in this country, 
about two-thirds of the people, the seniors in this country, that have 
a prescription drug benefit already under their own policies. They can 
afford it, they do not need the help. But there are certainly people 
that do.
  I believe that this Congress will provide that kind of prescription 
drug benefit. We will make certain that we are taking care of those 
people who are put to that tough test and are deeply in need, and we 
ought to. But I think the language of divisiveness, the language of 
division, the language that divides people economically is not 
appropriate, has not been appropriate throughout this debate, and I 
would hope that we would reject that kind of class warfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, as far as class warfare is concerned, the fact is that 
the working class has already lost and the wealthiest 2 percent have 
already won. The wealthiest 1 percent of people have made so much in 
additional money over the past 5 years that they now control more of 
the Nation's wealth than 90 percent of the American people combined. I 
do not call that class warfare, I call that telling the truth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we stand accused by the 
gentleman from Illinois of recognizing reality. The reality is there is 
a budget. It limits the amount of money we can spend. If you spend on 
one set of things, you cannot spend for another. That is reality. If in 
fact you give large tax cuts to people who are very wealthy, you will 
have less money that you can spend elsewhere.
  The gentleman says, ``Oh, let's not have class warfare; let's just 
have the wealthy and the middle class and the working class all get 
along.'' It sounds like Woody Allen's statement, ``the lion shall lie 
down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep.'' The wealthy 
and the poor can work together, as long as the poor are prepared to be 
submissive.
  The Republican plan says that you will get some help in paying for 
prescription drugs, up to 150 percent of poverty, $16,000 a year. If 
you are a retired individual making $20,000, $25,000, $28,000 a year 
and you get hit with a drug bill of four, five or six hundred dollars a 
month, the Republican position is we cannot afford it.
  Now, we say you could afford it if you did not give large tax cuts, 
and the gentleman says, Oh, that is class warfare. That is not class 
warfare, that is reality. If you, in fact, decide that Bill Gates 
should be allowed to pass down to his children all of his money with no 
taxes, and deprive the revenue base of 20 or 30 billion dollars, and 
you then say, ``but we can't help you if you are making $20,000 a 
year,'' and that is the Republican's plan. We did not make it up. This 
is not class warfare, this is your plan. One hundred fifty percent of 
poverty is the level at which you get subsidized.
  The gentleman said, We don't need universal coverage under 
prescription drugs. It is the same argument that said on the part of 
the Republicans that we did not need Medicare, we did not need 
universal health care. The fact is if you were making up a health care 
plan today, you would fully cover prescription drugs. Yes, there are 
some older people who have private insurance for prescription drugs. 
They pay unduly for it.
  We have a very simple case, and the gentleman apparently objects to 
our pointing it out. The more you do for people at the upper end of the 
scale, given a limited amount of money, the less you can do for people 
at the other end. I am sorry that that makes the gentleman 
uncomfortable. It does him honor that it makes him uncomfortable, but 
we did not create this situation. It is the reality that you have 
brought to the floor with your overall program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey), a very valued member of our 
subcommittee.

[[Page 10567]]


  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1995, when I was fortunate enough to get 
on this committee, I asked what subcommittees I would be on and one was 
called the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education. I asked people about that committee, and they said this is 
one time that you can go into deliberations and it will not be 
political; that there will be people like Louis Stokes on the other 
side who are just as concerned about poor people, just as concerned 
about medical needs of people, and just as concerned about all these 
programs that we have, NIH and all these programs that we have; that 
is, it is completely nonpartisan.
  Well, I am afraid to say that is not true. I would like to point out 
why and how I can come to that conclusion right now.
  We have had a subcommittee process going on here where we have laid 
out this whole plan, and I think the chairman has done an excellent 
job, and I believe that the opposition believes the same thing. In the 
subcommittee there was not one amendment that had a setoff to it, there 
was not one amendment mentioned. It was an ambush that was being 
planned, a political ambush, not an ambush in any other fashion or in a 
constructive way. They were sanitizing themselves and saying no, we are 
not going to have setoffs, we are not going to match these things. That 
could either be it was politically motivated, or they really and truly 
agreed this was a tremendous balance of all the interests in every 
respect.
  Well, we come to the floor now, where we have all the bright lights, 
all the attention of our Nation on it, and we start talking about a 
very political issue called tax cuts, money that is not spent, but is 
withheld by the people who own it when there is a surplus.
  These same people have been hollering against tax cuts in every way 
possible. They first of all said, back in the times when we were 
talking about trying to reduce the tax burden on the working people of 
America, they said we want to pay down the debt. Have they said one 
thing about paying down the debt here? No, they have not, because what 
they want to do is spend more and spend more and spend more. They want 
to keep this money in the government coffers so that they can have more 
control over it and so we can get right back in the same position that 
we were in when we started this business of balancing the budget and 
bringing ourselves into some reasonable economic sanity.
  So it is very clear. Even the arguments about protecting Social 
Security, if we did not protect Social Security we could have all this 
money that they could spend on this part of their agenda. That has 
happened year after year after year after year, until the conservatives 
took control of Congress and took the hard hits and said no, we are not 
going to borrow money from Social Security to satisfy your spending 
addiction.
  It is sad to me that we have this circumstance here and that this 
committee is being used for that purpose. It is a setup. The people of 
America should understand that, the people on both sides of the aisle 
should understand it, that when we have somebody like Jim Kelly, the 
Buffalo Bills quarterback, and his wife coming before our committee and 
telling about their small son, Hunter, and his disease, we should not 
be talking about politics. We should be talking about gigantic needs.
  When we look at what we can do in curing diseases across the globe, 
we should not be talking about politics, we should be talking about 
doing what is right. When we are talking about education and helping 
the people who have missed their opportunities, who do not have a 
pattern, a generational pattern for them to follow, we should not be 
talking about politics, we should be talking about what is right.
  So I would say we ought to reject this idea of these tax cuts being a 
factor in this discussion. Those discussions are nothing but political. 
We are not being constructive, and I agree with the chairman, we are 
not gaining anything, and we are doing a disservice to our country and 
to all of these causes that we are trying to serve in this committee by 
continuing this harangue time after time after time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the other distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Obey amendment. The 
Republican leadership wants America to believe that adding a 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare is one of their top priorities. 
That simply is untrue. They have done nothing to seriously address 
prescription drug prices for citizens. Many of the 13 million senior 
citizens who have no insurance coverage for prescription drugs are 
forced to choose between food and medicine, yet the Republican 
leadership has just pushed a $200 billion tax giveaway for the super 
rich through the House.
  More than half of their reckless tax giveaway is available to only a 
few thousand of the wealthiest families out of more than 60 million 
families in America. We should put an end to these giveaways until 
Congress enacts a universal voluntary prescription drug benefit for all 
Americans who are eligible for Medicare.
  Senior citizens' lives are at risk when they cannot afford 
prescription drugs that they need, yet pharmaceutical companies and 
their lobbying machine have kept this Congress from enacting a 
prescription drug benefit.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this debate does tell America what Republican 
priorities really are: Tax cuts for the super-rich, a few, before 
prescription drugs for the 13 million American senior citizens who 
cannot afford either the out-of-pocket costs or the insurance for drug 
coverage.
  It is the Republican majority who have created the so-called class 
warfare that the gentleman from Illinois speaks about. They have put 
the comfort of the very wealthy over the needs of ordinary citizens. We 
must begin responding to the needs of all Americans, not just the 
super-rich.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for this amendment and against this 
totally inadequate bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman correctly that he wants a 
universal prescription drug benefit?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, a universal voluntary prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare.
  Mr. PORTER. That would therefore provide a prescription drug benefit 
for these very wealthy people that the gentleman just described?
  Mr. OLVER. Voluntary.
  Mr. PORTER. Who do not need it.
  Mr. OLVER. If they do not want it, they do not have to take it.
  Mr. PORTER. It is always voluntary, of course.
  Mr. OLVER. If they have a better plan, surely they will keep the plan 
they have, rather than take a plan which is inferior, if they have a 
better plan.
  Mr. PORTER. We just want to get the government into this business 
directly and provide for all those people, even though they do not need 
it.
  Mr. OLVER. It is voluntary, and it is one that anybody who has a 
better plan should keep their better plan.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his tireless efforts on behalf 
of hard-working, middle-class families. He has been an important voice 
for common sense in this debate.
  The Obey amendment is an attempt to bring some of his common sense to 
this legislation, to help it to be able to reflect the priorities of 
the American people. It says, very simply, let us provide a 
prescription drug benefit for all of America's seniors, before, in 
fact, we enact a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
  Sixty percent of our seniors on Medicare lack good, affordable 
coverage.

[[Page 10568]]

The nearly 12 million seniors who have no prescription drug coverage 
need our help. If all of senior citizens are covered, then we will see 
the prices drop on prescription drugs.
  More than one in eight seniors are faced with an awful choice of 
paying for food and shelter or buying the prescription drugs that they 
simply cannot live without. In a time of unprecedented prosperity, the 
Republican leadership is telling these seniors that providing a tax cut 
to that wealthiest 1 percent of Americans is a higher priority than 
helping seniors afford prescription drugs.
  They have given a lot of lip service to the need for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit, but the fact is, Republicans still do not 
have a plan to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit that 
covers all of America's seniors, no matter where they live.

                              {time}  1930

  They want to do this through private insurance companies who quite 
frankly have said their plan is absurd.
  This amendment says that the Republican leadership needs to get back 
in touch with the values of the American people and provide 
prescription drug coverage to all of America's seniors before we pass 
those tax breaks for that wealthiest 1 percent. Those are the 
priorities of the American people. They should be our priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am a practicing politician, just like 
everyone else in this institution, so I would plead fully guilty, I 
would like to vote for a lot of tax cuts for my constituents. But I 
think I have some differences from some of my friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle. I want tax cuts that are aimed, for instance, at 
small businessmen so they can help provide health insurance for their 
employees.
  I know what it is like to run a small business on a 1 percent or 2 
percent profit. I do not want tax cuts that provide 73 percent of their 
benefits to the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent of the people in this 
country. I have nothing against those folks, but when we give 73 
percent of the tax benefits to the very wealthiest 1 or 2 percent, we 
do indeed precipitate class warfare, and Members cannot object when the 
average working family asks their representatives to fight back.
  I also do not want tax cuts that are so large that they get in the 
way of our protecting Medicare and Social Security, and that require 
the kind of reductions from the President's budget that this bill has 
in education, that it has in health care, that it has in the National 
Science Foundation, that it has in a range of other programs that help 
build this country.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the strong country we are today because we have 
always tried to be in everything together. We have tried to sacrifice 
together in wars and prosper together in peace. The problem is that 
today, in many places in this country that is not happening.
  What we are saying is very simple: Yes, we want a universal health 
insurance plan for prescription drugs, a voluntary plan. The reason 
they have never been able, on that side of the aisle, the reason they 
have never been able to put a dent in Social Security, the reason they 
have never been able to wipe out Medicare, as their earlier leadership 
said they wanted to do, is because they provide universal benefits, 
regardless of income, so all levels of this society recognize they are 
in it together when it comes to those programs, so people at all levels 
of income defend those programs.
  I make no apology for wanting to apply the same logic to prescription 
drugs. There is nothing wrong with asking Members to delay the tax cuts 
Members are giving to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in this 
country until they provide a prescription drug benefit for people who 
need it.
  There is nothing wrong with pointing out time and time again that all 
they have to do to be able to avoid all of the cuts from the 
President's budget that they have in education, in health care, and 
child care, and everything else, is to simply cut by 20 percent the 
size of the tax cut that they are providing in the five tax cut bills 
they have put through this House so far.
  It is true, our procedures do not allow us to directly join this 
issue tonight by way of votes, so all we can do is join it 
rhetorically. If those are the only tools that we have, then pardon me 
for making the best use of them that we know how. I make no apologies 
for it.
  This amendment is the right thing to do if Members believe in a just 
society.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that 
this entire debate has attempted to focus on tax cuts, and of course 
there are no tax cuts on the table here whatsoever.
  In addition, I would say to the gentleman that he knows very well, 
and everybody on his side of the aisle knows very well, that there are 
no tax cuts of the type he describes on the table anywhere, because the 
President of the United States has said he would veto those tax cuts. 
That is not in play. It has not been in play at any time.
  We on our side have to abide by the budget resolution. It is easy to 
talk about adding money for this program or that program, and to simply 
say, we are not going to take any responsibility for it. We can add 
whatever number we want, because we are not bound by the budget 
resolution.
  I am sorry, we are bound by the budget resolution. We have to live 
within the allocation we are given. We have to act responsibly. We have 
to figure out the best priorities for our country.
  I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, the 
gentlewoman, they have had ample opportunity to adjust those priorities 
if they do not agree with them by moving money from one account to 
another. They have not offered one single amendment to do that. All 
they want to do is add spending to the bill and breach the budget 
allocation that the subcommittee has been given.
  That is why every one of these amendments are out of order and will 
not stand. They have simply used this as a political exercise to 
express the kind of statements that have been made over and over again 
about tax cuts. They are irrelevant to this process. They would be 
vetoed by the President anyway. The whole thing is simply a political 
exercise.
  I would simply say that I think we have wasted a lot of time in this 
exercise that could be spent productively in legislating.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on 
the point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on this amendment 
because it proposes to change an existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law * * * 
.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do, for the reasons that I cited in my 
previous remarks.
  I recognize that the rules of the House do not allow us to get a vote 
on this amendment. That does not mean the amendment is not correct.
  Obviously, under the rules we are operating under it is not in order, 
so I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin concedes the 
point of order. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 10569]]

  Mr. Chairman, before we move to the final amendments on this bill, I 
know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Traficant) has one and I know 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has one and the chairman 
of the committee has one, but I simply want to take this time, in spite 
of the heat of the debate that we sometimes had, to take a moment to do 
honor to the man who is chairing this subcommittee as we consider this 
legislation for the last time under his stewardship.
  Mr. Chairman, I have known the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
for a long time now. I have never seen a day when I have thought that 
he did not act out of absolute patriotism and out of an absolute 
dedication to what he believes is good for this country.
  I deeply believe that being a politician, and I am proud of it, I 
deeply believe that being a politician or public servant is one of the 
highest callings that one could have. In a democracy, I know of no 
higher calling except to be a minister, a rabbi, or a priest.
  I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) with all of the 
differences we have had on this bill, I think the gentleman from 
Illinois has in all ways, as long as I have known him, done honor to 
his constituency, done honor to his State, done honor to his party, 
done honor to this institution, and above all, has done honor, great 
honor, to the country that he has so ably served.
  I will regret seeing him leave. I will miss him personally. I will 
miss him professionally. I think that the differences that he and I 
have had on this bill prove that when two people agree on everything 
one of them is unnecessary, so we have disagreed often today. We each 
have our roles to play. But public service loses something very 
precious when it loses people like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter).
  I simply want to say that whether the issue has been health or 
education or welfare, or whether the issue has been the foreign policy 
interests of the United States, the gentleman has always, in my view, 
been a credit to this institution and a credit to himself.
  I think honestly he has deserved a better cut of the deck than he has 
gotten, because if we had a realistic budget situation in which we were 
operating, I think he could produce legislation which is far more in 
line with what I know his instincts to be and what his concerns to be.
  I simply, if I were wearing a hat, would take it off to the 
gentleman, because he has been an exemplary public servant for as long 
as I have known him.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell the gentleman how much I appreciate those 
very, very kind and generous words. I have served in this body for 21 
years, almost, and I have loved every minute of my service. I have 
loved the relationship that I have had with Members on both sides of 
the aisle.
  I believe we lose a lot when we lose the collegiality of working 
together for our country. Too often we get involved in partisan 
bickering and partisan debate, instead of finding the common ground 
that we need to move this country ahead.
  I particularly value my relation with the gentleman from Wisconsin. 
He has been steady and strong and articulate in his beliefs about 
policy for our country. He has been a man of great integrity. Yes, he 
is difficult to deal with at times, and he recognizes that himself, but 
he fights for what he believes in, and I respect that greatly.
  I am going to miss greatly this body, and I am going to miss the 
relationships with Members. I am going to miss this kind of give and 
take on the floor and the processes of democracy, where we try to find 
the middle, where we try to find a way of coming together and working 
out our differences, and we will. We will in this bill, we will 
throughout the process. We will win some and lose some on both sides, 
but it will work for us.
  I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I very much 
agree that we need to help our young people to understand that public 
service is a very, very honorable profession; that we can follow our 
ideals and work for the things we believe in and maybe make a 
difference in the results, if we want to get in and do that.
  I think too often, if I may say so, too often we have a media that 
focuses on all the negatives. They do not recognize the hundreds and 
hundreds, 99 percent of this body or 100 percent, who are caring 
people: who care about their country, who work for the things they 
believe in, who work with others. They always look only at the 
negatives.
  The American people need to know that this is a body of very able, 
caring people who work for this country, who work for their 
constituents, who sacrifice a great deal to make things work and make a 
difference in public policy. That message is not conveyed sufficiently.
  I thank the gentleman for his kind words. It has been a real 
privilege to work with him all this year, and I consider him a very, 
very close and dear friend.


               Amendment No. 201 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

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

                              minimum wage

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

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

                              {time}  1945

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


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10 by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as his designee.

[[Page 10570]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. On this amendment, points of order are 
reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 8, 2000, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), that he does this House honor 
though we have disagreements and we disagree on this piece of 
legislation. It is an honor to serve with him in this body.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses glaring insufficiencies in 
this bill in protecting the health and the welfare of America's 
seniors. It increases funding for the HCFA nursing home initiative, the 
Medicare integrity program, family caregivers, Meals on Wheels, the 
Social Security Administration, community health centers and health 
care for uninsured workers.
  It provides $661 million in needed funding for seniors and for 
middle-class families. These needs will go unaddressed in this bill 
because of misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership.
  There was a lot of talk today about the need for offsets in order to 
pay for the vital needs for seniors, our schools, and health research. 
I have the offset right here, the one we ought to focus on, and that, 
in fact, is to scale back that massive tax cut that is wanted and that 
benefits the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and then we can meet 
the need of seniors and still be able to provide tax relief for working 
middle-class families.
  Provide those tax breaks for working families. Scale back the 
enormity of the tax cut, and we will have the offsets that we need to 
be able to do something for the families in this country.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
rejected this type of a balanced approach, and just let me say who will 
not be served because of this misplaced leadership. Family caregivers, 
today over 5 million Americans, 3 to 4 million of whom are seniors, are 
able to remain in their homes during an illness because of the services 
provided to them by family caregivers. These family members face the 
stress of caring for a frail and ill senior while still struggling to 
look after the rest of their families. Many still work full time while 
providing care that allows their parent to maintain their dignity. This 
bill cuts $125 million from this program.
  Second, Meals on Wheels, we have all been the witness of the benefit 
of the Meals on Wheels program. It provides vital nutrition to low-
income seniors, helps them again to stay in their homes and in their 
communities. We could have provided an additional 75,000 low-income 
seniors with this important help if this amendment would pass, if we 
could add $50 million to the program. Rejecting the amendment means 
that these seniors will go without. Many of them will not be able to 
maintain their independence and remain in their homes because they will 
not receive the service of Meals on Wheels.
  Nursing home initiative, with a helping hand many seniors can 
maintain their independence. Too many people my age have to face the 
awful choice of finding a nursing home that will provide around-the-
clock care for a parent who can no longer live on their own. We have 
all seen the horror stories about homes that fail our seniors.
  Most recently in today's papers, in New York, have talked about the 
inadequate care and actually the violation of seniors' human rights in 
some of these institutions.
  One in every four nursing homes puts their patients at an unnecessary 
risk for death or injury. It is simply unacceptable that the greatest 
generation is being put at risk by the generation that followed them. 
We could have protected these seniors by funding a $38 million nursing 
home initiative that would have insured quality nursing home care for 
1.6 million seniors.
  Funds for Medicare fraud and Social Security, the amendment funds 
efforts to protect Medicare, ensure that Social Security serves our 
seniors. By funding the Medicare integrity program, we can fight waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system and return dollars that are so 
needed for the program. Every dollar invested in this fraud-fighting 
initiative means that we can return $17 to Medicare that would be lost 
to fraud and abuse.
  Support of this program would save Medicare $850 million.
  The Social Security Administration, the amendment would also ensure 
that the Social Security Administration could improve their services 
for seniors and reduce the waiting time for claims and requests.
  Supporting the amendment would have made a real difference for 
seniors. Unfortunately, we will not be able to properly fund these 
critical needs or many of the other initiatives that are grossly 
underfunded in this bill today, because the Republican leadership has 
insisted on providing tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans.
  We can keep the tax relief for middle-class families. They need it. 
Scale back the tax break for the top 1 percent, the wealthiest of the 
wealthy, and we can invest in these important initiatives.
  I think that most Americans would make this trade-off. If we cannot 
find the funds for these vital needs, we should resoundingly reject 
this legislation. It betrays American seniors, fails to live up to the 
values that they have passed on to all of us.
  I heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules refer to this bill as 
progress. If this is progress, then the future Republicans envision is 
not one that respects the contribution of America's seniors and that 
maintains their values. Oppose this misguided bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) seek to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman would increase funding for the Social 
Security Administration in spite of the fact that the bill increases 
the account by $400 million.
  I would say this: If I, like the gentlewoman, were not constrained by 
a budget allocation, I would attempt to do more in this account. It is 
obviously a very important one.
  She would increase community health centers above our level, which 
is, in turn, above the President. I would say to the gentlewoman, this 
is an account that we have increased above the President every year for 
the last 5 years. This is a high priority for us. We have increased it 
this year above the President but, again, when one does not have any 
budget constraints I guess it is very easy to increase it to any level 
they want.
  With respect to Meals on Wheels, we fund that at the request level 
which the gentlewoman would increase by $50 million over the 
President's request. Now I would say to the gentlewoman that I do not 
think that we have done as good a job as we should do in respect

[[Page 10571]]

to some of the senior programs, but I would also say to the gentlewoman 
neither has the President.
  Generally speaking, when we meet the President's requests in a 
program like this we feel that we have done a great deal when we have 
budget constraints, but I would also say that in the future, as more 
resources become available, we need to do a better job with Meals on 
Wheels and others in this area.
  With respect to the nursing home initiative, the administration asks 
us to enact a user fee which has, as he well knows, the President well 
knows, essentially no support. We have not included the funds as a 
result of this proposed fee. Otherwise we carry this fund at the 
request level.
  On health care access for the uninsured, this is a program that is 
not authorized. The administration requested funding for it in last 
year's budget request under the Office of the Secretary. The committee 
did not approve initial funding, but in conference the administration 
requested that $25 million for a community access program be provided 
under HRSA using the demonstration authority.
  The budget request for this year proposes to increase this 
demonstration to $125 million. Unfortunately, the program is still not 
authorized.
  The Secretary envisions this program to reach $1 billion over 5 
years. The committee believes that it should be acted upon by the 
authorizing committees of jurisdiction prior to any appropriation being 
made for it. Again, if one is not limited by any constraints, it is 
easy to put money into accounts; it is easy to put money into programs 
that are not authorized.
  We cannot do that.
  So I would simply say to the gentlewoman, while she makes some valid 
points about the priority of some of these programs, and they ought to 
be addressed, that particularly in reference to the community health 
centers which we consider a very high priority and which we have always 
funded above the President, this is a misguided amendment. Again, she 
is not bound by any budget constraints. She just pours money in, and 
says we ought to spend more.
  That is easy to say. It is more difficult to live within some 
constraints and live within fiscal responsibility. I oppose the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just reiterate what I said earlier, that the 
President of the United States is not offering this amendment. I am 
offering this amendment, and we, in fact, have 3 coequal branches of 
government. The President may have made a request, but I believe that 
we need to increase the dollar amount for several of these programs.
  Secondly, the constraints that have been put on the budget are 
irresponsible restraints because they reflect the priority of the 
Republican leadership. They reflect truly the values and the priorities 
of the Republican leadership, which says let us provide a tax cut to 
the 1 percent of the wealthiest people in this country, and when one 
places that constraint on the budget as an albatross, then all of those 
programs are held captive that, in fact, would benefit working 
families, seniors and the most precious commodity, our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro 
amendment. It addresses some of this bill's most serious deficiencies 
in protecting the health and welfare of seniors and other vulnerable 
populations.
  I recognize that the persons across the aisle are arguing there is no 
money for this; that the President did ask for this so we should not 
give any more money, but what I want to say to the folks on the other 
side of the aisle is tell some of the people back in my district, who 
have been the working poor for years, that this government has no money 
for the senior citizens who use senior citizen facilities across this 
country.
  Let me make it personal for a few moments. Let me tell the story of 
my mother-in-law, Ruby Jones, who is 79 years old, who was taking care 
of her husband in her home.

                              {time}  2000

  As a result of her work and taking care of her husband, who has 
congestive heart failure, she developed a stroke. She has been in a 
coma for 4 years and in need of home health care in her home. My 
sister-in-law, now the caregiver, who works full-time as a pharmacist, 
is caring both for her father and mother in her home.
  This amendment will provide additional dollars to caregivers who are 
providing services in their homes. Being a caregiver is not an easy 
task. Over half of them are over the age of 65. Most of them are women. 
One-third of them have full-time jobs.
  Help for caregivers is needed now more than ever. The population age 
85 and over will continue to grow faster than any other age, increasing 
by 50 percent from 1996 to 2010. Research has shown that caregiving 
exacts a heavy emotional, physical, and financial toll.
  Therefore, support provided to informal caregivers significantly 
benefits them. The other day I visited a facility in my district called 
Concordia Health Care. It is a PACE program. At Concordia, there are 
women there who are 80 to 85 years old, and their families have been 
caring for them in their home. But this is a day care facility for 
senior citizens. It is remarkable because most of these women would be 
stuck in their homes all day if it were not for the dollars that are 
provided for senior care.
  So I support the amendment. I believe it provides for the working 
poor. These are our senior citizens who have worked all of their lives, 
and we cannot turn our backs on them now. I support the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman 
of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) sets aside an additional $125 million for section 341 (Part 
D--In-Home Services for Frail Older Individuals) of the Older Americans 
Act, and of course, therefore, is authorizing on an appropriation bill.
  Now, I will be the first to admit that I am very disappointed that I 
have not been able to bring the Older Americans Act to the floor. I 
have not been able to reauthorize it. My colleagues on that side have 
just as much responsibility for that not happening as some on my side. 
My colleagues have to understand the Older Americans Act in the first 
place.
  How 10 groups, 10 organizations got their fingers on all that money, 
I will never know. But that is the way it was passed. But what the law 
said when it was passed is that 55 percent of the money would go back 
to the States, 45 percent of the money would stay in Washington for the 
lobbyists here in Washington.
  Unfortunately, the other body has not followed that law. The House 
has always appropriated properly. The other body has appropriated 75 
percent for those lobbyists in Washington and 25 percent for those who 
really need it back in my colleagues' districts and my district.
  We came up with a bipartisan bill, moved it out of committee. Again, 
those Washington lobbyists got to my colleagues' side of the aisle, got 
to my side of the aisle; and therefore we again do not have a 
reauthorization of the Older Americans Act.
  H.R. 782 would do everything the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) would like to do and more. In H.R. 782, we combine two of the 
programs: the programs of In-Home Services for Frail Older Individuals 
and Assistance for Caregivers into a family caregiver program.
  Now, what does that program offer? That program provides services for

[[Page 10572]]

counseling, for training, for support groups, for respite care, for 
informational assistance and supplemental services for the frail 
elderly and their families.
  The gentlewoman needs to talk to her side, as I need to talk to my 
side. It is time we buck the Washington, D.C., lobbyists that get their 
hands on most of this money. It is about time we get it back to those 
States and back to the people in need.
  But I need my colleagues' help on their side just as much on our side 
if that authorization level is to get here. As I said, it came out of 
committee in a bipartisan fashion. It is authorized out of committee. 
You get it to the floor. Then you get the other body to act. And we 
will not only do what the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
wants to do, but much, much more for senior citizens in need in this 
country.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) does not know this, because the gentleman is a student 
of these matters. The fact of the matter is, on page 324 of this 
document: ``However, funding for the President's initiative does not 
require final passage of the authorization of the Older Americans Act. 
States can provide services to family caregivers under existing 
provisions of title III (Part D) of the Older Americans Act.''
  So, in fact, this has been authorized under an existing authority 
already.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding and for her outstanding leadership in 
bringing this amendment to the floor.
  This amendment is about addressing misplaced priorities of this 
committee and this Congress. It attempts to repair the damage this bill 
does to initiatives that protect the health and welfare of seniors and 
other vulnerable populations.
  This amendment is necessary for a simple reason. The Republican 
majority is more focused on providing a trillion-dollar tax cut that 
largely benefits the wealthiest Americans than on providing needed 
funding for the neediest Americans.
  The DeLauro amendment is necessary because it provides an additional 
$119 million increase to the community health centers above the House 
level to provide affordable care to the uninsured and underinsured.
  I think every Member of this House respects the work of the community 
health centers, because nearly one in five working adults lack health 
insurance, and half the working Americans with incomes less than 
$20,000 could not pay their medical bills last year.
  Poverty, homelessness, poor living conditions, geographical 
isolation, lack of doctors, and lack of health insurance pose 
insurmountable access problems for many people at higher risk for 
serious and costly health conditions.
  Community health centers address these access problems through the 
delivery of comprehensive primary and preventive services, the type of 
services not typically offered by traditional private sector providers 
to at-risk people. Health centers do it cost effectively. Health 
centers focus on wellness and early prevention.
  At a time of great economic prosperity, we must not forget those who 
are not enjoying good financial times, those who do not have the health 
coverage for themselves or their families. The community health centers 
fill a need we cannot ignore.
  As I said earlier in the day, if we would cut the budget, cut the tax 
break for the wealthiest Americans by just 20 percent, it would afford 
us the $2.5 billion to address the initiatives put forth in these 
amendments.
  Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution passed by the House 
created a framework for failure. We are trying to redress those 
failures in this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) has the right to close.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to do a lot of good 
things. One of the most important things is that it tries to add back 
$38 million to correct the fact that this bill cuts 95 percent of the 
funding for the administration's nursing home initiative, which is 
aimed at strengthening the protection of our senior citizens in nursing 
homes. The General Accounting Office has said that there are one in 
four nursing homes in this country that has serious deficiencies. I 
think we ought to do our best to correct that, and this amendment does.
  I do not know how many have ever worked in a nursing home. I worked 
an entire summer in an institution when I was a young teenager that 
dealt with people in need of nursing home care and also dealt with 
people in need of care because of mental and emotional problems. It was 
not a pleasant job. It is a tough job.
  Nursing homes that are trying to do right by their citizens need to 
be backed up by the Government who will keep those who are not quite so 
fastidious towing the line, because otherwise it makes it impossible 
for the nursing homes who we are trying to tow the line to do so.
  I think it is a disgrace that we do not fund their money. I also 
think it should be on notice that this amendment restores money that 
fights Medicare fraud. It restores money to try to shorten the delays 
that people have when they apply for Social Security disability. A 
woman came up to me 2 weeks ago who was facing the loss of her house 
because she could not get a hearing fast enough on her Social Security 
disability claim.
  There are real people behind this amendment and real needs that we 
are trying to fill with this amendment.
  I congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for 
trying. I would urge a vote for this amendment if we have the 
opportunity to get a vote.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just continue where my colleague left off on the 
$38 million for a nursing home initiative that would provide quality 
nursing home care, because we do know the horror stories.
  Today's New York Daily News, ``Nursing Home Horror, Queens facility 
abused elderly residents, Feds say.'' ``Elderly face mental and 
physical abuse.''
  Line after line of the most vulnerable citizens in a place in which 
they are unprotected, and their rights and their dignity are taken away 
from them.
  We have an opportunity with this amendment, with this bill, which 
focuses in on the lives of people in this country to take $38 million 
and provide additional nursing home care, quality care so that, in 
fact, we do not have to read stories like this in the newspapers.
  Cut back the tax cut to 20 percent. Give us the $2.5 billion for 
these amendments that are going to make a difference in the lives of 
the American people.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter) insist on a point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 8, 2000, 
(House Report 106-660). This amendment would provide new budget 
authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under 
section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that we understand that the 
rules of the House restrain us on this matter, and it is unfortunate. 
If there had been a vote on this issue, I believe

[[Page 10573]]

we would have prevailed. I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is conceded, and the 
point of order is sustained.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

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

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

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

                              {time}  2015

  In other words, the allocations for the Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary appropriation bill, or the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs appropriation bill, or the Treasury, 
Postal Service, and General Government appropriation bill, or the 
District of Columbia appropriation bill would have to be cut. We have 
to make up this $500 million. This cut is required to remain within our 
allocation, and they must be found in this bill unless we intend to 
disrupt all of the other 302(b) allocations.
  I would point out that this bill is an increase over last year. There 
is $2.7 billion in discretionary funding more than last year's bill. 
There is $11.5 billion more in this bill for the mandatory accounts. So 
this bill has had an increase. But despite that increase, I would 
really prefer that we allow this emergency declaration to stick with 
the public health and social services emergency fund. But that has been 
struck on a point of order, therefore, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wish to seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me explain this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This bill originally 
contained an emergency designation for funding for the Center for 
Disease Control to respond to bioterrorism attacks, as only that 
institution has the capacity to do. The committee designated it as an 
emergency. But then the organization in the Republican Caucus known as 
the CATS objected, and so the Committee on Rules did not protect the 
emergency designation for that money in the rule.
  This amendment, while it is being offered by my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), it really, I suppose, ought to be called the 
Coburn amendment. Because when the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
struck the protection on the point of order, it left this bill some 
$500 million over its budget ceiling. I would simply suggest that it is 
too bad that my good friend had to be put in a position to offer this 
amendment, because I do not think he believes it is good public policy 
any more than I do.
  I would say that there is a group in the majority party caucus which 
has a highly erratic record on the issue of emergency designations. One 
week that group rabidly opposes emergency designation for items that 
are emergencies, such as hurricanes, floods, bioterrorism threats; the 
next week it supports designating as an emergency funding for a 
decennial census, which we all know comes every 10 years; and even 
supports emergency funding for Head Start, a program that has been 
around since I was a teenager.
  I guess I would say that I find it most ironic that even after these 
cuts are made this bill will still be $33 million above its allocation 
in outlays. This is ironic given the fact that all day long we were 
told by the majority that we could not get a vote on the amendments 
that we were offering on our side of the aisle because they exceeded 
the numbers in the budget resolution.
  So I would simply point out that this amendment cuts $54 million from 
title I, $40 million from special education, $52 million from Pell 
grants, $4 million from after-school centers, $6 million from Impact 
Aid, $11 million from class-size initiative, $116 million for the 
National Institutes of Health, $35 million from Head Start, $30 million 
from job training, $7 million from community health centers, $9 million 
from low-income heating assistance program, and $6 million from 
Administration on Aging.
  If my colleagues are comfortable with those cuts, vote for it. But I 
do not think there will be many people on our side of the aisle doing 
so, because we recognize that there ought to be higher priorities in 
this country than giving the wealthiest 400 Americans $200 billion in 
tax cuts, as the majority decided to do last week.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has the 
right to close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time, and just let me say again that I really regret that it is 
necessary for me to offer this amendment, but it is essential that we 
pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
regret that the chairman has to regret to offer the amendment, too. I 
think this demonstrates what happens when we are ruled by accountants 
and when we come to be ruled by process rather than making decisions on 
the basis of good old-fashioned instinct and judgment.
  I think that this amendment recognizes that it is impossible to pass 
this bill without departing from reality once again, as the majority 
has been forced to do many times in supporting appropriation bills. If 
I were in the gentleman's position, I would be as uncomfortable as I 
know he is right now. But he did not make this problem, the majority 
party leadership did when they decided to pursue the course that they 
decided to pursue.
  We could have easily passed all these bills with bipartisan 
majorities if these bills had produced real trade-offs. But, instead, 
because the majority party

[[Page 10574]]

leadership has insisted that they put their tax plans above everything 
else, that has deprived this House of the opportunity to work on a 
bipartisan basis on all of these appropriation bills. I regret that 
personally, I regret that professionally, and I most of all regret it 
because of what it means for the people we are supposed to represent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the House knows, last night we spent a considerable 
amount of time in disagreement because this Congress has not voted on 
this bill in the last 3 years, and this labor, health and education and 
social services bill represents the major effort of the Congress to 
meet our national responsibilities in funding the needs of working 
American families. We wanted to make sure that the debate on this bill 
occurred not in the dead of night but in the light of day, and we 
finally reached an agreement under which that would occur.
  I insisted at the time that I wanted the debate to occur at the same 
time that we were going to have the vote on final passage so that the 
issues would not be disconnected from the vote on final passage. I was 
told by the majority party leadership staff that they would assure me 
of that with one caveat. They said that when the time comes, if we do 
not think we have the votes to pass the bill, we will have to lay it 
over and, therefore, would not vote on it tomorrow.
  Well, I have now been told that the leadership does not intend to 
push this bill to passage tonight. If that is the case, then assuming, 
and I do, good faith on the part of the leadership staff, then it must 
mean that they do not have the votes at this point for this bill. I 
would simply say if that is the case, then while the majority party has 
suggested all day long that they were not comfortable with our constant 
efforts to drive home the fact that their tax actions have had serious 
consequences on their ability to meet our responsibilities in the area 
of education, health and worker training, while they have expressed 
great discomfort with our efforts to drive that point home every hour, 
apparently that message has, at least with some members of the majority 
party caucus, hit home. If it has, then this day's debate has not been 
a waste of time.
  It is clear, even if sufficient Members of the House on the majority 
side can overcome their rightful concerns about this bill, that this 
bill is going nowhere because the President has made clear his 
intention to veto it until the Congress restores the funding they have 
cut from his budget request for education, for health care, for worker 
training and the like. So if this bill is not to be put to a final 
vote, I assume it is because it does not have the votes; and all I can 
say is, it does not deserve to.
  That is not the fault of the gentleman from Illinois handling the 
bill, but, nonetheless, we do not vote on each other, we vote on the 
product that we produce, and this product is not in the interest of the 
American people who we represent.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would simply say to the gentleman from Wisconsin that I am afraid 
his attacks have been ineffectual. The reason we are not voting tonight 
is because we have a number of Republican absences. They will be back 
tomorrow, and I think the gentleman will see the result.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman can tell me, 
when would it be convenient for the majority party to be present so 
that we can vote on the product?
  Mr. PORTER. Perhaps tomorrow.
  Mr. OBEY. That would be very nice.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 518, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 196 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), amendment No. 198 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), part B amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 196 Offered by Mr. Boehner

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--202

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

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer

[[Page 10575]]


     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

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

                              {time}  2048

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


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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


                Amendment No. 198 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 381, 
noes 41, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--381

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--41

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Blumenauer
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

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

                              {time}  2058

  Mr. DeFAZIO, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mrs. JONES of

[[Page 10576]]

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


                Part B Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 267, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--156

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

                               NOES--267

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

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

                              {time}  2104

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 313, 
noes 109, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--313

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski

[[Page 10577]]


     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--109

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

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

                              {time}  2113

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 236, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--186

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

                               NOES--236

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

[[Page 10578]]


     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

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

                              {time}  2121

  Mr. SPENCE and Mr. RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to do two things: First of all, as every Member 
knows, as hard as Members work, our staffs work twice as hard. I would 
simply like to take a moment to thank Christina Hamilton, Norris 
Cochran, Mari Johnson, Scott Lilly, Cheryl Smith, Mark Mioduski and 
Kori Hardin for the work they have done for me and for the Democratic 
minority.
  I would like to thank Doyle Lewis, Marc Granowitter, Scott Boule, 
Clare Coleman, Kristin Holman and Charles Dujon for the work that they 
have done on behalf of the minority members of the subcommittee.
  I would like to thank Tony McCann, Carol Murphy, Susan Firth, 
Francine Salvador, Jeff Kenyon, Tom Kelly, Spencer Pearlman, and 
Katharine Fisher for the work they have done on behalf of the majority. 
They have done very good work in preparing us and in preparing our 
arguments, even when they know that both of us are wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that many of them have gone 
without sleep for a long time, and I think they need our thanks. Also 
the folks in the front office of the committee, who also get beat up, 
but work very hard as well.
  I also would simply like to note that with the defeat of the Young 
amendment on the last vote, this bill is now $500 million in budget 
authority and $217 million in outlays above its allowable spending 
levels in the budget resolution. That means that at this point the bill 
has the same defect that the majority objected to in the amendments 
that we offered on the minority side all day long. Very interesting.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it has been brought to my attention that 
HCFA is in the process of drafting a rule that will effectively 
eliminate the states ability to generate revenue through the so-called 
``upper limits test'' to help cover the cost of providing healthcare 
for the uninsured. It is my understanding that such a change in policy 
would cost my state of Illinois approximately $500 million in revenue 
annually, including $200 million to Cook County Hospital, a federally 
qualified health center that cares for the indigent. Mr. Chairman, I 
have spoken with the Director of HCFA to inform her of my concern over 
the affect of this proposed rule, which could greatly limit access to 
care for many uninsured individuals in mine and other states. I 
informed her, also, that I hoped that HCFA would be able to resolve 
this issue internally so that a legislative solution would not be 
required.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, since coming here last January, I have 
repeatedly asked: What have our children done to deserve the little 
faith and support this body gives them? Year after year we level fund 
or cut their education, job training, child care, and health programs. 
Class size reduction program funds are zeroed out and instead, rolled 
into a giant block grant to states, which they can use for other 
purposes. And most importantly, we sit back and say it is not our 
responsibility to help schools whose roofs are falling in and whose 
classrooms are bursting at the seams.
  The Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
appropriations is an injustice to our children. It freezes funding for 
Title I basic grants, safe and drug free schools, teacher quality 
enhancement and bilingual education. It eliminates the class size 
reduction program. Tell that to students at PS 19 in my district where 
the average class size is 26! And what about the students who use the 
new after school and summer programs in community School District 30? 
Well, 1.6 million students will not have after school programs since we 
are not investing in this worthwhile program. They can just go back to 
the streets where they are susceptible to drugs and gangs.
  Most egregiously, this bill eliminates funding for elementary school 
counselors. At a time where school safety is of paramount concern to 
American families, H.R. 4577 would deny needed intervention and 
violence prevention services to as many as 100,000 children.
  If there is one thing in this country that deserves an investment, it 
is our children. I believe it is unconscionable that we even consider a 
bill that will do nothing to help our children. Moreover, passage of 
this bill will harm our children as it denies desperately needed 
renovation assistance to schools across the country--schools that are 
failing inspections. Would you allow your child to attend a school that 
had a roof falling in or fire alarms that did not work? Congress is 
allowing that to happen to the children of America.
  Additionally, this bill increases funding for abstinence only 
education but level funds Title X funding. While an integral part of 
Title X goes towards family planning, this program also provides 
important basic health services to young and low income women. 
Oftentimes, it is the only time low income women see a doctor. To level 
fund this program harms women and children.
  Also included in H.R. 4577 is a restrictive rider that prohibits OSHA 
from implementing an ergonomics standard.
  Each year, 1.8 million workers experience work related 
musculoskeletal disorders, about one third of them serious enough to 
require time off from work. An ergonomics standard would prevent 
300,000 injuries annually and would save $9 billion each year in 
workers' compensation and related costs. There has been extensive 
research conducted and there is no reason for further delay.
  I could go one, but overall, I urge you to vote against this bill and 
in support of our children, our workers and their future.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4577, 
the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill for Fiscal 
Year 2001. This is an irresponsible bill that cuts critical funding to 
our nation's elementary and secondary education programs and severely 
limits the ability for students to receive a quality education.
  The bill cuts $600 million from the Administration's request for 
Head-Start. This would mean that 56,000 children would be denied Head-
Start services. As I have traveled throughout Oregon, I have seen 
first-hand the positive impact that Head Start has on children in 
building a positive foundation. My wife Michelle taught Head-Start 
teacher in Portland. Through her work, I have seen that Head-Start is a 
life transforming educational experience.
  Yet, only 26.7 percent of eligible children ages 0 to 5 can be served 
in Oregon. Nationally, this figure is as low as 14.4 percent. 
Significant research has shown the importance of brain development in 
young children and an increased focus on intervening in a young child's 
life during the most sensitive of years is vitally important. We must 
work toward serving 100 percent of these children.
  The Education and the Workforce Committee spent a great deal of time 
considering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Members 
of Congress from both parties agreed that we need to do more for our 
nation's schoolchildren even though we may come from different 
viewpoints on how to achieve this goal. One step in the right direction 
is reducing class size. Studies have shown that if you reduce class 
sizes in the early years the results last a lifetime. In classes with 
fewer students, children receive individualized attention that leads to 
a solid foundation in learning. The legislation we are considering 
today repeals our promise to students by gutting the class size 
initiative. For two years, this program has funded nearly 29,000 
teachers and Oregon schoolchildren, their parents and teachers are 
seeing the benefit of smaller classes.
  As more and more schools are hooking up to the internet with the e-
rate as well as learning on-line with donated computers, we need to 
ensure that computers aren't merely a box on the desk but that teachers 
are able to fully integrate technology into the curriculum and our 
classrooms. In Oregon, public and private efforts empower students and 
teachers. They incorporate information technology into learning and 
teaching, at home and at school. I am proud of the innovative work done 
in Oregon as well as in other states. However, we must continue to 
foster these types of relationships to ensure that students are using 
technology in all of their classes.
  Earlier this year, I introduced the Next Generation Technology 
Innovation Grants Act of 2000 with bipartisan support. This program 
combines the Star School program and Technology Innovation Challenge 
Grants to develop and expand cutting edge technologies

[[Page 10579]]

that deliver new applications for teaching and learning. Building on 
the successes of private/public partnerships, grants are made to a 
consortium of school districts, states, higher education institutions, 
nonprofit institutions and businesses.
  The grant-funded projects would create models for effective use of 
educational technology including the development of distance learning 
networks, software, and online learning resources. Unfortunately, the 
Committee provided zero funding for this program.
  On a positive note, I would like to commend the Appropriations 
Committee for recognizing the need to raise the maximum Pell Grant 
award to $3,500. Today, the real value of the Pell Grant award has 
declined by 18 percent since 1975. To restore the value of the grant in 
current dollars, however, the maximum grant would need to be set at 
$4,300.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill for our nation's children, schools, 
and parents. I urge defeat of this bill so that we can go back to the 
drawing board and come back with a common sense, bipartisan bill that 
will truly make a positive impact on our students. The bill fails to 
provide adequate funding for crucial education programs such as the 
Class-Size Initiative, school construction, and teacher quality 
programs is rooted in the drive to cut taxes by $1-$2 trillion. More 
modest tax cuts would permit us to address our most pressing education 
needs.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have drafted an amendment to the 
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations (H.R. 4577) we are considering today 
but, in deference to Mr. Obey I will not offer it.
  My amendment aimed to increase the funding for ``Meals on Wheels'' 
and other nutrition programs for senior citizens by $19 million. Cuts 
in the Department of Health and Human Services management budget would 
offset this vital increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I recently visited senior centers and food banks in 
Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. As often as I have seen hungry people 
in this country and abroad, my trip was both eye-opening and 
disturbing. I met hundreds of people during the two days I spent 
looking at the problems hungry Americans face: senior citizens who must 
choose buying medicine and buying groceries; a couple who knows how to 
make a can of tomato juice last a week (by adding water); a woman who 
can make ``chicken noodle soup'' out of an egg, some flour and a lot of 
water (by omitting the chicken); a Navy veteran who doesn't eat on the 
weekends because the local soup kitchen isn't open.
  I will be publishing my report on the trip in the Congressional 
Record, and I hope our colleagues will take a moment to read their 
stories. None of these places is far from an interstate, or more than 
100 miles from a large community. They may be rural, but they are not 
isolated. And they are not alone in their difficulties--in fact, they 
are in the overwhelming majority of communities where hunger remains a 
real problem for large segments of the people who live there.
  I crafted my amendment to help senior citizens who are turning to 
soup kitchens, food banks, and programs like ``Meal on Wheels'' in 
disproportionate numbers. I believe the $19 million it would have 
provided is far better spent there in the HHS bureaucracy.
  I chose that agency's management budget because I believe the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services is badly out of touch with 
people like the ones I met on June 1-2. A few days before my trip, at 
the National Nutrition Summit here in Washington, Secretary Shalala 
declared victory in the battle against hunger. ``Except for a few 
isolated pockets,'' she told community leaders from around the nation, 
``for the most part, we've succeeded at ending hunger in America.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is a bizarre statement and a clear sign that this 
Cabinet official is out of tough with reality. Moreover, in her speech, 
Secretary Shalala went on to explain that she could declare victory 
over hunger because of dietary guidelines. Not because of Meals on 
Wheels, or WIC, or school lunch, or food stamps, or food banks or soup 
kitchens--but dietary guidelines! That, she said, is her understanding 
of why hunger is a problem only in ``isolated pockets'' of our nation. 
It is disturbing logic, particularly for a senior official charged with 
looking after senior nutrition, Medicaid, and other programs that serve 
the poor and hungry.
  Three decades ago, a nutrition summit became a springboard for 
initiatives that brought greater attention to the fight against hunger. 
It was a watershed event that did some good for people. I hope the 
nutrition summit of 2000 does more for the on-going battle than 
Secretary Shalala's statement suggests.
  The fact that hunger continues to be a problem for our country--even 
in these boom times--doesn't surprise most of us. We regularly see our 
elderly constituents at congregate feeding sites, and know that many of 
them struggle to decide whether to fill their prescriptions or their 
grocery carts. We know that many of our nation's seniors depend heavily 
on home-delivered and congregate meals. And we know that our 
communities' own program have watched their funding shrink by 35 
percent since 1993, in large part because of senior's increased needs.
  These are not just a few people: One in five Americans over 65 lives 
in poverty or near poverty according to America's Second Harvest. 
Nearly two million elderly Americans must choose between buying the 
food they need, or the medicine they need; and senior citizens are 
over-represented in the growing lines at food banks and soup kitchens.
  Nor is the problem just one our nation's elderly face. The World 
Health Organization just found that America's poorest rank among 
Africa's poor when it comes to how long their good health will last. 
They ranked 23 other nations ahead of ours, largely because of how we 
treat the poor. Moreover, a new UNICEF report on child poverty in the 
29 most developed nations puts the United States second to last, ahead 
of only Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, tomorrow, I plan to issue a challenge to Secretary 
Shalala. I will meet her anytime, anywhere and show her where to find 
hunger. It is in every community, in every month of the year. It is the 
underbelly of our booming economy: something you might not want to see, 
something you don't see unless you choose to look, but something that 
haunts our people.
  As Senator Lugar, who has been a champion in the fight against 
hunger, said in a letter to Roll Call last week, while ``* * * progress 
has been made in reducing hunger. * * * we can and should be doing much 
better.'' The first step is to refuse to quit before the problem is 
solved. Secretary Shalala has given up too soon, and I urge our 
colleagues not to follow her lead.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern regarding the 
level of funding including in this bill for the Social Security 
Administration's (SSA) administrative expenses. This bill reduces the 
President's request by $156 million. Compared to the Commissioner's 
request, this is a reduction of $378 million. These reductions will 
force SSA to reduce staff at the same time that the SSA is facing its 
own wave of retirements from its own employees in the next five to ten 
years as well. The reductions will also result in decreased service to 
individuals with disabilities and the nation's seniors, and reduced 
oversight of the integrity of the Agency's programs. I fear that these 
reductions will put a strain on the agency's ability to carry out its 
mission.
  I believe that the SSA faces these funding shortfalls because it is 
subject to the allocation required by the spending caps, even though 
Social Security benefit payments are considered off-budget and not 
subject to spending cap restrictions. Since we are not able to fund the 
SSA properly, we should take Social Security's administrative expenses 
out of the caps. We could fund the Agency based on the size and scope 
of its programs--subject to the approval of the Committee on 
Appropriations, but not subject to the Section 302 allocation--rather 
than what we are able to find without our allocation.
  Even though most of the administrative funding for SSA is derived 
from the Trust Funds--funds that cannot be used for any other program--
we are limited in the allocation required by the budget caps. The 
demands on the Agency are greater than our allocation can fund that 
will grow as the baby-boom generation is quickly moving into its 
disability-prone years, with retirement not far behind.
  I believe that the SSA should be funded at $7.356 billion, the 
Commissioner's request, and that we need to work together, with the 
Administration, to find a solution to this structural anomaly which 
classifies administrative costs to run Social Security programs as 
under the discretionary caps. We should let the Agency use Social 
Security money for Social Security purposes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has included in the report 
accompanying this bill language providing $125 million to the Centers 
for Disease Control for a National Campaign to Change Children's Health 
Behaviors. The language is found on page 54 of the H. Rept. 106-645.
  I want to commend Chairman Porter for seizing the initiative in this 
area. It makes sense that if we are to improve health habits in our 
young people, they will sustain better health and better quality of 
life for a lifetime. Just to cite one example, it was through the 
hearings in the Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education that we have 
learned a great deal about the growing epidemic of child obesity,

[[Page 10580]]

its causes, and its effects which include adult onset diabetes, high 
cholesterol, premature cardiovascular disease, arthritis and other 
substantial health problems.
  As a former teacher and coach, I have a particular interest in the 
health of young people, and in the importance of physical education in 
particular. Before my election to Congress and my service in the Navy, 
I was a teacher and coach at Hinsdale (Illinois) High School and at the 
University of Missouri, and was privileged to coach swimmers who went 
on to win gold and silver medals in the Olympics. I was also privileged 
to coach young people who learned through physical activity the kind of 
good health and good fund that last a lifetime.
  But just as we are funding that obesity is a major, growing public 
health problem among young people, we are likewise seeing major 
declines in the kinds of physical education and physical activity that 
would reduce obesity and its effects.
  Children are becoming more and more inactive. One-half of young 
people ages 12 to 21 do not participate in physical activity on a 
regular basis. Less than one in four children get more than 20 minutes 
of physical activity a day.
  Meanwhile, the physical education programs in this country's schools 
reflect the sedentary nature of our children's lifestyle. Only 27 
percent of school children participate in physical education on a daily 
basis and 40 percent of the nation's high school students are not 
enrolled in physical education at all.
  More children are obese. And fewer are participating in physical 
education. I believe these two are fairly directly linked.
  Does every child need to be the star quarterback, or a varsity track 
star, to benefit from physical education? Not at all. Physical 
education, with broad participation among every young person blessed 
with every range of athletic gifts, builds health habits that last a 
lifetime.
  More directly to the point on public health, physical education 
programs can help children counteract physical ailments by increasing 
their levels of physical activity. Physical education can help children 
develop skills, such as hand-eye coordination and dexterity. Physical 
education can provide alternatives to crime, drugs, alcohol, and 
tobacco.
  And, Mr. Chairman, physical education is fun.
  In an effort to realize some of these benefits, I believe that we 
must renew a real and positive focus on physical education in our 
nation's schools. I believe that Chairman's Porter's provision 
allocating funding to CDC to focus on children's health behaviors 
represents a good start. In part, I believe that it would benefit from 
a particular strong additional emphasis on physical education in 
schools, which helps accomplish many of the objectives we have in this 
area. And I hope that the Chairman and I can work toward this end as 
this appropriations bill goes to conference committee with the Senate. 
I am sure that he shares my belief that the time and effort we invest 
in physical education today will be small in comparison to the amount 
of work that will be necessary for health care treatment should our 
children's current trend towards sedentary lifestyles continue.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4577, 
the Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for 
Fiscal Year 2001. This legislation would shortchange funding for 
critical education programs and would seriously undermine efforts to 
maximize student achievement, improve teacher quality, and improve our 
public school systems. The legislation would also undermine important 
worker rights by shortchanging the principal programs which protect the 
health and safety of America's workers.
  Mr. Chairman, at town meetings in my congressional district, parents 
tell me they want to ensure that their children have good teachers in 
small classes so that their children can get the personal attention 
they need. Parents tell me we need to strengthen accountability in the 
schools. Parents, teachers and principals tell me they urgently need 
help in renovating aging school buildings. Parents and counselors tell 
me that children need more after-school programs and that we need to 
work much harder to close the digital divide. But the bill before us 
today fails to meet the challenges of record enrollments, more students 
with special needs, shortages of teachers and principals and schools 
needing modernization.
  Mr. Chairman, under this legislation students and schools in 
California next year would be denied critical federal funds for 
education. Under H.R. 4577, the state of California would receive no 
support specifically targeted to deal with our lowest performing 
schools or to improve the condition of outdated and dilapidated school 
buildings. California would lose more than $396 million--money that was 
requested by the President to improve teaching and learning in our 
public schools and to help local schools improve the basic skills of 
disadvantaged students. Passage of this bill would mean that California 
would receive less money to hire new teachers and would jeopardize the 
jobs of over 2,000 new teachers recently hired. Passage of this bill 
would mean that California would lose more than $80 million to improve 
teacher quality and recruit teachers for high-poverty school districts. 
Passage of this bill would mean that California would receive over $56 
million less to help students in high-poverty areas raise their 
academic performance.
  Mr. Chairman, the American public ranks education as a top priority 
for federal investment. It is time to maximize student achievement. 
This bill fails to address the most urgent problems in our education 
system and falls over $3 billion short of the President's proposed 
education funding levels. The bill eliminates important education 
programs which have had a proven track record in improving the academic 
performance of our children and our schools. I urge my colleagues in 
the House to reject this bill and support a bipartisan bill that 
provides all of our nation's students and schools with the resources 
and assistance they need to succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4577 also contains unacceptable cuts in programs 
which protect the safety and health of America's workers. It would 
undermine the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively 
and would weaken attempts to enforce our nation's minimum wage and 
child labor laws.
  H.R. 4577 also contains a very unwise and dangerous anti-labor rider. 
The legislation would prevent the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its proposed ergonomic standards. 
Ergonomic hazards are still our nation's number one occupational safety 
and health problem. Ten years ago, when I served as Chair of the 
Employment and Housing Subcommittee, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth 
Dole announced the need for ergonomic standards. Since that time more 
than 6 million workers have suffered disabling ergonomic injuries. In 
1997 alone, more than 600,000 workers suffered injuries as a result of 
ergonomic hazards in the workplace and required time off from work. It 
is critical that OSHA be allowed to move forward to issue ergonomic 
protections in the workplace.
  Ergonomic injuries are painful often crippling musculoskeletal 
disorders (MSDs) or injuries and leave many unable to work or live a 
normal life. MSDs include injuries or disorders of the muscles, 
tendons, ligaments, joint, cartilage and spinal disks. The main causes 
of MSDs are overexertion and repetitive motion and can occur during 
heavy lifting, forceful exertions, repetitive motions and awkward 
postures. MSDs occur in all sectors of the economy including the 
manufacturing, service, retail, agricultural, construction, and 
industrial sectors. Ergonomic injuries are estimated to cost the US 
economy more than $20 billion annually, $9 billion in workers 
compensation. MSDs can be prevented. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
H.R. 4577 and oppose any efforts that would prevent OSHA from issuing 
ergonomic standards for the workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is unwise and detrimental to our 
children and to American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman. I rise to strike the last word. I stand in 
strong opposition to the passage of the 2001 Labor, HHS, and Education 
Appropriations bill because it severely cuts programs that are 
extremely important to the education of our children, affects veterans 
programs, and because it hurts displaced workers. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose it.
  The first problem with this bill is that it severely shortchanges 
eduction--by $3.5 billion. This bill would end our commitment to hire 
100,000 new teachers and to reduce class sizes. I am also concerned by 
the fact that this bill would eliminate Head Start for some 53,000 
children and cut $1.3 billion for urgent repairs to schools across the 
country. These are critical issues for my district and for many 
districts across the country. This bill will also eliminate school 
counselors serving over 100,000 children. This would deprive schools of 
the professionals they need to identify and help troubled children.
  This bill also does considerable injustice to Bilingual and Immigrant 
Education. The amount included in the bill for programs addressing 
these issues in $54 million below the budget request. The professional 
development of our bilingual education teachers is critically 
important. The Labor, HHS, and Education bill in its current form 
provides an amount that is $28.5 million below the budget request for 
the important programs of Bilingual Education Professional Development. 
The grants that are

[[Page 10581]]

provided for the development of our teachers in bilingual education are 
needed to increase the pool of trained teachers and strengthen the 
skills of teachers who provide instruction to students who have limited 
English proficiency. These funds support the training and retraining of 
bilingual teachers. The disparities to minority education will be 
increased if this bill is passed.
  Secondly, this bill severely shortchanges programs that assist 
displaced workers. This is a major issue for my constituents in El 
Paso, as I know that it is for many of you in your home districts. In 
El Paso and in other areas along the U.S./Mexico border, NAFTA has 
created many displaced workers, and this bill undermines programs 
designed to help them. For example, the bill cuts assistance to over 
215,000 dislocated workers and it cuts the dislocated worker program by 
$207 million below the 2000 budget level. These cuts will make it more 
difficult for these workers to find jobs. This bill also cuts adult job 
training for almost 40,000 adults. The cuts in adult training programs 
equal $93 million or 10 percent below the request and 2000 levels.
  Finally, this bill provides only $9.6 million for employment 
assistance to another class of displaced workers: Our homeless 
veterans. There are over a quarter million homeless veterans in this 
country, and the provisions in this bill will deny employment 
assistance to thousands of these Americans who have faithfully served 
our country. This is unacceptable.
  We are attacking programs that are needed to educate our children, 
help our veterans, and to assist displaced workers. Again, I stand in 
strong opposition to passage, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for the past year, I have been 
investigating the scientific research regarding a possible link between 
the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and a type of autism, 
known as autistic enterocolitis.
  I have met with the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and 
National Institutes of Health officials to discuss this matter. I have 
also met with researchers that have identified measles virus in the 
intestines of children with autistic enterocolitis. I have become very 
concerned about a lack of interest on the part of the CDC and NIH to 
fully examine this issue.
  I am a strong proponent of vaccines. Vaccines save thousands of lives 
in America each year and have spared our nation from the scourge of 
disease that plagued our nation in the early part of the 20th Century 
and that still plagues many parts of the globe. Recent reports (MMWR 
Weekly, April 4, 2000) of measles outbreaks in unvaccinated populations 
in developed countries like the Netherlands, indicate how important it 
is to ensure confidence in our vaccination program so that children are 
vaccinated against diseases.
  This confidence is maintained by seriously considering all scientific 
research related to vaccines, even if such research indicates that we 
may need to make adjustments in the vaccine schedule. While some may 
argue that a quick dismissal of such studies is needed to ensure 
confidence in the national vaccination program, such action may 
actually lead to the opposite effect and undermine confidence in the 
program. I believe that the federal agencies responsible for our 
nation's vaccination program must remain ever vigilant in fully 
examining any research related to questions about vaccines to ensure 
that confidence is maintained. This means giving serious consideration 
and independent review to any credible study related to vaccinations.
  Recent peer reviewed studies reveal that there may be emerging an 
atypical phenotype of autism (autistic enterocolitis), in which normal 
development is followed by developmental regression with a simultaneous 
manifestation of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. One hypothesis is 
that this may be related to a trivalent vaccine for Measles, Mumps and 
Rubella (MMR). It is important that the appropriate federal agencies 
give these studies a full and independent review to determine their 
validity. Specifically, symptoms described in the study include ileal 
lymphoid modular hyperplasia with chronic enterocolitis, immune and 
metabolic derangement combined with a regressive developmental 
disorder. Most important is the localization, quantitation and 
sequencing of measles virus genome in affected tissues in the 
gastrointestinal tract. The hypothesis, suggests the possibility of a 
gut-mediated autism associated with the trivalent vaccine, whereby 
damage to the gut may lead to damage to the central nervous system at a 
sensitive time and thus the onset of the development disorder. It is 
the combination of these vaccines in a single dose that may cause an 
adverse effect, according to the researchers. They do not indicate a 
similar concern when the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are given 
in a monovalent form at different times.
  I appreciate the chairman's and the committee's willingness to 
include language in the bill recognizing the research on the MMR/Autism 
issue by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of London, England and Professor John 
O'Leary of Dublin, Ireland. I further appreciate their inclusion of 
language in the report directing the National Institutes of Health 
(NIH) to:

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

  This language will ensure that the NIH works to replicate the work of 
Dr. Wakefield and Prof. O'Leary and others who have raised concerns 
about the trivalent vaccine and incidence of a regressive form of 
autism.
  Just last year the CDC took action to remove the Rotavirus vaccine 
when evidence was presented indicating adverse reactions in several 
children. It is this type of decisive action and willingness to fully 
review our vaccine schedule when questions are raised that builds 
confidence in our vaccine program. The CDC and NIH should pursue the 
evidence presented in the MMR/Autism arena with equal vigor.
  It is the best interest of our national vaccine program and the 
safety of our children that the NIH and CDC attempt to replicate this 
work in a timely manner. If such independent studies were to fail to 
demonstrate Dr. Wakefield's and Prof. O'Leary's findings, this would 
serve well to bolster public confidence in the safety of the MMR.
  Certainly, if the research were to verify Dr. Wakefield's and Prof. 
O'Leary's findings, this would be an important scientific finding that 
policy makers would need to know and should know at the soonest time 
possible. There are acceptable alternatives to the MMR, including 
separating the vaccine and giving it at different times.
  In order to secure public confidence in our national vaccine program. 
I believe it is critical that public health officials fully examine any 
research that calls into question the safety of vaccines. It is also 
important that this research be done independent of the government 
vaccine officials or vaccine manufacturers.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4577, the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education (Labor-HHS-Education) Appropriations Act, which includes 
insufficient funding for critical education and health programs. I am 
very concerned that this bill will not meet the needs of our nation and 
is $7 billion less than the President's request for next year. I am 
also disappointed that this bill includes budget gimmicks such as 
advance funding and other mechanisms in order to fund programs. This is 
another example of the Republican leadership trying to have it both 
ways with its budget--say you are for unrealistic cuts in domestic 
priorities and then find ways to avoid such cuts. Advance funding means 
that programs do not get the funding they need on a timely basis and 
results in fewer funds being available in the out years. If we have 
needs to be met, I think we should be honest with the American people 
and let them know exactly how much funding is really needed to meet 
these needs. This bill fails this test.
  I am particularly concerned about the proposed funding for the 
National Institutes of Health. This bill would provide $18.8 billion, 
an increase of $1 billion above the Fiscal year 2000 budget, well below 
Congress' goal of doubling the NIH's budget over five years. Over the 
past three years, a bipartisan effort has helped to provide 15 percent 
increases each year for the NIH. We know that the American public 
strongly supports this investment and we know that this increased 
funding can be well spent. For instance, only one in three of peer-
reviewed grants is currently funded by the NIH. If we do not maintain 
this 15 percent increase, we will be losing the momentum that we have 
gained over the past three years. Failing to maintain a sufficient 
funding stream for NIH is counterproductive. With the President's 
announcement yesterday of the Executive Order directing the Health Care 
Financing Administration (HCFA) to begin covering the routine patient 
costs associated with clinical trials, the Administration and those of 
us in Congress who have been pushing for this coverage by Medicare had 
hoped to eliminate the bottleneck in biomedical research from the 
laboratory to treatment. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not 
sufficiently committed to providing the necessary resources to 
biomedical research and finding cures to diseases such as AIDS, cancer, 
heart disease, and Alzheimer's which

[[Page 10582]]

plague the nation. As one of the Co-Chairs of the Congressional 
Biomedical Caucus, I am committed to increasing this inadequate funding 
level.
  Another concern is the funding for the Older Americans' Act. This 
bill provides $926 million for senior citizen programs such as a 
popular Meals-on-Wheels program to provide nutritional meals to senior 
citizens. This funding level is $158 million less that President 
Clinton's request and will not ensure that senior centers around the 
nation get the support they need. Throughout my district, thousands of 
senior citizens on fixed incomes rely greatly on these nutrition 
programs.
  This bill also fails to properly fund child care grants to the 
states. The child care and development block grant program helps low-
income families to pay for child care services while they work. This 
bill provides $400 million for the child care program which is $417 
million less than the President's request of $817 million. If we want 
people to move from welfare to work, and we do, we must ensure that 
they receive sufficient assistance in order to take care of their 
children in quality, safe child care centers. All of us as parents know 
the cost of child care is rising. And when we passed the Welfare Reform 
Act of 1996, my support was not only for limitations on benefits and 
requirements to work but also ensuring that sufficient child care funds 
were provided to the states. This bill goes back on that commitment.
  This bill signals a retreat on education, which I cannot support, 
H.R. 4577 provides overall education funding at $2.9 billion below both 
the Administration's budget and $3 billion below the bipartisan Senate 
bill. These cuts in education funding would seriously undermine efforts 
to maximize student achievement, improve teacher quality and ensure 
accountability in public education for all of our nations' students. 
The unsatisfactory overall funding level for education neglects the 
needs of America's schoolchildren and it ignores the public 
prioritization of education as the preeminent issue of the new century.
  For elementary and secondary education programs, the bill provides 
only a nominal increase--$2.6 billion below the Administration's budget 
and more than $2.5 billion below the Senate approved appropriation. 
Factoring in inflation and rising student enrollment, this funding 
level essential represents a funding freeze at the same time the 
nation's public schools are experiencing record enrollment growth. 
While H.R. 4577 increases special education funding by $500 million--
which I strongly support--it does so by reducing virtually all other 
elementary and secondary education programs below current levels.
  H.R. 4577 not only eliminates targeted funding to help low-performing 
students maximize student achievement, it would freeze Title I program 
funds and effectively deny additional math and reading services to 
several hundred thousand disadvantaged students. Last fall, the House 
passed H.R. 2, the Student Results Act, a bipartisan measure that set 
the Title I funding level for FY2001 at $9.85 billion. H.R. 4577 would 
cut $2 billion from the amount authorized in H.R. 2. Although the 
Congressional Research Service has determined that Title I funding 
would need to be tripled to $24 billion in order to serve fully all of 
the nations eligible low-income children, H.R. 4577 falls well short of 
meeting the needs of this important educational tool. At a time when 
parents and politicians are calling for better results and more 
accountability, H.R. 4577 would fail to target adequate resources to 
those students with the greatest need and would leave too many children 
who urgently need targeted educational assistance out in the cold.
  In addition to the freeze in Title I funds, H.R. 4577 is $1.5 billion 
below the level Congress recently approved on an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan basis in H.R. 4055, the IDEA Full Funding Act. On average, 
it costs more than $14,000 to educate a special education student. 
Local school districts simply could not afford those expenditures on 
their own. The Budget Committee's assumption of a $2 billion increase 
would have significantly advanced the congressional effort to provide 
40 percent of the funding for IDEA.
  H.R. 4577 also fails to fund the critical need for school 
modernization and renovation. Under this bill, $1.3 billion in 
emergency grants and loans proposed by the Administration for essential 
school construction and modernization would be denied. These funds 
would leverage $6.7 billion over 5,000 repair projects in the highest-
need areas of our nation. This bill denies the desperately needed funds 
to fix leaky roofs, upgrade plumbing, improve accessibility for 
disabled students and bring local school buildings into compliance with 
local safety codes.
  This legislation would also jeopardize the class-size reduction 
program Congress approved just last November. H.R. 4577 would block-
grant the $1.75 billion requested for smaller classes, which has 
already helped school district to hire 29,000 highly qualified new 
teachers including 2,500 in Texas. Eliminating funds for class-size 
reduction would jeopardize gains recently attained and would prevent 
the hiring of an additional 20,000 qualified teachers to serve 2.9 
million children.
  H.R. 4577 also provides $1 billion less than the Administration's 
request for teacher quality programs. The House has already approved 
two ESEA reauthorization bills requiring all teachers to be fully 
certified and highly qualified. Schools will need additional funds to 
recruit and train the 2.2 million new teachers needed in the next 
decade, and to strengthen the skills of current teachers. The bill also 
reduces the Administration's request for teacher technology training by 
$65 million, which will deny 100,000 teachers the opportunity to 
develop the necessary skills to use technology effectively in the 
classroom.
  Federal education funding is critical for the improvement of our 
nation's schools. The FY2001 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriation bill 
fails to appropriate the necessary funding for education programs and 
quality resources, while it intrudes upon the realm of local decision 
makers. We must protect America's successful public school system by 
rejecting this inadequate bill.
  The Committee erred in its approval of the Northup amendment banning 
the use of funds for implementation of Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) proposed rules for ergonomics. I believe OSHA has 
properly identified the need to address Repetitive Strain Injuries 
(RSIs) which research has found annually forces more than 600,000 
workers to lose time from their jobs. These disorders constitute the 
largest job-related injury and illness problem in the United States 
today. Employers pay more than $15-$20 billion in workers' compensation 
costs for these disorders every year, and other expenses associated 
with RSIs may increase this total to $45-$54 billion a year.
  There appears to be broad consensus that a well-designed work space 
can reduce employee injuries, heightens productivity and save money. 
Employers benefit from creating office environments and workplaces that 
are healthful to workers. Clearly, OSHA has a significant role to play 
to prevent such injuries. But I also believe the OSHA proposed rule has 
some flaws which should be addressed, first through the rule-making 
process and only if it is determined that OSHA fails to fully address 
legitimate concerns should it subsequently be addressed through the 
legislative process. It is heavy-handed to simply ban any action and 
pretend ergonomics does not exist.
  Additionally, H.R. 4577, fails to provide adequate funding for the 
Title X family planning program. Title X, as a federal domestic family 
planning program, grants state health departments and regional umbrella 
agencies funding for voluntary, confidential reproductive health 
services. This perennially underfunded program has provided basic 
health care to more than 4.5 million young and low-income women in over 
4,600 clinics throughout the nation. Regrettably, Title X is often the 
only source for basic health care for many uninsured low-income women 
who fail to qualify for Medicaid. Eighty three percent of women 
receiving federal family planning services rely solely on clinics 
funded by Title X for their family planning services. In light of these 
dramatic statistics, H.R. 4577 fails once again for its meager $239 
million funding stream.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill which fails in almost every 
count, but particularly in health research and education. Rather than 
invest in our nation's potential, this bill tracks a flawed budget 
resolution which sacrifices our domestic priorities for the benefit of 
tax cuts, fails to adequately retire national debt and engages in 
fiscal chicanery. As such, I cannot support the bill as presented.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the 
amendment offered by Representative Schaffer. This amendment has a good 
objective but takes its funding from a valuable program that provides 
real learning opportunities to so many children and their parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I have long called for the federal government to fully 
fund its commitment to IDEA. During the past four fiscal years, the 
Republican majority in Congress has increased funding for IDEA by 115 
percent, or $2.6 billion, for the federal share in Part B of IDEA. Even 
with the increase, however, the funding equals only 12.6 percent of the 
average per pupil expenditure to assist children with disabilities. We 
must do better.
  Indeed, we passed a bill this year H.R. 4055 that calls for the 
federal government to meet its obligation to special education within 
ten years. The bill would authorize increases of $2 billion a year over 
the next 10 years to meet the federal commitment of 40 percent by 2010.

[[Page 10583]]

  The money to fully fund IDEA must come from somewhere. What this 
means is that some difficult decisions have to be made.
  In this case though, reducing the funding for the Even Start Program 
is the wrong decision. The Even Start Program provides opportunities 
for parents lacking a high school diploma or GED and their children to 
receive instruction in basic skills, support for their children's 
education, and early childhood education for those participating in the 
program.
  There is a great deal of unmet need in the family literacy field. The 
appropriation in the bill will help ensure we can help more families 
break the cycle of illiteracy and poverty and become self-sufficient. 
While we need additional funding for IDEA, we also need to increase 
spending for quality literacy programs. In fact, by taking money from 
literacy programs such as Even Start actually defeats the purpose of 
the programs. We should be trying to reduce the need for special 
education by investing in early childhood literacy programs.
  The best argument against this amendment is that we know that family 
literacy works. Parents are the key to their child's academic success. 
The more parents read to their children and actively participate in 
their education, the greater the probability that their children will 
succeed in school. We should not be cutting funding for this important 
program.
  I firmly believe that the amount of federal funding that goes to IDEA 
must be increased. Having said that, however, we need to be responsible 
about where we get the money to increase funding for IDEA. Even Start 
is not the place to take money away.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Schaffer amendment.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in a time of unprecedented economic 
growth and surplus, the majority supported bill shortchanges every 
American citizen in our country. Republicans have systematically cut 
funding for a number of important initiatives in the President's 
budget. And, despite the fact that Americans ranked education--over 
health care, tax cuts or paying down the national debt--as their 
highest priority for additional federal funding, this bill falls short 
of providing $3.5 billion of the President's request for education 
programs alone.
  This bill fails to provide funding for the President's School Repairs 
initiative of $1.3 billion in loan subsidies and grants to repair up to 
5,000 aging and neglected public schools. Natural disasters and 
inadequate funding to provide maintenance have contributed to the decay 
of Guam's aging public schools. As a result, thousands of Guam's 
students are crowded into makeshift classrooms or in temporary 
buildings. The most dramatic example of this is the temporary closure 
of an entire elementary school in my District of Guam. Last year, C.L. 
Taitano Elementary School was shut down for repair because it could no 
longer meet the local safety codes required to keep its doors open. In 
the interim repair period, nearly all the students were shifted to 
temporary buildings--trailers. This interim is expected to last more 
than a year. Having classrooms housed in trailers is simply 
unacceptable. Having an entire elementary school in trailers is an 
abomination. All American students deserve a decent education; Guam is 
no exception. Guam's schools are in dire need of repairs now.
  This bill fails to support our school children and teachers by 
providing funding needed for the President's Class-Size Reduction 
initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers by FY 2005. This in effect 
repeals the bipartisan agreement on class size reduction and 
jeopardizes the Federal commitment to hire as many as 20,000 new 
teachers next year.
  This bill cuts funding for ESEA Title I grants for local education 
agencies by more than $400 million from the President's request of $8.4 
billion. Title I helps over 11 million disadvantaged school children 
gain skills in core academic subjects and helps them achieve to high 
academic standards. This would eliminate services to more than 650,000 
low income students. In FY 2000, Guam's schools received $5.3 million 
in Title I grants. The FY 2001 request for Guam is $5.6 million.
  This bill cuts $51 million from the President's request of $650 
million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Fully funding the 
President's request would enable the expansion of the Safe School/
Healthy Students school violence prevention initiative to an additional 
40 school districts.
  This bill freezes the FY 2001 appropriations for Bilingual Education 
to FY 2000 levels. At $248 million, this is a decrease of $48 million 
from the President's request of $296 million.
  Approximately 3.4 million students enrolled in schools through the 
nation have difficulty speaking English. From 1990 to 1997, we saw a 
57% increase in limited English proficient (LEP) students. With 
continued growth in the school enrollments of LEP students, we will 
have to turn away more than 100 qualified school districts and deny 
desperately needed services to approximately 143,000 LEP students.
  This bill also shortchanges labor and health programs which will put 
American workers and seniors at risk. Although the national 
unemployment rate is at its lowest level in 30 years, not all corners 
of the United States are experiencing the benefits of a robust economy. 
In Guam, unemployment is at 14%, nearly 3.5 times the national average 
of 3.9% The unemployment forecast for 2000 is expected to be even 
higher. We need to safeguard programs that provide training and relief 
for all American workers.
  This bill not only ignores the $275 million requested increase for 
the second year of the five-year plan to provide universal re-
employment services to all America, it cuts $593 million or 30% below 
the President's request and 19% cut below the FY 2000 level.
  Seventy-six million baby boomers will begin reaching retirement age 
eight years from now. The population of those over age 85, who often 
need the greatest care, is expected to increase by 33% in the next 10 
years. The urgency to prepare for the needs of our aging population is 
critical.
  This bill eliminates $36 million in the HCFA budget for the Nursing 
Home Initiative. This would safeguard the delivery of quality health 
care in nursing homes across the nation through state surveying and 
certification reviews.
  This bill eliminates the President's $125 million request for the 
Community Access Program to address the growing number of those workers 
without health insurance. Approximately 44.5 million Americans were 
uninsured in 1998-24.6 million of those uninsured were workers.
  We cannot ignore the needs of our diverse community! The education, 
health, and social well-being of our nation is at stake. This bill 
neglects to recognize the most fundamental needs of our communities. 
For all these reasons, I strongly oppose the passage of this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4577) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________