DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997; Congressional Record Vol. 142, No. 102
(House of Representatives - July 11, 1996)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H7280-H7327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
472 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 3755.

                              {time}  1214


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Walker in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 
10, 1996, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] had been postponed and the 
bill had been read through page 22, line 16.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, X, XIX, and XXVI of 
     the Public Health Service Act, section 427(a) of the Federal 
     Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, title V of the Social 
     Security Act, and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 
     1986, as amended, $3,080,190,000, of which $297,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for interest subsidies on 
     loan guarantees made prior to fiscal year 1981 under part B 
     of title VII of the Public Health Service Act: Provided, That 
     the Division of Federal Occupational Health may utilize 
     personal services contracting to employ professional 
     management/administrative and occupational health 
     professionals: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $2,828,000 shall be available 
     until expended for facilities renovations at the Gillis W. 
     Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided further, That in 
     addition to fees authorized by section 427(b) of the Health 
     Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, fees shall be collected 
     for the full disclosure of information under the Act 
     sufficient to recover the full costs of operating the 
     National Practitioner Data Bank, and shall remain available 
     until expended to carry out that Act: Provided further, That 
     no more than $5,000,000 is available for carrying out the 
     provisions of Public Law 104-73: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available under this heading, $192,592,000 
     shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning 
     projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said 
     projects under such title shall not be expended for 
     abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be 
     nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for 
     any activity (including the publication of distribution of 
     literature) that in any way tends to promote public support 
     or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for 
     public office: Provided further, That $75,000,000 shall be 
     for State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs authorized by section 
     2616 of the Public Health Service Act and shall be 
     distributed to States as authorized by section 2618(b)(2) of 
     such Act.


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: Page 22, line 22, after 
     the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $2,600,000)''.
       Page 26, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,600,000)''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes and 
that the time be divided, 20 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey], 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
and 10 minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] and I are introducing with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] restores funding to the CDC National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control. Our amendment simply overturns the Dickey 
amendment passed by the full committee which reduced the bill's 
appropriation for the CDC injury prevention and control program by $2.6 
million and increased the appropriation for the area health education 
centers by a like amount.
  This amendment will restore the injury prevention and control program 
to its fiscal year 1996 level of $43 million, which is the level 
approved by the subcommittee. My colleagues who support the area health 
education centers program, as I do, please note that under our 
amendment, the area health education center will receive an increase of 
$2.9 million, or over 12 percent, compared to last year.
  Why must we restore funding for the CDC injury control program? 
Because the injury prevention and control program helps to prevent 
thousands of needless and tragic accidents and injuries each year.
  The injury prevention and control program is one of the leading 
Federal agencies working to prevent domestic violence. Injury control 
funds are also being used to prevent drownings at Federal recreation 
facilities, reduce violence in public housing projects, cut down on 
driving accidents by the elderly, improve emergency medical services in 
order to decrease the number of traumatic brain and spinal cord 
injuries, reduce deaths caused by fires in the home and many, many 
other lifesaving activities.
  Unless our amendment passes, all of these vital activities could be 
affected. So why were funds for the injury prevention program cut? Let 
me be very blunt to my colleagues. The NRA dislikes the fact that the 
injury control center collects statistics and does research on gun 
violence. Even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent, 
or 2.6 million, of its budget

[[Page H7281]]

on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA. But 
frankly, my colleagues, I do not understand this. Is not the purpose of 
the NRA to promote the responsible use of guns? Is not the NRA 
interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and teenagers 
who are not using guns for sport but to kill? It seems to me that the 
CDC and the NRA really should be working together to ensure that guns 
are used safely and responsibly.

  We will hear charges that the CDC research is biased and duplicative, 
but the program passed three rigorous reviews by the GAO, the National 
Academy of Science and the HHS office of the inspector general.
  After reviewing Federal violence prevention efforts, conservative 
columnist George Will concluded in 1992:

       Clearly the criminal justice community is inadequate to the 
     task of turning the tide of violence; so as a sound 
     investment in improving the quality of American life, no 
     Federal funds are spent better than those that fund the CDC's 
     research.

  While the Justice Department focuses on the incarceration of 
offenders after the shootings occur, the CDC focuses on the prevention 
of gun injuries before they occur. CDC injury control research is 
examining how trauma surgeons can help to intervene in the cycle of 
youth violence and prevent youth from returning to trauma centers at a 
rate of 44 percent.
  CDC research is looking at why some inner-city youths commit violence 
with guns and others do not. CDC research is helping State departments 
of health around the country better monitor gun related injuries so 
that they can most effectively target their prevention activities.
  The NRA's attack of the CDC puzzles me put it also outrages me. Gun 
violence in America is a public health emergency. According to Dr. 
George Lundberg, an editor of the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, ``There is no question now that violence is a public 
health issue. Research to end this epidemic of violence is absolutely 
vital and it must continue.''
  Over 37,000 Americans die each year from wounds inflicted by guns. 
Almost 6,000 children and teens are shot every year by guns; 100,000 
other Americans are injured in shootings each year. This explosion of 
violence is placing an enormous burden on our health care system. The 
medical cost of gun violence is $4.5 billion a year.
  The cost of treating a patient with a gunshot wound averages over 
$14,000. As a result, more than 60 urban trauma centers have been 
forced to close over the past 10 years alone. If current trends 
continue, Mr. Speaker, gunshots will surpass car accidents as the 
leading cause of death in United States.
  To combat this horrifying trend, the National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control has conducted groundbreaking peer reviewed 
research on the types and costs of injuries caused by firearms. It has 
worked to prevent suicide among teens, taught conflict resolution 
techniques. Let me be very clear, the center conducts research, gathers 
facts. It is not an advocacy organization nor does it make policy. In 
fact, our amendment preserves language in the bill which prohibits the 
CDC from advocating or promoting gun control.
  Let me state this a second time so that my colleagues are clear. This 
amendment preserves language in the bill which prohibits the CDC from 
advocating or promoting gun control. The NRA opposes the CDC injury 
control research because it wants to suppress the awful truth about gun 
violence. The NRA simply does not want the facts set getting out. It is 
no more than censorship. It must be stopped.
  There are many groups that support this amendment: The College of 
Emergency Physicians, AMA, ABA, American Public Health Association, the 
American Nurses Association, the Association of State Health Officials, 
and on and on. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to 
preserve the vital work of the injury control center.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, because of my position on this amendment, I 
believe that the time that has been allocated to me should be allocated 
instead to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] who is an opponent 
of the amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes 
allocated to me be allocated to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey], and that he control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of federally funded political 
advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a 
disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun 
control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through 
the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over 
the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for 
those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the 
part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy. 
Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people 
should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug 
trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the 
cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with 
crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.
  Ownership of guns by itself is what this particular amount of money 
is going to. It is not a public health threat. In fact, the violence 
related to guns has been found to be going down to the extent of two-
thirds, where we actually have a 173 percent increase in the number of 
guns in the United States. So it is obviously not a public health 
threat, because we are doing this through education and training and 
not through a discredited study program by the CDC through the NCIPC.

  Some quotes that exist from one of the officials that we pay Federal 
money to, what we need to try to do is to find a socially acceptable 
form of gun control. Experts from Harvard and Columbia medical schools 
have reviewed the work on firearms that this agency has done with 
Federal money and have stated that it displays an emotional antigun 
agenda and are so biased and contains so many errors of fact, logic and 
procedure that we cannot regard them as having a legitimate claim to be 
treated as scholarly or scientific literature. So this is discredited 
by authorities. It is not something we should be doing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment, but I do 
so in despair of our ability to discuss this on substance rather than 
on symbolic grounds.
  This controversy started when the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey] offered an amendment in subcommittee which purported to 
eliminate the ability of CDC to engage in research on gun control and 
which purported to prevent that agency from engaging in unbiased 
research. I voted against that amendment in subcommittee because I have 
always resisted the idea of telling anybody in this Government what 
kind of research they can conduct in the health field. I just do not 
think that lay people know enough to do that. I think health research 
issues ought to be decided by scientists, not by politicians.
  But the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and I jointly 
cosponsored an amendment to the bill which reads as follows, and it was 
adopted. On page 26 of the bill it says: ``None of the funds made 
available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun 
control.'' We then added this paragraph to the report on page 49: ``The 
bill contains a limitation to prohibit the National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control at the Center for Disease Control from engaging 
in any activities to advocate or promote gun control. The CDC may need 
to collect data on the incidents of gun-related violence, but the 
committee does not believe that it is the role of the CDC to advocate 
or promote policies to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage 
responsible private gun ownership. The committee expects research in 
this area to be objective and grants to be awarded

[[Page H7282]]

through an impartial peer review process.''
  What the gentleman and I tried to do was to make certain that CDC, in 
fact, did not engage in biased research, and that is the language that 
we adopted. When we got to the full committee, the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] then did not offer the report language to which 
we objected and merely offered an amendment which moved money from CDC 
to the area health education centers, and I supported that amendment 
because it was essentially a judgment about where we thought the money 
would do the most good. Would it do the most good in this controversial 
program at CDC, or would it do the most good in the area of health 
education centers?
  I come down on the side of the education centers primarily because I 
represent rural areas, and I know that they are medically underserved 
communities. The area in which this money was put simply enables us to 
support training of medical residents and students for medicine, 
nursing, allied health, pharmacy and related fields.
  I would point out that in my State, for instance, these agencies are 
administered by a partnership between Wisconsin's two medical schools, 
the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin 
Medical School.
  So basically what I would suggest to my colleagues is that this 
amendment, while it is being debated in terms of gun control, the 
effect of the Lowey amendment will not be to enhance gun control any 
more than the effect of the Dickey amendment was to diminish gun 
control. The only direct effect on CDC's ability to get involved in the 
gun control issue is determined by the language which we already have 
in the bill and have in the report by virtue of the amendment sponsored 
jointly by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and myself.
  So I would say the House simply has a choice to make. If they think 
that the money ought to be put in CDC where the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey] puts it, then vote with her. If they think the money 
ought to stay in the area of health education centers where I believe 
it ought to be and where the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] put 
it, then vote against the Lowey amendment. I would urge that my 
colleagues vote against the Lowey amendment because I think that the 
dollars have been placed in a preferable place by the effect of the 
Dickey amendment offered in full committee.
  As I say, I despair of this issue ever being discussed in anything 
but symbolic terms. I know that at the presidential level we have Mr. 
Dole, in my view, trying to exploit the gun issue one way and the White 
House trying to exploit it dealing with it the other way. I am not 
interested in that phony debate. What I am interested in doing is 
making rational choices as a policymaker about where scarce dollars 
ought to go, and I frankly think that it has become so controversial at 
CDC that the money is much more rationally spent where the committee 
wound up putting the money.
  So this may seem a very quaint position on my part, but my trouble is 
that I read the amendments, I do not just read the titles. So it seems 
to me that Members ought to focus on what the real effect of this 
amendment really is. It simply moves dollars. It is only indirectly 
related to the gun issue, and I wish we could address it in that 
fashion because we are qualified to decide where research dollars ought 
to go. We are not qualified to pretend that we are doing something that 
we are not doing.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle 
amendment.
  Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime 
bill, saying programs like shelters for battered women and rehab for 
drug addicts were nothing more than ``pork.''
  Now, the NRA has set its sights at the Centers for Disease Control 
[CDC]. They have succeeded in pushing an amendment to cut the National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC] from the CDC's budget. 
This office does research on injuries, including those caused by guns, 
and links it to health outcomes.
  But the NRA says that this office engages in ``recklessly biased 
research and blatant political advocacy.''
  I disagree.
  This office does vital studies to improve how law enforcement, the 
judicial system, and our health care system can prevent and improve 
assistance to victims of domestic violence.
  Now the NRA wants us to stop looking at the problem so they can 
pretend it does not exist.
  They can't further their extremist goals if we engage in studies and 
discussion of gun violence as a public health issue.
  In this case, the NRA and the radical right are saying, if you fear 
it, kill it, and in doing so, they are blocking progress in ending 
violence against women and their families.
  Vote to end family violence; support the Lowey-Castle amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey] for yielding this time to me.
  I obviously rise in support of the Lowey-Castle amendment, and I 
listened carefully to the always articulate comments of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about this, and I would just note that right 
now the National Center For Injury prevention and Control, which is 
getting a reduction in this, is actually getting a reduction to less 
than 6 percent of their budget from last year, whereas the health 
education center he talked about is going up to 23 percent, and if we 
are able to succeed in this amendment, that would still go up 12.8 
percent, and this particular agency that we are dealing with here would 
go down by some 5 percent. So no matter how we look at this, the very 
cause that he is talking about is being well treated.
  This is a modest amendment. I would simply, as we know, restore the 
funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. But 
this is very important, and what they do is important, and I do not 
think they should be involved in gun control, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] pointed out very carefully it is very specific in 
this piece of legislation right now that they cannot be involved in any 
advocacy with respect to gun control.
  I do not have a problem with that. I absolutely concede that. They 
should not be, and in fact I think one can even make an argument that 
they have not been in the past. They rejected studies that try to do 
that. But the bottom line is that it is important because injuries kill 
over 85 children and young adults in the United States every day and 
cost our country more than $224 billion in the last decade in terms of 
direct medical care and rehabilitation costs as well as lost wages of 
the individual and productivity losses to the Nation.
  This agency, the NCIPC, collects and analyzes data about a wide range 
of injuries including motor vehicle crash, fires, drowning, falls, 
poisonings, suicide and homicide. They have saved lives. They have 
prevented injuries from happening in this country. The centers research 
has led to a number of important recommendations in a variety of areas, 
from wearing helmets while riding a bicycle to storing firearms in the 
home separately from bullets to installing fire detectors in homes. 
These are major safety changes. They probably had as much influence on 
saving lives as any agency in this country, and I think to reduce their 
funding would be a tremendous mistake.

  It does also collect and analyze data about firearm injuries because 
they are the second leading cause of injuries of Americans between the 
ages of 10 and 24. Firearms are the cause of approximately 37,900 
deaths in this country as well as all manner of other problems, 
including 3 times as many serious injuries. Ten States and the District 
of Columbia now have more people dying because of firearms than they do 
in automobile accidents. By the year 2000 there are going to be more 
people dying because of firearms and automobile accidents in the United 
States of America. The cost of gun shot violence in the United States 
amounts to $20 billion, a fifth of which is medical expenses. That is 
$200 per family that we are paying for these injuries to people

[[Page H7283]]

and deaths to people because of the use of guns in the United States.
  They have done many things. My short time does not allow me to go 
into all the things which they have done. They are not advocacy, they 
are changes which they have made, and I would encourage each and every 
one of us to support this amendment. I think it is absolutely the right 
thing to do. It is not a gun issue. It is a safety issue in this 
country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle-Lowey amendment.
  One of the principal efforts of the CDC's National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control was to study American firearms--guns--in regard 
to injuries involving firearms.
  Let me save the American taxpayer $2.6 million dollars with some free 
information:
  Guns can be dangerous, especially if loaded, pointed at someone and 
the trigger is pulled.
  Now, that was simple; was it not?
  Given this knowledge, one has to question why taxpayer funds were 
even wasted on this issue in the first place. I think I know the 
answer.
  The bottom line is that it is bothersome to some Members of this body 
that many Americans own firearms.
  Therefore, anything that can shed a negative inference on firearms, 
like the fact that they are dangerous, becomes worthy of taxpayer 
support research and political exploitation.
  As interesting as pursuing these issues further might be, they are in 
the end irrelevant.
  The second amendment to the United States Constitution reads: ``A 
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be 
infringed.''
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentlemen from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  What is the NRA so afraid of? Perhaps it is the truth.
  Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific 
efforts to make guns more safe for families.
  Last year, 38,000 Americans died of gunshot wounds compared to 41,000 
who died from automobile accidents. Yet we would never dream of 
opposing Government research efforts to make automobiles safer. If the 
automobile lobby was as irresponsible as the NRA, we would not have the 
seat belt.
  Today, we are seeing a proliferation of cheaply made guns that are 
blowing up in people's hands, misfiring when jostled or dropped, and 
killing or wounding people accidentally.
  So while motor vehicle deaths are dropping year by year, we have seen 
no progress on the number of those dying accidentally from gunshot 
wounds.
  Shame on the NRA for spreading its paranoic world view to stop 
legitimate scientific research from making guns just a little bit more 
safe.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Porter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The NRA arguments that the Centers of Disease Control research is 
``junk science'' is, of course, specious. Does the NRA know more about 
science than the New England Journal of Medicine?
  The NRA protestations that the research is duplicated elsewhere is 
spurious. Even the GAO disagrees.
  So what is the NRA afraid of? They are afraid that legitimate science 
will conclude that having a gun in the home is dangerous. They are 
afraid that consumers will learn that a gun in the home increases the 
chances of suicide and accidental deaths--particularly among children.
  Last year, I joined with my Republican friend Steve Horn in a 
bipartisan letter to restore these important CDC funds. I hope that 
this amendment will have similar bipartisan support.
  We need to prove to the American people that when the NRA says jump, 
Congress doesn't put on its gym shorts.
  Everyone--everyone except the extremists at the NRA--understands that 
this CDC research is necessary and objective. Let's show that we can 
rise above the paranoid rantings of the NRA to do something to make gun 
ownership a little bit more safe.
  Support this amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, 145,000 people die each year from injuries 
in our society, including those sustained in motor vehicle crashes, 
fires, drownings, falls, poisonings, suicide, and homicide. Injury is 
the leading cause of death and disability for our Nation's children and 
young adults. Those injuries cost our country more than $224 billion a 
year in direct medical care and rehabilitation as well as lost wages 
and productivity. That is an increase of 42 percent in the last decade 
alone.
  Is injury a proper subject for our Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention? Of course it is. Only $2.6 million of $46.3 million goes to 
gun-related research. It also goes for car crashes. What do they 
examine when they look at car crashes? They look at how the cars are 
equipped, how the cars are used, how the drivers are trained. Should we 
not also look at the same injury result regarding guns? Of course we 
should do that. Of course, we should study how we can make society 
safer and how we can reduce injuries.
  The CDC work on firearms injuries is not duplicated anywhere else in 
the Government. Unlike other agencies, CDC uses the same public health 
model to prevent firearms injury that it does with other public health 
problems. It identifies the problem, examines the risk factors, 
develops interventions, and evaluates what works. This is an area we 
should be addressing. CDC has done it.
  The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] have made absolutely certain that the 
information cannot be used to advocate gun control in any way. I 
believe this amendment is a very, very proper amendment. To take away 
the $2.6 million makes no sense at all. We are making good progress 
here. It is not being misused. This is simply an attempt by the NRA to 
remove guns, which cause a great deal of injury and death in our 
society, from a list of other instruments that do. There is no rational 
reason for doing that. They should be examined as well.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Arkansas for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, Centers for Disease Control, Centers for Disease 
Control. The words are not real long, only a couple of syllables. Look 
up the word ``disease'' in the dictionary, at least any legitimate 
dictionary. I have done it. There is no reference in any dictionary 
that I can find that says that accidents or handgun injuries or murders 
are a disease. There is a reason why they are not found within a 
definition of disease. They are not diseases.
  Let us talk about honestry and truth in government. The Centers for 
Disease Control, all of us ought to agree, and but for the political 
agenda on the other side here most Members do agree, that the Centers 
for Diesease Control have not eradicated disease. In other words, they 
have work left to do, very important work they could be doing. Yet they 
are devoting scarce resources for a political agenda that is, pure and 
simple, a political agenda.
  If my colleagues from New York and other States want to do away with 
handguns, that is fine, from their standpoint. Or if people on my side 
of the aisle do not like handguns and want to outlaw them, do it, but 
do it honestly. Propose legislation to outlaw them. Propose an 
amendment to the Constitution doing away with the second amendment. But 
do not take an institution that has done so much good work and cause it 
to lose credibility further, as it has already done, by engaging in a 
political agenda. This is a political agenda.

[[Page H7284]]

  The political agenda is well-documented. You can look at publications 
such as the Injury Prevention Network, which is funded in part by CDC, 
and which engages, by the very terms of its publication, in illegal 
lobbying activity. It recommends picketing. It recommends lobbying. As 
a matter of fact, the kind of work these organizations engage in with 
Federal funds is so bad that even when I wrote to the director of CDC, 
Dr. Satcher, he had to agree with it, and said it is improper what they 
are advocating here.
  There is a political agenda at work here that ought to be of concern 
to all of us on both sides of the aisle. It is called politics. 
Politics should not be injected into the CDC. One does not also have to 
look beyond simply the organizations themselves that the National 
Century for Injury Prevention and Control or whatever is engaged in. 
They are very clearly, very explicitly, antigun lobbies.
  Again, if colleagues on either side of the aisle support those 
organizations, support what they do, then come up front and say so, and 
say we need to do something to get handguns off the streets of America. 
But do not do it through an organization dedicated explicitly to 
disease control.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a distinguished member of the 
committee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle-Lowey amendment.
  Defunding critical injury prevention and control research and 
outreach is a dangerous precedent. Over the years, this lifesaving 
research has enjoyed bipartisan support. We must not let politics cloud 
the need to fund meritorious science in this area. We did not allow 
such to interfere with the conduct of research on cancer, AIDS, and 
other areas which threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
Americans. And, we must not prevent critical research in the area of 
firearm and other injuries as well.
  While CDC conducts research on the prevention and control of injuries 
from fires, drownings, and poisonings as well, the concern appears to 
be with respect to firearm injuries. CDC is not working the area of 
firearms injury prevention and safety for political reasons. It is 
working in the area because of the tremendous number of Americans 
injured or killed with firearms. According to the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, firearms injuries are in fact the fourth leading cause of 
years of potential life lost, and is the second leading cause of injury 
fatality in the United States. Firearms are the leading cause of death 
for African American youth ages 15 to 24, and is the second leading 
cause of death among white youth in this same age group. Like cancer, 
AIDS, and heart disease, this is a major public health problem that 
must be addressed.
  Applications for the CDC's injury control research grants are peer 
reviewed by the scientific community prior to funding. In fact, its 
peer review process is modeled after that used by the National 
Institutes of Health which we strongly support.
  For over three decades now, firearms fatalities have steadily 
increased in the United States. It is projected that if current trends 
continue, by the year 2000, they will be the leading cause of injury 
death. the World Health Organization has in fact issued a resolution 
declaring that violence is a leading worldwide public health problem, 
and designating the prevention of violence as a public health priority. 
Let's do what's right. Let's continue to protect children and families 
across this country. Support the restoration of $2.6 million to the 
CDC's Injury Prevention and Control Program.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to this critical 
lifesaving amendment.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is a simple 
debate between spending money on health care needs of people in low-
income and rural areas and spending money on a politically correct 
study that some of our colleagues in some parts of the country think is 
very important.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr, made the point 
very well earlier: What is the Centers for Disease Control doing 
studying a politically correct idea that some few people in this 
country think is important? This is a classic idea of a Federal agency 
that has grown appendages over the years that have nothing to do with 
the original mandate that Congress set up in the first place.
  If our friends from New York or other States in the country or other 
cities believe that this study is important, why do they not go to 
their local citizens in their cities, why do they not go to their 
States, and ask them to pay more tax money to fund a politically 
correct study like this? Why do they not tell them it is a great idea 
and raise new tax money for something like this? Why do they think the 
Federal Government ought to be studying such an issue?
  There is not a one of us in this Congress who believes that kids 
should have guns, that people should be using firearms for any reasons 
aside from sport. The law-abiding citizens of this country use 
firearms. We are for that, but we are not for firearm abuse or misuse 
in any way. So we would encourage everyone here to think about that.
  We are not talking about a vital function for the Centers for Disease 
Control. We need to look after the needs of our people and our 
communities, but we cannot stand here and say it is more important to 
fund something like this, as opposed to giving people in need health 
care that they need in low-income and rural areas. If Members love this 
idea, they should go back and ask their local citizens to raise tax 
money locally to fund a crazy idea like this.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment. This amendment will restore $2.6 million in funding 
for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
  This funding was cut in committee in a misguided attempt to stop the 
NCIPC's research into the prevention of firearms injuries, based on the 
allegation that such research masquerades as Government-funded gun 
control advocacy. The cut also represents a profound misunderstanding 
of the important work of the NCIPC.
  The NCIPC is tasked with undertaking medical and scientific studies 
of issues affecting the public health. Such work is validated by a 
number of improvements in public health in recent decades, particularly 
as it relates to automobiles. Scientific research into car accidents 
has led to improvements in car design, road engineering, driver 
education, and drunk-driving prevention.
  Mr. Chairman, regardless of our views on gun control, there seems to 
be general agreement in this body that our Nation is suffering an 
epidemic of gun violence. Firearms are the second-leading cause of 
death for children and young adults; in 10 States they are the leading 
cause. Shootings are the leading cause of death for black teenagers, 
and the second-leading cause of death for white teenagers.
  NCIPC's research on firearms violence may bring improvements in gun 
design, training, and methods of storage. Moreover, the committee cut 
in NCIPC funding will not end the center's firearms research. Instead, 
the center is likely to reallocate funds from other important violence 
prevention programs, such as combating violence against women. 
Furthermore, gun control opponents who persist in their belief that 
NCIPC has been advocating gun control can take heart from the provision 
already in the bill which prohibits the CDC from using injury 
prevention and control funds to advocate or promote gun control.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Lowey-Castle 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, Mr.

[[Page H7285]]

Chairman, and for her leadership in bringing this important amendment 
to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it. The National Center 
for Injury Prevention and Control provides the Nation with information 
that is crucial, reliable, and well-respected among experts about the 
incidence of and extent to which injuries, including those which result 
from automobile accidents, fires, domestic violence, bicycle accidents, 
and guns affect our lives, and identify strategies for reducing these 
injuries, many of which are fatal.
  The Lowey amendment addresses the problem the committee created in 
symbolic action that will have real effects on America's children and 
families when it eliminated funds. The gun injury crisis facing our 
Nation, especially our children, must not be ignored and cannot be 
hidden. Firearms violence from homicides, suicide, or, and this is 
important, accidental shootings, killed 5,751 children aged 1 to 19 in 
1993. Child deaths from guns in a year are the equivalent of more than 
the deaths of 205 classrooms of children. We need CDC research and 
expertise to help inform the Nation, to help gun owners have safety. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a moment to point 
out that violence and firearms-related research will not be undermined 
by a transfer of $2.6 million from the CDC's NCIPC to area health 
education centers, because firearms violence is studied already by a 
number of agencies within the Department of Justice, including the 
National Institutes of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics as 
well as the Bureau of Justice Assistance and other programs.
  In fact, Dr. Arthur Kellermann, an NCIPC grantee recipient who has 
received millions of taxpayer dollars to study firearms, recently 
received a grant from the Department of Justice to study firearms 
violence, a clear indication of the duplicative nature of NCIPC's work 
in this area. I want to point out that a number of studies are 
currently involved, studying the cause and effect of injuries caused by 
firearms, and I see this transfer as not a threat to that research, but 
merely cutting one area of the funding.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment to restore funding for the National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control. This research at the CDC not only increases our 
understanding of the effects of firearms on our society but may also 
aid us in finding ways to prevent firearm deaths and injuries.
  Opponents of this research maintain that it is used to further a 
political agenda. But acknowledging the 37,000 firearm deaths each year 
is not political posturing; it is recognizing that firearms pose a 
major threat to the health and well-being of our society.

  Those who oppose this research should speak with the police officers 
who risk a face-off with a deadly weapon each time they put on their 
uniform. They should go to the emergency rooms in my district and 
across the Nation where doctors and nurses deal with wreckage left by 
gun violence day and night.
  They should see the skyrocketing costs of health care to those who 
have been affected by this.
  They should visit the children who have seen close friends and 
neighbors taken away by firearms--or talk, as I have, with the family 
of a 6-year-old accidentally killed in a gang shooting.
  They would learn then that this research is not about advancing an 
agenda, but about combating a growing epidemic of violence.
  Already this Congress has tried to repeal the ban on assault weapons 
enacted in the 1994 crime bill. A majority of Americans oppose making 
it easier to get deadly weapons. Let's not deprive them of the one 
weapon they can use in response--knowledge.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Lowey-Castle amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
primarily because the funding for the amendment comes from the Area 
Health Education Centers Program. Establishing priorities is always 
difficult for each of us but my support for the AHEC Program 
specifically stems from the fact that rural America still is in 
desperate need of health care providers.
  While there is talk of physician gluts in some parts of the country, 
rural America faces exactly the opposite with regard to its needs for 
physicians. In Texas several AHEC Programs have a direct impact on the 
supply and support of rural providers in my district and all over the 
State. The AHEC Program has a proven track record of successfully 
improving the supply and support of health practitioners. To me, 
keeping the funds in this program is a much higher priority for dollars 
spent than what this amendment proposes. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the Lowey-Castle amendment.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  (Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the 
amendment that is being offered and express my support for the 
committee position in the bill and ask that Members vote accordingly.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
restore $2.6 million to support vital research into injury reduction 
and violence prevention.
  Forty thousand Americans, almost 6,000 children, are killed by 
firearms every year. In communities across this Nation, parents must 
put their children to bed at night fearing that they might be shot in 
their sleep by a stray bullet. The National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control has taken a scientific approach to studying this 
problem. That is why their work has passed muster with the New England 
Journal of Medicine's peer review process and with the American Medical 
Association. But apparently the NRA is fearful that the facts may move 
concerned Americans to want to do something about the problem. I think 
the fact that thousands of Americans are shot every year is a real 
problem. I think the lives of our children are so important that maybe, 
just maybe, this Congress should for once say ``no'' to the NRA and do 
something about our children being shot.
  All the authors of this amendment ask is that we not be afraid to 
gather the facts about gun-related violence in America so we may know 
better how to deal with this problem and how to prevent it. Vote for 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] has the right 
to close. It is the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has only one remaining speaker and he has 2 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Arkansas has 2 minutes remaining, 
and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Castle amendment to restore $2.6 million in funding for the National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
  The Center is the only Government entity that addresses the issue of 
injury in a comprehensive manner.
  But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I 
received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of 
Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention 
program:

       I have seen the increasing level of gun violence in New 
     Haven and the surrounding areas. I have seen children die and 
     adolescents face permanent disability due to spinal cord 
     injuries and head injuries. Not all of these victims are 
     victims of interpersonal violence. Many have attempted 
     suicide. In the case of children, several have been 
     unintentionally shot by other children, or caught in

[[Page H7286]]

     the crossfire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to 
     see this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of 
     violence has served to strengthen my resolve to do something 
     about it on a personal and professional level.

  Continued support for the injury prevention program would allow 
scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis, to 
continue their work. Vote for the Lowey-Castle amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Castle amendment 
to restore $2 million in funding for the National Center for Injury 
Prevention and Control.
  The Center is the only Government entity that addresses the issue of 
injury in a comprehensive manner and encourages an interdisciplinary 
approach to decreasing the burden that injuries place on society--
140,000 people in the United States die of injuries each year, and many 
thousands more suffer permanently disabling injuries. These deaths and 
disabilities lead to loss of productive years of life, as injuries are 
primarily a disease of the young and the leading killer of persons 
under age 44. Many injuries can be prevented, at a much lower cost than 
treating them. In addition, the severity and long-term effect of 
injuries that do occur can be minimized through effective treatment and 
early rehabilitation.
  But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I 
received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of 
Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention 
Program.
  Dr. Degutis states:

       I have seen the increasing level of gun violence in New 
     Haven and the surrounding areas. I have seen children die and 
     adolescents face permanent disability due to spinal cord 
     injuries and head injuries. Not all of these victims are 
     victims of interpersonal violence. Many have attempted 
     suicide. In the case of children, several have been 
     unintentionally shot by other children, or caught in the 
     cross fire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to see 
     this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of violence 
     has served to strengthen my resolve to do something about it 
     on a personal and professional level.

  Continued support for the Injury Prevention Program would allow 
scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis in New 
Haven, continue their work in preventing a disease that has its 
greatest impact on young people. Projects funded through the Injury 
Prevention Program have already had an impact in decreasing injury 
morbidity and mortality from recreational activities, fires, bicycle 
crashes, falls, domestic violence and other injury events. Restoring 
the funds for the center in New Haven will provide the opportunity for 
areas of research that have been ignored and developing interventions 
to decrease the toll that injury takes on our citizens.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, page 26, line 9 has very binding language 
as far as the CDC funding is concerned.
  It says as follows: Those funds may not be used to advocate or 
promote gun control. They will not be used for that purpose.
  As far as the rural health care argument is concerned, that 
particular budget, before this amendment which would add $2.6 million, 
before the change in appropriations, is going to go up 12.8 percent. 
With the additional money, it would go up 23 percent. All we are trying 
to do is to have the CDC budget stay the same.
  As to politically correct study aspects, the CDC has been dealing in 
these issues for a long time: Motor vehicle crashes, fires, drownings, 
falls, poisonings, suicide, and homicide. The Center's research has led 
to all manner of recommendations in this country with respect to 
helmets, with respect to storing guns and bullets separately, in 
dealing with all of the problems of injuries in this country. More 
people are dying by injuries every year in this country. We simply need 
to do something about it. There is a place for CDC to do this. There is 
a place to look at what we can do to prevent injuries and deaths from 
guns. It is not gun control. Please vote for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chair that each of the 
three participants with time now is down to one speaker, so the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 2 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again trying to separate symbol from 
substance, the bill language already clearly says that none of the 
funds made available for injury prevention may be used to advocate or 
promote gun control, courtesy of the Livingston-Obey amendment. So that 
problem is taken care of.
  The report language makes clear that CDC may continue to engage in 
all legitimate research and analysis. All it says is that the committee 
expects research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded 
through an impartial peer review process. It says, ``The committee does 
not believe it is the role of the CDC to advocate or promote policies 
to advance gun control initiatives or to discourage responsible private 
gun ownership.''
  We have already been told by supporters of the Lowey amendment that 
they no longer have any objection to that language. That means we 
simply have a choice about where the dollars ought to go.
  One can have a legitimate difference of opinion on that. All I would 
say is that I think the dollars are best spent if they remain where the 
committee put them in the Area Health Education Centers account. That 
has been a very tiny account. It is only $23 million.
  If you think $23 million is enough to spread around to all of the 
underserved rural areas of the country and the underserved urban areas 
of the country, you are looking at a different country than I am. Those 
underserved areas badly need those added resources. That is where the 
committee puts them. I would urge Members to make a choice on that 
basis and oppose the Lowey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the 
points that were brought out in this debate, because again I invite my 
colleagues who support the NRA, who believe that the individual citizen 
has the right to carry a gun, to join us in support of this amendment.
  I do that for the following reasons: First, I would like to clarify 
that the CDC's mission is to promote health, quality of life, by 
preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
  We have heard from doctors like Dr. Lundberg that violence is a 
public health emergency. We are not talking about taking away anyone's 
gun. This is not an advocacy amendment. We are talking about preventing 
violence. This is not duplicative. We have seen from studies that CDC 
does not duplicate the work of any other Federal agency or department 
in its work on firearm injuries. It focuses on the prevention of 
firearm injuries before they occur. The Department of Justice focuses 
on incarceration of offenders after the shootings occur. So we are not 
talking about taking away guns, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about 
preventing violence. That is why this agency has done such important 
work on conflict resolution, helping to prevent violence, working in 
our communities, working to prevent domestic violence. That is what 
this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge 
Members to work with me to stop the violence that pervades our 
communities and our country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey] for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Centers for Disease Control was given 
$75 million more than last year in this particular budget. But that is 
for disease control. It is not for political advocacy.
  So that the people here who are going to vote will know what the 
attitude of the Senate is, I have a letter here addressed to the 
chairman of the subcommittee in the Senate from 10 Senators, including 
Trent Lott, Don Nickles, and Larry Craig, who are part of the 
leadership. In that letter it states here,

       One of the most egregious of these is contained in a 
     publication called the Injury Prevention Network newsletter 
     which was funded by a grant from the NCIPC. This newsletter 
     contained purely political statements and appears to be 
     dissuading individuals from voting for certain political 
     party members.

  That is nothing but a lobbying group.
  I have another letter from the Help Network which is sponsored by 
NCIPC. In refusing to allow someone to come to one of the seminars that 
was provided by the Center, it stated: ``Your organization clearly does 
not share these beliefs and therefore does not meet the criteria for 
attendance at the meeting.''
  What are those beliefs? It is intended to be a meeting of like-minded 
individuals who represent organizations that believe handgun violence 
is a public

[[Page H7287]]

health crisis. They excluded someone, a doctor, a medical doctor who 
wanted to come to a meeting, and this was funded federally by this 
particular agency.
  We have had a decline in gun accidents. I want to be more specific on 
that. From 1967 to 1986 there was a rise in the number of handguns 
owned by 173 percent. The number of violent accidents that happened was 
reduced by two-thirds during that same period of time.
  The NRA has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever. It has not 
testified. I ask Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the Denver Post began its 
editorial supporting my legislation calling for objective scientific 
information about gun deaths the following way:

       The often overly emotional debate surrounding gun violence 
     in America disguises a curious lack of solid statistical 
     information about firearms and death. America needs better, 
     more objective information if it is to formulate rational 
     public policy.

  The debate on guns has been guided for too many years by glands. 
Let's give our brains a chance to figure out how we reduce the number 
of lives cut short by gun violence.
  The Lowey-Castle amendment restores the Injury Prevention and Control 
Program to its fiscal year 1996 level of $43.19 million. This is what 
the subcommittee approved for the program before the NRA exerted its 
influence.
  The Lowey-Castle amendment gives us a chance to rationally talk about 
gun and gun violence in a way where we are dealing with untainted 
science, rather than politicized rhetoric.
  Unbiased facts on guns and death would improve public policy. The 
Lowey-Castle amendment will allow the American people to get those 
objective facts.
  CDC's approach to violence prevention is based on science--good 
science. To ensure this level of credibility, the research on firearm 
injury prevention passes through two tough peer-review processes.
  This science can yield answers to questions being asked in 
communities around the country: How can we curb the number of 
unintentional deaths and injuries from firearms? Can we do anything to 
prevent violence in the streets, violence in the home, and violence in 
the schools?
  In 1992 alone, firearms were responsible for approximately 1,500 
unintentional deaths and an undetermined number of suicide attempts and 
non-fatal injuries. Are we not to try to figure out why and see how 
these unintentional injuries could be prevented? When Americans were 
dying by the hundreds due to automobile accidents, we turned to science 
to help us figure out how to prevent these deaths. The result? 
Seatbelts and child restraints. Perhaps if we take a scientific 
approach to firearms, we can find a similar solution.
  Let's give our brains a chance to treat violence as a major public 
health problem that can be solved. Vote for the Lowey-Castle amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment offered by my colleagues from New York and 
Delaware. This amendment calls for the reinstatement of $2.6 million 
for the Centers for Disease Control. Specifically, these funds would go 
to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC]. The 
NCIPC has produced studies relating to a multitude of issues addressing 
violence in America. For example, because of the work of this national 
center, we now know the effects of abuse on women and the preventive 
measures that will help to provide better intervention programs for 
batterers. The NCIPC also provided a study on the effects gun violence 
has on our health care system.
  I want to say to my colleagues that this is a serious public health 
issue that we cannot ignore. During hearings that my subcommittee held 
last Congress on ``Violence as a Public Health Issue,'' witness after 
witness discussed how violence in this society is having an 
increasingly negative impact on the public health sector. For example, 
the Centers for Disease Control reported that firearms have accounted 
for more than 90 percent of the upturn in homicides in young Americans 
since the mid-1980's. A recent Washington Post article reported guns 
kill more teenagers than cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and other 
diseases combined. In 1990, 57 percent of African-American teenagers 
who died, died because of a bullet. This issue is not only about lives 
lost, but also an issue of bad economics. In New York City hospitals, 
nearly 10 percent of all emergency room visits, that were the direct 
result of violence, are without coverage. This does not include 
followup visits. Simply stated, the cost to hospitals is enormous.
  Let us make no mistake: The Injury Prevention and Control Center is 
not promoting gun control; it is promoting new approaches to 
controlling violence and reducing injuries. The fact that most 
traumatic injuries are due to gun violence is not a rationale for 
eliminating funding for this important center's work. In this day and 
age doesn't it seem only reasonable that we should help promote any 
Federal program dedicated to the prevention of violence? I, therefore, 
urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Castle 
amendment.
  Two years ago, the NRA waged a campaign against the President's crime 
bill, arguing that crime prevention efforts--like shelters for battered 
women and rehab for drug addicts--were nothing more than ``pork.'' Now, 
the NRA and members of the new majority, have aimed their assault 
weapons at the Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. The NRA succeeded in 
pushing an amendment to cut $2.6 million--the exact amount budgeted for 
the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control [NCIPC]--from the 
CDC's budget.
  The NCIPC does research on injuries and links it to health outcomes. 
They have found that there are 56,000 violence-related fatalities a 
year, which includes 37,000 deaths from firearm injuries. They also 
estimate that there are approximately 100,000 nonfatal shootings each 
year--and that the resulting injuries burden an already over-extended 
health care system.
  Other projects have included: Examining the effectiveness of methods 
like interventions with batterers, preventative education, and better 
enforcement of protective laws by the police and court system; and 
helping states to collect data on violence against women and services 
available to these women while evaluating training programs for health 
care providers in order to identify, treat, and refer victims of 
violence.
  It's clear to me that these studies don't fit the NRA's accusations 
that the NCIPC engages in ``recklessly biased research and blatant 
political advocacy.'' But, it should come as no surprise that the NRA, 
and members of the radical right want to kill this program--because 
it's the year of an all-out assault on American women and children.
  The NCIPC's research is vital in our efforts to learn what causes gun 
violence, violence against women, and what we can do to prevent it. 
That the NRA squeals that programs like these are ``pork'' shows their 
desperation--they can't further their extremist goals if we engage in 
studies and discussion of gun violence as a public health issue. The 
NRA has fought to kill NCIPC funding for one reason, they know they 
can't really argue against studies that will protect our children, and 
reduce deaths due to domestic violence. In this case, the NRA and the 
radical right are saying, if you fear it, kill it--and in doing so, 
they are blocking progress in ending violence against women and their 
families.
  Vote to end family violence, support the Lowey-Castle amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments at this point?


                      amendment offered by mr. ney

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ney: On page 22, line 22, strike 
     ``$3,080,190,000'' and insert ``$3,082,190,000'' and on page 
     57 after line 13, insert:
       Sec. 215. Amounts available in this title for Congressional 
     and legislative affairs, public affairs, and 
     intergovernmental affairs activities are hereby reduced by 
     $2,000,000.

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1969 Congress passed the Black Lung 
Benefits Act upon realizing that specialized pulmonary medical services 
were needed in the Nation's coal fields. They also realized that 
Federal support would be needed to develop these services.
  The main goal of the Black Lung Clinics Program has always been to 
keep respiratory patients out of the hospital by utilizing preventive 
medicine in the fields. Mr. Chairman, these patients are extremely 
expensive to treat. The Black Lung Clinics Program also guarantees that 
respiratory disease patients will have the medical care they need even 
if they cannot afford it.
  However, this year the Black Lung Clinics Program is funded at the 
level of $1.9 million which is the same level requested by the 
President in his fiscal year 1997 budget proposal. Unfortunately this 
would represent about a 50-percent reduction from the fiscal year

[[Page H7288]]

1996 funding level of $3.8 million. It should also be noted that in 
fiscal year 1996 the Black Lung Clinics Program received a funding 
reduction of about 8 percent. My amendment merely restores funding for 
Black Lung Clinics to the original level.
  It has been recently brought to my attention, and I hope my 
colleagues listen closely to this point, that some confusion has arisen 
between the Black Lung Clinics Program and the Black Lung Benefits 
Program. as you know, the Black Lung Benefits Program pays disability 
and medical benefits only to those coal miners that are found to have 
black lung disease. On the other hand, the Black Lung Clinics Program 
currently has 40 black lung clinic sites and 27 mobile units throughout 
the United States, providing preventive health care to over 165,000 
coal miners in our country.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, coal miners have helped to build this great Nation, and 
they made it what it is today. Through no fault of their own, many 
miners are now constricted by a variety of respiratory illnesses 
contracted through occupational hazards, and that is associated with 
the mining of coal.
  I ask my colleagues for their support in restoring funding for the 
Black Lung Clinics Program. I can assure my colleagues that this money 
will be spent wisely on hard-working Americans whose industries have 
been decimated by previous acts and rules and regulations around 1990.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would be remiss if I did not thank the gentleman 
from Illinois, Chairman Porter, and his staff for their efforts, also 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and his staff for their efforts 
on this, and the diligent work of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Poshard, who worked with this to help make this amendment come about. 
Also the support of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans], the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Weller], and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  I again urge your support of a very important amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we believe very strongly that the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has targeted a very, very serious problem. Black 
lung is a pernicious disease. We support the amendment, commend him for 
his leadership and urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, on this side, let me say I have mixed feelings about 
the gentleman's amendment because I do agree with his effort to add 
funding for the Black Lung Clinic's Program. I am dubious about the 
fairness of taking the funding from the area the gentleman takes it 
from, but with the clear understanding that the source of this will 
have to be fixed and rearranged in conference, I, at this point, would 
have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would accept it on 
this side.
  Mr. POSHARD, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the 
Ney amendment. I represent a district in southeastern Illinois that 
once was home to a large and prosperous coal mining industry--one that 
employed thousands of miners and provided a strong economy for our 
region. Unfortunately, many of these miners, who have since lost their 
jobs, now suffer from black lung disease.
  Withut a strong Black Lung Clinic Program, many of the coal miners in 
my district and across the Nation suffering from this disease will no 
longer have access to needed health care services. I am afraid that 
because of a weakened economy and high unemployment, many of the miners 
in my district will be forced to seek more costly services.
  The fact is decreasing funding for the Black Lung Clinic Program will 
only increase the cost of health care for all Americans and the burden 
on Federal and State governments. Those currently seeking the services 
of black lung clinics do not want to be forced onto public aid and into 
welfare simply because they can no longer afford and have access to 
these services.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Ney amendment 
to restore level funding to the Black Lung Clinic Program, and to be 
champions of cost-effective health care services in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Ney].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


 medical facilities guarantee and loan fund federal interest subsidies 
                         for medical facilities

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $7,000,000, together with any 
     amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans 
     and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health 
     Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation 
     for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal 
     year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees 
     shall be made.


               health education assistance loans program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended: 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 total loan principal any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed at not to exceed $140,000,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $2,688,000.


             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.


                      vaccine injury compensation

       For payment of claims resolved by the United States Court 
     of Federal Claims related to the administration of vaccines 
     before October 1, 1988, $110,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 
     202, and 203 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
     1977, and sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; including insurance of official motor 
     vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, $2,153,376,000, of which $8,353,000 
     shall remain available until expended for equipment and 
     construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition, 
     such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which 
     shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition 
     to amounts provided herein, up to $48,400,000 shall be 
     available from amounts available under section 241 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center 
     for Health Statistics surveys: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available for injury prevention and control at 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to 
     advocate or promote gun control.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair whether or not it would 
be in order, if the gentleman from Illinois concurs, to ask unanimous 
consent to take out of order the Condit amendment and dispose of it. I 
understand that after a colloquy the gentleman has agreed to withdraw 
the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, how much time 
will it take?
  Mr. OBEY. I think less than 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman that by 
unanimous consent that can certainly be done. Is the gentleman from 
Wisconsin asking unanimous consent?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the Condit 
amendment out of order at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] is 
recognized for purposes of offering an amendment out of order.


                    amendment offered by mr. condit

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: Page 87, after line 14, 
     insert the following new section:

[[Page H7289]]

       Sec. 515. The amount provided in this Act for ``DEPARTMENT 
     OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Administration for Children and 
     Families--Refugee and entrant assistance'' is increased, and 
     each other amount provided in this Act that is not required 
     to be provided by a provision of law is reduced, by 
     $487,000,000 and 0.9 percent, respectively.

  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, by the end of the fiscal year, nearly 150 
Hmong refugees will be reunited with their families in the 18th 
Congressional District of California. It is morally right for us to 
allow these families to be reunified after decades of separation. 
However, it is morally imperative that the Federal Government assure 
the communities of the resettlement that their new residents will not 
place undue strain on already scarce local resources. Unfortunately in 
the past, this commitment has never been fully met.
  The underlying law, which establishes cash and medical assistance to 
refugees, provides such assistance to continue for 36 months. The 
appropriations bill before us today provides assistance for only 8 
months. For many refugees unfamiliar with life in the United States, 8 
months of assistance is simply not enough. The 8 months ends, but the 
need remains for much longer. Invariably, it is the State and local 
communities which are left to fill the void. This is unacceptable.
  The amendment which I offer today would increase refugee cash and 
medical assistance levels to the point at which they would reach their 
36-month threshold authorized in law. In reality, the need is much 
greater, even than that, even than my amendment today, Mr. Chairman, 
proposes. Many refugees require aid as long as they live here. The 
number in my amendments are the best estimates of those who administer 
th program based on the broad numbers assumptions, but the fact is 
clear, the money in the appropriation bill on the floor today does not 
even begin to cover the cost of the refugees and assimilate the 
refugees into their new communities.
  The burden they are placing on social services is breaking the back 
of communities like my home community of Merced County. In Merced 
County, CA, in my district, the unemployment rate is over 20 percent, 
and almost half of the population is in some sort of public assistance 
program. Clearly, communities such as Merced need to be compensated, 
and this needs to be thoroughly thought out, and they need help under 
these very difficult circumstances in assimilating additional refugees 
into the community.
  We must begin to increase our sensitivity to this issue. Granted, 
many of these problems transcend finances. It is undisputed that 
structural changes are necessary in the way we resettle refugees, and I 
have been working with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the 
chairman of the committee on legislation to achieve this much-needed 
change. But in the meantime, the issue of money is not trivial. It is 
extremely important.
  I am pleased that this year the office of refugee resettlement 
received a comparably generous level of funding in this lean budgetary 
time. Yet the amount is still pale in comparison to what local 
communities need and to the funding level originally intended by 
Congress. I am hopeful that the committee in the future will impart the 
greatness, at least discuss the importance of the Federal 
responsibility in this area, and would ask the chairman and the ranking 
member if they would just for a moment engage me in a colloquy on this 
matter.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to engage my colleague from 
California in a colloquy. I understand that this is an issue of Federal 
accountability, and I share the gentleman's concern for local areas 
strapped by the demands of refugee resettlement. While there may be 
more to be done, I believe that the increase in funding for the office 
of refugee settlement over the administration's request represents our 
real commitment to these programs.
  However, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman in the future 
to assure that this issue continues to receive the committee's full 
attention. I will be happy to work with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] during the 
conference on this matter.
  Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my timing, I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
for entering into this colloquy. I also want to thank the chairman for 
all his hard work on this legislation. I realize the difficult 
balancing act which it represents, and so I greatly appreciate the 
gentleman's effort to protect the current funding for refugee 
assistance. It also goes without saying any additional funding which 
may emerge in conference with the Senate would be most helpful.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. I commend him 
for his successful effort in assuring a more substantive level of 
funding for refugees and his assistance in the bill which is before us 
today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for helping us to raise 
this issue because it is important for Members to understand what is 
happening. I happen to share the problem that the gentleman has in his 
district.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman referred to Hmong refugees. For those people 
who do not understand who they are, during the Vietnam war, the Hmong 
did our CIA's dirty work in Laos. They took a lot of guff. They 
suffered a lot of casualties. When the war effort collapsed, a lot of 
them came to this country. More are now coming. If we did not want to 
incur more obligation to the Hmong, then we should not have asked for 
their help undercover during the Vietnam war. It is just that simple.
  They performed a service for this country and that is the reason that 
they are now here, because their country has collapsed. The problem, 
however, is that when the Federal Government made a foreign policy 
decision to allow them into this country, it did not follow up that 
decision with the provision to deliver adequate support to the local 
districts so that education costs, welfare costs, and other costs would 
not have to be borne by local taxpayers who never made that foreign 
policy decision.
  That is why, during the immigration bill, I tried to offer an 
amendment which would correct the problem, because I think that there 
is a bigger problem than just the absence of money. I think the current 
system is broken. The problem is that refugees are abandoned at the 
doorstep of the local welfare office. This condemns those refugees to 
the welfare treadmill and it condemns local communities to having to 
pay large amounts of their support.

  Mr. Chairman, that is why I tried on the immigration bill last year 
to require private voluntary organizations to actually assume their 
obligations and become true sponsors of refugees through an intensive 
case management approach of job skills and that our proposal would have 
barred able-bodied refugees from any cash assistance during their first 
year in the United States.
  This approach was tried on a pilot basis by Catholic Charities in 
Chicago and San Diego. They reduced welfare levels to a very low level. 
It was also tried by the Cuban American National Foundation in Florida. 
Both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration tried to 
adopt this approach but they were prevented in court from doing so, and 
I am extremely unhappy that the Committee on Rules prevented us from 
attacking this problem on the immigration bill.
  But I want to assure the gentleman that my interest remains and I 
know the gentleman has already joined in sponsoring that legislation 
with me. But I would invite other Members who are aware of the problem 
to join us, as well, because it is a serious problem. Local taxpayers 
should not be left holding the bag for a foreign policy decision, and I 
congratulate the gentleman for helping us to once again bring this to 
the attention of the House

[[Page H7290]]

and look forwarding to the opportunity to work with him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the chairman, Mr. 
Porter, and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, for their willingness to 
discuss this matter. This is an important matter to, I think, a lot of 
people in my district, as well as the district of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and probably other people throughout the country.
  We are not opposed to the people coming to our district, I want to 
underline that. We are not opposed to that. We just simply think it is 
unfair to bring them there and not give them the wherewithal to 
assimilate them into the community. It is unfair to them. It is unfair 
to the citizens around them. It puts an undue burden on the social 
structure, social services in the community. We welcome them there, we 
want them there, but we want them to be able to be constructive, 
important components of the community.
  So with that, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the 
ranking member, and I look forward to working with both of them.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, $33,642,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40151 
     and 40261 of Public Law 103-322.

                     National Institutes of Health


                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $2,385,741,000.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodling

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--National 
     Institutes of Health''--
       (1) in the item relating to ``national cancer institute'', 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $48,902,000)'';
       (2) in the item relating to ``national heart, lung, and 
     blood institute'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $29,581,000)'';
       (3) in the item relating to ``national institute of dental 
     research'', after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $4,499,000)'';
       (4) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases'', after the 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $17,270,000)'';
       (5) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     neurological disorders and stroke'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $15,826,000)'';
       (6) in the item relating to ``national institute of allergy 
     and infectious diseases'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $31,124,000)'';
       (7) in the item relating to ``national institute of general 
     medical sciences'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,175,000)'';
       (8) in the item relating to ``national institute of child 
     health and human development'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $13,293,000)'';
       (9) in the item relating to ``national eye institute'', 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $6,816,000)'';
       (10) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     environmental health sciences'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $7,058,000)'';
       (11) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     aging'', after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $10,947,000)'';
       (12) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases'', after the 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $5,319,000)'';
       (13) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     deafness and other communication disorders'', after the 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $4,566,000)'';
       (14) in the item relating to ``national institute of 
     nursing research'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,385,000)'';
       (15) in the item relating to ``national institute on 
     alcohol abuse and alcoholism'', after the dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $4,857,000)'';
       (16) in the item relating to ``national institute on drug 
     abuse'', after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $10,377,000)'';
       (17) in the item relating to ``national institute of mental 
     health'', after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $14,462,000)'';
       (18) in the item relating to ``national center for research 
     resources'', after the dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $9,311,000)'';
       (19) in the item relating to ``national center for human 
     genome research'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $6,923,000)'';
       (20) in the item relating to ``john e. fogarty 
     international center'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $490,000)'';
       (21) in the item relating to ``national library of 
     medicine'', after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,251,000)'';
       (22) in the item relating to ``office of the director'', 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $5,450,000)''; and
       (23) in the item relating to ``buildings and facilities'', 
     after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $19,118,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--special 
     education'', after each of the two dollar amounts, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $291,000,000)''.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that 
10 minutes be allocated to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] and 10 minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, to put it very bluntly, my amendment 
would increase the Federal appropriation for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. IDEA is the Federal law supporting 
our Nation's special education system. It was originally passed 21 
years ago. It was supposed to be a partnership between the Federal 
Government, States, and local government, but that partnership has 
disintegrated. But before that I would say that last month we passed by 
voice vote a comprehensive reform of IDEA. In that bill the central 
partnership of IDEA remained unchanged. But let me tell my colleagues 
what the partnership was all about 21 years ago.
  Twenty-one years ago this Congress said we have a partnership with 
State and local governments. We will tell you exactly what you will do, 
how you will do it, when you will do it; we will mandate everything, 
but as partners, we are going to give you 40 percent of the money for 
all of our mandates.
  Anybody have any idea how much they got last year? Less than 7 
percent; 21 years later our partnership has provided less than 7 
percent of the 40 percent we promised.
  We should have been promising 100 percent if we were going to mandate 
100 percent. The greatest problem facing local school districts at the 
present time is this tremendously unfunded mandate from the Federal 
Government, IDEA. It costs almost 2.5 times more to educate an IDEA 
student than it does to educate any other student. And without Federal 
support, the only place the local districts have to get that money is 
to take it from the rest of the students because of a Federal mandate.
  Now, for 20 years, as a minority member, I tried to get the then 
Democrat majority to live up to the obligation that we said we were 
going to carry out when we passed the legislation. In fact, in a 
bipartisan effort on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Congressman Kildee, and I worked out a plan where we would 
get close to the 40 percent over a 5-year period simply by increasing 
by 5 percent per year. But look what has happened. We promised 40 
percent and we should get there.
  In fact, Mr. Perkins, when he was the chairman and when IDEA was 
originally on the floor in 1975, said,

       Members should understand that while the legislation will 
     place the Federal Government in a more active role of 
     financing the education of handicapped children, it does so 
     in gradual fashion and in a manner which can only be 
     described as fiscally responsible.

  Senator Randolph said,

       This measure will provide for a gradually increasing 
     Federal fiscal role for the education of handicapped 
     children. . . . Beginning in fiscal year 1978 a new formula 
     will target Federal monies for handicapped children by paying 
     a specified percentage of the

[[Page H7291]]

     average per pupil expenditure multiplied by the number of 
     handicapped children receiving special education and related 
     services in a State.
       This percentage will increase gradually from 5 percent of 
     the average per pupil expenditure in 1978 to 40 percent in 
     1982.

  Not 1996; 1982. Our support is going down, folks. And what is 
happening to local school districts? The cost of special education has 
skyrocketed. It has skyrocketed for many reasons; first of all, a 
number of children are born to drug-addicted mothers. Second, it has 
skyrocketed because of expenses that local districts must pay defending 
themselves when they get into a conflict with a parent. And there are 
many other reasons.

  But what happens all the time, and particularly from my side of the 
aisle, they will say, boy, the cost of education today is skyrocketing 
and yet education is not any better. Never does anyone say, however, 
that much of that escalated cost comes from Federal Government 
mandates, and this is the biggest one.
  We do not mandate chapter 1; we do not mandate early childhood 
education programs; we do mandate IDEA, but we do not pay for it. The 
local district is caught having to pay for that.
  So I merely ask that we take $291 million, not from NIH but from an 
increase for NIH. Under this bill, that increase is 6.8 percent. This 
amendment would make it only a 4.4-percent increase, which is a 10.5-
percent increase over the last 2 years.
  Let me point out, by the time this bill is finished in conference, no 
matter how much we may decrease NIH at this particular time, I 
guarantee Members that it will be more than the 6.8 percent that the 
House has in the bill now. And how can I say that? Because just last 
week I was with the senior citizen from Pennsylvania. Excuse me, I am 
the senior citizen from Pennsylvania; he is the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania. As we traveled through a disaster area in Gettysburg, he 
said, ``Goodling, you can tell Porter that I already told NIH that 
there is no way Porter can outbid me, that I will make sure they get 
more from me than he can possibly promise them.''
  It was suggested to me that this can be taken care of in conference, 
and we can get this measly 1 percent increase. Take $291 million from a 
$283 billion appropriations bill? Well, I would like to believe that we 
could get that, but we went through this last year, and I assumed that 
we would get an increase last year. Now, the negotiations were taken 
out of the hands of the people that normally negotiate, but in the end, 
we did not get a penny, not one penny.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues on both sides, 
and particularly on this side, to heed the wisdom of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, and I would ask my 
colleagues this: Have you not heard from your school districts, your 
school boards, and your local mill levy taxpayers about the cost of 
your schools? Well, the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, is taking a fairly good step to try to solve that problem 
of local school costs.
  One of the reasons, as the gentleman has noted, that local school 
costs are climbing like they are is because the Federal share, the 
promised, guaranteed but reneged on Federal share of educating 
America's disabled students is on the decrease. The gentleman is trying 
to stop that hemorrhage, and I urge my colleagues on behalf of their 
local taxpayers to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments.
  Let me again indicate that contrary to what a lady from Hanover, in 
my district, called this morning to say, I am not taking money from her 
sick family.
  How could anything be more wrong than a statement like that? I am 
trying to get a little bit of the increase to NIH moved to IDEA. I 
cannot emphasize enough how much we mandated everything in that law. We 
promised them 40 percent. Last year they got somewhere between 6 and 7 
percent, and this year they do not get a penny more.
  So I would encourage all to keep in mind that we made a great promise 
21 years ago. We called it a partnership, but the partnership turned 
out to be ``we will dictate from Washington everything you will do, and 
you will pay for it, because we said you will pay for it.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I do that 
reluctantly because first of all, I have a great respect for him, I 
served on the committee for 2 years with him, and also because I agree 
with most of what he said concerning the IDEA program and the problems 
about mandates.
  My opposition to it is not about the IDEA program or the question of 
mandates; my opposition is the cuts in NIH funding. The National 
Institutes of Health is really one of the crown jewels of the Federal 
Government, something we can all be proud of. This is the area where 
dozens and dozens of Nobel Prize winners come out of.
  The National Institutes of Health is where the National Cancer 
Institute is located, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. 
This is where AIDS research is done.
  Now, it is not all done at the National Institutes of Health; 78 
percent of the money for the National Institutes of Health is given in 
extramural grants to universities and research centers all over the 
United States. In fact, over 1,700 institutions in the United States 
receive grants from the NIH. Some 78 percent of the money goes all over 
the United States, and that is what is funding AIDS research, heart 
disease research, cancer research.
  We have to make such touch choices when we are on Appropriations and 
Budget, and really this gives a great illustration of the touch choices 
we are faced with. I am a very strong believer in basic biomedical 
research, and we have to continue to provide that kind of support.
  I urge my colleagues, we have made the choices, we have made the 
decision, let me see if we can find more money from the IDEA program, 
but let us not cut the National Institutes of Health. I urge opposition 
to the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the full committee and the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot disagree with a single word uttered 
by the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, or 
whatever the new title is now. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] has had a long commitment to education for the handicapped, 
and I respect it and I share it.
  I would simply say that the problem with the amendment is not where 
he wants to put the money; it is what has to be cut in order to fund 
it. The basic problem we have is that this problem cannot be fixed 
under the allocation process given to us by the Speaker and by the 
leadership of the Republican Party in the House.
  Any time that this House decides it is going to add $11 billion above 
the President's request for the Pentagon, then we have to expect that 
that money is going to come out of somewhere. And that means that we 
have less available to put in this bill, less available to put in 
housing, less available to put in environmental protection.
  That is the nub of the problem. That is why on this side of the aisle 
we fiercely oppose the allocation that led this subcommittee into this 
hole. At this point Mr. Goodling has no choice but to try to find a 
source within this bill to fund this amendment, and the problem is the 
source he has selected means that we would reduce the number of 
competing research grants at NIH by 282 new researchers, we would slow 
research development from the committee bill for Alzheimer's disease, 
for developmental diagnostics of breast and prostate cancer, cancer 
genetic studies, et cetera, et cetera.
  I do not think Members want to do that. I do not think Members want 
to vote against the Goodling amendment either. So what I would suggest 
be done, Mr. Chairman, is that for every

[[Page H7292]]

Member in this House, no matter which party they belong to, who would 
like to do what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is asking that we do, I 
would suggest that you go to your leadership, explain that the 
allocation process which they have supported has short-sheeted this 
committee and that this subcommittee needs more resources, and we ought 
not be increasing the Pentagon budget by $11 billion in the process.

                              {time}  1345

  These decisions are not the fault of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter]; they are the fault of the allocation process which in my view 
has been severely warped, which causes all of the reductions that lead 
us to oppose this bill in general.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise us about the 
allocation of the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 6 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the chair of the Biomedical Research Caucus.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, just as the other Members have expressed the pain that 
they are sustaining at having to disagree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my colleague, I must say that it is doubly 
painful for me because we are neighbors in spirit, neighbors in 
geography, neighbors in congressional districts, and I believe until 
now good friends. We will see, following this presentation of mine, 
whether we remain, but I think we will be on equanimity when I 
terminate.
  Mr. Chairman, the biomedical research that is conducted by the 
National Institutes of Health has for years shown a steady progress in 
the prevention of disease and fight against disease. That goes without 
saying.
  The programs that the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to support 
also show the necessity for this society to do something about a 
special problem, namely with special education.
  The problem that we had in determining how to vote on this bill is, 
which is an orange, which is an apple, which one will we put in our own 
fruit basket?
  For now it seems that we have to stick with the NIH, the orange of 
this combination, because in the long run it also helps disabled 
students. The NIH, if it completes its work, and, of course, it will 
never complete its work, will some day bring us a startling discovery 
that will prevent a whole generation perhaps of disabled students, the 
very students which the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to help by 
transferring this fund.
  We have made a commitment to NIH because it is a national problem of 
discipline in the research and bringing about of remedies for disease. 
The disabled children will be helped by that.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have the utmost respect for the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the 
authorizing committee. We work well together. We have attempted to 
reflect his priorities in our appropriations, and have done the very 
best that we can with limited resources to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman correctly puts his finger on an area of 
funding that is a very high priority for our country. Special education 
for handicapped children certainly is very high on our priority list, 
and he correctly points out that it is an unfunded mandate that the 
Federal Government promised to meet and has fallen far short of 
meeting.
  I might say to the gentleman, however, that the bill, this bill 
alone, this one bill, provides about $10 billion of assistance to 
children with disabilities. It is provided in different ways, not just 
through the education system, but through Medicaid and through SSI, 
where kids are helped. That, of course, does not help the budgets of 
the school districts involved, I realize. But it is not as if this 
country and this Congress and this side of the aisle is not making a 
very strong commitment to kids with disabilities. We are.
  I might repeat a point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Gekas] just made, and I want to make it more forcefully even than he 
did. That is, if we can invest money in biomedical research, we can 
over time prevent the very disabilities that end up with kids having to 
have special education in our schools.
  So it is the primary investment that I want to support, to make 
certain that we do not have a growing population of kids with 
disabilities but a reducing population, and hopefully at some point in 
time, absolutely none; every kid able to be in school without special 
education funding and the need for special education treatment.
  HIH is a priority for our country. NIH is perhaps the best money we 
spend. The entire cost of biomedical research has been saved in America 
by one discovery. All the costs of NIH through its entire history have 
been paid for through one discovery, and there have been tens of 
thousands of discoveries. It is a tremendously efficient investment for 
our country. We lead the world in biomedical research. We improve 
the lives of people not only in our country but everywhere on earth 
through the discoveries made. There are tough choices to be made.

  Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania in closing 
that I will do everything possible in conference and in negotiations 
with the White House, if I am permitted to be a part of those 
negotiations, to bring up funding for this very high priority. Special 
education for disabled kids is a priority for our country, and I think 
the gentleman puts his finger upon a problem that we must address and 
correct.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time, and I thank him for the leadership that he has shown for 
biomedical research.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Institutes of Health, as has been stated 
by my colleagues, has done phenomenal work in terms of seeking remedies 
through research, from the time a child is born through the elderly, 
with women's health. This is now the midpoint in the decade of the 
brain. Some incredible research has yielded some fantastic results 
which it comes to juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, coming to grips with 
some of the major problems we have had.
  We know that the work that is being done, as one small example, that 
if we arrest Alzheimer's for 5 years we save $40 billion. This is the 
kind of research, as has been stated, that is going to allow these 
young people who have taken advantage of the IDEA Act to find that they 
have the cures.
  So, Mr. Chairman, IDEA is a very good program. We can work it out in 
conference. It has been funded as it was last year. Let us keep this 
money in NIH. It will make a difference in health care.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairamn, in closing I want to say that, number one, I am not 
taking any money that NIH presently has. They will still have a 10.5 
percent increase in this Congress. But all of our biomedical research 
is not going to do anything to stop the number of youngsters that will 
be coming into IDEA because of mothers and fathers who are drug 
addicted, and mothers who are smoking and drinking during pregnancy. 
All of those things are going to continue to bring more and more young 
people into IDEA.
  IDEA is a mandate from the Federal Government, one of the few in this 
entire bill when you get beyond Medicaid and Medicare. Yet what do we 
do about it? We just give lip service. In fact, even worse than that, 
as the chart shows, we decrease the amount, not increase, the amount 
that we promised 21 years ago and just last month. We are down to less 
than 7 percent, and who knows where we will be by the time conference 
is over?
  Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that the leadership that I pleaded with 
for 6 months to do something about this issue will do something for 
someone who plays on the team, rather than what I see in this bill, 
with all sorts of increases for those who give the leadership fits on 
many issues. Maybe that is the way Members get something around here, 
and if that is the way it

[[Page H7293]]

is, I will have to change my sweet disposition and become a miserable 
cuss.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to compliment the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his excellent leadership in developing a very 
good bill under very difficult circumstances. The subcommittee faced a 
very restricted 602(b) which made difficult choices necessary.
  I want to compliment the gentleman particularly for providing 
important increases for the National Institutes of Health. These 
increases total $819.6 million over last year and $340.9 million over 
the President's request.
  But, as the chairman knows, liver disease affects 25 million people 
and there has been a recent 11 percent surge in the number of people 
affected by hepatitis C. Dr. Tony Fauci recently talked about the need 
for ``a strong commitment to basic and clinical research'' to address 
new emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. Dr. Fauci specifically 
mentioned liver disease due to the hepatitis C virus as one of those 
emerging diseases.
  Does the gentleman from Illinois agree with me that liver disease due 
to hepatitis C virus is a very serious public health problem to which 
the National Institutes of Health should give priority?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree, and would encourage NIH 
to sue all of the mechanisms at its disposal to create a balanced 
interdisciplinary program of basic, applied, and clinical research to 
learn more about the ways to treat, cure, and prevent hepatitis C.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response.
  My second question relates to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. I understand from the private organizations which are 
trying to respond to the public's need for information about liver 
disease that they have experienced a fourfold increase in public 
inquiries about liver disease from patients, family members and 
physicians. Does the gentleman believe that the CDC has a role to play 
in meeting this public demand for information on liver disease?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, I certainly believe it is within the mission of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention to inform the public about this serious 
risk, and the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases such as 
hepatitis. I would encourage the agency to work collaboratively with 
national voluntary health organizations, which include professional 
societies and community-based patient groups, to help meet this need.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
his response. I feel strongly that the CDC should actively pursue a 
public information campaign to meet the rapid growth in public 
inquiries about liver disease.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] in a colloquy regarding traumatic brain injury. As the 
gentleman is aware, I have been working for 3 years for enactment of a 
comprehensive bill to address the needs of those affected with 
traumatic brain injury.
  H.R. 248, of course, the Traumatic Brain Injury Act, passed the House 
earlier this week and is expected to pass the Senate before the week is 
out. We believe it will be this evening. The bill authorizes a number 
of activities that are essential to those with serious brain injuries: 
Prevention projects, enhanced NIH research, demonstration projects to 
improve access to health services, and epidemiological data collection.
  We had hoped this bill would be signed into law by the time the House 
considered the Labor-HHS appropriation so that we could take the next 
step to fund these important new activities. I realize that that will 
not be possible under the rules of the House, but I would ask the 
chairman if he would consider supporting these activities in later 
action on the bill once they are authorized.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to respond to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, and want to applaud his diligent efforts to enact 
legislation to address this important health problem.
  As you point out, we cannot fund programs that have not yet been 
authorized, but if H.R. 248 is enacted in a timely way, it is my hope 
that the Senate and eventually the conferees will support its 
activities.

                              {time}  1400

  I am sure my colleagues on the committee recognize how devastating 
traumatic brain injury is to our country and its citizens, and we will 
do everything to be of help in this regard.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $1,438,265,000.


                 national institute of dental research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $195,596,000.


    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney diseases, $819,224,000.


        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $725,478,000.


         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $1,256,149,000.


             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $1,003,722,000.


        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $631,989,000.


                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $333,131,000.


          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $308,258,000.


                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $484,375,000.


 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $257,637,000.


    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $189,243,000.


                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $59,715,000.


           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $212,079,000.


                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $487,341,000.


                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $701,247,000.


                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $416,523,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support

[[Page H7294]]

     grants program any amount for indirect expenses in connection 
     with such grants: Provided further, That $37,000,000 shall be 
     for extramural facilities construction grants.


               national center for human genome research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $189,267,000.


                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $26,707,000.


                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $150,093,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 1997, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.


                         office of the director

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $275,423,000: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all 
     National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities 
     the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such 
     appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 1 
     percent by any such transfers and that the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer: Provided further, That NIH 
     is authorized to collect third party payments for the cost of 
     clinical services that are incurred in National Institutes of 
     Health research facilities and that such payments shall be 
     credited to the National Institutes of Health Management 
     Fund: Provided further, That all funds credited to the NIH 
     Management Fund shall remain available for one fiscal year 
     after the fiscal year in which they are deposited.


                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $90,000,000 shall be for the clinical research 
     center: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a single contract or related contracts for the 
     development and construction of the clinical research center 
     may be employed which collectively include the full scope of 
     the project: Provided further, That the solicitation and 
     contract shall contain the clause ``availability of funds'' 
     found at 48 CFR 52.232-18.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to program management, 
     $1,849,235,000.


     retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, and for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan and for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year.

               Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


                    health care policy and research

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $90,469,000; in addition, amounts received from Freedom 
     of Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to 
     this appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $34,700,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration


                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $75,056,618,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 1997, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 1997 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, 
     $27,988,993,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.


                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social 
     Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $60,079,000,000.


                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, title XIII of the 
     Public Health Service Act, and the Clinical Laboratory 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988, not to exceed $1,733,125,000, 
     to be transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     authorized by section 201(g) of the Social Security Act; 
     together with all funds collected in accordance with section 
     353 of the Public Health Service Act, the latter funds to 
     remain available until expended, together with such sums as 
     may be collected from authorized user fees and the sale of 
     data, which shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701 from 
     organizations established under title XIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act are to be credited to and available for 
     carrying out the purposes of this appropriation.


      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 1997, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families


                   family support payments to states

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, except as otherwise provided, under titles I, IV-A 
     (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of 
     the Social Security Act, and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 
     U.S.C. ch. 9), $13,301,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-A and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, for the last three months of the current year for 
     unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year, 
     such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-A (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, 
     XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of 
     July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9) for the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 1998, $4,700,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                   job opportunities and basic skills

       For carrying out aid to families with dependent children 
     work programs, as authorized by part F of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,000,000,000.


                   low income home energy assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, $900,000,000.


                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $412,076,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 103-
     333 for fiscal year 1995 shall be available for the costs of 
     assistance provided and other activities conducted in such 
     year and in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.


                 child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $950,000,000, which 
     shall be available for obligation under the same statutory 
     terms and conditions applicable in the prior fiscal year: 
     Provided, That $13,000,000 shall become available for 
     obligation on October 1, 1996.


                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $2,480,000,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 2003(c) of such Act, the amount 
     specified for allocation under such section for fiscal year 
     1997 shall be $2,480,000,000.


                children and families services programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act, the Native American Programs Act 
     of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption 
     opportunities), the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988, 
     and part B(1) of title IV of the Social Security Act; for 
     making payments under the Community Services Block Grant Act; 
     and for necessary

[[Page H7295]]

     administrative expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I, 
     IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the 
     Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, and section 126 and titles IV and V 
     of Public Law 100-485, $4,854,036,000, of which $531,941,000 
     shall be for making payments under the Community Services 
     Block Grant Act: Provided, That to the extent Community 
     Services Block Grant funds are distributed as grant funds 
     by a State to an eligible entity as provided under the 
     Act, and have not been expended by such entity, they shall 
     remain with such entity for carryover into the next fiscal 
     year for expenditure by such entity consistent with 
     program purposes.
       In addition, $27,358,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40155, 
     40211 and 40241 of Public Law 103-322.


                    family preservation and support

       For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act, 
     $240,000,000.


       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
     $4,445,031,000.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, for 
     the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, $1,111,000,000.

                        Administration on Aging


                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $810,545,000.

                        Office of the Secretary


                    general departmental management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and 
     for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public 
     Health Service Act, $148,999,000, together with $5,851,000, 
     to be transferred and expended as authorized by section 
     201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading for carrying out title XVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act, $11,500,000 shall be available until expended 
     for extramural construction.


                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $29,399,000, together with any funds, to 
     remain available until expended, that represent the equitable 
     share from the forfeiture of property in investigations in 
     which the Office of Inspector General participated, and which 
     are transferred to the Office of the Inspector General by the 
     Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, or the 
     United States Postal Service.


                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $16,066,000, together with not to exceed $3,314,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.


                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act, $9,000,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to withhold payment to any State under the Child 
     Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act by reason of a 
     determination that the State is not in compliance with 
     section 1340.2(d)(2)(ii) of title 45 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations. This provision expires upon the date of 
     enactment of the reauthorization of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay 
     the salary of an individual, through a grant or other 
     extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of $125,000 per 
     year.
       Sec. 206. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     expended pursuant to section 241 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, except for funds specifically provided for in this Act, 
     or for other taps and assessments made by any office located 
     in the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to the 
     Secretary's preparation and submission of a report to the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House 
     detailing the planned uses of such funds.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 207. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     General Departmental Management, for fiscal year 1997, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall transfer to the 
     Office of the Inspector General such sums as may be necessary 
     for any expenses with respect to the provision of security 
     protection for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       Sec. 208. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the Federal Council on Aging under 
     the Older Americans Act or the Advisory Board on Child Abuse 
     and Neglect under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
     Act.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 209. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Health and Human 
     Services in this Act may be transferred between 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 3 percent by any such transfer: Provided, That 
     the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified at least fifteen days in advance of any transfer.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 210. The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health, jointly with the Director of the Office of AIDS 
     Research, may transfer up to 3 percent among institutes, 
     centers, and divisions from the total amounts identified by 
     these two Directors as funding for research pertaining to the 
     human immunodeficiency virus: Provided, That the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.
       Sec. 211. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Institutes of Health to provide 
     grants or cooperative agreements under the SBIR program under 
     section 9(f) of Public Law 85-536 for research proposals when 
     it is made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that (in the process of 
     technical and scientific peer review under section 492 of the 
     Public Health Service Act) the median of the evaluation 
     scores for the proposals in the review cycle involved is 
     higher than the median of the evaluation scores in such 
     review cycle for RO1 proposals.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: 
     Beginning on page 43, strike line 23 and all that follows 
     through page 44, line 7.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 
with the time divided equally between myself and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will each control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise today to object to a particular provision that was contained 
in this bill. I think anyone that recognized that this is basically 
writing legislation in an appropriations bill would recognize very 
quickly that, if you look at the specifics that are contained in this 
provision, that there is a major change in U.S. law, which is for the 
first time going to be backing off the standard for the SBIR Program.
  People in the Chamber and listening on C-SPAN ought to understand 
that the SBIR Program is one of the most innovative and creative and 
successful programs that has been created in the Government of the 
United States. It sets aside just about 2 or 2.5 percent of all the 
funding that goes into every funding bill that comes through the 
Congress of the United States and makes certain that there is a small 
business component to how our funding is set.
  I have fought very, very strongly and successfully to increase NIH 
funding. In this legislation, there is a funding increase of over 6.5 
percent. Yet what we find is hidden in the appropriations

[[Page H7296]]

language a very devious and, I think, harmful piece of wording which 
essentially limits the small business component from what should be 2.5 
percent of total funding down to 2 percent of total funding.
  Now, there are those within NIH that would say that small businesses 
have not been able to come up with the kind of quality applications for 
funding that have been provided by universities. Universities receive 
98 percent of the funding that comes out of NIH.
  The truth of the matter is universities do something very, very well. 
They do basic research very, very well. The kind of research that we 
see in the SBIR Program is not basic research. It is applied research. 
It is specifically designed to create jobs for the people of our 
country and to create a competitive environment for the people of our 
country so that we can actually take the basic research which our 
universities and others do and use it to actually create real wealth 
for the American people.
  Now, what is bizarre is that we use the standards for basic research 
to determine whether or not the applications that come in under the 
applied research portion of the bill which goes into the small business 
component as the standard for determining whether or not the small 
businesses are meeting the quality criteria that is required of the 
universities.
  If we simply assessed what, in fact, was basic research versus that, 
in fact, was applied research, there would be more than enough quality 
applications submitted under the SBIR Program to attain the 2.5 percent 
level which was part of this bill and a part of this legislation before 
there was language submitted into the legislation which has been 
protected under the rule which no longer allows us to knock out the 
provisions that essentially provide authorization within an 
appropriations bill.
  I wish we could knock this out on a point of order. The truth of the 
matter is that what we really see here is a devious and, I think, 
unfair attempt by the major universities and academic institutions of 
the country to come in and knock out just a 2.5 percent setaside for 
the small businesses of this country.
  We fund, as I said, 97.5 percent. Today 98 percent of all the money 
that comes into NIH, which we have fought very hard to increase when 
every other account of the Government goes down, we have actually 
increased the NIH funding by 6.5 percent. But that is not good enough. 
My district, in Cambridge and all the rest of it up in Massachusetts, 
receives more money from NIH perhaps than any other district in the 
country, a fact which I am very proud of. But I am not proud of the 
fact that those same universities are going out through the back door 
of cutting and gutting the provisions that set aside funds for the SBIR 
Program.
  I would hope that the Congress of the United States would take action 
today; if we are not successful today, that we will take action between 
now and the time that we actually mark up where we go to conference to 
make certain that the full assessment is done to determine whether or 
not it is in fact fair, justified or even good public policy to have 
the small business standard assessed by virtue of the academic 
standards that are met for basic research by the universities.
  I would ask my friend, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], if he would entertain a colloquy with me 
over the idea of perhaps meeting with those various interests, 
including people from NIH, from GAO, from the National Science 
Foundation, as well as those people in the biotech industry and people 
in the small businesses of this country and determine whether or not we 
in fact have achieved the best public policy by virtue of the 
legislation that was contained in today's action on the House floor.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that our 
concern with the SBIRs is not that there is a set-a-side for biomedical 
research. That is fine. Our concern is with the quality of research 
that is offered.
  I think there are some very, very legitimate unresolved questions as 
to how you evaluate that quality. I think the gentleman has put his 
finger on an issue that has to be resolved in some sensible and good 
way. I would say that his suggestion that we bring together all of the 
concerned parties, including NIH itself, and sit down and work through 
this, I think people of good will can resolve this very easily. I would 
definitely support the gentleman in that conference and be willing to 
sit in on it and see if we cannot work this out. I am sure that we can.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman, who is perhaps one of the reasonable and, I think, an 
individual who has pursued, ever since I have served with him in the 
Congress, nothing but good public policy in all of the actions that he 
has taken, and it is a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. And having said that, I think it is unfortunate 
that we in this legislation actually knock down what should have been a 
2.5-percent funding level to a 2-percent funding level.
  I think that if the review would indicate that there is not, in fact, 
good quality research that is coming in by the small businesses, then 
obviously we do not want to be funding it. But I think that it is 
unfortunate that we took action to actually knock down the funding 
level for the small businesses before the full assessment in terms of 
the basic research versus applied research differentials were taken 
into account.
  But I think that if the gentleman is willing to try to take into 
account those differences at a meeting between now and the time we get 
to the conference, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment and look 
forward to meeting with the gentleman unless--I know that there were 
some other speakers, but they probably do not know we are even doing 
this.
  So I would be happy to withdraw with that proviso that we do, in 
fact, have that meeting.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 212. Extension of Moratorium.--Section 6408(a)(3) of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, as amended by 
     section 13642 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2000, or the first day of the first 
     quarter on which the Medigrant plan for the State of Michigan 
     is effective under title XIX of such Act.''.
       Sec. 213. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may in accordance with this section provide for the 
     relocation of the Federal facility known as the Gillis W. 
     Long Hansen's Disease Center (located in the vicinity of 
     Carville, in the State of Louisiana), including the 
     relocation of the patients of the Center.
       (b)(1) Subject to entering into a contract in accordance 
     with subsection (c), in relocating the Center the Secretary 
     may on behalf of the United States transfer to the State of 
     Louisiana, without charge, title to the real property and 
     improvements that (as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act) constitute the Center. Such real property is a parcel 
     consisting of approximately 330 acres. The exact acreage and 
     legal description used for purposes of the transfer shall be 
     in accordance with a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
       (2) Any conveyance under paragraph (1) is not effective 
     unless the conveyance specifies that, if the State of 
     Louisiana engages in a material breach of the contract under 
     subsection (c), title to the real property and improvements 
     involved reverts to the United States at the election of the 
     Secretary.
       (c) The transfer described in subsection (b) may be made 
     only if, before the transfer is made, the Secretary and the 
     State enter into a contract whose provisions are in 
     accordance with the following:
       (1) During the 30-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the transfer is made, the real property and 
     improvements referred to in subsection (b) (referred to in 
     this subsection as the ``transferred property'') will be used 
     exclusively for purposes that promote the health or education 
     of the public, with such incidental exceptions as the 
     Secretary may approve, and consistent with the memorandum of 
     understanding signed June 11, 1996 by the Chancellors of 
     Louisiana State University and Southern University.

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Porter] if he 
would please engage me in a brief colloquy.

[[Page H7297]]

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for his tremendous 
leadership in crafting this bill. I am most grateful for the 
gentleman's continued strong support for medical research.
  Two weeks ago, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would authorize 
expenditures for research into an extremely rare and deadly disease 
known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis, or ``LAM.'' LAM is especially cruel 
because it strikes only women, most of whom are of childbearing age. 
LAM victims develop painful cysts on their lungs and gradually lose 
their capacity to breathe. Because doctors know so little about LAM, 
they often misdiagnose it. Tragically, LAM patients die within 10 short 
years of their diagnosis. The intent of the LAM Disease Research Act is 
to build upon the excellent work undertaken by the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute; work encouraged by the gentleman and his 
subcommittee in its fiscal year 1996 report.
  Were the rules different, I would have offered the LAM Disease 
Research Act as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriation. I 
understand, however, that such an amendment would be subject to a point 
of order. Therefore, I cannot offer my amendment.
  It is my understanding, however, Mr. Chairman, that money 
appropriated under this bill may be used by the National Heart, Lung, 
and Blood Institute to study LAM and work toward a cure. I ask the 
gentleman if I am correct in that understanding, and I know that he 
joins me in being greatly concerned about the deadly LAM disease.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I 
might say to the gentleman that testimony was given before our 
subcommittee on this very deadly disease. I did manage to pronounce its 
name, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] did so successfully a 
moment ago. I am not going to try it again.
  But let me say that he is correct that under this bill the money may 
be spent to research LAM along with other deadly diseases. In fact the 
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute has begun research into LAM, and I 
fully expect that effort to go forward.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I want to commend 
him for his efforts in this area. I and many, many people afflicted 
with this disease really do appreciate his efforts.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to offer my amendment. I missed by a few minutes the earlier time and 
would like to offer the amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to say to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] under my reservation 
that we have so many amendments offered to the bill, that since he was 
not here at the time this portion of the bill was read I find great 
difficulty in going back now to pick up these amendments.
  I think the gentleman perhaps, from Wisconsin, would also object to 
this, and while we would like to accommodate the gentleman from Indiana 
and would have accommodated him had he been here, I do not know that we 
can do it with so many amendments pending. I think we are going to have 
objection on the other side as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. PORTER. I would object, yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin ask unanimous consent 
to return to that portion of the bill?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. If necessary, Mr. Chairman. I thought we were on that 
portion of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment goes to a section of the bill 
that we have already passed in reading by paragraph, so the gentleman 
would have to ask unanimous consent in order to take up the amendment 
at this time.
  Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] ask unanimous 
consent?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I do. I ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would say 
to the gentleman again it is the same problem, but I understand that 
the gentleman intends merely to make comments and then withdraw this 
amendment.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. That is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. On that condition, I would not object if he simply wants 
to strike the last word and present his arguments.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request 
and move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, it was our intent on behalf of the Rural 
Health Care Caucus, and I apologize for the confusion on timing here to 
offer an amendment which would do two things. The amendment would 
increase spending for rural outreach grants and for rural transition 
grants by $10 million each. It was our intent personally, not by 
everybody, but at least by this Member, that we would take that money 
out of the $2.4 billion available for the social services block grant.
  Why do I say that? I say that because if my colleagues will look at 
the committee report, the committee report intended that these programs 
would be funded out of that social services block grant.
  Now, the reality is, in all due respect, that our rural counties do 
not get that much money under the social services block grant, that 
that money is truly available in this area.
  Second, I think it absolutely essential that we understand the 
importance of these two particular programs, that perhaps all of the 
rural programs, these are the two programs most essential in 
guaranteeing access to health care in rural areas. The transition 
grants are the basis by which we make changes in rural hospitals in 
order to keep those health care access facilities alive, and they have 
been a very key program.
  Yes, they should be changed from a demonstration project to a 
permanent project or permanent program, but what we have done on behalf 
of the Rural Health Care Caucus is we have introduced legislation that 
will consolidate these various programs into a rural health care 
program. Unfortunately, that was originally a part of the balanced 
budget reconciliation for last year. As my colleagues all know, that 
bill was vetoed by the President, through no fault of us, and so that 
has not been accomplished.
  We have in the last week, on a bipartisan basis, introduced a 
Comprehensive Rural Health Care Improvement Act that includes these 
changes. It is our intent to get this done, if at all possible, before 
the appropriation process is complete, and at that point we would hope 
that we can then get the necessary funding for these programs.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], my colleague and leader from the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin is the cochairman of the 
Rural Health Care Coalition. I had the privilege only a session ago, 
and I was going to rise in support of his amendment; I do, and it 
simply has been described by the gentleman very well.
  The problem is this bill includes only $4 billion for the rural 
health outreach grants. This is $27.3 million below the level of last 
year. As the gentleman has indicated, in the committee report we were 
supposed to get the full funding. This funding will provide support 
only for the continuation of grants that were funded before this year. 
As to the transition grants, and as the gentleman has indicated, both 
of these programs are vital to the rural health care delivery system, 
this bill simply zeros out all of the transition grant funding.
  Now, what the gentleman was trying to do and what I certainly was 
going to support him doing is that we are increasing the social 
services block grant $99 million. We were simply going to ask for an 
additional $20 million of restoring that funding that would be under 
last year's level.

[[Page H7298]]

  And so I guess I would ask the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee whether or not it is his intent when we go to conference, 
since I think, obviously, he is going to object when we offer this 
amendment, but could I have the assurance of the distinguished 
gentleman and the chairman, who I know has worked very hard, so that at 
least in conference we could restore these funds and we could restore a 
vital part of the rural health care delivery system?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Let me explain what my feelings are about the program the 
way it is written. We talked, if I can say to the gentleman from Kansas 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin, earlier we talked about a program 
called Healthy Start, a demonstration program started under President 
Bush by Secretary Louis Sullivan at HHS, a very, very good program. I 
said in respect to this program and in respect to the State students 
incentive grants program, one that the President himself zeroed out in 
this budget and that we zeroed out and have steadfastly maintained it 
ought to be zeroed out, these are programs that have never been 
specifically authorized. They have operated under a demonstration 
authority just like this one has, the rural outreach grants, since 
fiscal year 1991, and in respect to rural outreach the current cycle of 
grants will end for the most part in fiscal year 1996.
  The bill's funding level of $4 million would permit the few remaining 
grantees to continue operating through fiscal year 1997. But after $146 
million of total funding this demonstration should be evaluated, the 
lessons learned from it and the resources provided, incorporated into 
existing programs that provide similar services or new legislation 
should be written to reflect that, and one of the great difficulties we 
have in Congress is that we start a demonstration project. SSIG is a 
prime example; 24 years of demonstration, and we kept funding it year 
after year after year.
  And so I would say to the gentleman I would try to do my best to work 
out his concerns because I think there is undoubtedly a lot to be 
learned and a lot of good derived from this program, but if the 
gentleman, both from Kansas and from Wisconsin, and he is on the 
authorizing committee, if we could get this thing moved into 
legislation that applies broadly and not continue with those 
demonstrations year after year after year, we would make a lot of 
progress in getting our budget under control.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Gunderson] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gunderson was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
indicated, we are striving to do just that in regard to authorizing 
language. We have a rural health care bill that is supported in a 
bipartisan effort on behalf of the Rural Health Care Coalition; 146 
Members now support this effort, so we can get the authorizing 
language.
  What I want to demonstrate to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee is this. Last year, 309 hospitals all throughout our rural 
areas have applied for these grants. Sixty-five new grants were 
awarded. With the funding we have for these programs now, that is going 
to end. When we have Medicare reimbursement problems, when we have 
miles to go in regards to servicing our area, when we have major health 
care reform and managed care reform, this is the way we are going to 
transition.
  These are good programs. We need the funding if we possibly can. We 
simply ask for $20 million, when it was cut by $26 million. It is very 
evident to me that with 309 hospitals applying for these grants almost 
on an emergency basis, I have small communities in my district who have 
no primary health care, a community of 8,000, which, with a grant, then 
had the primary care for 3,000 of these residents. We will simply have 
no health care in many, many areas.
  So I would plead with the chairman that once we do our job in regard 
to the Rural Health Care Coalition, we can have at least adequate 
funding under the severe budget restrictions that we have. I thank the 
chairman for listening.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman would further yield, nothing would make 
me happier to see that by the time we go to conference on this bill we 
have authorizing legislation and we can fund that directly.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. We are working toward that goal. I appreciate the 
support of both gentlemen.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership in increasing NIH by over $800 million and the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute by some $83 million.
  I rise to have this colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee 
because I am very concerned about problems of women as it relates to 
cardiovascular diseases. It is not well understood or known, but heart 
disease is the No. 1 killer of women. However, women are not 
represented in research. For many years women and minorities were 
either absent or underrepresented in clinical trials. Most of the 
treatment and equipment are based on studies that have been limited 
basically to men.
  Unfortunately, and surprisingly, many of the doctors in this country 
remain unaware of women's more subtle symptoms, such as shortness of 
breath, dizziness, and arm pain. They do not recognize these as 
symptoms of cardiovascular disease, and oftentimes when women go in 
complaining of these symptoms they are mistreated, misdiagnosed, or not 
treated at all. Of the women who die suddenly from heart attack, 63 
percent of them had no evidence of previous heart disease. They did not 
know, there had been no other signs. But the fact of the matter is they 
have these symptoms that are unrecognized by doctors. Four out of 5 
women are not aware that heart disease is the leading killer of women 
in this country.
  I know that oftentimes we hear a lot about cancer, we hear a lot 
about other diseases. Most people think that cancer may be the No. 1 
killer of women, but Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know that heart 
disease is the leading killer of women in this country. One in 5 
females has some form of cardiovascular disease. Half a million females 
die from cardiovascular diseases each year. This is almost double the 
number of deaths of all cancers combined.
  Mr. Chairman, appreciating the work of the chairman of the 
subcommittee with NIH and the way that he has worked to fund them, and 
I know he understands these problems, as we continue with this year's 
appropriations process, I would like to know if we can work together to 
ensure that NIH, in particular the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 
focus a fair portion of their increased budget resources on research, 
prevention, and education programs for women, and at-risk women, 
including African-American women.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewomen yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. We would be very happy to work with the gentlewoman in 
this regard, Mr. Chairman, I think she puts her finger on a very 
serious problem, and to work also with NIH to ensure that they move in 
that direction.
  Ms. WATERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I think if we can work 
together to ensure the research, management, and support account for 
education programs of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 
that we will eliminate the slippage that we see in funding levels. The 
chairman is aware that that account has been as high as $6 million, but 
it could fall to as low as $3 million this year.

[[Page H7299]]

  We know that education can work. Education is the first line of 
preventing these diseases, and it is particularly important for women's 
heart disease. If we can work together through this process, we can 
ensure that the education budget shares in the increase provided to 
NHBLI.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to push this issue. I know that with all the 
work the gentleman is doing and all the attempts the gentleman is 
making, he is trying to focus attention on so many things, but I have 
gotten focused now on cardiovascular diseases of women, and I am very 
moved by the fact that many of my friends now who are my age are 
literally dying, women in their fifties who are dying from 
cardiovascular diseases.
  I think we need not wait much longer until we have a higher number of 
women dying. We can in fact, with a little attention, focus some 
education so we can eliminate this as a major problem in our society.
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
I would agree that NHLBI's public education activities are tremendously 
important, and I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman to ensure 
that they are well supported in the final product.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would 
say to the chairman, over the years he has been a strong supporter of 
the efforts to end domestic violence in this Nation. His commitment in 
the issue is reflected in his support of the Violence Against Women Act 
programs in the bill. He has committed all of the funds allocated to 
this subcommittee from the violent crime reduction trust fund to these 
crucial programs. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, these programs 
are not yet fully funded because the current 602(b) allocation falls 
short of the necessary funding levels.
  As we know, the Violence Against Women Act was passed unanimously by 
this House in 1994. This Act was Congress' statement that we would not 
stand idly by while American women were injured by their husbands, 
boyfriends, or family members. It symbolizes our commitment to end the 
epidemic of domestic violence in our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with the chairman of the 
subcommittee on the provisions in the bill that funds the domestic 
violence programs. Currently this bill takes a large step forward in 
fulfilling our commitment to the women of this country. Working 
together, we have provided funding for battered women's shelters, 
victims of sexual assault, and local community programs to end domestic 
violence. In addition, we have also included full funding for the 
National Domestic Violence Hotline. The hotline, which opened in 
February received over 15,000 calls in its first 4 weeks alone. It is 
helping women all over the country receive the services that they 
desperately need.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman of the subcommittee did everything 
he could to fund these programs under the 602(b) allocation from the 
crime trust fund for this subcommittee. However, despite his commitment 
to these programs, we are still approximately $16 million short of full 
funding. Can we find a way to get these programs the funding they so 
desperately need?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for bringing this to our attention. I would also like to 
commend her for the wonderful work she has done on the subcommittee on 
behalf of the victims of violence. No one has been a stronger advocate, 
and she has kept our focus on these very, very important issues.
  Like the gentlewoman, I believe that the Violence Against Women Act 
programs provide much needed services to victims of domestic violence 
throughout our country. I was glad to provide as much funding to these 
vital programs as I could under the current allocation to our 
subcommittee. I was particularly pleased to provide over $57 million to 
the battered women's shelters. This money is critical because it goes 
directly to the victims of domestic violence and helps them to escape 
the violence and begin their lives anew.
  As pleased as I was to provide $61 million to the Violence Against 
Women Act programs, I believe these crucial programs should be fully 
funded. It is my understanding that the Senate subcommittee for Labor-
HHS appropriations has a 602(b) allocation that will allow it to fully 
fund these programs.
  In addition, it is my understanding that Chairman Specter currently 
intends to fully fund VAWA programs. In light of this, at conference I 
would plan to seek an adjustment of our 602(b) allocation to allow us 
to match senate funding levels. I am committed to doing everything I 
can to ensure that Violence Against Women Act programs are in fact 
fully funded.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for his 
dedication to eradicate domestic violence, and his commitment to fully 
fund these programs. Under his leadership we will have a program that 
truly assures that victims of domestic violence will receive the 
services they desperately need.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title II is as follows:
       (2) For purposes of monitoring the extent to which the 
     transferred property is being used in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary will have access to such 
     documents as the Secretary determines to be necessary, and 
     the Secretary may require the advance approval of the 
     Secretary for such contracts, conveyances of real or personal 
     property, or other transactions as the Secretary determines 
     to be necessary.
       (3) The relocation of patients from the transferred 
     property will be completed not later than 3 years after the 
     date on the transfer is made, except to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that relocating particular patients is 
     not feasible. During the period of relocation, the Secretary 
     will have unrestricted access to the transferred property, 
     and after such period will have such access as may be 
     necessary with respect to the patients who pursuant to the 
     preceding sentence are not relocated.
       (4) The Secretary will provide for the continuation at the 
     transferred property of the projects (underway as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act) to make repairs and to make 
     energy-related improvements, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations to carry out the projects.
       (5) The contract disposes of issues regarding access to the 
     cemetery located on the transferred property, and the 
     establishment of a museum regarding memorabilia relating to 
     the use of the property to care for patients with Hansen's 
     disease.
       (6) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the 
     transferred property with management, engineering, or dietary 
     duties:
       (A) The State will provide the individual with the right of 
     first refusal to an employment position with the State with 
     substantially the same type of duties as the individual 
     performed in his or her most recent position at the 
     transferred property.
       (B) If the individual becomes an employee of the State 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), the State will make payments in 
     accordance with subsection (d)(3)(B) (relating to 
     disability), as applicable with respect to the individual.
       (7) The contract contains such additional provisions as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the interests 
     of the United States, and the Secretary shall have final 
     approval over the terms of the contract.
       (d)(1) This subsection applies if the transfer under 
     subsection (b) is made.
       (2) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee with a 
     position at the Center and is, for duty at the Center, 
     receiving the pay differential under section 5545(d) of title 
     5, United States Code:
       (A) If as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b) 
     the individual is eligible for an annuity under section 8336 
     or 8412 of title 5, United States Code, then once the 
     individual separates from the service and thereby becomes 
     entitled to receive the annuity, the pay differential shall 
     be excluded from the computation of the annuity unless the 
     individual separated from the service not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the transfer was made.
       (B) If the individual is not eligible for such an annuity 
     as of the date of the transfer under subsection (b) but 
     subsequently does become eligible, then once the individual

[[Page H7300]]

     separates from the service and thereby becomes entitled to 
     receive the annuity, the pay differential shall be excluded 
     from the computation of the annuity unless the individual 
     separated from the service not later than 30 days after the 
     date on which the individual first became eligible for the 
     annuity.
       (C) For purposes of this paragraph, the individual is 
     eligible for the annuity if the individual meets all 
     conditions under such section 8336 or 8412 to be entitled to 
     the annuity, except the condition that the individual be 
     separated from the service.
       (3) In the case of each individual who as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act is a Federal employee at the Center 
     with management, engineering, or dietary duties, and who 
     becomes an employee of the State pursuant to subsection 
     (c)(6)(A):
       (A) The provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 
     5, United States Code, or of chapter 84 of such title, 
     whichever is applicable, that relate to disability shall be 
     considered to remain in effect with respect to the individual 
     (subject to subparagraph (C)) until the earlier of--
       (i) the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date on which the transfer under subsection (b) is made; or
       (ii) the date on which the individual first meets all 
     conditions for coverage under a State program for payments 
     during retirement by reason of disability.
       (B) The payments to be made by a State pursuant to 
     subsection (c)(6)(B) with respect to the individual are 
     payments to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, 
     if the individual is receiving Federal disability coverage 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such payments are to be made in 
     a total amount equal to that portion of the normal-cost 
     percentage (determined through the use of dynamic 
     assumptions) of the basic pay of the individual that is 
     allocable to such coverage and is paid for service performed 
     during the period for which such coverage is in effect. Such 
     amount is to be determined in accordance with chapter 84 of 
     such title 5, is to be paid at such time and in such manner 
     as mutually agreed by the State and the Office of Personnel 
     Management, and is in lieu of individual or agency 
     contributions otherwise required.
       (C) In the determination pursuant to subparagraph (A) of 
     whether the individual is eligible for Federal disability 
     coverage (during the applicable period of time under such 
     subparagraph), service as an employee of the State after the 
     date of the transfer under subsection (b) shall be counted 
     toward the service requirement specified in the first 
     sentence of section 8337(a) or 8451(a)(1)(A) of such title 5 
     (whichever is applicable).
       (e) The following provisions apply if under subsection (a) 
     the Secretary makes the decision to relocate the Center:
       (1) The site to which the Center is relocated shall be in 
     the vicinity of Baton Rouge, in the State of Louisiana.
       (2) The facility involved shall continue to be designated 
     as the Gillis W. Long Hansens's Disease Center.
       (3) The Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to inform 
     the patients of the Center with respect to the planning and 
     carrying out of the relocation.
       (4) In the case of each individual who as of October 1, 
     1996, is a patient of the Center and is receiving long-term 
     care (referred to in this subsection as an ``eligible 
     patient''), the Secretary shall continue to provide for the 
     long-term care of the eligible patient, without charge, for 
     the remainder of the life of the patient. Of the amounts 
     appropriated for a fiscal year for the Public Health Service, 
     the Secretary shall make available such amounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out the preceding sentence.
       (5) Except in the case of an eligible patient for whom it 
     is not feasible to relocate for purposes of subsection 
     (c)(3), each eligible patient may make an irrevocable choice 
     of one of the following long-term care options:
       (A) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may 
     reside at the Center.
       (B) For the remainder of his or her life, the patient may 
     elect to receive payments each year in an annual amount of 
     $33,000 (adjusted for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent 
     fiscal year to the extent necessary to offset inflation 
     occurring after October 1, 1996), which payments are in 
     complete discharge of the obligation of the Federal 
     Government under paragraph (4). If the individual makes the 
     election under the preceding sentence, the Federal Government 
     does not under such paragraph have any responsibilities 
     regarding the daily life of the patient, other than making 
     such payments.
       (6) The Secretary shall provide to each eligible patient 
     such information and time as may be necessary for the patient 
     to make an informed decision regarding the options under 
     paragraph (5).
       (f) For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Center'' means the Gillis W. Long Hansen's 
     Disease Center.
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services.
       (3) The term ``State'' means the State of Louisiana.
       (g) Section 320 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247e) is amended by striking the section designation and all 
     that follows and inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 320. (a)(1) At the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease 
     Center (located in the State of Louisiana), the Secretary 
     shall without charge provide short-term care and treatment, 
     including outpatient care, for Hansen's disease and related 
     complications to any person determined by the Secretary to be 
     in need of such care and treatment.
       ``(2) The Center referred to in paragraph (1) shall conduct 
     training in the diagnosis and management of Hansen's disease 
     and conduct and promote the coordination of research, 
     investigations, demonstrations, and studies relating to the 
     causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of 
     Hansen's disease and the complications of such disease.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) is subject to section 213 of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 
     1997.
       ``(b) In addition to the Center referred to in subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may establish sites regarding persons with 
     Hansen's disease. Each such site shall provide for the 
     outpatient care and treatment for Hansen's disease to any 
     person determined by the Secretary to be in need of such care 
     and treatment.
       ``(c) The Secretary shall make payments to the Board of 
     Health of the State of Hawaii for the care and treatment 
     (including outpatient care) in its facilities of persons 
     suffering from Hansen's disease at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary. The rate shall be approximately equal to the 
     operating cost per patient of such facilities, except that 
     the rate may not exceed the comparable costs per patient with 
     Hansen's disease for care and treatment provided by the 
     Center referred to in subsection (a). Payments under this 
     subsection are subject to the availability of appropriations 
     for such purpose.''.
       Sec. 214. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     or any other Act may be used to make any award of a grant or 
     contract under section 1001 of title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act for fiscal year 1997 or any subsequent fiscal 
     year unless the applicant for the award agrees that, in 
     operating the voluntary family planning project involved, the 
     applicant will comply with the following conditions:
       (1) Priority will be given in the project to the provision 
     of services to individuals from low-income families.
       (2) An individual will not be charged for services in the 
     project if the family of the individual has a total annual 
     income that is at or below 100 percent of the Federal poverty 
     line, except to the extent that payment will be made by a 
     third party (including a government agency) that is 
     authorized, or is under a legal obligation, to pay the 
     charge.
       (3) If the family of the individual has a total annual 
     income that exceeds 100 percent of such poverty line but does 
     not exceed 250 percent of the line, the project will impose a 
     charge according to the ability to pay.
       (4) If the family of the individual has a total annual 
     income that exceeds 250 percent of such poverty line, the 
     project will impose the full charge for the services 
     involved.
       (5) Subject to paragraphs (1) through (4), the policies of 
     the applicant will ensure that economic status is not a 
     deterrent to participation in the project.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     expended for the program under section 1001 of title X of the 
     Public Health Service Act after the expiration of the 180-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits to 
     the Congress, not later than such date of expiration, a 
     report providing, to the extent that the information is 
     available to the Secretary, the following information for the 
     most recent fiscal year for which the information is 
     available:
       (1) The number of individuals who receive family planning 
     services through voluntary family planning projects under 
     such section 1001, and the demographic characteristics of the 
     individuals.
       (2) The types of family planning services chosen by 
     recipients of services from such projects.
       (3) The number of individuals served by such projects who 
     are--
       (A) at risk of unintended pregnancy; and
       (B) from a family with a total annual income not exceeding 
     250 percent.
       (4) The extent to which the availability of family planning 
     services from such projects has, among individuals served by 
     the projects, reduced the number of unintended pregnancies, 
     reduced the number of abortions, and reduced the number of 
     cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
       (5) The extent to which the availability of family planning 
     services from such projects has reduced Federal and State 
     expenditures for--
       (A) the program under title XIX of the Social Security Act 
     (commonly known as the Medicaid program); and
       (B) the programs under title IV of such Act (commonly 
     referred to as welfare programs).
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 1997''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the balance of title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi], and amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

[[Page H7301]]

  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment, to strike the ergonomics 
rider from this legislation.
  I had thought the radical House Republicans had learned their lesson 
last year, when their extremist agenda of adding legislative riders to 
appropriations bills led to two Government shutdowns. Unfortunately, as 
this bill shows, it is hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
  The ergonomics rider is a clear demonstration of the Republican 
Party's utter disregard for both worker safety and science. The bill 
forbids the Department of Labor from issuing any rules, or even 
proposed rules, or even voluntary guidelines, to protect workers from 
ergonomics injuries. This despite the fact that ergonomic injuries 
represent the fastest growing workplace health problem, resulting in 
estimated annual workers compensation costs of $20 billion annually. 
But the bill goes even further.
  Despite the pious claims of Republicans that they merely want 
regulators to use good data when they regulate, this provision adopts a 
``hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'' attitude toward workplace 
safety. This bill actually forbids the Department of Labor from even 
collecting data about ergonomic injuries.
  The Republican view is that what OSHA does not know OSHA does not 
have to regulate. Unfortunately, with respect to workplace safety, what 
you don't know can cripple you.
  Make no mistake, this rider is not about ensuring that the Department 
of Labor regulates in a rational manner. This rider is about 
suppressing data, suppressing science and suppressing the truth. And 
American workers will suffer.
  Let's strike this extreme rider from the bill. Let's help prevent 
another Government shutdown. Support the Pelosi amendment.


                    amendment offered by ms. pelosi

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi: Page 19, strike lines 8 
     through 15.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 205, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--205

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Clayton
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Oberstar
     Vento
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1501

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Clayton for, with Mr. Longley against.

  Mr. BILIRAKIS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY, Ms. McCARTHY, and Mr. KLUG changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 263, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton

[[Page H7302]]


     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--263

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Lincoln
     Longley
     McDade
     Oberstar
     Vento
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. FOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, on July 11, 1996, due to an error, I was 
incorrectly recorded on the Lowey amendment to H.R. 3755, the fiscal 
year 1997 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The record reflects 
a ``no'' vote on rollcall vote No. 302. I request the record reflect I 
intended to vote ``yes'' and emphasize my support for the Lowey 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            education reform

       For carrying out activities authorized by the School-to-
     Work Opportunities Act, $175,000,000, which shall become 
     available on July 1, 1997, and remain available through 
     September 30, 1998.


                    education for the disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, $7,204,130,000, of which 
     $5,895,244,000 shall become available on July 1, 1997, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 1998, and of 
     which $1,298,386,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     1997 and shall remain available through September 30, 1998, 
     for academic year 1997-1998: Provided, That $6,042,766,000 
     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, 1996, to obtain 
     updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data 
     from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That 
     $684,082,000 shall be available for concentration grants 
     under section 1124(A) and $7,000,000 shall be available for 
     evaluations under section 1501.

                              {time}  1515


                     amendment offered by mr. mica

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. MICA:
       Page 57, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I present this amendment today. It is 
slightly different than what was printed. I had hoped to increase this 
amount by $40 million; however, I have changed the amendment to $20 
million.
  Let me tell my colleagues what my amendment does today, and it is 
probably one of the most important amendments on this bill and dealing 
with education in particular. What this does is it, in fact, transfers 
from Washington bureaucracy to the local classroom education dollars.
  What we in the Congress do and what we are doing through this 
appropriations procedure is, in fact, deciding how the resources of our 
Nation and the Congress get allocated to different programs.
  This is an important amendment because it is part of the fundamental 
debate about what we have been talking about in Congress during this 
entire session. It is a fundamental question. It is not just how much 
money we throw at various problems and how much money we expend, but 
how we expend the money. That is the fundamental part of my amendment.
  Let me tell my colleagues, I chair the House Subcommittee on Civil 
Service, and I know where the bureaucrats and the bodies are buried 
throughout our nearly 2 million employee Federal work force. There are 
5,000 employees in the Department of Education, 5,000, and then 
thousands of other contract employees. Of the 5,000 full-time employees 
in the Department of Education, 68 percent are in Washington, DC.
  What this amendment does is it does not cut any money from any 
programs, it does not cut any money for education, but what it does is 
it transfers some of that money that we as a Congress are appropriating 
and it transfers it from the bureaucracy and administrative account in 
Washington, DC, to the classroom. That is what this debate is all 
about.
  This is not a debate on exactly how we can spend all the money and 
the regulations that come out of the Department of Education, and I 
cannot change that because this is an appropriations bill, and I would 
like to change some of the way we authorize the money. But what this 
does is it addresses a fundamental question. Do we spend the money up 
here on a big Federal education bureaucracy or do we

[[Page H7303]]

send the money to the classrooms, when we have instances where some of 
our classrooms do not have the resources, they do not have the 
materials, they do not have the teachers?
  We have a clear responsibility in this Congress to make these 
important choices, and that is the choice this amendment gives us 
today. Do we spend it here in Washington on the 68 percent of the 
employees of the 5,000 who are located in Washington, DC or does that 
money go back into our local classrooms?
  This is a very, very fundamental debate. I want to take a minute and 
talk a little bit more about what we are doing with education. I hear 
from parents all the time. I talk to my community college presidents. 
When we have students who cannot read their diplomas, when we have 71 
percent of the students in one of my local community colleges entering 
that require remedial education, when we have a situation in education 
that I consider a crisis, when we have to put police and others in our 
classroom and fire other teachers and do not have the money for the 
resources that we need in our classroom, we, as a Congress, have an 
important responsibility to make these choices of where that money is 
spent.
  So this is a simple amendment. it is a clear choice. Do we spend the 
money in Washington on bureaucrats and a large Department of Education?
  I am not cutting the Department of Education. We will still have a 
Department of Education. But what we are doing is taking $20 million 
and we are putting it into title I programs, the programs that are 
really in our classrooms, that affect our children and their education.
  So we are going to decide by my amendment whether we put those 
resources again in Washington or in the local classroom where our 
students and our teachers are really at the bottom end of the feeding 
chain, because we have built a huge bureaucracy, not just the 5,000 in 
Washington, DC, but we have exploded that bureaucracy to regional 
offices and then to State offices.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I remember serving in the legislature and I 
saw that bureaucracy. I saw the huge bureaucracy that we created and 
that we force, and I cannot solve those problems today with this bill, 
but what I can do is to help this House as it makes those important 
choices, and we will, by this amendment and by the agreement that we 
have reached, restore title I to its level of funding for last year.
  So this is an important amendment. Again, it is a clear choice. Do we 
spend the money on bureaucrats in Washington, or do we spend it in 
local classrooms on students and teachers?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
am interested, does the gentleman have any idea of what percentage of 
discretionary education the Department of Education, the bureaucracy, 
or bureaucrats of which he speaks, is?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the total amount of money 
that comes from Washington, DC, towards local education, I believe, is 
about 5 percent of all education funding.
  Mr. HOYER. No, no, no, that is not what I asked. Does the gentleman 
know what percentage----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked a question; let me answer the question. Of the 
money, discretionary money, that we spend on education--which is, as 
the gentleman points out, a relatively small percentage of the total 
amount spent on education in this country, 2 percent--2 percent, is 
administrative cost. Two percent is administrative cost, I tell my 
friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Of course, one 
could say we will put $20 million more in title I. We ought to put $20 
million more in title I. We ought to put $100 million more in title I, 
I tell my friend from Florida, but we are not doing it because the 
602(b)s have been squeezed very badly. Why? Because the Republican tax 
cut was deemed to be essential in a time when we are trying to balance 
the budget and serve our children.
  I tell my friend, that 2 percent--2 percent--is administrative cost 
for the administration of the 98 percent of discretionary funds which 
is sent either to students or to schools and local school districts. 
Two percent.
  All the gentleman wants to do is, as he frankly likes to do on a 
regular basis, attack the bureaucrats. These are real people doing 
important things, trying to make programs that this Congress adopts 
work. I frankly am fed up, I tell my friend, fed up with people rising 
on this floor and using ``bureaucrat'' as an epithet, as a slur, as an 
effort to dehumanize people that we have employed to try to carry out 
the policies and programs that we adopt.
  Good people have to spend time every day trying to make sure that 
these policies and programs will work for Americans, for children, for 
families. ``Bureaucrat''--it is said with a snide smile sometimes, 
demagoguing for the people back home. I am fed up with it.
  Yes, I represent a lot of Federal employees, and I am proud of it. 
They work hard and they do a good job, and I dare every one of you to 
ask the people who come from the private sector, from corporations, 
from businesses, large and small, ask them what they think of the 
quality of the morale and of the product of those people who work in 
Washington and around the country.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, only 20 percent work in Washington. The 
rest work in Florida, in California, in New York, in Texas, in Iowa, in 
Illinois, in every State in the Nation, trying to deliver the services 
that this Congress and the President--in previous administrations and 
in this one--decided were appropriate for the American public.

                              {time}  1530

  Two percent, I tell my friend from Florida, 2 percent overhead in 
education and 92 percent to the recipients, either students or local 
school districts or States, to deliver education to the students of 
this country to make us more competitive.
  I am tired of this demagoguery. You can disagree with the programs, 
but we ought to stop demeaning the people that we have hired, because 
there are some demented souls in America who hear that debate and 
decide that they can go to the office building in Oklahoma City, angry 
at their government, angry at the policies of their government, and in 
a demented, deranged, sick manifestation of that sentiment, attack the 
people, persons, the individuals that we ask to carry out the 
responsibilities given to them by the Congress and the President of the 
United States.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is defeated. If the 
gentleman wants to put $20 million additional in title I, I will 
support it because it needs $20 million more. But to cut Federal 
employees further in the process when we are already reducing 272,000 
plus probably another 50,000 or 100,000, I say to my friend, is wrong.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has put 
his finger on the right place to put more money, because title I 
concentration grants go to the schools that need the money most. I have 
been saying for quite some time now, and I want to say again, that one 
of the major problems with title I is that it comes out of that era of 
our Government where we felt that in order to get something passed here 
in the House for people who need it, we had to spread it around to 
every single congressional district, every school district in America. 
And title I money goes to school districts all over this country who 
have plenty of resources and no need for the additional money, and we 
ought to stop that practice.
  The authorizing committee ought to address targeting this money where 
we have real serious problems with poor kids that have no opportunity, 
and stop sending it to school districts like some in my district; New 
Tria high school get title I money and the administrators and the 
parents will tell us

[[Page H7304]]

that it should not be sent to them at all.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to start deciding where our problems are and 
putting our money to solve those problems, instead of thinking that we 
have to buy votes in here by spreading it all across America, and so I 
would commend the gentleman to the extent that that is the place to put 
the money.
  I would say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that I do not 
understand how anyone can stand up and say that the problem is with 
title I or any other spending that we have cut taxes. To my knowledge 
we have not cut taxes. It has been proposed but it has never been 
enacted.
  No, the reason that we do not have enough money is that we have not 
had enough courage, the President has not had enough courage to sign a 
bill that would slow the rate of growth in entitlement programs that he 
could have signed last year but did not, that would take the pressure 
off the discretionary spending where we cannot solve our budget 
problems entirely.
  We can make a contribution, sure. But we will never get the budget 
into balance if we don't address the growth in entitlement programs. 
This Congress has had the courage to propose good programs to do that. 
The President of the United States chose to veto that, I think in great 
error.
  I am very reluctant to take money out of S&E accounts. It seems like 
an easy place; salaries and expenses, we will just take it out of that. 
The gentleman from Maryland is right. Federal employees are just like 
all the rest of us, they have families, they have kids, they have kids 
in school, they have mortgage payments to meet. Making a cut sounds 
easy, but it does affect real human beings who do an excellent job for 
our country for the most part.
  And yet, I think the amendment does aim in the correct direction on 
providing greater money for concentration grants. I am not going to 
fight it for that reason. I am not enthusiastic about the place from 
where the gentleman takes the money.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Mica cut-the-bureaucracy, 
not-education amendment. I believe that it is the right thing to do. I 
do sympathize with the gentleman from Maryland that we are talking 
about real people, but I do want to point out that while we are 
downsizing the Federal Government, for some reason the Department of 
Education has almost skirted all the downsizing.
  In 1992, the number of full-time equivalent employees was 4,876, and 
today it is 4,816. That is a decline of less 1 percent. Compare that to 
the Department of Defense and it has declined over 13 percent.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would bother to look at the 
size of DOE going back to 1980, he would discover that Department has 
declined in size already by 20 percent.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this is from the full-time equivalents as 
the gentleman knows.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am talking about. The 
gentleman is talking about a 1-year bridge. What he is forgetting is 
that from 1980 up to until 2 years ago, the Department of Education had 
major, major, major reductions. If the gentleman is going to compare 
apples to oranges, let us do it over the decade not over the 
nanoseconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that the 
point is that the declination in the size of the bureaucracy is the 
will of the American people, and it is necessitated by the fact that we 
have a deficit and a national debt of almost $5 trillion.
  The deficit on an annual basis we pay nearly $20 billion a month in 
interest on. It is time to bring this thing under control. What the 
Mica amendment simply does is say let us take the money out of 
bureaucracy and put it in the classroom. I have been in one of the 
title I program classes in my district, and it is a very effective, 
hands-on program teaching kids how to read, how to improve their 
education skills, and so, forth. And this is not an education cut. It 
will help counties where there is over 15 percent of the kids below the 
poverty level.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up a couple of points. 
First, the gentleman from Maryland who launched into the debate, first 
of all, I oversee the Federal work force as chairman, at least from the 
House side, as chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee, and I 
greatly respect the efforts of our Federal employees throughout our 
Federal work force. But we have the neighborhood of 350,000 Federal 
employees within my speaking voice here in the Washington, DC area. And 
they do too have to experience some downsizing.
  The Department of Education in the past year has had a 1-percent 
decrease. I heard the ranking member talk about the actual number of 
decreases in full-time employees and he is correct, but we have 
examined this in the Civil Service Subcommittee and seen where 
thousands and thousands of employees have been contracted out. And that 
is one of the problems that we have.
  But the question here is now a cut of probably about 300 positions in 
the Department of Education, which would be between an 8- and 10-
percent cut of the Washington work force in Washington, DC. I tell my 
colleagues that through normal attrition we lose between 6 and 7 
percent, people who die or retire or go on to other positions. So I 
think this can be managed.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member's agreement to accept 
this amendment and support this amendment. And I also thank the 
chairman for his support of this amendment, also the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], and 
other Members, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], and the 20 
or 30 Members who are prepared to come out here and talk in favor of 
it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time one of the things I 
hear over and over again from teachers in the classroom, and I visit 
lots of schools, is that they have too much of their day-to-day routine 
dictated out of Washington. This type of amendment reduces the 
influence of Washington command and control bureaucracy and allows 
teachers to teach children in their home counties as they see fit. I 
think it is a very good amendment, and urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to understand, if this amendment 
has been accepted, why are we palavering on it? Why do not we just move 
on?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                amendment offered by mr. deal of georgia

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Deal of Georgia: Page 57, line 24, 
     after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 58, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 66, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment likewise deals with the area of 
title I basic education funding. It would simply transfer $1 million 
out of the management administration account and even though there have 
been transfers pursuant to the previous amendment, I would point out 
that in this one Office of the Secretary, half of the 100 employees 
there perform press-related activities. I believe that an additional 
million dollar transfer would certainly be appropriate into the 
classroom to deal with title I basic education, Mr. Chairman, that this 
is a minimal thing that we can do to help those in the classroom level 
of education.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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, $728,000,000, 
     of which $615,500,000 shall be for basic support payments 
     under section 8003(b), $40,000,000

[[Page H7305]]

     shall be for payments for children with disabilities under 
     section 8003(d), $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be for payments under section 8003(f), 
     $5,000,000 shall be for construction under section 8007, and 
     $17,500,000 shall be for Federal property payments under 
     section 8002.


                      school improvement programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by titles IV-A-1, V-A, VI, IX, X and XIII of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965; the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act; and the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 
     $1,235,383,000 of which $1,071,495,000 shall become available 
     on July 1, 1997, and remain available through September 30, 
     1998: Provided, That of the amount appropriated, $606,517,000 
     shall be for innovative education program strategies State 
     grants under title VI-A: Provided further, That the 
     percentage of the funds appropriated under this heading for 
     innovative education program strategies State grants that are 
     allocated to any State or territory shall not be less than 
     the percentage allocated to such State or territory from the 
     total of the funds appropriated in appropriation laws for 
     fiscal year 1996 for the combined totals of such grants plus 
     Eisenhower professional development State grants, foreign 
     language assistance grants, and the star schools program.


                   bilingual and immigrant education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     bilingual and immigrant education activities authorized by 
     parts A and C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act, without regard to section 7103(b), 
     $167,190,000, of which $50,000,000 shall be for immigrant 
     education programs authorized by part C: Provided, That State 
     educational agencies may use all, or any part of, their part 
     C allocation for competitive grants to local educational 
     agencies: Provided further, That the Department of Education 
     should only support instructional programs which ensure that 
     students completely master English in a timely fashion (a 
     period of three to five years) while meeting rigorous 
     achievement standards in the academic content areas.


                           special education

       For carrying out the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (except part I), $3,246,315,000, of which 
     $3,000,000,000 shall become available for obligation on July 
     1, 1997, and shall remain available through September 30, 
     1998.


            rehabilitation services and disability research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Technology-Related Assistance 
     for Individuals with Disabilities Act, and the Helen Keller 
     National Center Act, as amended, $2,509,447,000.

           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.), $6,680,000.


               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.), $43,041,000: Provided, That from the 
     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.), 
     $79,182,000: Provided, That from the 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 Applied Technology Education 
     Act and the Adult Education Act, $1,329,669,000, of which 
     $1,326,750,000 shall become available on July 1, 1997 and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 1998: Provided, 
     That no funds shall be awarded to a State Council under 
     section 112(f) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act, and no State shall be required to 
     operate such a Council.


                      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, $6,630,407,000, which shall remain available through 
     September 30, 1998.
       The maximum Pell Grant for which a student shall be 
     eligible during award year 1997-1998 shall be $2,500: 
     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 1996 
     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.


             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, as amended, $29,977,000.


                            higher education

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     parts A and B of title III, without regard to section 
     360(a)(1)(B)(ii), titles IV, V, VI, VII, and IX, part A and 
     subpart 1 of part B of title X, and title XI of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended, and the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961; $829,497,000, of which 
     $15,673,000 for interest subsidies under title VII of the 
     Higher Education Act, as amended, shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds available for part D of 
     title IX of the Higher Education Act shall be available to 
     fund noncompeting continuation awards for academic year 1997-
     1998 for fellowships awarded originally under parts B and C 
     of title IX of said Act, under the terms and conditions of 
     parts B and C, respectively.


                           howard university

       For partial support of Howard University (20 U.S.C. 121 et 
     seq.), $187,348,000: Provided, That from the amount 
     available, the University may at its discretion use funds for 
     the endowment program as authorized under the Howard 
     University Endowment Act (Public Law 98-480).


                   higher education facilities loans

       The Secretary is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available under this 
     heading and in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitation, as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     program for the current fiscal year.


         college housing and academic facilities loans program

       For administrative expenses to carry out the existing 
     direct loan program of college housing and academic 
     facilities loans entered into pursuant to title VII, part C, 
     of the Higher Education Act, as amended, $698,000.


                         college housing loans

       Pursuant to title VII, part C of the Higher Education Act, 
     as amended, for necessary expenses of the college housing 
     loans program, the Secretary shall make expenditures and 
     enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year limitation 
     using loan repayments and other resources available to this 
     account. Any unobligated balances becoming available from 
     fixed fees paid into this account pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 
     1749d, relating to payment of costs for inspections and site 
     visits, shall be available for the operating expenses of this 
     account.


 historically black college and university capital financing, program 
                                account

       The total amount of bonds insured pursuant to section 724 
     of title VII, part B of the Higher Education Act 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 VII, part B of the Higher 
     Education Act, as amended, $104,000.


            education research, statistics, and improvement

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Educational 
     Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 
     1994; the National Education Statistics Act of 1994; section 
     2102(c)(11), sections 3136 and 3141, parts A, B, and section 
     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, $319,264,000: Provided, That 
     $48,000,000 shall be for sections 3136 and 3141 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph may be 
     obligated or expended for the Goals 2000 Community 
     Partnerships Program.


                               libraries

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     titles I, III, and IV of the Library Services and 
     Construction Act, and title II-B of the Higher Education Act, 
     $108,000,000, of which $2,500,000 shall be for section 222 
     and $1,000,000 shall be for section 223 of the Higher 
     Education Act.

                        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, $320,152,000.


                        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, $54,171,000.


                    office of the inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, as authorized by section 212 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act, $27,143,000, together with any 
     funds, to remain available until expended, that represent the 
     equitable share from the forfeiture of property in 
     investigations in which the Office of Inspector General 
     participated, and which are transferred to the

[[Page H7306]]

     Office of the Inspector General by the Department of Justice, 
     the Department of the Treasury, or the United States Postal 
     Service.

                           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. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     available under section 458 of the Higher Education Act shall 
     not exceed $420,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. The Department 
     of Education shall use at least $134,000,000 for payment of 
     administrative cost allowances owed to guaranty agencies for 
     fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The Department of Education shall 
     pay administrative cost allowances to guaranty agencies, to 
     be paid quarterly. Receipt of such funds and uses of such 
     funds by guaranty agencies shall be in accordance with 
     section 428(f) of the Higher Education Act.
       Notwithstanding section 458 of the Higher Education Act, 
     the Secretary may not use funds available under that section 
     or any other section for subsequent fiscal years for 
     administrative expenses of the William D. Ford Direct Loan 
     Program. The Secretary may not require the return of guaranty 
     agency reserve funds during fiscal year 1997, except after 
     consultation with both the Chairmen and ranking members of 
     the House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee 
     and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Any 
     reserve funds recovered by the Secretary shall be returned to 
     the Treasury of the United States for purposes of reducing 
     the Federal deficit.
       No funds available to the Secretary may be used for (1) the 
     hiring of advertising agencies or other third parties to 
     provide advertising services for student loan programs, or 
     (2) payment of administrative fees relating to the William D. 
     Ford Direct Loan Program to institutions of higher education.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended to carry out sections 727, 932, and 
     1002 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and section 621(b) 
     of Public Law 101-589.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 306. Not to exceed 1 percent of any discretionary 
     funds (pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act, as amended) which are appropriated for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Education in this 
     Act may be transferred between appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation shall be increased by more than 3 percent by 
     any such transfer: Provided, That the Appropriations 
     Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 
     fifteen days in advance of any transfer.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1997''.

  Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title III be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.


                    amendment offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Porter: Page 69, after line 23, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 307. (a) Section 8003(f)(3)(A)(i) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(f)(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking 
     ``The Secretary'' and all that follows through ``greater of--
     '' and inserting the following: ``The Secretary, in 
     conjunction with the local educational agency, shall first 
     determine each of the following:'';
       (2) in each of subclauses (I) through (III), by striking 
     ``the average'' each place it appears the first time in each 
     such subclause and inserting ``The average'';
       (3) in subclause (I), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting a period;
       (4) in subclause (II), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following: ``The local 
     educational agency shall select one of the amounts determined 
     under subclause (I), (II), or (III) for purposes of the 
     remaining computations under this subparagraph.''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1995.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. I 
understand that both sides on the authorization committee have agreed 
to it, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on our 
subcommittee. It has been scored by CBO as having no cost.
  The amendment is a technical amendment to the impact aid law 
regarding payments for heavily impacted districts. Payments to these 
school districts have been made in the past on the basis of one of 
three formulas.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, to save time, let me simply say we accept the 
amendment on this side of the aisle.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: After title III of the bill, 
     insert the following new title:

        ``Title III-A--Education and Training Program Increases


         additional amounts for education and training programs

       The amount provided in title I for ``Employment and 
     Training Administration-Training and employment services'' is 
     increased, the portion of such amount for ``Employment and 
     Training Administration-Training and employment services'' 
     that is specified under such heading to be available for the 
     period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 is increased, the 
     amount provided in title II for ``Administration for Children 
     and Families--Children and families services programs'' is 
     increased, the amount provided in title III for ``Education 
     reform'' (including for activities authorized by titles III 
     and IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act) is increased, 
     the amount provided in title III for ``Education for the 
     disadvantaged'' is increased, the portion of such amount for 
     ``Education for the disadvantaged'' that is specified under 
     such heading to be available for the period July 1, 1997 
     through September 30, 1998 is reduced, the portion of such 
     amount for ``Education for the disadvantaged'' that is 
     specified under such heading to be available for the period 
     October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 is increased, the 
     amount provided in Title III for ``School improvement 
     programs'' (including for school improvement activities 
     authorized by titles II-B and IV-A-2 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965) is increased, the portion of 
     such amount for ``School improvement programs'' that is 
     specified under such heading to be available for the period 
     July 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 is increased, the 
     amount provided in title III for ``Student financial 
     assistance'' is increased, by $125,000,000, $125,000,000, 
     $70,000,000, $250,000,000, $450,000,000, $1,000,000,000, 
     $1,450,000,000, $258,000,000, $233,000,000, and $93,000,000, 
     respectively.

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, last year this committee funded the coming 
school year by providing funding for a combination of both fiscal years 
1996 and 1997 by moving a portion of the funding for title I from 1996 
into fiscal year 1997.
  This year the committee has done the same thing for the following 
school year, which means the school districts will get one check in 
July and another in October. We in this amendment simply propose to do 
the same thing. We propose to increase the portion of that funding that 
goes out with the October check, which enables us to increase education 
funding for a number of programs.
  The new result is that this amendment would increase funding for 
education and training programs by $1,246,000,000 over the same period 
of time, which is being considered in this bill.
  Title I, overall, would be increased by $450 million; dislocated 
workers would

[[Page H7307]]

be increased by $100 million. That would enable us to provide one-half 
of the President's request for an increase so that 50,000 additional 
workers who lose their jobs because of the impact of foreign imports 
can get help to be retrained.
  For Head Start, it enables us to add $70 million to maintain the same 
number of kids who were funded last year. For Goals 2000, which was 
begun by President Bush, and President Clinton was then Governor, and 
which was strongly supported by Governor Clinton, representing all of 
the Nation's governors at that time, Goals 2000 has been zeroed out by 
the committee. We would restore $250 million of that funding. That 
still leaves us $240 million short of the President's request.
  For safe and drug-free schools, we would add $25 million. That would 
bring us back up to the 1996 funding level. For Eisenhower teacher 
training, we add $233 million. The committee has zeroed this money out. 
That still leaves us $42 million or 15 percent below 1996, even if you 
accept the added numbers in our bill. That would enable 286,000 math 
and science teachers to receive upgraded training under this proposal.
  On handicapped education, we just had the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] come to the floor and ask us to add $300 million for 
handicapped education by taking it out of NIH. The House rejected that 
amendment.
  We would have asked that $100 million of that $300 million increase 
be provided. This is one-third of the increase asked for by the 
President, only we would not cut the National Institutes of Health in 
order to do it. We would do it by following the same procedure that 
this committee provided by way of title I funding.
  This would enable us to begin to respond to the fact that the Federal 
Government has reneged on its responsibilities to local school 
districts for a long time to pay more fair share for the education of 
handicapped children.
  For Perkins loans, we add $93 million, which would bring it back up 
to the 1996 level. The committee had limited Perkins loans. For summer 
youth, we add $25 million. Under the committee bill, 79,000 fewer 
children will be provided with summer jobs. With this addition, we 
would be able to meet the needs of approximately one-fourth of those 
children, still, a very small addition but one which we think is amply 
justified.
  This, in my view, is the primary amendment to this bill. This 
amendment more than any other defines the differences between the two 
parties in terms of our priorities. We believe that a Congress which 
can afford to add $11 billion above the President's budget for Pentagon 
spending, a Congress which has tried to provide twice as many B-2 
bombers as the Pentagon asked for, we believe that, if a Congress 
decides it is OK to do that, it certainly ought to be OK to try to 
restore some of the reductions that have been made in real dollar terms 
and in nominal dollar terms in the committee bill.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, this committee bill 
is the first step in a 6-year process that will reduce the investment 
that we make in our kids by 20 percent in real dollar terms. I do not 
think, and I do not think that the country thinks, that this is the way 
to prepare for the 21st century.
  The children we are sending into the world of work today are going to 
have to be better prepared, better educated, better trained than any 
kids in the history of this country, if they want to get decent-paying 
jobs and provide a decent standard of living for their families. They 
do not do that, they are not going to be in a position to do that if we 
short-sheet this bill, if we short-sheet our ability to help the kids 
who are most difficult to educate in this country to get ahead.
  This amendment, I apologize for the fact that it is so small because, 
even after this amendment, it still leaves us some $5 billion below the 
funding level for education and training that was contained in the 
bipartisan coalition bill on the budget just a couple of months ago. It 
is the very, very, very least that we should do to provide adequate 
education for our young people. It is far less than we can afford to 
do, but it is at least a nominal step forward from the committee bill.
  I strongly urge passage of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not press my point of order, no.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation of a point of 
order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin if he 
could explain to the House how much total money would be added under 
his amendment and from where he would derive the funding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, we are adding $1.246 
billion to the bill.
  Mr. PORTER. And where is the gentleman deriving that from?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are adding that by moving, just as the 
committee bill did on title I, we are moving a significant amount of 
money from title I expended in this year, moving it to the October 
payment, must as the committee has provided for an October payment, and 
that gives us ample room to provide the additions that I described.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that we have been 
working with the minority all last night and all today, and we have 
never seen this gentleman's amendment. We knew nothing about the fact 
that it was going to be offered until it was offered. We did not have a 
copy, if I could have the attention of the gentleman from Wisconsin, we 
did not have a copy of the amendment prior to its being offered.
  The gentleman and I both exchanged concern about not being informed 
of other Members' amendments just a moment ago, and this suddenly comes 
out without any prior notice to the majority that it was going to be 
offered.
  I have to say, I am incredibly surprised by that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am, too.
  I must say two things. First of all, this is not the only thing that 
has come out with considerable surprise to Members of this House today, 
as Members will find out in days to come. And I would certainly say 
that I apologize for the fact that we did not make the gentleman aware 
of this amendment. We have been perfecting it up until the very moment, 
literally, that we offered it. And as the gentleman knows, because of 
the great difficulty in making certain that it was in order 
parliamentarily, we had to keep making adjustments until we could get 
it in shape to offer it.
  Mr. PORTER. May I ask the gentleman if I can expect anymore surprises 
this evening or tomorrow?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, none that I know of. Again, I would apologize 
to the gentleman for not getting it to him. I literally had still been 
working with the staff on this into the hours this afternoon trying to 
perfect it so we could, in fact, offer it and have it be made in order.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will simply address 
the substance of the amendment.

  Would we like to put in more money in Head Start or in special ed or 
in dislocated workers? Of course. What this amendment does is simply 
borrow from next year's 602(b) allocation $1.3 billion and make the 
same mistake that we were forced to make in the 1996 fiscal year final 
product, when the President absolutely insisted before he would sign 
the bill on additional spending that was not within our allocation. And 
it is a gimmick that no Congress should ever have engaged in and we 
should not have engaged in last year but had to in order to get the 
bill signed. I would oppose it on that ground alone.
  It is simply a budgetary gimmick to take from next year and spend 
this year. It is going to have to be paid for sometime.

[[Page H7308]]

  If I can say to the gentleman, once again, and say it as emphatically 
as I possibly can, while I realize that we are never going to be able 
to balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending and that we 
must address the rise in entitlement programs and we should not cut 
taxes, I would add to that as well, and I am not always happy with the 
allocations in function, but let me say to the gentleman, we have a job 
to do here and that is to get spending under control. And simply to try 
and squeeze it out of next year is adding more to the deficit 
ultimately, asking our children and grandchildren to pay the bills for 
spending that occurs right now.
  I do not want to be any part of that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let 
me say that this may be a gimmick but this is a gimmick which the 
gentleman's own bill has engaged in to the tune of $1,298,000,000.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time from the gentleman, that 
gimmick was forced by the White House in order to get a signable bill 
and was not something that we engaged in. They wanted to put in more 
spending than we could possibly afford.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Unless we 
adopt the Obey amendment, this bill reduces our commitment to education 
by an additional $400 million below last year's cut of over $1 billion. 
Mr. Chairman, there are a host of reasons for supporting the Obey 
amendment. Let me mention just a few.
  First, education cuts will hinder our efforts to improve the overall 
productivity of our economy. The National Center on Education and 
Quality of the Work Force estimates that each 10 percent increase in 
education results in an 8.6 percent increase in productivity and that 
increasing education improves productivity more than increasing capital 
or increasing hours. In other words, making investments in education 
benefits the entire Nation.

                              {time}  1600

  As my colleagues know, one can transfer capital around the world, 
fluid capital, instantaneously; machinery in a matter of days. One can 
transfer capital anywhere. What gives us the cutting edge in 
competition in the global economy is education and training.
  Second, we expect, Mr. Chairman, significant new enrollments in 
schools across the country in the next few years. In my own State of 
Michigan alone there will be 29,000 new enrollments by next year. 
Schools in my State will need to hire an additional 1,700 teachers. We 
should not be turning our back on local communities when their needs 
are increasing, and that is exactly what we will be doing if we do not 
adopt the Obey amendment.
  Do not forget that in the last appropriations bill we cut education 
funding by over $1 billion.
  Now my colleagues will hear today that this budget merely freezes 
last year's funding levels. That is not true. It cuts $400 million 
below last year's levels, but even so, freezing a billion-dollar cut is 
not something to be proud of.
  I think it is very unfortunate that in this bill once again the 
Republican leadership, bowing to pressure from outside, has endorsed 
the elimination of Goals 2000. I would like to quote one of our 
witnesses before our committee this year commenting on Goals 2000. That 
was James Burge, vice president of Motorola. He said ``The business 
community has been supportive of bipartisan legislation to encourage 
education reform in the States, beginning with Presidents Bush's 
America 2000 proposal through President Clinton's Goals 2000 
proposal.'' This was a bipartisan concept, Goals 2000. There is only 
one reason for eliminating this proposal: political posturing and 
pressure from certain extreme groups in the outside.

  Goals 2000 is the most voluntary program we have. It is the simplest 
program, a 1-page application. Forty-eight States are participating in 
it. The Governor of Texas, the son of President Bush who started this 
concept, has endorsed and embraced Goals 2000, and why again are we 
insisting that those 48 States who have embraced Goals 2000, that they 
are wrong and we are going to pull the rug out from under them?
  States are beginning to see some real improvements in their 
achievement levels under Goals 2000. Real, sustainable progress is 
being made because of Goals 2000. Goals 2000 had its roots with the 
Governors, was picked up by President Bush. Lamar Alexander frequently 
visited my office for several months pushing Goals 2000, although he 
denounced it during his primary election for President.
  This is no time to pull that rug out. To my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who through the years have been supporters of 
education, I am convinced that the Obey amendment is the most important 
education vote we can cast. This will assure that the Federal 
Government will keep its support of education. Education is a local 
function. We want it to be a local function. It is a State 
responsibility, a very important State responsibility, but it is a 
very, very important Federal concern, and to help these States with 
voluntary programs to improve their educational standards, their 
delivery system, is something that reflects that Federal concern.
  I urge support for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 80 minutes 
divided, 40 minutes to the gentleman form Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and 40 
minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I rise in very strong support of this amendment.
  Earlier in this debate today I quoted from ``A Nation at Risk,'' 
issued in 1983 by the Reagan Department of Education. In that report 
they said this:

       History is not kind to idlers. The time is long past when 
     America's destiny was assured simply by an abundance of 
     natural resources and inexhaustible human enthusiasm. We live 
     among determined, well-educated and strongly motivated 
     competitors. America's position in the world may once have 
     been reasonably secure with only a few exceptionally well-
     trained men and women. It is no longer.

  That is what this amendment is about.
  I voted for a budget which balanced the budget by 2002. It cut $137 
billion more from the debt that will be incurred over the next 6 years, 
and it provided for $45 billion more for education than the Republican 
alternative.
  My colleagues, this amendment adds $1 billion to education in 1997 
far short of the additional $6 billion in the Coalition budget.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] mentioned a little earlier 
that there will be, over these years for which we budget, 3,410,000 
additional students in our schools. Next year, there will be more 
students in America's schools than at any time before in history.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and I had a debate about adding 
$20 million to title I. He said that was important, to put money on the 
ground in schools for kids that needed help. The gentleman from Florida 
ought to be very enthusiastic about this amendment, and I presume he 
will vote for it.
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] offered an amendment to cut 
management and add $1 million to title I. That would not be noticed, of 
course, by the State of Georgia or any other State when we spread that 
among the school districts of this country. This amendment gives the 
gentleman from Georgia the opportunity to add $450 million to title I. 
Now, that is an important thing to do because what the chairman's bill 
does without this amendment is to take down the number of students that 
will be served in 1997 from the 6.8 million who receive them today to 
6.6 million next year. That is 200,000 students that will not be 
served.
  This amendment will add next year an additional 150,000 students over 
those provided for in the bill. Why is that important? Because 
under title I today, my colleagues, we serve only 53 percent of those 
students who are eligible. What does title I try to do? It tries

[[Page H7309]]

to take those students who are educationally and economically and 
culturally deprived and tries to make sure that they will be able to be 
participants in growing our economy and increasing the quality of our 
society.

  This is not a esoteric or intellectual interest. This is a real 
interest for my children and the children of families across America.
  This is a families first, children first amendment. That is why this 
amendment should be improved. If we do not pass this amendment, and we 
support the chairman's bill--and I might say the chairman was 
constrained by the 602(b), that is to say, the money he had available--
we will cut from 53 percent of the young people served to 42 percent. 
That is 11-percent fewer children served in America in programs that 
the Reagan administration supported, the Bush administration supported, 
and the Clinton administration supported, to lift kids up, to educate 
them and make them full participants in our society.
  Furthermore, this amendment adds $70 million to Head Start to serve 
15,000 additional children, 15,000 additional children. We talk a lot 
about being concerned about one life, the ability to make one life 
better, more able to understand and to participate in and be advantaged 
by education. One life. This is 15,000 additional children and 
additional families, additional moms who want to see their children 
have a seat in Head Start, not to hear, ``No, there is no more room.''
  This amendment also adds $250 million, as the gentleman from Michigan 
indicated, to Goals 2000 to provide for better quality education in 
America.
  My colleagues, this was called a gimmick by the chairman of our 
committee. Let me point out that the Committee on the Budget has 
interposed no objection to this process.
  Let me repeat to my colleagues, the Committee on the Budget has 
interposed no objection to this policy. As a result, my colleagues in 
this House, we are giving an opportunity to raise an additional billion 
dollars for educating kids to help families in America, which is what 
we all say we want to do. And we do that consistent with what the 
Committee on the Budget has approved within the framework of our 
numbers.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope when the role is called on this amendment, my 
colleagues will vote ``yes'' for children, ``yes'' for families, 
``yes'' for America.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me further comment for a moment on the procedure here.
  First of all, it was our understanding before the Committee on Rules 
that the reason the gentleman from Wisconsin asked for additional time 
for general debate, and there was 2 hours allotted, was that we would 
not be seeing this generic type of Democrat priority amendment again. 
We had seen it in our subcommittee, and we had seen it in the full 
committee, in part, and it was our understanding it would not be 
offered.
  Beyond that, it is being offered without any notice, without any 
chance for us to analyze whether it is different than previously 
offered or not, and I would say to the Members of the House that this 
is the Democrat wish list for funding for education that is not 
supported by anything except additional borrowing of money. It is part 
of the problem and not part of the solution, and I believe very 
strongly it is irresponsible in the extreme and in further forwarding 
funding where we have forward funded in the past in response to the 
President's demands that we spend more money than we have. And I would 
simply say the Members ought to reject this kind of approach out of 
hand. It is exactly what the problem is in Washington and the kind of 
problem that we are trying to solve by getting our budget into balance 
and not pull these kinds of gimmicks in funding in order to say that we 
are for this group or that spending or the like. I think it is the 
height of irresponsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the full committee.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ilinois 
[Mr. Porter] yielding me as much time as I might consume, but I ask the 
Chair to advise me when I have consumed 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a cute way to avoid the Budget Act and appear 
as if we are throwing money at education and saying the children need 
education dollars. The fact is, if we look at President Clinton's own 
budget, we see that in 1996 the total amount of funding that there is 
available for education, training, and employment and social services 
is about $39 billion, and it goes up in his budget substantially over 
the years to almost where it peaks at about $46 billion, and then by 
his own figures it starts to go down substantially in his plan to 
balance the budget.
  Now, the President has said of course he wants to balance the budget. 
Ironically, his cuts do not really ever get anywhere until after the 
next term of office. I would not have any idea why that is, but we 
would assume that again it is typical liberal mentality and that we 
will worry about the real problems manana; not this term, or even the 
next term of course, but the term after.

                              {time}  1615

  That shows though that even he talks about the need to cut back. That 
is not in keeping with the sentiment of this particular amendment, 
which throws money that we do not have at education.
  Where does it really go? Does it go to the child? No, of course it 
does not go to the child. The current Washington bureaucracy in the 
Department of Education involves the Office of the General Counsel, 
Inspector General, Secretary of Education, the Deputy Secretary, Under 
Secretary of Education, Office of Public Affairs, Executive Management 
Committee, Reinvention Coordinating Council, Budget Services, Planning 
Evaluation Services, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, 
Intergovernmental Agencies, Interagency Affairs, Secretary of 
Education, Office of Elementary, Secondary, and Post-secondary 
Education, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  The money goes to the Washington bureaucracy. Even if this amendment 
were adopted, the money go to the bureaucracy, which the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] who has just preceded me in the well would hope to 
perpetuate because these are his constituents anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is under this bill, money for 
education goes up, money for student loans goes up. This is the 
projection from 1995 to the year 2000. Every year the estimated annual 
student loan volume and the cost goes up. The average student loan 
amount increases from $3,600 in 1995 to $4,300 in the year 2000. The 
maximum Pell grant, the overall student aid, the TRIO Program, the work 
study programs, all go up between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 
1997.
  Head Start, which has gone up 132 percent since 1990, is held even in 
fiscal year 1997. Title I, where in the last 7 years alone there has 
been an increase of 40-percent in title I grants to the States, it is 
being held even; again, a 40-percent increase over just what was spent 
in 1990. It goes on and on and on.
  Look, there is never any end to the pleas for more money to help the 
children who need to be educated. The Federal Government only handles 5 
percent of the total education dollars, and most of the money, 95 
percent of the money spent on education for elementary and post-
secondary education or secondary education, comes directly from the 
States and local governments. But, they never have enough money to 
spend.
  The fact is, even if they took the money and spent it, it would go to 
the bureaucracy and not to the children. Where does the money come 
from? It comes from the American taxpayer, and increasingly, since 
World War II, the average American taxpaying family has contributed 
back then 5 percent of its annual income to Washington, DC and the 
Federal Government, and today, 25 percent of its annual income to 
Washington, DC, so the people who take their money can go back and get 
reelected every 2 years by saying, look what we have done for you with 
your cash. Even then, they have taken more and more and more over the 
last 50 years, and that is still not enough, because they have spent 
even more and even more and even more.
  In 1980 they were spending $100 billion more than they were receiving 
in

[[Page H7310]]

revenues. By 1990 they were spending $300 billion more than they 
received. This year, even though we are spending $1.6 trillion in the 
Federal budget, it is still not enough, and we are spending $150 
billion more than we collect.
  As a result, all those accumulated deficits mean that we now have a 
national debt of $5.1 trillion, $20,000 for every man, woman, and child 
in America, and we are paying interest on that debt, the interest of 
which is soon to exceed what we spend on the defense of this Nation in 
a single year.
  The first dollar that we spend in the Federal payroll goes to 
interest, not to defend America, but to interest on the debt. And yet 
they say spending is not enough. They want to drive this country into 
bankruptcy in order to get reelected. It is time we stopped it. Reject 
this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, whatever amendments Democrats offer to try to help 
people, we get the same response from the Republican side of the aisle: 
``It is all going to the bureaucracy.'' Let me tell the Members where 
the money is going. We are trying to provide help for 15,000 more kids 
for Head Start, so we do not have to reduce the number by 15,000 this 
year from last year. The last time I looked, first-graders were not 
bureaucrats, they were kids who needed help.
  We provide help for 450,000 kids under title I. Those are not 
bureaucrats, those are first- and second- and third-graders. We provide 
$250 million for school improvement. That goes to schools. It goes to 
neighborhood schools. We provide $233 million to restore the teacher 
training that they wiped out in the bill. That is 186,000 math and 
science teachers that will get the training they otherwise would not 
get. We restore $25 million for safe- and drug-free schools, not 
bureaucrats. I wish it could be $125 million. We restore $25 million to 
help 17,000 kids, not bureaucrats, get summer jobs. We restore $93 
million in order to help 96,000 students, not bureaucrats.
  We provide $150 million so 50,000 American workers who have lost 
their jobs because of trade can get help to get retrained. So do not 
give me this baloney about money going to bureaucrats. This money goes 
to workers, it goes to kids, it goes to neighborhood schools, it goes 
to working families. This is the bill above all others that is supposed 
to help kids and working families get ahead. Give me a break. Quit 
giving us that same old song.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the education and training 
amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin, The amendment overturns 
this bill's devastating funding shortfall in worker assistance and 
summer jobs, Head Start, support to local schools, and student aid. The 
$100 million increase in dislocated worker training means that 50 
thousand additional, for a total over 600 thousand, workers would 
receive the critical training and related services they need to 
successfully re-enter the workforce. One might ask, just who are these 
people? Well, let me give you a basic snapshot: 54 percent are male; 73 
percent are in the prime of their working career aged 30 to 54; 79 
percent are white; 21 percent are minorities; over 40 percent have post 
high school education; and 17 percent are veterans. These are people, 
who in good times, have carried the weight of this country on their 
backs, and will resume doing so when they return to the work force. 
However, for now, as a result of some form of downsizing, they have 
been forced out of their jobs. These hard working people do not want a 
hand out, they just need a temporary helping hand. They deserve that 
much from their country.
  The $25 million increase for summer jobs means that over 15,000 
additional summer jobs can be supported. While this is an improvement 
to the bill, the number of summer jobs supported is still 65,000 fewer 
than the number currently supported, which is 521,000. The Summer Jobs 
Program is absolutely critical to furthering the development of the 
Nation's disadvantaged youth. As I am sure each of us knows, 
disadvantaged children from all backgrounds whether they are African-
American, Hispanic, Native-American, or White--just do not have access 
to the critical linkages to the work force that they need. The Summer 
Jobs Program provides that ``critical link'' and marks disadvantaged 
youth's first step toward learning work ethics and gaining real work 
experience.
  In fact, the unemployment rate among all teens almost triples that of 
the overall unemployment rate. For African-American teens, the rate of 
unemployment is more than five times that of the overall rate. The 
potential costs to society from not adequately developing and nurturing 
its disadvantaged youth is too costly to ignore. It is for these 
reasons that the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request includes 
$871 million to support 574,000 summer jobs. This Nation's investment 
in summer jobs pays for itself.
  With respect to education, the Obey amendment provides for children's 
safety and academic achievement. By adding $25 million for safe and 
drug-free schools, children's safety in the classroom is much improved. 
These funds are absolutely critical in providing the over 40 million 
children served by the program a crime and violence-free classroom in 
which to learn. Schools use these funds to support conflict mediation, 
latchkey programs, substance abuse prevention, and violence prevention 
initiatives including counseling and support groups for at-risk 
students. The availability of resources to improve classroom safety 
have encouraged students, parents, and teachers to get involved in 
managing their schools. And, equally important, it has encouraged 
parents to get involved in managing their children's education. As a 
result, some of the schools are experiencing improvements in academic 
achievement and attendance. Also, dropout rates and suspensions are 
going down.
  The $70 million increase for Head Start will make available 15,000 
additional slots. Less than half of the estimated 2 million children 
who are currently eligible for Head Start are being served.
  The restoration of funding, $250 million, for the Goals 2000 Program 
which was eliminated by the bill, means 6,800 schools will have access 
to the resources they need to raise academic standards and to continue 
to help students meet them. In my own State, Ohio, Goals 2000 funds are 
being used to advance local school improvements designed to enhance 
student achievement in math and other subject areas where students are 
lacking in proficiency, to increase and strengthen parental, business 
and community involvement in education, and to support partnerships 
with other school districts, colleges, and universities.
  The $450 million increase for title I means that 450,000 additional 
children, as compared to H.R. 3755, will now have access to the 
critical assistance they need in basic reading and math. Title I funds 
have made a positive difference in communities across the country 
allowing schools to focus on early intervention strategies to help 
prevent academic failure, to help close the gap between the lowest 
achieving children and other children, between high- and low-poverty 
schools, and to involve parents more centrally in the education of 
their children.
  The amendment's restoration of $233 million in funding to the 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which was eliminated by 
the bill--means that an estimated 286,000 teachers and other educators 
would receive the training and development they need to teach core 
academic subjects.
  The restoration of $93 million in funding to the Perkins loan program 
means that approximately 96,000 students will be provided the 
additional financial aid they desperately need at a time when the cost 
of college is up. Providing a maximum award of $4,000, the Perkins 
student aid program is critical to helping make college affordable for 
low-income and middle class families alike.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here on behalf of the Nation's children. Let's 
not abandon them and their families. Let's fix this bill. I urge you to 
vote ``yes'' on the Obey education and training amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to try to put all this in perspective for 
people. The

[[Page H7311]]

total spending on primary and secondary education in this country is 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $280 billion. The Federal Government 
spends about $14 billion of that sum. That means about roughly 5 
percent of the total. The cuts made last year between fiscal 1995, 
enacted in fiscal 1996, here in the Congress in education funding would 
amount to approximately three-quarters of 1 percent of the money spent 
on education.
  So let me say, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman on the other side of 
the aisle once again, he is saying the sky is falling, that we are 
doing terrible things to education, that we are shortchanging the kids. 
Believe me, the gentleman is so, so far from the truth.
  Let me say one other thing. If we follow the approach of this 
amendment, no appropriations subcommittee will ever be able to enforce 
the discipline of the Budget Act, or to live within their 602(b) 
allocations.
  We will set ourselves on the course of borrowing from the next year 
ahead on and on in the most irresponsible way, and I would tell the 
Members that the gentleman from Maryland who just made his 
presentation, I believe I heard the same presentation four times now, 
and that may be very good propaganda, but I know it word for word. I 
think he would tell us if he were here that this is an irresponsible 
way to proceed, because I have heard him say it myself many, many 
times.
  This is not serious legislation, Mr. Chairman, this is a propaganda 
game to see who can say they are spending the most and caring the most. 
It is irresponsible in the extreme.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the 
subcommittee yielding so I can make this simple point. As the gentleman 
knows, I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and I, too, have sat through this very 
informative presentation by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] during the course of both the 
subcommittee and full committee markups.
  As the chairman will recall, on both occasions we asked the minority 
to tell us how much per pupil funding, per pupil expenditures for 
public education by State and local education agencies has increased 
over that same corresponding time period. We have yet to get an answer 
to that particular question.
  Since everyone participating in this debate acknowledges that public 
education is chiefly the responsibility of State and local education 
agencies, I think that is a rather important piece of information that 
is currently lacking from the debate. I call again on the minority to 
tell us and the American people how much per pupil funding has 
increased for public education over the same time period, as used by 
their charts.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 28 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 29 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of my subcommittee for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a budget-busting amendment, make no 
mistake about it. During general debate last night, I attempted to 
point out what an important and integral part of the balanced budget 
question this entire legislation is. We need to ask ourselves with 
regard to this amendment, are we going to be able to make the tough 
decisions to actually reduce the deficit and stay on a glide path 
toward a balanced budget by 2002?
  To adopt the amendment that is before us would be to add another $1.3 
million in spending that we cannot afford and that we cannot expend and 
stay on that path.
  A second question that is a legitimate concern for Members of this 
body is, can we adequately fund education in the context of the bill 
that has been reported by the Committee on Appropriations? I would 
simply point out to my colleagues, the chart that I have before me, 
student aid increases under this bill.
  As my colleagues can see, Mr. Chairman, the maximum Pell grant will 
go up from $2,470 to $2,500 under this bill. Overall student aid will 
be increased under this bill between 1996 and 1997. An increase for the 
TRIO Program. An increase for the work study program.
  With regard to Head Start funding, as my colleagues can see, this 
legislation in the context of a balanced budget provides a modest 
increase for Head Start. According to this chart in the last 7 years, 
Head Start funding has increased by 132 percent. That is a substantial 
commitment that this Congress has correctly made to this important 
program. As a matter of fact, since fiscal year 1989, the appropriation 
for Head Start has grown by 200 percent, reflecting the commitment of 
this Congress to Head Start funding. That amount will increase by some 
$31 million under the bill that we have before us.
  Another point that my colleagues have made, particularly my friend 
from Maryland, is that we are trying to balance the budget and give tax 
relief to middle-class Americans at the same time. My colleague from 
Maryland says we cannot do that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we 
can do that. In the budget plan that we have adopted that a majority of 
this body has voted for, we can do that. I want to provide tax relief 
for that middle-class family. I want to provide an opportunity for that 
family making $25,000 to $30,000 a year to have an extra $1,000 or 
$1,500 in their take-home pay. If we can do that and still provide an 
increase for Head Start and for the other programs that I have already 
outlined, then I think that is a bargain that we ought to take. That is 
an opportunity we ought to grab. I think the American people support 
that.
  One last chart, and the chairman of the full committee has already 
alluded to this, this is a chart of President Clinton's budget for 
education, training, employment and social services out through 2002. 
As my colleagues can see, the President and his party have proposed 
dramatic increases in spending in these areas until 2000. That would be 
the end of the text presidential term. And then the President of the 
United States says, ``After 2000, we will make dramatic cuts in these 
programs.'' How are we going to do it? It has not quite been explained. 
I say that if we were to take this approach and adopt this sort of 
dramatic upswing and then hope for a cut in the out years that we will 
never balance that budget and I think every Member of this body on 
either side of the aisle knows that. It is the same with this 
amendment. This amendment says,

       Let's spend in fiscal year 1997 another $1.3 billion, and 
     we're not going to get it out of another program, we're not 
     going to take it out of some other line item, we're just 
     going to borrow it from next year. Next year. We'll worry 
     about it then.''

  Is that not the problem that we have had that has led to the deficit 
that we are currently faced with? Is that not the problem that has led 
to a $5 trillion debt or has contributed at least to a $5 trillion debt 
in this country?
  I urge my colleagues to say no to robbing from people tomorrow so 
that we can spend more money today. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this budget-busting amendment.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay], the distinguished ranking member of the Education 
Authorizing Committee.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey education and 
training amendment and in opposition to H.R. 3755, the fiscal year 1997 
Labor-Education-HHS appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, Republican appropriators boast that their budget 
preserves meaningful Federal support for education. Unfortunately, 
their behavior does not coincide with their rhetorical bragging.
  The appropriations bill before us today does not preserve our 
commitment to the children of this country. It

[[Page H7312]]

shortchanges basic education and assistance to the most vulnerable 
student populations, withdraws support for State and local education 
reform, sabotages school improvement efforts, and denies opportunities 
for low-income students to pursue higher education as a reasonable 
goal.
  Republicans attempt to package their fiscal year 1997 education 
budget as a freeze. But characterizing this atrocity as a budgetary 
freeze is like calling a termite an interior decorator. In reality, the 
bill represents a continued erosion of Federal support for education. 
The simple fact is this bill cuts education funding, and these cuts 
come on top of last year's $1.1 billion reduction in education dollars. 
Unfortunately, the Republican 6-year balanced budget calls for a 
continued downward slide in Federal education support.
  I fail to see the logic of curtailing support for education, 
particularly in light of the increasing demands on our education 
system. School enrollments are rising to record-high levels. In the 
next 6 years, the period covered by the Republican budget plan, public 
elementary and secondary school enrollments are projected to increase 
by 7 percent, and college enrollment by 12 percent. Given these soaring 
increases in the student population, ever-increasing service costs, and 
shrinking local education budgets, these cuts will have disastrous 
results for our children.
  It makes no sense to balance the budget by sacrificing investments in 
the young people who will assume awesome responsibility of leading the 
world. Investing in education yields extraordinary benefits in terms of 
increased productivity and economic growth. Equal access to education 
and educational excellence for all of our children require vigorous and 
responsible leadership. The bill before us today takes this country in 
the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chairman, on the other hand, I support the amendment offered by 
my colleague, Mr. Obey. His amendment would restore funds to assist 
8,500 schools in improving the academic achievement of their students, 
provide basic education assistance for an additional 450,000 children 
from low-income communities, preserve professional 
development opportunities for 750,000 teachers and educators, and 
restore opportunities for 96,000 low-income students to receive Perkins 
grants to pursue higher education.

  Finally, the bill's funding of training programs is woefully 
inadequate. In this era of increased global competition, we must rely 
more than ever on our Nation's most valuable resource: The skills and 
productivity of our workers. A strong training system is critical to 
our future. Regrettably, the Republican Congress continues to ignore 
this reality.
  The Republican Congress cut over $3 billion from education and 
training in the 1995 rescission bill and the 1996 omnibus 
appropriations bill. Today we consider a bill that cuts further at 
training programs. The Republican bill would deny training 
opportunities to thousands of dislocated workers who seek retraining to 
improve their skills, and remain productive citizens. Job losses are 
inevitable in today's fast-paced economy, as corporate downsizing 
continues at an alarming rate. The faster dislocated workers can move 
into new jobs, the better it is for them, their families, and for the 
American economy. We cannot turn our backs on workers in need of 
retraining.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican approach to education 
and training. I urge Members to honor our commitment to students and 
workers by voting for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the charts and graphs and the square root of last 
year's budget are all interesting, but I think they miss an essential 
point. That is, that traditionally and without exception, appropriate 
funding and aggressive support for education has been a bipartisan 
effort in this Congress. It was, after all, a Democratic President that 
proposed the GI bill and a Republican Congress that said yes. It was a 
Republican President that supported the great National Defense 
Education Act and a Democratic Congress that said yes. Together we have 
supported such things as drug-free schools and Head Start. The list is 
glorious and it was bipartisan until this Gingrich Congress. Until this 
Congress, for 50 years, both Democrats and Republicans joined hands as 
the American people wanted us to in appropriately funding education and 
now it has changed. Our Republican colleagues cut $1.1 billion out of 
the schools and the children of this country in the last Congress and 
now they propose to cut almost a half a billion more. The Obey 
amendment attempts to restore bipartisanship to education, to what it 
has traditionally been.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, to hear all this compassionate discussion about public 
education makes me harken back to last year and our efforts to offer 
educational choice to the poor people of the District of Columbia. If 
we have a direct responsibility for any education system in this 
country, it certainly is the District of Columbia public schools and we 
were unable, because of Democratic opposition, to offer educational 
choice to the poor children of the District of Columbia and their 
families. These are children that are trapped in failing schools and 
trapped in circumstances that as far as I am concerned very seriously 
cloud their future and deny them educational opportunity, which is the 
cornerstone of American democratic society.
  But the point I want to make during this debate is that simply 
throwing more money, more taxpayer dollars at our failing educational 
system has not helped the problem and it is not the answer. I think I 
can come down to floor here with pretty clean hands because I parted 
company with some of my California Republican colleagues, I certainly 
parted company with some of my colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations and voted against the defense spending bill last year 
because I thought it was excessive, only to later witness the 
President, who had opposed the bill and threatened to veto it, turn 
around and sign that bill into law because he claimed that he needed 
the $8 billion additional spending in that defense bill, which he had 
earlier called excessive, to help pay for our Bosnian mission which I 
think is in the long term doomed to catastrophic failure in that part 
of the world.
  But I want to point out, here is what is missing from the charts and 
the statistics and the figures that are thrown around on the other side 
during this debate. Since 1970 per-pupil spending in this country, this 
was the point I tried to make earlier, per-pupil spending in this 
country has increased from $4,000 per pupil to almost $7,000, and that 
is adjusted for inflation, a $3,000 per-pupil increase after adjusting 
for inflation. Yet SAT test scores have dropped from a total average of 
937 in 1972 to 902 in 1994.
  There are a couple of other figures that I want to share with Members 
as well. We all recognize that education is suffering in this country. 
According to the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress, when 
testing for U.S. history achievement, 36 percent of fourth graders, 39 
percent of eighth graders, and 57 percent of 12th graders failed to 
attain even a basic skill level. For reading achievement, the same 
National Assessment of Educational Progress test reports that 40 
percent of fourth graders, 30 percent of eighth graders, and 25 percent 
of 12th graders failed to attain again basic skill sufficiency levels.
  So where is all this money going? Because it is obviously not going 
into the classroom, it is obviously not producing the kind of 
educational results, the kind of educational improvement that we would 
like to see in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, we really have to take this into account when we hear 
the other side talk about spending more and more money and growing our 
Federal education bureaucracy back here in Washington. When we took 
over last January and became the new Republican majority in this House 
of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, we started an 
inventory of all Federal education programs. That count today stands at 
760 separate categorical Federal education programs and increasing. 
Seven hundred and

[[Page H7313]]

sixty education programs, administered by a bureaucratic, redtape, 
absolutely a maze of bureaucratic agencies. Thirty-nine separate 
Federal departments, agencies, boards and commissions to administer 
these 760 Federal education programs. These programs cost Federal 
taxpayers $120 billion in 1995. But only 51 of these programs are 
determined to be for the purposes of science, reading, or math. That is 
how far we have gotten away from the 3 R's in this country. Remember 
reading, writing, and arithmetic? I would add two others, respect and 
responsibility, which I think we all need to teach through our public 
schools. Only 3.6 percent of these 760 Washington Federal education 
programs are science related, only 1.8 percent are reading related, and 
only 1.1 percent of these programs are math related.

  Mr. Chairman, it is very clear. We are not getting the bang for the 
buck, we are not getting the kind of results and the kind of 
accountability we should expect and demand in our public education 
schools in this country today.
  I urge my colleagues, reject this argument and remember that the best 
thing we can do for our children is to balance the budget. The 
Democrats say that this bill hurts children but the fact is that we are 
balancing the budget for our children, for the first time in decades. 
If we do not get runaway Federal spending under control, we simply will 
not have money for college loans, we will not have money for Head 
Start, and we will not have money for children's health programs.

                              {time}  1645

  So we again are prioritizing spending. Remember, more money, based on 
the experience of the last few years, the last few decades in this 
country, does not necessarily mean better education.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the argument that 
throwing money at the problem is the solution. Qualitative educational 
reform and improvement is the answer.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and 
in opposition to this bill and specifically in opposition to the bill's 
shortsighted allocations for education funding.
  Mr. Chairman, if this country is truly going to meet the challenges 
of the 21st century, its children will meet the best education we can 
provide. I think we all agree on that point. However, this bill does 
not reflect that need.
  We know that over the next several years, enrollment in public 
schools will rise to levels we have never seen before. In fact, the 
Department of Education estimates that America will need 50,000 
additional teachers for the upcoming school year, just to keep class 
sizes the same as they were last year. This is not a 1-year anomaly--we 
expect these numbers to continue to increase over the next several 
years.
  At the same time, we are facing a collapse of the current cohort of 
teachers. The baby-boomers are reaching retirement age. This will mean 
not only fewer teachers, but fewer role models and mentors for all of 
the new teachers we hope to acquire. All of this is happening during a 
time of extreme change in our society. For example the body of 
scientific knowledge changes daily. We simply can't expect teachers who 
were trained in this subject 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago, to be 
able to teach science effectively without the resources and the 
training they need to stay current. Constant retraining and 
strengthening of skills is essential--especially as we ask teachers to 
incorporate new technology into their classrooms.
  However, this bill responds to this by doing exactly the opposite of 
what is needed. It eliminates the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program--the one program that has provided national leadership in 
strengthening the skills of our Nation's teachers. The Department of 
Education estimates that the President's request for this program would 
have given 750,000 teachers hands-on training. Even keeping the level 
of funding equal to last year would have given 338,000 teachers the 
professional development necessary to teach the next generation the 
lessons they will need to survive in today's changing world. This does 
not even take into account the millions of teachers who access the 
Eisenhower clearinghouse on-line every year to share information about 
lesson plans and innovations, in order to make their classrooms better 
learning environments.
  With this bill, none of that will take place.
  And this is only one cut. I have not even spoken of the detrimental 
effects of eliminating Goals 2000 or rejecting the President's 
technology initiative. If we expect our schools to improve, we cannot 
take away the tools--and yes, the money--they need to do so. With 
enrollment increasing, with our current teacher cohort shrinking and 
becoming, on average, less experienced, and with technology developing 
faster than ever before, we must begin to invest more in education--not 
to cut, or simply maintain the efforts of previous years. I have always 
maintained that education is a local function, a State responsibility, 
but now more than ever, it must be an overarching national concern. I 
hope that before Members vote on this bill, they understand both the 
gravity of that decision and its implications for this country's 
education system.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 18 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 25 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment to restore vital funds for public education.
  The amendment rejects the bill's slashing cuts in public education 
that hit children and working families at every level of their academic 
development. This bill will deny working American families the great 
equalizer of our time, the opportunity of a quality public education. 
It cuts safe and drug-free schools. It kicks 15,000 children out of 
Head Start, denies help in reading and mathematics to 150,000 kids, and 
it limits the ability of colleges and universities to grant student 
loans to middle-class families.
  The Obey amendment honors the priorities values of working American 
families by making desperately needed educational investments. 
Education is vital to the productivity and the competitiveness of our 
Nation, both today and in the 21st century. Some of my opponents say 
that the Republicans have changed their tune from 4 months ago and have 
a newfound faith in the merits of public education. This is simply not 
true. Put families first. Put out kids first. Vote for the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green, because he talks slow.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for an 
extra 30 seconds. Those of us from Texas, we talk a little slower.
  I am just shocked that the Republican majority would be opposing this 
amendment that does not increase the deficit and yet it puts money 
where 80 percent of the American people want it, in education funding. 
Education is hard, it's difficult and it is not cheap, and we know it 
is not free. We cannot cut spending, as my colleague from California 
thinks, in education and expect it to improve. Education is tough when 
we spend the money. It is impossible when we do not spend the money. 
That is why the Obey amendment is so important. It increases title I 
funding, increases summer youth training programs, dislocated workers, 
Head Start it increases $70 million, title I funding for disadvantaged 
children, $450 million.
  At a time when we see an increase in the student enrollment, as the 
chart in the front talks about, 7 percent increase, this bill cuts it. 
That is why the Obey amendment is so important.
  If we do not restore the funding with the Obey amendment, then a 
number of us are going to have to vote against this bill because it is 
not preparing for the future of our country. It is cutting

[[Page H7314]]

the future of our country. Using the gentleman from California's 
argument that education is failing and it is because we are not seeing 
the improvement, the Pentagon might be zeroed out this year if we know 
what the GAO study said on the gulf war. We have to do better, not only 
with the Pentagon but also with education funding.

  That is why the Obey amendment is so important for us to adopt and to 
pass.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in serious opposition 
to some remarks that the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] made. In 
fact, walking on the floor, I thought I was back in the Mississippi 
legislature when they were debating not whether or not to increase but 
whether or not there would even be mandatory education in the schools.
  Mr. Chairman, Mississippi tried that. We went for almost 30 years 
without mandatory education, I say to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs]. That is probably why our State ranks last in so many 
categories. It does not work. It costs to educate kids, and it costs 
more to educate kids with disabilities. There was a time when they were 
given a couple pots and pans and told to play in the backyard. Now we 
try to educate them and, yes; we spend a disproportionately high amount 
of money trying to educate those kids. But it is for the purpose of 
making them self-sufficient so that we do not have to pay welfare for 
them.
  It costs money to educate children. My State tried the alternative. 
My State tried going without education and it is suffering for it. So I 
rise in complete argument with everything that the gentleman said and 
also want to remind you that the Republican Congress is increasing the 
annual operating deficit, not reducing it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Obey 
amendment to maintain our commitment to our Nation's children, workers, 
and our schools.
  Mr. Chairman, the spending bill we are debating today provides 
insufficient funding for title I math and English instruction, Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools, and Head Start. When we consider that school 
enrollment will increase by 44,000 in New York State alone and that 
even modest inflation will mean higher costs everywhere, level funding 
is simply not good enough.
  This bill also completely eliminates funding for Goals 2000, provides 
no new funds for the Perkins Loan program that helps families send 
their kids to college, and that is just not acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, what will this bill mean? New York City will need an 
additional $4.5 million in title I funds to provide remedial math and 
English instruction to their students. Under this bill, they just will 
not get it. More than 6,000 students and 260 teachers will be cut from 
the program under this bill next year alone. What is worse, if we 
follow the Republican budget resolution through the year 2002, 41,000 
fewer students will receive title I instruction and 1,600 fewer 
teachers will be funded in New York City. Overall, the Republican 
budget resolution cuts funding for education and training by several 
hundred million dollars by 2002.
  The Obey amendment would add $450 million to title I and bring 
funding up to the level requested by the President in his 6-year 
balanced budget plan. Under the amendment, over 100,000 students who 
would have lost remedial help can continue to receive it. An additional 
250,000 to 300,000 disadvantaged students would receive the help they 
so desperately need.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned that American students have fallen 
behind their peers in other countries in math and science. To help push 
our students to the head of the world's class, the Obey amendment 
provides an additional $230 million for math and science professional 
development. This funding is crucial to help train teachers to prepare 
our students for the technical demands of the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I remember when I was in college and there was a great 
rush to catch up with Sputnik and there was a big move to invest in 
math and science, and we did so. There was a tremendous effort to 
invest in math and science at the time, and we made a real difference 
in our schools. Well, we need to do that again. This amendment restores 
funding to the Goals 2000 program to ensure that our schools are 
prepared for the 21st century.
  In 1996, New York State received $25 million in Goals 2000 funds to 
help establish and meet challenging academic standards. Some in this 
Chamber may argue that schools do not see Goals 2000 money. However, 90 
percent of Goals 2000 money that went to new York this year will reach 
local schools, 90 percent. So make no mistake about it, eliminating 
Goals 2000 will mean $22 million less to local schools in New York 
State, and that would be wrong.
  In addition, this amendment adds $70 million for Head Start. That 
means 15,000 more slots in a program that ensures that young children 
will be ready to learn when they enter school. As written, this bill 
will deny Perkins loans to thousands of needy college students. This 
amendment restores $93 million for the Perkins Loan Program, enough to 
restore Perkins loans to 96,000 needy students who want desperately to 
achieve the American dream.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that 1 short week after cost of 
government day that says that all the income that American families and 
individuals make up until July 3 of any given year goes to support 
various aspects and various taxes, but basically it goes to fund the 
cost of government. The Republican vision for education is to return 
decisionmaking back to the local level. When we are already collecting 
taxes for more than half the year, perhaps we ought to reassess how 
those tax dollars are being spent, and more importantly, perhaps what 
kind of impact are they having.
  When we take a look at putting more money back into the educational 
system in Washington, perhaps it is important to take a look at how 
Washington defines education. So often we say education in Washington 
is the Education Department, right? It is this agency, this Department 
that funnels education dollars back to States and local school 
districts. They are the ones that drive for excellence in education at 
the local level. They maybe have a few programs that do this targeting 
at different kinds of needs and specific requirements at the local 
level. It is a little bit more complex than that.
  It is really a myth here in Washington, because in education, we 
really have embraced the myth that Washington can solve every problem 
in education at the local level.
  What has this myth evolved to? The result of us in this Chamber 
believing that we can solve every problem means that we have developed 
760 different education programs in this town; 760 different programs 
that people at the local level have to filter through. It is a good 
thing that these all go through the Department of Education, so at 
least the people at the local level can go to one agency and one 
bureaucracy in Washington and say: These are my requirements. How can 
you help me and where should I go to look for assistance?

                              {time}  1700

  Wrong. If you are at the local level and you have a problem and you 
think that maybe the Federal Government can help you, and you say which 
one of these 760 programs is targeted to help my specific requirements, 
I think I will go to the Department of Education and get a catalog of 
these. No, sorry, go to the Department of Education and then go to the 
38 other agencies in Washington that have responsibility for education.
  I am at the local level. I can go to 39 agencies and say, can you 
please help me find out which of these 760 programs can help me to 
solve my problem, 760 programs, 39 agencies. But they spend a lot of 
money. Yes, they spend about $120 billion per year.
  It is time to take a look at the agencies, not the money.

[[Page H7315]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished ranking member 
for yielding me this time and also thank him for his leadership. This 
is a very important amendment because if there were nothing else wrong 
with this Labor-HHS bill there would still be three reasons, as I said 
yesterday, to vote against it: Education cuts, education cuts, 
education cuts.
  The needs of our children and our schools are increasing rapidly and 
that this House is willing to shortchange them is shortsighted. Our 
children deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Committee on Appropriations voted to 
cut the President's request for funding for education by $2.8 billion. 
The Obey amendment would restore funding for some of the education and 
training programs that have been frozen, cut, or eliminated in this 
bill.
  I am also pleased that the Obey amendment contains $100 million for 
dislocated worker training. This is a particularly difficult time for 
Congress to be freezing or cutting funds for dislocated worker training 
when workers are dislocated by virtue of trade and downsizing. I should 
not say virtue, but because of trade, downsizing, or technology. It is 
just exactly the wrong time for us to be cutting funding for their 
relocation and their training.
  I am pleased also that there are funds for summer youth training. 
Some of those positions are restored, 16,000, even though the committee 
cut 79,000 summer job training positions. Of course, I am pleased with 
the increased funding that the Obey amendment provides for Head Start, 
Goals 2000, and title I.
  Much has been said on the floor today about the Federal role in 
education, and over and over in the course of the debate in the 
committee, full committee, and here, about the fact that the Federal 
role is 5 percent of education funding in our country. Indeed, it is 
only 5 percent, but it is an important 5 percent, and under this 
legislation, as has been presented here today, we, this Congress of the 
United States, would not even be able to sustain that small 
responsibility as important as it is to our Nation's children.
  Our children deserve to learn in a safe and drug free environment, to 
arrive at school ready to learn, to fully develop basic skills like 
reading and math, to have expanded access to new technologies, to be 
taught by well prepared teachers, to support higher education and to 
learn the appropriate skills to succeed in the 21st century workplace.
  Sometimes it is difficult for some of us to understand when we have 
helped to teach our children to read and write that some children do 
not have that assistance at home. Title I helps provide that for 
children, and I am so pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] has found a way to increase the funding for title I.
  We are beholden as public servants, I believe, to provide these 
opportunities for our children. If we do not display this commitment, 
we are destined to slam head first into a crisis in education and a 
down turn in our Nation's productivity.
  By this fall, 52 million students will be enrolled in elementary and 
secondary education schools. Local education budgets are stretched to 
the limits. Ask any local educator. Education is not just a local 
responsibility, however, and I addressed earlier the 5 percent that we 
provide that is very essential. It is the responsibility of all of us, 
and if we do not live up to it, our children will suffer great 
consequences.
  The education of our children is at great risk. In my view, our 
Federal commitment to education is a measure of our sincerity about 
economic success, social progress, and our children's future. I hope 
our colleagues agree and that they will support this amendment.
  So many times in the course of the appropriations bill we have to 
refer to the budget allocation that our chairman receives. He deserves 
credit on making the best of our allocation. Even so, I think we should 
keep our priorities in line with children first and support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the debate here is not who 
supports education more. Everybody supports education; the Democrats, 
Republicans. I have two children, one still in graduate school working 
on her master's in social work. We support education; that is not the 
debate. The debate is who is fiscally responsible in addressing the 
problem.
  Do we go back to the irresponsibility and use smoke and mirrors and 
just build up debt and put debt on our children? We are talking about 
the future of our kids, and the future of the kids is dependent upon 
the debt we are putting on them. We have a debt of over $19,000 to 
every man, woman, and child in this country today. If we just build 
that up and build that up and spend, spend, spend, that is nice for 
today, but what are we doing for our children and grandchildren? That 
is what this debate is about.
  We have to have fiscal responsibility. We have to have common sense 
when we get into spending, and we are talking about the future of our 
kids. That is what it is about. If we just throw more money, that does 
not necessarily solve the problem. We have increased spending for 
elementary and secondary education in this country from $4,000 per 
child in 1970 to $7,000 today.
  The District of Columbia spends over $9,000 per child. Now, there is 
sending, lots more money, and what do we have to show for it? I doubt 
if there is a Member sitting in the room today that will put their kids 
in the public school in the District of Columbia, and that is throwing 
more money at it.
  So I think the rhetoric is scare tactics and that is unfortunate. It 
has been tried on Medicare: Oh, the sky is falling. We are going to 
destroy Medicare. Hey, we all support Medicare. They support Medicare. 
We want to preserve Medicare. Education, the same thing. Everybody 
feels strongly about education. We need to educate our kids. It is the 
future of our country. But let us educate them in a fiscally 
responsible way and not burden them with more debt.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about $1.3 billion extra 
in Federal spending. No matter where we say the money is going to go, 
where is it going to come from? We asked the proponents, and they say 
we will take it out of the money that we were planning to spend next 
year. Where do we get the money next year? Well, from the year after 
that and the year after that.
  Kind of reminds me of the husband who wanted the boat. He says to his 
wife, ``I am going to get a boat.'' ``Where are you going to get the 
money?'' ``I will take it out of the mortgage.'' ``How will you pay the 
mortgage?'' ``I will take it out of the electric bill.'' ``How are you 
going to pay the electric bill?'' ``I will take it out of the clothing 
budget.'' ``How are you going to buy clothing?'' ``I will take it out 
of the grocery budget.'' ``How are you going to buy groceries?'' ``I 
guess we will have to borrow.''
  That is what this is about. This is about increasing the amount that 
we are going to borrow. From where do we intend to borrow this $1.3 
billion? Well, there are many different ways. We could write a check, 
if we had one. We could put it on a MasterCard or an American Express 
or a Visa. But ultimately it means we are talking about borrowing that 
money from our children.
  I have five of them. I do not want them to be buried in debt before 
they are even grown. I keep a chart in my office. It is on the wall. 
People come in and they can see every day what is the national debt: 
$5.1 trillion, $5,154,104,500,603 as of today, the share of each of my 
children, $19,329, and going up.
  Where is the money going to come from? They want to borrow, borrow, 
borrow, borrow and put our kids in hock for it. This is not for the 
kids. This amendment is for the bureaucrats, to preserve 760 Federal 
programs in the name of education, and 95 percent of the education 
budget in this country comes from the communities and the States. It is 
not dependent upon the Federal Government.

[[Page H7316]]

  What depends on the Federal Government is bureaucrats, 760 Federal 
agencies spread out among 39 departments. Department of Defense. I do 
not even know the names of some of these. Department of Energy. I do 
not know what ATBCB is or AG. I know what EPA is and HHS and HUD. But 
760 Federal programs? How many bureaucrats are we trying to support on 
the backs of our children? That is what this is about.
  If we believe in responsibility, if we believe that our children come 
first, then we should not pretend we are helping them by borrowing more 
money and putting more debt on their backs. Oppose the amendment. Let 
us keep some sanity. Let us get away from the notion that has dominated 
this body for so long that the American people are sick of it. Quit 
borrowing, let us keep the budget solid and keep on the path towards 
getting in it balance.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on Appropriations and 
the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, we have already heard that this really is 
not about education. We are all committed to education. There are 
philosophical differences as to whether or not the education can best 
be paid for at the Federal level or at the State and local level. I 
think most of us on our side of the aisle believe this is a local 
responsibility.
  We can have programs that are better, more efficient, better funded, 
better for children if they are run locally and funded locally. But 
that is not really the issue that is involved here because we have 
increased spending. If we put all the spending of State, Federal and 
local spending together, we have increased dramatically.
  Over the last 40 years, even when we take inflation into account, we 
have more than doubled the per capita spending. Can anybody in this 
body look at the statistics and say we are getting more for the dollars 
that we are spending on education? I doubt it.
  So the issue really is whether or not we are going to spend more to 
provide for Federal bureaucracies. That is really what we are talking 
about, keeping the bureaucracies in place who run these Federal 
programs that amount to only 5 percent of the total education dollars.
  Now, I know this is a little bit inside baseball, but the gimmick 
that is being used here is very clever, and I think my colleagues need 
to know about it. It is really a very clever device, because what they 
are doing is, rather than take the money out of any other account, 
reduce spending in any other place, because that might mean some pain 
in some other areas, in health care, or in higher education or in job 
training or something else, so rather than do that, we are going to 
forward fund. That is, we are going to take the money out of certain 
accounts and we are going to put it into the accounts in fiscal year 
1998.
  This is another year, not the year for which we are appropriating, 
but we will make it available on October 1 during the school year, 
October 1, 1997.
  Now, the people on the other side have claimed, well, this has really 
already been done by the Committee on the Budget, and it is true. In 
the case of title I we did some of this forward funding. Why did we end 
up having to do that? Because the President last year on this bill said 
he would veto it if all the money he wanted for title I was not in the 
bill, and we could not take it out of any other place, so we had no 
choice but to forward fund that.
  It is certainly not a practice that anybody should want to continue. 
It is certainly not a practice that anybody thinks we ought to 
replicate and make widespread in the Federal budget, because as the 
gentleman who spoke before me suggested, when we start doing this with 
one part of the budget, we can do it with all the parts of the budget. 
Why not forward fund defense or the Commerce Department and law 
enforcement, and so forth? And we will just keep borrowing it and 
putting it all into the next year's budget. We will take this year's 
and put it into the next year's budget.

                              {time}  1715

  Obviously, each year the problem becomes bigger as we try to deal 
with this problem. This is a bad process. We should not follow this 
process. We should not do this any further. We should reject this idea. 
We should stick to the budget resolution that we have adopted. We 
should not play these kinds of games and use these gimmicks. This 
amendment should be soundly rejected.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, where in the world were the bleeding 
hearts an hour and a half ago when I stood down in this well and 
pleaded with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face up to 
the mandate that they gave 21 years ago which is destroying every 
school district in this country? Not one of them was here.
   Mr. Chairman, for 20 years they have refused to step up to the plate 
and put the 40 percent they promised into special education, and for 2 
years my side of the aisle has done exactly the same. And now they want 
to exacerbate the problem.
   Mr. Chairman, I will not have a snowball's chance in Hades of 
getting any money to step up to the plate to do something about the 40 
percent unfunded mandate in special education because they are now 
taking the 1998 money away from me.
  Where were they an hour and a half ago when they should have been 
here? Dislocated worker training is not an unfunded mandate. The summer 
youth training is not an unfunded mandate. Head Start is not an 
unfunded mandate. The Goals 2000 is not an unfunded mandate. Title 1 is 
not an unfunded mandate. Eisenhower Teacher Training, unfunded mandate, 
and it is not zeroed out either. It is moved into what we call chapter 
2, which is where it should be, which gives the kinds of flexibility we 
need.
  But to think my Democrat colleagues would then have the gall not to 
step up to the plate and do what they should do for local school 
districts, which is deal with the IDEA problem. Why are they falling 
behind in education in this country on the local level? Simply because 
of unfunded mandates from the Federal Government. They have to take 
their money that they would spend to upgrade education for the masses 
of students to spend on what we mandated for the few that are out 
there.
   Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on the other side, do not turn 
around and play games before an election like this and take away the 
possibility that at least next year, if I cannot do anything about it 
this year, at least next year being able to step up to the plate and 
help those local districts and do something about the unfunded mandate 
so that they can improve the education system. They know how to do it. 
We do not. But we mandate and they pay. Let us reverse that. Please 
reject this amendment above all.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 4 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office following the debate, and I 
heard the same old untrue tirade of how we are cutting student lending 
and how students will not be able to get help to go to college. I do 
not know how many young people we have scared into not even trying to 
get into school because of saying this untrue thing.
  It seems to me that there is enough difference philosophically and 
politically between us on both sides of the aisle that we can make our 
points while still telling the truth, and I would implore that we do 
that. That

[[Page H7317]]

we not scare people needlessly with untruths.
  Let me just give a new facts about student loans. This bill that we 
are working on right now, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill 
for Federal student aid, this year increases Federal student aid $2.4 
billion to $40.7 billion from the $38.7 last year. We continue to make 
student aid one of our priorities, and we increase funding for all of 
the major student aid programs.
  Just a few examples: Pell grants we increase to $5.3 billion. That is 
a $428 million increase. The Pell grant maximum we raise to $2,500 from 
the $2,470. This is the highest maximum ever provided over the maximum 
that we increased last year. The work-study program we increase to $685 
million. That is over $68 million increase from last year, higher than 
the President's request.
  The TRIO Program we increase to $500 million. That is a $37 million 
increase.
  The bill appropriately makes limited reductions in duplicative and 
outdated student aid assistance programs, but no student will have his 
or her aid decreased as a result of the bill.
  Student aid funding in combination with Federal entitlements like 
student loans will increase aid available to students, as I said, this 
year by $2.4 billion. So please ignore the false rhetoric and 
misleading statements regarding student aid in this bill. This is a 
good bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes. I had thought there 
would be other speakers here, but there are not, so I will try to limit 
my remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric today and we have heard 
a lot of talk about bureaucrats. We have heard a lot of talk about 
mandates. The gentleman from Pennsylvania just asked where on earth 
were we when he offered his amendment just a few minutes ago. I will 
tell my colleagues where I was. I was right here, and I was voting 
against his amendment because I do not believe that we ought to reduce 
the funding in the committee bill for cancer research. I do not believe 
we ought to reduce the funding in the bill for Alzheimer's research. I 
do not believe we ought to reduce funding in the bill for the new 
clinical center at National Institutes of Health to replace a 50-year-
old hospital. I make no apology for not wanting to cut those items.
  As I indicated earlier, I think that where the gentleman wanted to 
put the money was fine. Where he got the money from was atrocious. And 
so if the gentleman wants me to be blunt about it, I voted against his 
amendment because it took care of one problem and it creates numerous 
others. And given all of the people who die from heart disease and 
cancer and Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease and all the rest, I am 
not going to go home and try to explain to people why I have voted to 
cut medical research. I do not believe in cutting medical research.
  Having said that, let me repeat again what we are trying to do. I 
believe, and I think most people in this country believe, and I 
certainly think most people on our side of the aisle believe, that we 
are most clearly defined, both economically and morally, by where we 
rank the importance of helping our children, and where we rank the 
importance of helping people who struggle every day to make ends meet, 
to stay one paycheck ahead of the bill collector, and hopefully to find 
some way to help their kids get ahead in the process. And I also think 
we are judged by how we deal with the most unfortunate members of our 
society.
  This bill makes quite clear that our top priority is education. Now, 
it has been said: ``Oh, my goodness, if we move this money out of this 
fiscal year into the next fiscal year in order to provide more head 
room to meet education needs in the country, that we are adding to the 
deficit next year.'' Absolutely not so. All we are suggesting is that 
next year we ought to be spending more money than we otherwise will be 
spending on education, and maybe, just maybe, that means that the 
majority in this House will not make the same decision next year that 
it made this year when it decided that new Pentagon toys were more 
important than better education for our kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply do not believe that next year we ought to add 
$11 billion to the Pentagon budget above what the President has asked 
for and what the Pentagon itself has asked for. After all, we already 
spend 2\1/2\ times as much as all of our military opponents put 
together. Add up any list one wants to name. We spend 2\1/2\ times as 
much as they do.
  I do not think we are nearly as much at risk from a Soviet or from a 
Russian soldier or a Russian tank as we are from cancer, Alzheimer's, 
bad education, bad discipline in schools, and weak worker training for 
workers who are expected to compete in a world economy.
  So what we are trying to do is not give more money to bureaucrats. I 
repeat where this money goes. We are trying to see to it that my 
Republican colleagues do not knock an additional 15,000 kids out of 
Head Start, which this subcommittee bill will, and we are trying to see 
to it that they help 450,000 American kids who otherwise will not be 
helped to learn math and science and how to read. We are asking that 
they restore 70 percent of what we cut out of the Goals 2000. That 
money goes to schools to improve school quality.

  We ask that they restore 85 percent of the money that was cut in 
Eisenhower teacher training so that we can provide 186,000 math and 
science teachers with upgraded training.
  We ask that the restore Safe and Drug-Free School funding to the 1996 
level. We ask that they provide $25 million more for summer jobs than 
the committee bill does so that rather than stripping 79,000 kids out 
of that program next year, that we can at least help 17,000 of the 
79,000 kids that they are dumping out of that program next year.
  On Perkins loans, we are asking that 96,000 young people in this 
country get Perkins loans that otherwise would not get them because 
they zeroed out the program.
  We are asking, last, that we provide $100 million more than the 
committee provides so that 50,000 American workers, not welfare 
recipients but workers who have been dumped out of their jobs because 
of the consequences of trade and imports, so that they can get some 
training to get a second start in providing a decent income for their 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out, this does not violate the Budget Act. 
This does not exceed the budget. This comes in, in fact, $5 billion 
below the bipartisan Coalition budget which was provided for education 
and training. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, if anything, this is 
too modest.
  I would simply add one point in closing. When my colleagues look at 
this bill, this above all others is the bill that the Congress produces 
each year which is supposed to be focused on creating greater 
opportunity for working people and creating greater opportunity for 
people just starting out in life. That is what this bill is supposed to 
do. It is, as Bill Natcher used to say, the ``people's bill.'' We are 
trying to provide greater educational opportunity. We are trying to 
provide greater training opportunity for workers, and that is all this 
amendment does.
  It can be attacked for being socialistic, which is a joke. It can be 
attacked for spending too much money. It seems to me that we are far 
better off spending money here than we are in spending additional money 
to buy additional B-2 bombers that we do not need. And I would also 
say, Mr. Chairman, that in the end, I think this more than any other 
amendment on any appropriation bill this year defines the differences 
in priorities between the two parties.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that if Members vote 
for this amendment, what they will be doing is trying to pull us away 
in some small measure from the determination demonstrated in this bill 
to take the first step which, over a 6-year period, will lead to a 20-
percent real reduction in the amount of deliverable education support 
for our youngsters in this country.

                              {time}  1730

  That is where this committee bill wants to take us. This committee 
bill wants to say: ``OK, we are going to stealthily begin the process 
under which at the end of the 6 years, under the budget resolution--
which you have adopted on your side of the aisle--that we will be 
spending 20 percent less than in real dollar terms to support the 
education of our children and the training

[[Page H7318]]

of our workers.'' We simply do not believe that is the best way to 
prepare America for the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I have heard the other side say several times in the 
course of the debate that we were zeroing out the Perkins loan program. 
That is simply, plainly not true. There is $6 billion in circulation 
under the program. We are simply not adding additional capital this 
year to the $6 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a serious amendment. I have heard the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for years now, because he and I 
would always agree on this in subcommittee markup, oppose forward 
funding of exactly this type and denounce it as fiscally irresponsible 
in the extreme. And yet he got up and debated in favor of the 
amendment, knowing very well that that is exactly the kind of funding 
that he himself opposes. No, it is not a serious amendment.
  It is, however, a very serious propaganda effort by the other side to 
say somehow Democrats are more concerned than Republicans are about 
educating kids and yet they know that is something that could not be 
further from the truth and is not true.
  No, we can never seem to outbid the other side in terms of saying how 
much we are going to spend and that, therefore, makes us more concerned 
because the other side takes not responsibility for the bottom line. 
They simply say, ``we would spend and add to the deficit. We do not 
care what level of debt we put upon our children and grandchildren. We 
are willing to do anything to say that we are more concerned about 
education than you are.'' That is total nonsense.
  What is true, Mr. Chairman, is that we are going to do the job of 
education better for the kids than has been done by the Democrats over 
the last 40 years.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] pointed out very 
forcefully, we have spent far more money on education and have gotten 
worse results. What we are going to do is work for programs that work 
better for the kids and get results.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to investing in our 
children's education, the new majority needs to take a refresher course 
in basic arithmetic because their numbers just don't add up.
  Just take a look at this bill: At the same time school enrollment is 
expected to increase by 7 percent by 2002, the new majority is 
proposing to cut funds for education by 7 percent.
  This means our schools will have larger classes, fewer teachers, and 
fewer learning resources, like textbooks and computers. While 
enrollment increases.
  I would recommend that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
study the history of the Goals 2000 Program, which they are proposing 
to eliminate.
  They would learn that it was a Republican President, President Bush, 
who first championed the need for education reform. It was the Bush 
administration which crafted the Goals 2000 Program to meet that need 
and enlisted the help of Democratic Governors, such as then-Governor 
Clinton, to get goals 2000 passed by Congress.
  Eliminating funds for Goals 2000 means ending support to almost every 
State in this country, as they work to establish high national learning 
standards and to ensure that all their students can meet those 
standards. My State of California will lose approximately $42 million.
  I wonder how many of the Members who support this bill have taken a 
field trip recently to a local school, and talked to the students and 
their families? Are they telling these kids and their parents that they 
want to cut the funds that help kids learn basic reading and math, cut 
the funds for special education and cut funds for safe and drug-free 
schools?
  In addition, this bill completely ignores the President's technology 
initiative, which joins public and private resources to get computers 
in all our classrooms and to give teachers the training they need so 
that every American student will know how to use modern technology in 
school and on the job.
  And what about the teachers? Do they know that this bill eliminates 
the valued Eisenhower Professional Development Program? We need, and 
expect, so much from our teachers these days. They need to be a 
combination of Mother Theresa, Mr. Chips, and Bill Gates--yet, the new 
majority wants to end funding for professional development?
  Maybe the supporters of this bill should audit a college course, and 
get to know some of the more than 200,000 college students who will be 
affected by the bill's provision to eliminate new funding for the 
Perkins Loan Program. They would learn, firsthand, what those of us who 
support this amendment to increase funding for education already know--
the cost of college is increasing too rapidly for many students to 
afford, and they need our help to continue their education and get the 
skills they'll need for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of tomorrow.
  Americans want a good education for their kids, and they expect 
responsible national leadership to help them get it. I hope my 
colleagues will ``get it'' too, and support the Obey amendment and 
support American students and schools.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    amendment offered by mrs. lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Lowey: At the end of title III of 
     the bill, insert the following new title:

          ``TITLE III V-B--WOMEN'S EDUCATIONAL EQUITY INCREASE

       ``The amount provided in title III for `school improvement 
     programs' (including for activities authorized by title V-B 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) is 
     increased, and the amount provided in title III for 
     `education research, statistics, and improvement' is reduced; 
     by $2,000,000, and $2,000,000, respectively.''

  Mrs. LOWEY (during the reading.) Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that 
the time be divided, 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey], and 10 minutes to myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Along with my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, I 
am very pleased to offer an amendment to the bill that will provide $2 
million in funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act programs. 
Currently, the bill eliminates funding for these important educational 
programs.
  Abolishing the critical WEEA program is simply unfair to girls and 
women throughout this Nation. These programs successfully opened 
previously closed doors for girls in school and in the workplace.
  The WEEA programs cost $2 million, and that money pays off in a big 
way. As my colleagues all know, women still earn only 72 cents for 
every dollar earned by men. The glass ceiling has kept women from 
achieving success in upper management. The best way for women to break 
through these economic barriers is by becoming better educated, 
particularly in nontraditional jobs which are generally higher paying.
  The Women's Educational Act programs will give today's girls the 
ability to become tomorrow's high-wage earners. These programs help 
girls to succeed in math, the sciences and other 
nontraditional classes. In addition, WEEA supports programs that keep 
girls from dropping out, in keeping with the national goal of 
increasing graduation rates to at least 90 percent by the year 2000. 
Other programs are designed to eliminate discrimination against girls 
in the classroom and to develop programs, materials, and curricula free 
of gender bias.

[[Page H7319]]

  Let me tell my colleagues about a few of the successful projects 
funded by WEEA.
  In Massachusetts, the Preengineering Program helps girls to enhance 
their performance and their participation in math and science, classes 
and encourages them to pursue careers in engineering, science and 
technology. In Chairman Livingston's State of Louisiana, the Women's 
Leadership Development Program works with high school girls, teen 
mothers, and female educators to keep girls in school and, by 
graduating, to increase their independence and self-sufficiency.
  In Florida, Project Can provides young women with training and 
information about high-skilled, high-wage careers that can provide them 
with economic self-sufficiency.
  My amendment will be offset by reducing funding for research at the 
Department of Education by $2 million. In this bill, research is 
increased by $16 million over fiscal year 1996 and over $15 million 
more than the administration requested. While I certainly support the 
research efforts of the Education Department, I believe that we must 
save the successful Women's Educational Equity Act programs. Cutting 
these programs is incredibly shortsighted. We may save some money this 
year, but we are sacrificing the future of today's young women.
  With the WEEA programs, these girls can learn the skills they need to 
become independent and economically successful. Let us not let them 
down. Our amendment is supported by the American Council on Education, 
the PTA, the American Association of University Women, the Association 
of Women in Science, the National Organization of Women, the Older 
Women's League, and many other organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, there is nothing wrong with the program that the 
gentlewoman wants to fund. In fact, for years I was a very strong 
supporter of that program. The question, however, is where it is to be 
funded.
  We have made a very strong effort, and this is some of what we are 
talking about in making government work better for people. We have made 
a very, very strong effort in approaching our bill over the last two 
cycles, this being the second cycle, to take small programs that are 
very expensive to administer and put them into larger programs where 
they can be administered much more effectively and efficiently and this 
is one that we did that to.
  This is a program that is presently not funded. Why not? Because the 
money is put into education research and improvement, and the program 
can be carried out there very easily.
  Now the gentlewoman would want to take the money out of education 
research and improvement and put it back into a separate line item for 
women's educational equity. I suggest that that is wonderful 
symbolism, and we all are concerned about women's educational equity. I 
am and I have supported it for a long, long time. But I do not see the 
point of doing that.

  I think we have to go back to the core programs, the larger ones that 
can be more effectively administered instead of having a favorite line 
item for every single Member of the House and every single Member of 
the Senate and make a very inefficiently run department.
  The Department of Education has 240 separate programs to administer. 
Sit down with anybody in the Department under any administration, 
Republican or Democrat alike, and they will tell you this is crazy. It 
is nonsense to administer all these separate programs.
  We have made a very, very conscious effort to try to move smaller 
programs into larger ones so that they can be funded and have some 
discretion over in the Department as to where the funds ought to go. 
This is one of them.
  I would simply urge the Members to reject the amendment, not because 
women's educational equity is not important. It is very important. But 
allow the Department to pursue it through the educational research and 
improvement account where they have been pursuing it. It is perfectly 
well done there. It saves administrative expense, and I believe that it 
is equally well served there as having its own separate line item.
  I would oppose the amendment for that reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, just to respond 
to our distinguished chairman, although I agree with the gentleman that 
consolidation of programs when it makes sense is a good idea. Whenever 
we can save money in administration, I think it is a good idea. But 
this happens to be a jewel of a program, if we can target money to 
specific programs that are known to work effectively.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella], my distinguished cochair of the Congressional Caucus on 
Women's Issues.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me. As she mentioned, the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey, and 
I chair the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. This is a high 
priority for us. I think for all of the women in the United States, as 
well as the men in terms of wives, daughters, nieces, et cetera.
  I want to respond also to the chairman of the subcommittee, and I 
have mentioned earlier that I think he has done a yeoman job on this 
bill. I think he has really tried to treat very sensitively all of the 
programs. I would submit to the gentleman that this is a small program 
that focuses on what its primary objective is. It is like bringing 
Government closer to the people and closer to the people who are 
administering it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
Lowey-Morella amendment. This amendment would restore $2 million for 
women's educational equity programs. The funding would come from 
educational research, a program which would receive, in this bill, an 
increase of $16 million over the fiscal year 1996 amount and more than 
$15 million over the budget request.
  I believe that in order to achieve educational excellence in our 
schools, we must eliminate gender bias. In 1974, the Women's 
Educational Equity Act [WEEA] was established to promote title IX, 
which barred sex-discrimination in federally funded programs. Over the 
years, WEEA has funded research, training programs, and other projects 
to promote educational equity for girls and women. More than 20 years 
after the enactment of WEEA, a pattern of gender equity still persists 
in our Nation's schools.
  Research by the American Association of University Women [AAUW] shows 
that during the school years, girls receive less teacher attention then 
boys and less constructive criticism. Girls' self-esteem drops 
dramatically as they move through adolescence, and they continue to 
drop-out of high level math and science courses. Although girls score 
as well as boys on math tests, by the time they are 17, they have 
fallen behind. High school girls still earn more credits then boys in 
English, history and foreign languages, but fewer in math and science. 
Women earn more than half of all bachelor's degrees, but their degrees 
are clustered in traditional fields for women such as nursing and 
teaching.
  WEEA provides schools with the materials and tools needed to comply 
with title IX. WEEA promotes projects that help girls to become 
confident and self-sufficient women. These projects help to prevent 
teen pregnancy, keep girls in school until graduation, and steer them 
toward careers in math and science. A current project of WEEA is 
designed to clarify for schools a definition of sexual harassment and 
what the law requires them to do. WEEA funds also initiated the 
observance of Women's History Month, which has alerted students across 
the country of the important contributions of women.
  Mr. Chairman, we must not allow WEEA programs to fall by the wayside. 
Girls and women have made great strides through the programs funded 
under WEEA. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Morella amendment 
to continue funding for WEEA. Our efforts to reform and improve 
education will not be complete unless we address the needs of all of 
America's school children.

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee], the distinguished

[[Page H7320]]

ranking member from the authorizing committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as former chairman of the elementary and secondary 
vocational subcommittee and as a teacher and as a father of a daughter, 
I stand here to support this amendment very strongly. I support it as a 
separate program also, not to be buried in another program, because we 
need to build sensitivity to the rights and abilities of all women, all 
students.
  I recall a few years ago when my daughter and my two sons and I were 
flying, the cabin attendant came by and gave my two sons pilot wings 
and gave my daughter stewardess badges, and I told the cabin attendant 
at that time, I am sure my daughter would rather have the pilot wings.
  That situation exists in our schools yet today, too, where they steer 
people in a certain direction because of their gender. We have to break 
down this gender bias, and this program as a separate program is 
important, because that gender bias still exists in society, and that 
includes our schools. So it is very, very important that we keep this 
program as a separate program, not buried in another very good program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment to restore 
funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act.
  We have talked much in this Congress about preparing our children for 
the future and teaching personal responsibility. The programs 
administered under the Women's Educational Equity Act, in place for the 
last 20 years, have made great strides to accomplish these goals for 
girls.
  Girls and young women face a number of real and serious obstacles 
that often keep them from reaching their full potential, such as lack 
of skills or self-confidence, teen pregnancy, sexual harassment, 
violence in the classroom, and intentional and unintentional sex 
discrimination.
  Through projects and outreach programs, girls learn job skills for 
traditional and for nontraditional, high-paying careers. They learn to 
reject the notion of traditional employment for women and embrace 
education in a variety of fields. It is sad but true that girls and 
women still need to be told in our society that they are capable of 
anything. These programs helps girls become confident, educated and 
self-sufficient. They remind and encourage girls that they can become 
self-sufficient adults who make a great contribution--our scientists, 
world leaders, working mothers, Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, for the sake of the future of your 
daughters and granddaughters, to vote for the Lowey amendment to 
restore funding to this important program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York, and in great support of women and 
girls in our education system.
  I support this amendment because often the barriers to girls' 
participation in the classroom or on the playing field are 
unintentional. Often these barriers are subtle and go unnoticed. But 
the fact remains that girls in our country, and the consequences are 
profound.
  Mr. Chairman, as we move toward the 21st century, there is no 
question that girls and boys need top-notch math and science skills. 
Women earn more than half of all bachelor's degrees, yet, their degrees 
are clustered in traditional fields for women, which often means lower 
paying jobs.
  Unless we combat this problem, women will have fewer economic 
opportunities, women will continue to a lower quality of life than men, 
and these inequalities will persist into the next century.
  We must make sure this does not happen.
  As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, 
I am working hard to improve education for girls and boys, for women 
and men.
  Programs funded through the Women's Educational Equity Act is a way 
to achieve this goal.
  When you vote on this amendment, I urge you to think of your sister; 
your wife; your granddaughter. Vote for the Lowey amendment, and vote 
for equality in education.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the 
amendment of the cochairman of the Women's Caucus to emphasize the 
importance of girls' education with respect to science. This is an 
important amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to say 
that I understand that the gentlewoman in her remarks had said the 
American Council on Education endorses this amendment. We have received 
a call just now. The American Council on Education does not endorse the 
amendment. We just received the call.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment, some of the language in it says:

       Gender equality policies and practices. The program 
     provides teacher training to encourage gender equity.

  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, and I am 
speaking here today on behalf of our children, this program was zeroed 
out in fiscal year 1996, as we know, The fact remains that if we do not 
reach a balanced budget, if we do not make the appropriate steps to 
balance the budget, then none of our children, boys and girls, will 
have a future, will be able to preserve the American dream.
  We know a child born today owes $187,000 only in interest on the 
national debt. If I had started a business the day Jesus Christ was 
born and spent $1 million a day every day from then through today, I 
would still not have lost my first $1 trillion, and we are $5 trillion 
in debt.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a legacy that we can send onto our 
children, whether they are male or female. I very much resent the 
opportunity not to be able to compete with anyone, man or woman, on a 
level playing field. I do not think that women feel that they are in a 
position where they cannot compete. I think so much of this discussion 
is a generational problem. The young women that I know believe that 
they can compete, and that they can do equally as well in this society.

  Yes, I freely admit in the years that I was in college and the years 
when I was younger, I agree there was discrimination, and it was harder 
for women to make their way in the professional world. But I believe 
times have changed, and I also believe that we need to cut programs 
that are not as effective as they should be, because we have to spend 
our money in wise use in this budget. We need to do that for the sake 
of our children.
  I am very determined. I will not be a party to leaving a country to 
my children or other people's children that is not in as good a 
condition as the country that I received from my parents. We need to 
save the American dream for them, and we cannot do that if we continue 
to spend money on irresponsible programs. I ask on behalf of the 
children and families in America that we defeat this amendment and get 
on with our business.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentlewoman, I was prepared 
to yield some of my time to speakers on the gentlewoman's side, with 
the understanding that she was not going to ask for a recorded vote on 
this. Since I now understand the gentlewoman is going to ask for a 
recorded vote, I find it difficult to do that. Therefore, I will simply 
close after the gentlewoman proceeds with her final speakers.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the remaining speakers who 
are going to speak on the gentleman's generous time would clarify the 
issues, so that I have confidence that he would

[[Page H7321]]

want to continue to yield the time to them.
  I know that our distinguished Member, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], would like to speak, and we have a few 
speakers here to share my 1 additional minute.
  Mr. PORTER. Maybe I should not have opened this subject, Mr. 
Chairman. I wanted to explain why I was unable to yield the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 40 seconds to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment. This small program has made an enormous difference 
in creating among girls in America the belief that they have a wide 
range of opportunities in our society.
  One of our biggest problems right now is teen pregnancy, and the 
teen-to-teen pregnancy prevention is enabling girls to see that math 
and science open worlds of opportunity, that staying in school matters, 
that self-esteen is there for them to get. This program funds projects 
that do exactly that for girls. We must not pull back on a single 
dollar that can help our girls understand that life is full of 
opportunity.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Patsy Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
debate on this amendment be extended by an additional 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii?
  Mr. PORTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I was about 
to yield my remaining time, except for 1 minute, to the side of the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], if that would help. Could we do 
it that way?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, except 1 
minute, to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] yields 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and he retains 1 
minute for himself.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of this committee, 
for the time that is so precious to defend this amendment, to urge its 
adoption. It is only $2 million, and it is basically a research 
program. It is moneys that are coming out from a research program in 
the department, and we are using this method to earmark the money for 
an area that might otherwise be ignored.
  It is so important that we fund the research and training and impetus 
to the classrooms and to the schools to keep encouraging them to 
emphasize the importance of equity in education. Our girls are not 
being encouraged properly into the fields of math and high-tech and 
science, and they need this special way of dealing with this issue, 
especially in the elementary ages. They need programs that enhance role 
models. The whole thing of history, women's history month, is to find 
all of the people in the country, women, who have excelled in these 
programs, and to encourage our young people to follow that route.

                              {time}  1800

  If we just support research in general in the department, and the 
committee has been very generous, and I commend them for it by adding 
$16 million, but if we leave this area into this general, nebulous 
research and not carve out a special program of only $2 million for the 
girls, for the sake of equity in education, we are going to really love 
the tremendous ground that we have achieved thus far. I happen to be 
the author of this program, and I applaud the gentlewoman for raising 
this issue once again.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as generous and knowledgeable as 
our chairman the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, is, and of course 
he has the strong support of the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Dave Obey, I do not think they realize how important this 
is. This is a very important amendment which the gentlewoman from New 
York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, has put in. She asked for merely $2 million. 
This $2 million will being recognition to the women in this country. It 
was a very hard fight to get this recognition for women. Please, I beg 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the Members who are not 
supporting this amendment to turn around and think what an important 
time this is. Women fought hard to get here. We need your support to be 
sure that this $2 million will focus this similar block grant, because 
I know and most Members know, when this money is allocated, women's 
equity will not be at the top of the list and when the money is 
allocated, we will be at the end. Please support the Lowey amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is 
recognized for 20 seconds.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, to close this debate, I would like to thank 
my colleagues with whom I have worked so closely on this issue over the 
years. Having seen the results of these programs, having seen the 
educational programs that have encouraged women to get into fields of 
math and science and engineering, I would again like to appeal to all 
my colleagues to support this very important amendment. We can work to 
cut out a lot of programs, but this is one in which we should invest.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say again, I have supported this 
program in the past, I think it is important, but line items are not 
meant for recognition. If so, we have too many already. This program 
can be and is presently administered under the education research and 
improvement line item. That is where it is right now. There is not a 
separate line item for it. That is where it ought to remain. To put it 
simply back into existence either as recognition or symbolism to me is 
simply not the way we ought to proceed. There are too many separate 
programs. They are all worthy, of course. They all have defenders. But 
we have managed to cut down on the number of single programs with high 
cost to administer, put them under larger accounts like educational 
research and improvement. We have done it here. I would ask the 
Congress to keep that exactly as it is and allow us to reduce the 
number of programs and do a much more efficient job.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
will be postponed.


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: After title 
     III of the bill, insert the following new title:

               ``Title IIIC--Bilingual Education Increase

       Of the amount made available under the heading ``impact 
     aid'' for Federal property payments under section 8002 of 
     title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, $10,000,000 is transferred and made available as an 
     additional amount under the heading ``bilingual and immigrant 
     education'', of which $6,800,000 shall be for carrying out 
     subpart 2 of part A of title VII of such Act.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect very much the 
process of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and also the question of the importance of 
education that has been debated on this floor today. I supported the 
Obey amendment and

[[Page H7322]]

will support it once it comes to the floor again for a vote, because I 
believe the priorities of education says to the American people that we 
would invest in the front end and not the back end, the back end 
meaning incarceration, imprisonment, hopelessness and joblessness for 
Americans. Interestingly enough a recent report cited that the lack of 
promise of our recent immigrants comes mostly from their lack of 
understanding of English and their inability to have the appropriate 
job skills to move into mainstream America.
  Coming from the State of Texas, I can say to you that I applaud local 
officials and the Governor of the State of Texas that have not tried to 
create a wedge issue on immigration. We have in fact included our new 
immigrants and have worked very hard to provide them with the resources 
that they need to integrate into our society. Bilingual education is 
the key to providing people the opportunity to open the door that gives 
them an even playing field, and particularly it is important to provide 
the dollars added professional development training of teachers so that 
they can educate those who come into our school system. Although the 
committee has worked hard in this area, I think it is important that we 
recognize that more dollars are needed to support bilingual education. 
This particular amendment would have offered an extra $10 million to 
ensure that bilingual education is both respected and enhanced in the 
professional and development training and to provide the access to 
those teachers who would teach our children. Recognizing that the 
source that I have taken such moneys from deal with Impact education, 
and might I say that I recognize all those who worked so hard in the 
Impact education area, I would note that it was only 235 school 
districts that are impacted on this out of 14,000, but nevertheless it 
is an important issue.
  But I raise this amendment because I think it is important again to 
focus on the question of bilingual education. I would simply ask my 
colleague from California [Mr. Becerra], who is on the floor, if he 
would accept me engaging him in a colloquy on bilingual education.
  This amendment is one that I have offered, though I am going to ask 
for unanimous consent to withdraw it. But the reason, of course, is to 
comment, I think both of us have been in the Committee on the Judiciary 
and we have heard that studies offered by the Rand Commission that have 
talked about the front end investment versus the back end. So I am 
hoping that we can all join together and work on increasing the dollars 
for bilingual education to ensure that direct dollars to the school 
systems but as well to training bilingual teachers and enhancing their 
professional development. I query Mr. Becerra for his input on the 
importance of this kind of training and expanding bilingual education.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and would say that 
I agree with everything she has said. All the information we have, the 
data and any studies you look at show that we are absolutely in need of 
teachers who can help transition a lot of our young students who are 
not yet proficient in English so that they can become fully proficient. 
What we have found is that the best way to do that is to not let them 
fall behind in math, in geography and science while they are trying to 
learn English but let them learn all those subjects so that within 3, 
4, or 5 years they are actually in fully mainstream course work.
  I would agree with the gentlewoman completely we do need to see more 
funding, we do need to see some money allocated to the professional 
development component of bilingual education so we can have the 
teachers that we need to teach. We are drastically by tens of thousands 
of teachers understaffed in our schools for bilingual education and 
hopefully we will see something remedied as we go through the process 
of trying to pass a bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I may make an inquiry to 
the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, I had wanted to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] but I do 
want to allow the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald] 
to comment on this.
  Would the gentleman yield me time to enter into a question of him so 
that I can yield to the gentlewoman?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we expected 
that she was going to offer the amendment and then withdraw it. We see 
that there are other speakers on both sides. Perhaps we could simply 
agree to a 10-minute time limit on this amendment and all amendments 
thereto and divide it between yourself and myself and finish it in the 
next 10 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would appreciate that.
  Mr. PORTER. I ask unanimous consent to do that, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just speak on behalf of the increase in 
funding for bilingual education. We do recognize that there are 
numerous students now coming into the public school systems that are 
non-English-speaking students. There is a critical need for teachers to 
teach these students English. I am appealing to those who are on the 
Committee on Appropriations and my colleagues to increase bilingual 
education, thereby providing these young people a qualified teacher who 
can help them to learn English. It is important, it is critical for the 
future of our country to have these young folks who are thousands, 
increasing thousands, in the public schools, to have a teacher who can 
teach English to them.
  I am urging that we support the increase in bilingual education that 
will afford us the opportunity to train teachers to teach these 
students.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Kelly].
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas.
  The amendment seeks to cut funding from the Federal Impact Aid 
Program and transfer the moneys to bilingual education.
  Without debating the merits of bilingual education, let me emphasize 
that cutting impact aid, especially section 8002 of the program, will 
be devastating to schools around the country that depend upon this 
assistance.
  Local governments cannot collect property tax revenue from federally-
owned property, which affects their ability to provide sufficient 
revenue to the local school system. Section 8002 of impact aid 
reimburses local governments for the lost tax revenue.
  Funding for impact aid represents the Federal Government's commitment 
to reimburse local governments impacted by a Federal presence. By 
cutting these funds, regardless of the reason, we are essentially 
turning our back on this commitment.
  I represent the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery School District, which 
sits adjacent to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and is very 
dependent on the moneys it receives from the Impact Aid Program to 
survive. I fear the gentlewoman's amendment, if passed, could seriously 
jeopardize the school district's ability to remain open or adequately 
serve its students.
  The Federal Government must live up to the commitment it has made to 
the communities in my district and across the country who depend on the 
Impact Aid Program. The bill contains a modest amount of funding to 
reimburse land-impacted school districts like the one I represent. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I mentioned and stated earlier for the record 
that I

[[Page H7323]]

offered the amendment and asked unanimous consent to withdraw it in 
order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] if he would on the question of the importance of bilingual 
education.

                              {time}  1815

  We realize that there are so many interests involved in this bill 
dealing with Education and Health and Human Services. Certainly, I 
believe that we could have enhanced this legislation by additional 
funding for bilingual education. However, in the spirit of cooperation, 
I would simply say to the gentleman who has worked hard, along with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], that I would like to join with 
others to make sure that we have the number of bilingual teachers and 
the proper training for those teachers to ensure that we invest in the 
front end and not the back end, to make our new immigrants have access 
to English and to ensure that the children who are in our schools are 
fully educated in some of our States.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I support transitional 
bilingual education that moves young people from their native language 
as quickly as possible into English and teaching them then in English. 
But I do not support bilingual education as has been practiced in many 
of our larger cities where kids are kept in their native language for 
year after year instead of moving them to English. So, to the extent 
that we transition and actually use the bilingual program as it was 
originally intended to move children as quickly as possible into the 
English language and being taught in the English language, I support 
it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, and simply forwarding 
or completing my remarks, let me say that we probably have a slight 
disagreement on that. It is my concern that we continue to teach 
children as long as they need to be taught in order that they can move 
into the mainstream. However, I will seek to work with those who will 
work with me to ensure that we do provide the right kind of resources 
for bilingual education, a fair assessment of resources for bilingual 
education.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I am actually quite encouraged to hear the 
chairman's remarks because I think, if he were to go to some of the 
large cities like mine in Los Angeles, what he would find is that 
transition is actually occurring rapidly. But when you have a situation 
where, like in Los Angeles, you have so many new kids coming in who are 
in a situation where they must learn anew--in fact, you have some kinds 
who have never seen a computer so they do not even know how to say 
computer even in their native language--it takes some time for a school 
to be able to show the success. But if you look at the individual 
children, the average time of stay in a bilingual education program is 
3 years. So they are transitioned to a fully mainstreamed program of 
English-only instruction in about 3 years.
  So I am very encouraged to hear the chairman's remarks and I hope 
that we are able to do something because over the last decade, 
bilingual education has taken about a 60-percent cut in funding. So 
these are kids who are trying to learn who have seen their funding at 
the Federal level cut by 60 percent.
  I have a figure here that says that the Department of Education 
recently estimated that we are short approximately 175,000 bilingual 
education teachers to help these kids transition quickly into 
mainstream instruction.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I think Texas will work 
with California and many other States that are impacted by this need 
for additional funds. I would simply encourage all of my colleagues 
that we work to make sure that we invest in the front end and not the 
back end.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair at this point, 
we have 3 minutes of our time remaining, whether we are not entitled to 
use that before the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mrs. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, then, Mr. Chairman, if 
the gentleman is going to have another speaker.
  Mr. PORTER. Why does the gentlewoman not reserve the balance of her 
time?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time and 
withdraws her unanimous-consent request.
  The gentleman from Illinois will have the right to close.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding.
  This is an issue in bilingual education that I have done a good deal 
of study on, and I think it is important for us to have a balanced view 
of what is taking place in bilingual education. Thirty percent of the 
Hispanic students in America drop out of school. The lowest pay rates 
in America today come to Hispanic youngsters because they do not have 
training in the English language. Kids in bilingual education are not 
in their for 3 years. They are in there for as long as 9 years, and 
they get 30 minutes a day at the most in English language.
  This comes from U.S. News & World Report, that did an in-depth study 
on bilingual education. They concluded that, along with the crumbling 
classrooms, along with the crumbling classrooms, violence in the 
hallways, bilingual education has emerged as one of the dark spots in 
the grim tableau of American public education.
  Today I wish that the person who is introducing this amendment would 
talk to some of her constituents in Texas, for example, Ernesto Ortiz, 
who said: They teach my kids in school in Spanish so they can become 
busboys and bellhops. I am trying to teach them English at home so they 
can become doctors and lawyers.
  That is what I am saying today. Let us give these new Americans the 
same chance to have part of the American dream that we have 
historically given our new Americans. There is a 30-percent dropout. 
This is not an issue between the kids in school. This is an issue of 
the bureaucracy. The only people who are for this are the bureaucrats. 
In New York City, kids are put in bilingual education. Why? Because of 
their surname, and then the parents cannot get them out of these 
educational classes.
  In New York City, the parents had to take the school board to court 
to get their kids out of bilingual education so their kids could have 
an equal chance. If my colleagues want to establish linguistic ghettos 
in America, vote for this type of amendment. But if my colleagues want 
this country to be equal and have everyone have an equal chance, then 
vote against amendments like this. Americans, all Americans should have 
the same chance to be part of, get part of the American dream that all 
of us have had.
  English is a language of opportunity in the United States. The way 
people are kept down is if you keep them in bilingual education. You 
have to immerse young Americans in the English language so that they 
can compete. We want all Americans to have an equal chance, and we have 
to begin with giving all Americans an equal chance with the English 
language. Otherwise we are going to keep these kids in linguistic 
ghettos, and we are opposed to that in any form.
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Jackson-
Lee amendment, which would transfer $10 million from section 8002 
impact aid funds to bilingual education.
  As we all know, States and localities provide approximately 95 
percent of education funding in the United States. The largest source 
of this funding is local property taxes. When a school district loses 
10 percent of its taxable property to the Federal Government, the local 
schools are severely impacted. In 1950, Congress responded to this 
problem by creating the Impact Aid Program. I have always been a strong 
supporter of this program.

[[Page H7324]]

  Mr. Chairman, Burr Ridge School District 180 in my congressional 
district is 1 of 8 districts in Illinois that qualifies for section 
8002 impact aid funds. In the case of Burr Ridge school district, 
three-fourths of the assessed value of the school district is federally 
owned land at Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. When 
the Federal Government does not pay its share for the Federal property 
taken off the tax rolls, the burden falls to local homeowners.
  Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the entire section 8002 impact aid 
program costs about $17.5 million. This funds federally impacted school 
districts at about 40 to 50 percent of funds they are qualified to 
receive. In the case of Burr Ridge school district, these funds go 
directly to teaching positions, reading programs, and special 
education. Unlike most Federal aid programs, such as title 1 and drug-
free schools, impact aid directly funds schools which are adversely 
impacted by the presence of Federal lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to strongly oppose the Jackson-Lee 
amendment, and support our responsibility to serve federally impacted 
schools.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute, please.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just have to object. We have to 
expedite these bills. We cannot carry them on any longer.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] allow me time to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair, is there any 
necessity for yielding time to the gentlewoman from Texas to ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
her amendment without additional time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to avoid any more ugly talk 
about bilingual education, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment so that those of us of good will can work together to ensure 
that the children are educated and we are investing in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


              amendment offered by mr. fox of pennsylvania

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania. Page 66, line 
     9, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced 
     by $1,923,000)''.
       Page 70, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,923,000)''.

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is an 
agreement agreed to by both sides, by the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and also by the chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I would just make brief remarks, if I may, in 
support of the amendment.
  The Foster Grandparents Program pairs low-income adults with special 
needs children. The foster grandparents themselves are active, healthy 
older Americans who have a desire to stay active in their communities 
but do have limited incomes. The children that are served in the Foster 
Grandparents Program have special needs and are considered at risk.
  Some of the children included in this program are: children with HIV/
AIDS; children with severe physical, mental or emotional disabilities; 
children suffering from serious or terminal illnesses; children who 
were abused or neglected; and pregnant teens.
  The foster grandparents spend 40 hours in training and orientation. 
Then they are matched with approximately four children. The 
grandparents are then required to work 4 hours a day for 5 days a week 
participating in activities with the children.
  The benefits of the program include enabling seniors to increase 
their own standard of living by offering them a small stipend for their 
work.
  The Foster Grandparent Program has also done an outstanding job at 
providing matching funds from the State and local level and from the 
private sector. As a matter of fact, the Foster Grandparent Program is 
currently averaging a 46 percent matching level. In my hometown of 
Montgomery County, the Preschool Intervention Program, a program for 
children ages 3 to 5, lost their grandma and are in desperate need of 
help. After placing a call to the local Foster Grandparent Program, 
they were told that there was simply not enough money to provide a new 
grandparent for them.
  In a similar situation, Mr. Chairman, a drug treatment center that 
rehabilitiates drug-addicted mothers and their children recently lost 
two grandparents. But this can be avoided, Mr. Chairman, with the 
passage of my amendment and the adoption by both sides of the aisle 
because it will restore the funding for the Foster Grandparents Program 
to the fiscal 1995 level, an increase of only $1.9 million, which would 
equal 550,000 volunteer hours from Federal dollars, an additional 
550,000 in non-Federal match, about 1,000 additional volunteers, and 
4,000 additional children that can be served.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I will be ever so brief.
  This is an important amendment. I hope Members on both sides of the 
aisle will join us in supporting this amendment. Really what we are 
talking about is prioritizing the Foster Grandparent Program. As Mr. 
Fox indicated, this really is the ultimate public-private partnership 
and the return on our investment is really very, very excellent. It 
taps into one of the most underutilized resources in this country, our 
senior citizens. Most importantly, it is revenue neutral.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I simply would say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania that this is a very good amendment. The gentleman has 
shown great leadership and support for the Foster Grandparent Program, 
and we would accept the amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I rise today to support the amendment offered 
by Mr. Fox. I have had the pleasure over the past few years to work 
with the Foster Grandparents Program as well as the other programs 
within the National Senior Service Corps. Last year I was successful in 
offering an amendment adding $13.8 million to the National Senior 
Service Corps and have worked with Mr. Porter this year to secure a 
$4.5 million increase. I commend Mr. Porter for the commitment he has 
made to these programs.
  For over 30 years the National Senior Service Corps programs, which 
include Foster Grandparents, have brought needed services to 
communities across America and have provided hundreds of thousands of 
service opportunities to older Americans.
  America's seniors have a wealth of experience and knowledge which 
must be engaged. As we look at today's social problems, it is essential 
that as a nation we look toward those who have faced adversity before, 
and now stand as examples of that which makes America great. Currently, 
America's seniors are greatly underutilized in solving today's 
problems.
  Foster Grandparents help to fulfill community needs which may 
otherwise go unmet. Activities conducted by Nation Senior Service Corps 
and Foster Grandparents volunteers include: serving the homeless, 
providing hospital volunteer services, training, tutoring, serving 
emotionally disturbed children, serving the terminally ill, caring for 
children who are born with drug addictions and HIV, as well as many, 
many others.
  The money spent on these programs goes a long way to aid both the 
seniors who volunteer and, more importantly, those who receive their 
valuable services. We should support America's senior citizens in 
utilizing their talents and experiences to better themselves and their 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so for the purpose of entering into a colloquy 
with the chairman. I want to compliment the chairman for his leadership 
in developing a very good bill in difficult circumstances. In order to 
stay within the

[[Page H7325]]

restrictive subcommittee 602(b) allocations, difficult decisions are 
required.
  I am particularly pleased to see the increase in funding provided to 
the National Institutes of Health given these funding restrictions. As 
the chairman knows, there are many worthy medical research projects 
underway at NIH and throughout the country. In time, I believe that 
this research will alleviate the suffering of a great many people 
throughout our country. I am particularly concerned that adequate 
research regarding hyperemesis, or severe morning sickness, including 
nausea and vomiting, a condition that by one estimate affects over 
50,000 pregnant women a year, is not being adequately conducted.
  In addition to decreasing pregnant women's productivity in their jobs 
and private lives, this condition can lead to hospitalization due to 
severe dehydration.

                              {time}  1830

  In fact, in 1993, 43,000 women that we know of were hospitalized for 
severe morning sickness. Severe hyperemesis can lead to a decision to 
terminate a pregnancy or even lead to death in extreme cases.
  I know of only one NIH study, ``Nausea, Vomiting Nutrition and 
Pregnancy,'' that is, in part, looking at this problem, yet the 
majority of women in this country have been or will be pregnant at some 
time during their life and a majority of them will experience morning 
sickness.
  Does the chairman agree with me that a problem this pervasive is a 
serious health problem to which the National Institutes of Health 
should give priority, including devotion of resources for basic 
clinical research?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman, and would 
encourage NIH to use all mechanisms at its disposal to support basic 
applied and clinical research that addresses the problem of hyperemesis 
in pregnant women.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his support and for his response.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following material:

         Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 
           Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center,
                                        Boston, MA, July 10, 1996.
     Hon. William Orton,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Orton: I've been informed of your interest 
     in Hyperemesis Gravidarum and would like to share my concern 
     regarding the need for further research in this area and some 
     very interesting preliminary findings from a pilot study 
     conducted at our institution.
       Although there have been no reliable studies that have 
     documented the incidence of severe hyperemesis, estimates 
     suggest that as many as 2% of all pregnancies require 
     hospitalization for this condition. It is clear that this 
     represents a substantial public health problem considering 
     that most women who suffer from this condition do not seek 
     appropriate medical care.
       We have recently reported (and are in the process of 
     preparing for publication) results from a pilot study 
     suggesting that factors that contribute to high prenatal 
     estrogen levels may be important in the etiology of this 
     condition. As you can see from the attached abstract 
     presented at the recent Society for Epidemiologic Research 
     Meetings, we have observed that the risk of hyperemesis 
     requiring hospitalization increases 3-4 times with each 15 
     gram increase in consumption of saturated fat (equivalent to 
     one 4oz cheeseburger). Although we do not know the mechanism 
     by which this dietary association may influence the risk of 
     hyperemesis, we do know that a diet high in saturated fat 
     will increase estrogen production.
       To better study the influence of diet and hormones on the 
     risk of severe hyperemesis, we would like to identify women 
     as close to the time of their conception as possible and then 
     measure their hormonal profile to see which profiles are more 
     predictive of the subsequent onset of severe nausea and 
     vomiting. We have proposed such a study to NIH which was not 
     funded during this most recent cycle. However, we will review 
     the evaluation when it becomes available and consider a 
     resubmission.
       If you would like any additional information concerning our 
     research in this area please don't hesitate to contact me 
     directly. Thank you for your interest in this area which 
     certainly deserves much more high quality research.
           Sincerely yours,
     Bernard L. Harlow.
                                                                    ____


   Saturated Fat Intake and the Risk of Severe Hyperemesis Gravidarum

 (By L.B. Signorello, B.L. Harlow, S.P. Wang, and M.A. Erick, Harvard 
School of Public Health and the Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology 
                 Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital)

       Hospitalization for hyperemesis gravi- darum (nausea and 
     vomiting during pregnancy) occurs in up to 2 percent of all 
     pregnancies. Women suffering from this condition can 
     experience malnutrition and severe weight loss, resulting in 
     adverse health effects for both themselves and their babies. 
     The authors conducted a case-control study to examine the 
     potential association between dietary factors and the risk of 
     severe hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). With previous research 
     suggesting an association between estrogen levels and risk of 
     nausea and vomiting, the aim of this study was to investigate 
     the role of modifiable dietary factors that may influence 
     prenatal estrogen production and/or metabolism. Cases were 50 
     women who were hospitalized for HG and who delivered 
     livebirths at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) between 1/1/
     92 and 12/31/95. Controls were 100 women who delivered 
     livebirths at BWH during the same time period and who 
     experienced less than 10 hours of nausea and less than 3 
     episodes of vomiting over the duration of their pregnancies. 
     Data were collected via self-administered food-frequency 
     questionnaires, with reference to the average diet during the 
     year just prior to the pregnancy. Summary measures for the 
     average daily intake of macro- and micro-nutrients were 
     calculated from this data. Preliminary results using a 
     multivariate logistic regression model indicate that high 
     intake of total fat increases the risk of HG (odds ratio 
     (OR)=2.2 for each 25 gram increase, 95% CI 1.1-4.2). Further 
     investigation revealed that this association was driven 
     primarily by saturated fat intake, with an OR of 3.5 (95% CI 
     1.4-8.5) for each 15 gram increase in daily saturated fat 
     intake (equivalent to 1 four ounce cheeseburger or 3 cups of 
     whole milk) after adjusting for age, body mass index, total 
     energy intake, and vitamin C consumption. This finding 
     suggests that saturated fat intake may be a strong risk 
     factor for HG and that modifying the intake of this type of 
     fat could prevent the onset or lessen the severity of HG. The 
     extend to which saturated fat serves as a market for prenatal 
     hormone levels warrants further investigation.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, America's children could once again become the innocent 
victims of shortsighted proposals to cut education programs.
  The American people remember last year, when the majority unleashed 
an all-out assault on title I, Head Start, Goals 2000, bilingual and 
immigrant education, student loans, and a host of other valuable 
programs.
  Well, here we go again. We have an education budget for 1997 that 
looks a lot like last year's proposal. Many of the cuts that appeared 
in their 1996 budget proposal have been given starring roles in 1997.
  The plan for 1997 falls more than $2.8 billion short of President 
Clinton's request. Proponents of the plan claim that they are merely 
freezing education funding at last year's levels, yet their proposal 
would cut the Federal education budget by $644 million from last year.
  At the same time, 1 million additional children who rely on these 
programs will be enrolled in America's schools by the fall of 1997. 
California's K-12 enrollment is expected to be 350,000 higher in 1997 
than it was 2 years previously.
  Considering this growth, the majority's plan grossly underfunds 
education programs. The level of underfunding in my home State of 
California is staggering:
  Total funding for education in California falls $328 million short of 
what is needed.
  Goals 2000 is underfunded by nearly $55 million.
  Title I--more than $66 million below what is needed.
  Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs--underfunded by nearly $8 
million.
  Immigrant education programs--more than $14 million below what is 
needed.
  Special education--underfunded by more than $33 million.
  Job training and education--more than $3 million below what is 
needed.
  Adult education--underfunded by nearly $5 million.
  Even the smaller but equally as important programs that help children 
in California will suffer under the majority's plan. For example, 
homeless children and youth--more than $750,000 below what is needed; 
Indian education--underfunded by more than $800,000.
  The majority needs to learn that the American people don't want to 
see cuts

[[Page H7326]]

in education. Americans overwhelmingly rejected the cuts that were 
proposed last year. Perhaps the advocates of these cuts should listen 
to their colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have put forth a 
families first agenda, which would balance the budget without draconian 
cuts in education.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would pass the Obey amendment that 
is on the floor or that we would reject the bill before us because it 
shortchanges America's children.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in response to some of the 
comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin had made during the debate 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], on which all time being used, there could be no response.
  There seems to be in this country a complete mistaken belief that 
bilingual education programs and the use of languages other than 
English in the classroom or anywhere else in this society somehow 
weakens the ability of a country and a society to move forward.
  One of the problems that we have in this country right now, I 
believe, is that some people have taken certain very emotional issues 
and put them forth in a way that scares the American public. And why 
not? If we tell the American people that bilingual education or any 
other program in the Nation threatens the use of English as the 
official language in this country or the language of this society, then 
certainly good-hearted, well-intentioned, and good patriotic Americans 
respond to that by saying, oh, my God, there is a problem here that we 
have to attack.
  But there is no problem. All we have to do is ask any parent of any 
child in this country where the family speaks a language other than 
English or a second language what they see, what they envision for 
their children, and every single one of their parents, unless they are 
not in their right state of mind, would tell you that they want the 
child to learn to speak English, to function within the society, to 
grow within the society.
  However, what we have done in this country in the last few years, 
and, unfortunately, it has been going on for much too long, is to 
suggest to people that there are a couple of things that are going to 
wreck this society and one of them is the existence of languages other 
than English in the society.
  Now, whenever I speak on this subject I use myself as an example. I 
speak Spanish, I speak English. I read Spanish, I read English. I write 
in Spanish, I write in English. I can listen to music in either 
language, I can read literature in either language, I can function in 
either language. I do not think that my existence in this House shows 
in any way, shape, or form that my knowledge of another language has 
caused a problem. I think in Spanish at times and speak in English, and 
it has not confused me. I understand the issues well and in no way am I 
handicapped.
  We are handicapped as a nation, however, when we send messages 
throughout the world that if you want to deal with us you must deal 
with us in English or we shall not speak to you. If you want to trade 
with us you should trade with us in English or we shall not speak to 
you. And if you want to play baseball on the ballfield we will only 
speak English, otherwise I will never speak to you.
  I suggest that that is a very narrow-minded approach, and all I would 
ask is people who support this movement of making English the official 
language, and therefore attack all other languages, to simply 
understand that the growth of a nation as great as ours is not just an 
economic growth, it is not just a military growth, it is not just a 
growth of a democracy; it is also the ability to work with other people 
throughout the world and to say to them we are not afraid of your 
language, in fact, we want to learn your language. We want to learn 
your culture.
  Let me make one last point. During the 1970's, as I have said on a 
couple of occasions on this floor, there were the famous spaghetti 
westerns that Sergio Leone put out. These were western movies made in 
Italy and the actors spoke in Italian and in French and Spanish and in 
English. It is sad to note that even then, and nothing has changed, it 
was only the American actors who had to have their voices dubbed in 
other languages while the European actors dubbed their own voice in 
various languages.

  What is the fear? Let us be honest about bilingual education. It is 
simply a program that takes you as a child speaking another language 
and teaches you information in your language until you learn to speak 
English, with the intent being that by the third grade or the fourth 
grade we will move you over to English, and then if in the process you 
maintain a second language, in my opinion, that only strengthens the 
society. That does not weaken the society.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that when I learned that ``Jorge 
Washington es el Padre de la Nacion'', I learned in Spanish that George 
Washington was the father of the Nation. It was the same information. I 
just learned it in another language first.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to 
thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to associate myself with 
the remarks of the gentleman, and add that I am just returned from the 
European Parliament, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, where 53 member nations were represented. English was the 
second language of most of the persons there. They all spoke either two 
or three languages.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Serrano was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, in Sweden, where this meeting was held, children are mandated 
at age 7 to learn English. In Australia, where I visited last year, it 
is mandatory that their children learn two Asian languages.
  I am finding it abhorrent that we continue this debate, and I just 
wish to associate myself with the remarks and the leadership of the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments, and I would hope that people in this country would 
understand that to speak more than one language actually strengthens 
you; it does not weaken you in any way.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that just spoke about 
English as a common language, but it is also very, very important to 
have multilingual, especially in the trade and economic issues that we 
have.
  I do disagree with my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner]. He quite often states his own opinion as fact, and he is 
factually challenged and I would like to tell my colleagues how.
  First of all, the Federal Government only provides about 5 percent of 
the total revenue for education; 95 percent of education funding comes 
from State and local funds. Now, it is legitimate for those that want 
the Federal Government to handle more of that burden to say we can 
spend more money out of the Federal Government. My point comes from the 
waste, the fraud and the abuse that happens at the Federal level. It is 
better to handle it at the State level.
  Let me give you a couple of examples.

                              {time}  1845

  Of that 5 percent that the Federal programs give for education, the 
committee identified over 760 education programs; 760 programs. 
Everybody wants a good program and, in fact, back in my own district I 
went back and everybody was coming and saying, Duke, we have all these 
programs and these are great programs. And you can fall into that pit. 
But what it does is that it spreads that 5 percent out so much that we 
get very little back to the classroom. In some areas, we get as little 
as 23 cents on the dollar and in other areas about 32 cents on the 
dollar. That is not good business.
  We have taken, for example, Goals 2000 with 45 instances in the bill 
that says ``States will.'' we have taken that and saved the money from 
that. The

[[Page H7327]]

President's direct lending program, I wish we could totally cut it out 
and do it privately. Why? Because to administer the direct lending 
Government program cost $1 billion more to administer just capped at 10 
percent. GAO did a study and said it would take $3 billion to $5 
billion just to collect those dollars.
  We took those savings and capped the administrative fees and we 
increased, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], 
we increased Pell grants. We increased student loans by $3 billion. We 
increased access to student loans by 50 percent. We did not cut. We 
added it.
  We took Federal programs which my colleagues on the other side would 
rather spend money on the Federal level, and we are returning that 
money to the States and getting a bigger bang for the dollar. The 
vision.
  If my colleagues want to work on something in education, we have less 
than 12 percent of our classrooms that have a single phone jack. Before 
Republicans and Democrats, the testimony has been that over 50 percent 
of the jobs in the near future are going to require high-technology 
skills and we do not have the tools.
  Mr. Chairman, one thing I disagree with in the bill, we ought to have 
more money for Eisenhower grants, not less. Why? Because if we are 
going to expect our teachers to learn how to turn on a computer and 
teach the children in the future, these high-technology skills to meet 
their efforts in the 21st century, then we have got to train our 
teachers to do that. It is a disagreement I have with the bill, but 
overall we have added dollars for education. We have taken the Federal 
Government out of it and turned it back to the American people, and we 
have given it to the people that need it: students, not the 
bureaucracy.
  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. 
Forbes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3755) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________