Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of the State of Delaware and a supporter of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my very able colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is a sensible due diligence amendment, and here is what it says. The bill proposes to spend approximately $30 million of our constituent's money to pursue a project to deepen the main channel of the Delaware River which divides the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and which empties into a bay which sits next to the State of Delaware. We believe that there are significant unanswered questions about this project, and the purpose of our amendment is to be sure that there is adequate time for this Congress to first get the facts, and then decide whether to spend the $30 million of our respected taxpayers' money. There are questions in this project about environmental concerns which is why the amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National Wildlife Federation and Friends of the Earth. There are questions about the economics of this project, which is why the amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Finally, there are questions about the equity and feasibility of the plan to distribute the dredged spoils from this project. Due diligence requires that we gain the answers to these questions, and that is the way this amendment works. It says that funds for this deepening project are prohibited to be spent before June 1 of 2001 so that this Congress and the executive branch can answer these kinds of questions. Environmentally, is this project going to be a significant threat to the drinking water and the natural resources of the Delaware River and bay system? The proponents would say that the environmental impact statement answers that question. I think the environmental impact statement raises more questions. The method that is used with respect to toxic and polluted sediment is to average the presence of those sediments in the river bed, but that does not allow for toxic hot spots which could arise. It does not deal with the question of the environmental consequences that could be done to the dredged disposal sites, and it does not deal with the consequences of the dredging that would take place for berths next to oil refineries, if they are ever dredged, that are relevant to this project. There are too many environmental questions to go forward with this project at this time. On the economics, the proponents of this project, the Army Corps of Engineers, say that 80 percent of the economic benefit derives from being able to get more crude oil to six oil refineries along the Delaware River at a cheaper rate which then lowers production costs. Mr. Chairman, that requires those oil refineries to make a commitment with their money to dredge their berths and make themselves available for this crude oil before we spend $30 million of the public's money. The record though shows that Best One Company has committed to make that investment; the others have not. They have given us words. They have given us gestures. They have not given us commitment or money. Mr. Chairman, this project proposes to build a superhighway with no exit ramps. A $311 million superhighway without an exit ramp. Mr. Chairman, finally, there is the question of the equity of dredged disposal sites. This project calls for 10 million cubic yards of dredged material to be distributed on the beaches of Delaware, but the Army Corps has refused to cooperate with the Delaware environmental agency and get the appropriate permits which is why Senator Roth and Senator Biden in the other body have urged that this project not be funded at this time. The project takes the remaining 22 million cubic yards of material and proposes to put it all in southern New Jersey, which is why elected officials, Republican and Democrat, State, local, and county throughout southern New Jersey have objected to this project. We need due diligence here, Mr. Chairman. We need to look at the essentials of this project when it comes to environment, economics and dredged disposal before we commit $30 million of the public's money to this project, which is why environmental groups and taxpayer groups support this amendment and why I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the minority does not object to the passage of this bill. I would note, for the record, that we would have preferred the bill follow regular order and have hearings and committee markups. But we certainly do not object to its passage. I support passage of the bill. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for his cooperation with the administration, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and all of the interested parties in making this a reality. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) noted, this bill is closely patterned after H.R. 2183, which he and I introduced into the House June 14 of last year, and it accomplishes two important objectives. The first is balance. It is important that the rights of individual plan participants in church-held plans be protected, that all of the consumer and fiduciary protections to which they are entitled are preserved. This bill does that. It also provides for proper balance between the legitimate interests of the States and regulating the fiduciary health of health plans and projecting proper State regulation of health plans. It balances that against the need for church health plans to have similar contract authority with health plans around the country. I believe it will, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) just said, facilitate the negotiating position of health plans when they purchase health and health insurance services to benefit their members. Importantly, this legislation promotes clarity. Those who would offer services to church plans, those who administer church plans, and those who benefit from church plans will now have the benefit of a clear statement of the intent of this Congress with respect to legal arrangements underlying their health plans. This is a technical bill with a very common sense purpose. Its technicalities are a bit difficult to follow, but its purposes are very clear. We want the men and women who work for church and religious organizations around the country to have the very best protection and the very best choice of benefits that can be reasonably made available by their employer, and we want those benefits to be offered free of any entanglement by policymakers in the legitimate religious preferences of the employing organization. Because I believe that this legislation accomplishes both of those objectives, I support it. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment for reasons of equity, for reasons of futility, and for reasons of constitutionality. The equities are obvious here. If the men and women who served in the Armed Forces of this country contracted a disease related to tobacco when they served in those Armed Forces, and the country is paying for the care of those diseases in the form of VA health benefits, we ought to recover those costs from those who caused the disease in the tobacco industry. It is a matter of simple equity, and that is why the veterans organizations and the health organizations support this. We want to avoid futility. Earlier this week we passed an amendment on this floor that said that the Veterans Administration could free up administrative expenses, not health expenses, but administrative expenses, and send them over to the Justice Department to help pay for the cost of this suit. If we do not pass the Waxman amendment here, that effort would have been futile, because we will undo the result of that amendment. So we would be having the VA sending money over that the Justice Department could not use. That is not a mistake, but it would be a mistake to do that. Finally, there is a matter of constitutionality. I think it is unprecedented and terribly unwise for Members of the legislative branch to interfere and intervene in ongoing litigation brought by the Department of Justice. It is the worst kind of second guessing. It is the worst kind of abandonment of separation of powers. The Justice Department has made a decision, in my judgment a wise decision, at our direction, to initiate complex litigation to recover these costs. For us to intervene at this point, second guess at this point, is unwise and may in fact be unconstitutional. Let us let this litigation go forward. Let us let the taxpayers and the veterans of this country have their day in court. Let us join together and pass the Waxman amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friends from New York and Michigan and Connecticut. Last year we had a debate over a very divisive and emotional issue about adding a new Federal protection to regulate the sale of guns at gun shows. And I remember that night, I think all of us remember that night, the very moving and personal and eloquent statement of our friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). And I thought one of the most disappointing moments of that night, because her position did not prevail, was the excuses that were given. We were told last year that a new Federal prohibition or regulation of guns was unnecessary because there were so many State gun laws that were effective so we did not need a Federal law. And we were told that we did not need a new Federal law closing the gun show loophole because what we really needed was more enforcement of those existing State gun laws. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a chance tonight to find common ground on an issue that is very often divisive, because the amendment that my friends are offering offers that common ground. It says to those who were in opposition to the position of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) last year, closing the Federal gun show loophole, they say that they want greater reliance on State laws, here it is. Because this amendment is about greater enforcement of existing State gun laws. And they say the problem is not adding new gun control measures, it is enforcing existing gun control measures. Well, Mr. Chairman, here it is. Because what this amendment does is to enforce more expeditiously and more aggressively existing gun control measures. I believe that this vote tonight is a test of the true position of those who oppose the position of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) last year. If it is really true that their objection to closing the gun show loophole was that State law should take priority, if it is really true that their opposition was based on the fact that more enforcement of existing laws is the right way to go, Mr. Chairman, here is the chance to prove it. Because what this amendment does is to say, we will put more fire power, for prosecutorial muscle, at the State and local level, not into new laws, not into new Federal laws, but into the enforcement of existing State and local gun laws. Now, if this amendment is not successful tonight, and I hope that it is successful tonight, I would ask, what is it, then, that those who oppose our position really want? Is it that they just want a different kind of public protection for gun safety or that they do not really want public protection for gun safety at all? I thank my friends for offering this amendment because it will be a litmus test of where people really stand on this very pressing issue of suppressing gun violence in our country. I urge support of the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today I commemorate a special occasion in which 38 children from Evergreen Avenue School have excelled in the classroom. Ms. Boos' second grade class is a remarkable group of young people. I wish the best of luck and continued success in school to Vanessa Adams, Natasha Barnett, Armand Brown, Roberta Burns, Adrienne Curry, Amber Darling, Brittany Feldman, Ashley Hecht, Ashley Kersey, Markie McDonald, Samantha Miller, Allen Moore, Scharron Nock, Brandon Rivera, Nicholas Schoning, David Viereck, Rashon Warrington, Jaquel Williams, Conner Wisely, Chloe Berger, Brittani Brydges, Robert Carter, Francis Connor, Shaneyce Cordy, Ashley Demarco, Thomas Hair, Hailey A. Headrick, Nicole L. Miller, Phillip Morris, Joseph Nunn, Nicole Pentz, Kelsey Serra, Renia Singleton, Angela Vincent, Amy Lynn Watson, Alexander Weiss, Darnell Whye, Analya Young.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the following message is from Steve Nisenfeld, father of Bryan Nisenfeld for whom Bryan's law is named and which was incorporated into H.R. 4504. The family and friends of Bryan Nisenfeld wish to express their extreme gratitude to all the advocates, aides, Congressmen and staffers who worked diligently on Bryan's Law. We firmly believe this bill is very important. Its passage will provide increased protection for missing students who might otherwise be overlooked by the university's staff, faculty or security force. In the case of Bryan Nisenfeld, there was a breach of security wherein Bryan Nisenfeld went unreported as missing by Roger Williams University for six agonizing days though administrators at the university were aware of threats made against his life. University administrators, by their own admission, overlooked the threatening phone calls Bryan received prior to his disappearance. This response by Roger Williams University denied Bryan's family an opportunity to intervene on Bryan's behalf and maybe save his life. At the very least, Roger Williams University, by its failure to report Bryan missing on a timely basis denied trained professionals time to immediately launch a search for him. We know that time is an essential ingredient used by law enforcement in locating a person. The actions of Roger Williams University officials delayed this important process. The Nisenfelds hope that Bryan's Law will prevent other parents from experiencing the pain and anguish the Nisenfelds suffered. This law requires all universities and colleges implement policies that protect missing students. It also provides information to parents and students searching for a safe college to attend. The Nisenfelds hope and pray the law continues through the legislative channels and wins approval in the Senate. Bryan Nisenfeld was a caring, giving individual who rallied behind social causes. The Nisenfelds believe passage of this bill speaks for Bryan's character. We thank you all. Bryan Nisenfeld's memory will forever live on. Thank you all.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment my friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and I have offered. Some of my dearest friends for whom I have the greatest respect are on the other side of me on this issue. I would just say that governing is about choosing. On this issue, I respectfully believe that we have made the right choice, and those who oppose this made the wrong choice. This is about how we should spend $126.5 million of the taxpayers' money. We say, those of us who support this amendment, that the right priority for that money is to put $86.5 of it toward reducing our national debt; to put $10 million of it toward property tax relief in communities that have federally-owned lands in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program; to put $10 million into the State Land and Water Conservation Fund, to help States in their effort to preserve green space and promote clean water; to put $10 million into forest maintenance programs that help us protect the integrity of our Federal forest lands; and finally, $10 million into the maintenance of our national parks, the disrepair of which, despite the very excellent efforts of the chairman of this committee and the ranking member, has become a major problem, despite their very diligent and excellent efforts. The opposition would tell us that this money would be better invested in a partnership with corporate America to develop cars that would get 80 miles to a gallon. I fervently hope and believe that we will one day have cars that can get 80 miles to a gallon. We could use them right now, given the spiralling price of gasoline. But I would argue that the spiralling price of gasoline is precisely the reason why we do not need 126.5 million taxpayer dollars to do this. Someone is going to make an awful lot of money developing and selling automobiles to the American public that can get 80 miles to a gallon. God bless them. I have great faith that they will. But I think the $1.25 billion that we have already invested between fiscal 1995 and 1999 in this project is really quite enough. We hear that we would not get these cars without this public investment. My research shows that in fiscal 1999, the industry spent $21.5 billion of its own money on research and development. I commend the industry for that, but I do not think they need our help to do that. Then we hear that the money does not really go to the big auto makers, it goes to those who are subcontractors in universities and pass-throughs. With all due respect, that is pass-through money and services that are being performed for the auto makers. That is like saying, if you paid someone to mow my lawn, that I did not benefit from that. I did not pay them to mow my lawn, but I am the one who got my grass cut. It is the auto makers who are benefiting from that. That is why our amendment is supported by the Sierra Club, because we should not be subsidizing vehicles that would add to our pollution problem. It is supported by U.S. PIRG; by Friends of the Earth. It is supported by the National Association of Counties because of the property tax relief that it provides, and it is supported strongly by the Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste. Governing is about choosing. The right choice for this $125.5 million is debt reduction, property tax relief, environmental protection, and not subsidies of the mightiest and most profitable, powerful corporations in this country. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in 1997, this House enacted the Medicare+Choice Program. The idea was to give some senior citizens the ability to get extended benefits under Medicare, including prescription drugs, by enrolling in managed care plans. There were advertisements in newspapers and on televisions across the country advertising zero premiums and very cheap premiums, and millions of senior citizens across the country flocked into the program. In my area, it is estimated that 35,000 Medicare recipients flocked to the program. The law provided for the first 2 years of the program a substantial Federal subsidy to the Medicare+Choice Program. That subsidy evaporated at the beginning of this calendar year. As a result of that, on January 1, 2000, senior citizen enrollees in this program across the country received significant increases in their premiums. For example, in the part of New Jersey that I represent, people who were paying nothing or $10 a month saw their premiums skyrocket to $85 dollars or $100 or $120 a month. This is a serious problem. The way to address it is for us to bring to the floor of this body legislation that would create for the first time a real and meaningful and comprehensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare. While we await that hopeful action, there is some repair work that I believe needs to be done on Medicare+Choice. In my region, we have the indefensible situation where constituents are paying $120 a month in premiums for the same benefit under the same program where people who are literally a mile away living across the river in Pennsylvania are paying $15 or $20 or $25. Now, Mr. Chairman, they are living in the same regional economy. They pay the same hospital costs. They pay the same prescription drug costs. But the difference of ZIP code separates this price increase and imposes upon my constituents in southern New Jersey a price increase that is substantially higher than that of our neighbors. Earlier this year, I spoke, Mr. Chairman, to the leadership of the Health Care Financing Administration and asked them, as they have under statutory authority, to conduct an audit to determine whether the managed care plans in southern New Jersey are charging the appropriate rates under this program. It has been represented to me by the leadership of the Health Care Financing Administration that this audit will be done in an expeditious fashion. But I am concerned. The contracts for calendar year 2001 must be renewed this year by September 1, 2000. It is imperative that these audits be finished in a fashion so that adjustments can be made and contracts can be properly renegotiated so these premium increases can be rolled back in time for the September 1, 2000, contract deadline. The purpose of my amendment, therefore, is to require that these audits be done in a timely fashion so that the results can have a bearing and a significance on the contracts for the new year in calendar 2001. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of cooperation to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois so that I can hear his comments on it.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the position expressed by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I think one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for special education is to improve reading skills for very young children. $16 million for a program that reaches every corner of the country is a very modest, and I believe very wise investment. Many of the special education problems in our public schools are actually misidentified because they are reading problems. They are children that are struggling in school because they never built the building blocks of reading skills in the early ages. Now getting children to a quality pre-K program is a noble goal. It is something I believe we ought to do, but for many families it is an impossible goal. It is much more possible for the family and the children to gather at the appropriate time in front of a television set and begin to pick up some of those skills in the privacy of the home. This is a very small investment in a very great need, and I believe that the amendment is misguided. It is certainly wise in trying to add to special education but reducing the need for special education is what we get when we invest in reading. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Lowey amendment. For a lot of people, the difference between succeeding in higher education and not succeeding in higher education is the Pell Grant. The amount that is proposed in this increase is modest, a few hundred dollars. But it can be the difference between being able to pay for your books or not pay for your books or have your computer access or perhaps take another course that gets us that much closer to your ultimate educational goal. Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the choice that we should have made about this would not have been made today on the floor. It should have been made several months ago when an unrealistic budget resolution was passed by a majority of this House. The costs of this proposal by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is under $1 billion this year. It is important to understand how that fits into the scheme of things. The costs of the majority's tax scheme is about $13 billion this year. So for 7 percent of the costs of the majority's tax scheme, we would be in a position to make this substantial investment in better education for more Americans. So the majority could still give 93 cents on the dollar of tax relief that they want to give and approve the Lowey amendment. That is a good deal for this economy. That is a good deal for this country. I understand that she does not follow the technical rules, but I think the majority's ignoring the more important rules, which say that we ought to be investing in the future of the economic growth of this country. In the future, the difference between success and failure will be the difference between an educated and prepared workforce and an under- educated and unprepared workforce. The Lowey amendment is a step in the right direction for the future, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bass amendment. Many people learn about how to get on the college track at home at the kitchen table from their mother and their father. But there are a lot of children, a lot of young people in this country who do not have someone sitting at the kitchen table who has been to college. GEAR UP is about giving that young man or that woman someone to talk to about that issue. It works. It should be given a chance to work. The TRIO argument, frankly, is irrelevant. This is a different program with a different set of parameters. I agree with my friend from New Hampshire that wants to fund more special education. I would support a $200 million increase in special education. We could pay for it by eliminating less than 2 percent of the tax cut that his budget resolution put forward in this House. That is the way to pay for it, not choosing between education programs. That is the right way to do this and it would be paid for in that way. We should all join together and oppose this amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is certainly my intention to accede to his request. If I may just say, there is an audit ongoing by both HCFA and the IG at this time. My interest is in expediting the completion of that audit. I would ask for the chairman's, the ranking member's, and the committee's cooperation in impressing upon HCFA the importance of an expeditious completion of the audit.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman, and his staff. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could the gentleman from Illinois assure me that the report language addressing this matter as I just outlined will stand in conference?

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about preserving all of the best options for the job training and job placement of blind or visually impaired citizens. The state of the law today I believe is correct. It says to State vocational rehabilitation agencies that, when they embark on the important work of preparing the blind or visually impaired for the work force, they have essentially two choices. They can direct their efforts toward a sheltered environment where individuals are placed and trained in an environment where there is public subsidy of the economic activity that ensues and where products are given certain market preferences; or they can attempt to train and place the blind or visually impaired citizen in the regular private sector marketplace. In February of this year, the Department of Education embarked upon a rulemaking process that I believe would upset that delicate balance. This proposed rule would not permit State vocational rehabilitation agencies to count as a success a placement of a blind or visually impaired citizen in a sheltered work environment. Now, I believe that some individuals should not be placed in a sheltered work environment. They are in fact prepared and ready for the regular private marketplace. I certainly believe that all individuals should not be placed in a sheltered work environment. But I believe that we should leave the law as it stands today, that we should permit vocational rehabilitation decision-makers at the State and local levels to use their good discretion as to where the best placement for these citizens would be. Mr. Chairman, the other body in report language that will accompany their version of this appropriations bill has taken a stand in accordance with mine and has taken a stand in that report language stating that the law should remain the same and that the Department of Education should not go forward with this rule. I believe that is the correct position, and that is the purpose of my offering this amendment. Now, I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is subject to a point of order because it is authorizing in nature. I would like to engage the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the chairman of our subcommittee, in a colloquy. Following that, I plan to withdraw my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.