Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 266 to recognize the great benefits of music education. Americans are known around the world for our unique contributions to modem music. But we are far behind many other industrialized Nations in recognizing the educational benefits of teaching music to our children. In Japan, it is mandated by the Ministry of Education that every child, grades one through nine, receive two hours a week of music instruction. In Germany students must take two, 45-minute classes of music education a week. Unfortunately, in America, the trend over the last several years has been to cut back on music education programs. This is occurring despite mounting evidence that music education can actually alter brain development in children and improve their reasoning skills. A study from the University of California at Irvine found that elementary school students in Los Angeles who took piano lessons boosted their math performance. From the body of data available, researchers have concluded that there are genuine long-term changes in the wiring of the brain that enhance children's abilities to understand how patterns work in time and space. The educational benefits are clear and according to a recent Gallup poll, nine in ten Americans believe that music education should be a part of every student's day. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with the GRAMMY Foundation, the non-profit arm of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. The GRAMMY Foundation is dedicated to advancing music education in schools. We recently held an event here on Capitol Hill to announce that the New American schools, a non-profit corporation established by President Bush to identify new ways of teaching, has welcomed the GRAMMY Foundation's Leonard Bernstein centers for artful learning into their portfolio of cutting-edge educational models. The GRAMMY Foundation brings music to thousands of children through their ``GRAMMY in The Schools'' program which exposes high schools students to careers in the music industry. And the Foundation created Smart Symphonies, a classical music CD based on brain research to benefit the development of infants. I applaud the efforts of the GRAMMY Foundation to make music and art education available for all children. Mr. Speaker, I support this Resolution in the hope that children of all ages across this nation will have access to quality music education programs. If we foster the creative impulses of our children, the possibilities of their success in life will be boundless.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Briefly, the distinguished chairman talked about waste, fraud, and abuse. They did not cancel one Head Start program under their administration, I told the chairman, and he said that, as well. It was Donna Shalala that came along and said if Head Start is not working, we are going to shut down programs. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our committee continually says, regrettably, we do not have the money. He does not say we ought not to do it. He says, regrettably, we do not have the money. That is a self- imposed tax-cutting limitation. That is why we do not have the money, because they have determined that the wealthiest in America needed more than the children in America. The President does have a program, as the chairman knows. For the jurisdictions that have the money to sell bonds he allows a tax credit, which makes them a little cheaper and therefore easier to sell, and therefore easier to proceed to provide the classroom space that our children so desperately need and that teachers need to have safe schoolrooms in which to teach. This program supplements it for the neediest children in America. Are we so parsimonious that we will not do that for the neediest children in America?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to enter into a colloquy with our distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who is standing in for our distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) prepared to enter into that colloquy with me?

Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes a very cogent observation. I had the opportunity to meet just within the last 30 days with the Secretary of the Department of Health in Maryland, and he made that exact point, needing such a registry. So that not only would it assist school officials and health officials, but it would preclude children from being overimmunized, as well as making sure that children who are not get that which they need. So that it has both sanguine effects from that standpoint. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. Does the gentleman from Texas want additional time?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order with reference to whether I would be in order to offer such an amendment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois has made a point. Mr. Chairman, would I have been in order to offer an amendment to add $1.883 billion to serve those 2.4 million by reducing the tax cut that is proposed?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank him and congratulate him for his work on this subject. Obviously, we have talked a lot about in the previous decade, previous century about prevention, about how health care would be much cheaper if we prevented illness as opposed to treating illness. Nothing has been so successful, I think, in that regard as has childhood immunization. We have, in effect, eliminated some diseases that have afflicted children and human beings for centuries really; and, therefore, this investment in immunizations plays an incredible dividend. It is probably as good an investment as we can possibly make, so not only is it the right thing to do to keep children healthy and to protect them from diseases, but it is also, from a financial standpoint, a very worthwhile investment that saves us a very geometric savings for every dollar invested. I thank the gentleman for his leadership and would be glad to yield to him for any comment he might have.

Mr. HOYER. Shall I offer the amendment and then have it ruled on? Point of Order

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I had the opportunity to meet a little earlier today with representatives of PerkinElmer, a corporation which is a high-technology company based in Wellesley, Massachusetts; and we talked about neonatal screening for treatable, inherited disorders. I mention that only in the respect that, again, we were talking about prevention and early intervention. These dollars, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) have pointed out, are dollars well spent; and the only reason, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) pointed out that they have not been included in this bill at this point in time is because the budget numbers were so very tight. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) as well for their willingness to work with us over the next few months to try to increase substantially the numbers dedicated to the immunization program so that we can make sure that every child in America receives the shots and immunizations that he or she needs to ensure at least to the safety that we can accord with those immunization shots.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Porter) for his outstanding leadership of the subcommittee and because we have the unique opportunity of having the chairman of the full committee here, I also want to thank him for his leadership of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, this is not in the colloquy, but I want to say with great assurance there is not a fairer, more thoughtful chairman of any standing committee in the Congress of the United States than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who chairs the Committee on Appropriations. It is with great affection and great respect that I rise and thank him for participating in this colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the funding level for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of childhood immunizations. The operations and infrastructure account, which provides grants to States for outreach and education on immunization, has, Mr. Chairman, as you know, decreased from $271 million in 1995 to $139 million in 2000, almost cut in half. While this bill increases funding for the operations and infrastructure account by $15 million this year, it is my hope that this funding would increase by an additional $60 million for a total of $75 million. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the vaccine purchase account within the Childhood Immunization Program at CDC. The President requested, as you know, an increase of $10 million this year and funding has remained level. I would like to see funding in this account increased by the $10 million President Clinton requested, plus an additional $10 million on top of that. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his hard work on this bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), in his absence, for his hard work on this bill. Given the constraints of the budget resolution, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Florida have done an outstanding job of writing what has proved to be a difficult bill for Members on both sides of the budget debate. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we may work together on this account in conference.

Mr. HOYER. I am about to say that but for the tax cut, there would be revenues available to have paid for this amendment. I understand the Chair is going to rule it out of order because the Committee on Rules has not protected it and therefore has dictated the ruling of the Chair. I regret that, but more importantly than that, the 2.4 million children of America who will not be served regret that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12 as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds $416 million to the bill for title I grants, $600 million to the bill for Head Start, $400 million to the bill for the 21st Century After School Centers, and adds $417 million to the bill for child care development block grants. Mr. Chairman, before I start, I want to respond to a couple of the allegations that have been made from the other side. First of all, that somehow we are forced to do this. I want to say first to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who rises on the floor and says, gee whiz, we are forced to do that, and if the rest of us are responsible we will have to live within these limits. Let me tell my colleague something I learned a long time ago, and that is to not accept the premise of those who are arguing against me. The premise of the gentleman is incorrect, Mr. Chairman. It is irresponsible to accept the parameters that have been placed on this bill. It is irresponsible to the children that I am going to talk about and the families that I am going to talk about to live within the parameters of the bill. Why do we have those parameters? Not because they are in a rule, not because they were given to us by some extrinsic force, they are in the rule because of the majority party's tax cut. Now, they may not like that, but that is the fact. That is the fact. Now, let me tell my colleague from California, who talks about fiscal responsibility. A, I support defense; B, I supported the welfare reform; and, C, as the gentleman knows, I supported the balanced budget amendment. But the fact of the matter is I did so with the premise that we would keep sufficient revenues to meet our responsibilities. The most fiscally irresponsible administration in the history of this country was under Ronald Reagan. Hear me now. Here are the facts. Back in 1950, 125 percent of GDP we were in debt. That came down. It came down to less than 23 percent, 24 percent. It flattened out for a few years and then, guess what happened on Ronald Reagan's watch? It went through the ceiling, and added $4 trillion to the debt. Do not preach to this side of the aisle about fiscal responsibilities, my colleagues. At no time did we have the votes to stop a Ronald Reagan veto of spending. At no time. This is Ronald Reagan's spending. It was not a question of fiscal responsibility, it was what he wanted to spend the money on. He wanted to spend the money on defense. I happened to think he was right. Where he was not right was doing the same thing my colleagues are doing this year. He wanted to cut and did cut revenues precipitously. But he did not have the courage of his tax-cutting convictions, because the courage of his tax-cutting convictions would have been to cut spending. But he did not want to do that because he may have paid a political price for it. Now, let me tell my colleagues what this amendment does, quickly. We add, as I said, $416 million for title I. The conference agreement on the Republican budget resolution requires $7 billion in cuts, or 6 percent below the fiscal year 2000 level, last year's level. Premising large tax cuts on unrealistic spending cuts makes the conference agreement a fiscally unsound and risky budget plan. That is why we are here, Mr. Chairman. I am offering an amendment today to fix a few of the problems. We do not have offsets within this bill because the offset premise that the gentleman from Illinois wants us to accept would be incorrect for us to do, because it is irresponsible for the gentleman to have forged, well, the gentleman did not do it, he did not vote for it, and we admire the gentleman for that, but the fact of the matter is many of the gentleman's colleagues did. They fashioned these numbers. My amendment, as I said, adds a total of $1.8 billion. Now, that sounds like a lot of money. But let it not surprise anybody that that figure is approximately the figure that has already been adopted by the Republican majority in the Senate. So if we are irresponsible, I guess our colleagues in the Senate over there are as well. We ask for increases for title I funding. Head Start, 21st Century After School Centers and the child care and development block grant. The four parts to my amendment do this: Adds $416 million, as I said, to title I. Now, that $416 million means that 650,000 children in America who qualify for services, and who are not now getting it, 650,000 disadvantaged children, will get services if my amendment passes. That is not paper, that is not rhetoric, those are real kids from real families who need help to compete in this world economy. Is the tax cut more important than those 650,000 kids? We add $600 million to Head Start, a program everybody says works, making the total increase for fiscal year 2001 equal to $1 billion. That is an additional 50,000 low-income children who will be served and 3,000 infants and toddlers who will be served. That is 53,000 children. This is not about rhetoric and numbers, this is about real kids. We add $400 million to the 21st Century After School Centers. We all know that crime is up after school. Why? Because kids do not have families at home. This amendment will allow 900 additional communities above the gentleman's bill to establish 3,000 centers serving 1 million children. Is that irresponsible, I ask my chairman? Is it fiscally responsible to tell those 1 million kids to get out on the street; that we do not have enough money in the richest Nation on the face of the Earth to provide them with those centers? Those children, 1.6 million children, will be denied service because of the Republican tax cut. Lastly, we add $417 million for the bill for child care and development block grant for 2001 funding. Eighty thousand more children will be served if we pass this amendment. My colleagues, we are talking about real kids here and programs that work. The chairman says and said in the committee when we marked this bill up that he thought this funding is okay. He told me that I was probably right, that we probably need to do this, but that we cannot do it because of the constraints. Those constraints are self-imposed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Green), a very good friend of mine and someone who has been tireless in working towards increased funding for immunizations. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. HOYER. I am addressing the substance of the bill and the relevancy of my amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to remind me who was in charge of the Department of Education from 1981, as he was lamenting that nobody cared about quality and that nobody cared about whether these were operating effectively on behalf of children. Who was in charge of the Department of Education, Department of Human Services from 1981 to 1993? Congress was not in charge. We did not run them. The fact of the matter is, as the gentleman pointed out, the first Secretary to tell a Head Start program it could not operate because it was not doing what we wanted for children was Donna Shalala. The gentleman was correct on that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will close as I began. First of all, I do not adopt the premise it was an irresponsible budget that was adopted. The gentleman from Illinois has acknowledged that these expenditures are good. Secondly, the gentleman from Georgia asked, where do these numbers come from? Frankly they came from the President, adopted by the United States Senate, as well, and I think they ought to be adopted by us. Thirdly, I would say to my colleagues, this is about real children, disadvantaged children, 2.4 million children who will be served if this amendment passes that will not be served at the level you suggest. Now, maybe you think there are not 2.4 million children in America who need help. Maybe you think like, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, that it is those 400 people who are going to get $200 billion under the tax cut that are more important than those 2.4 million children. That is quite a balance; 400 very rich people getting $200 billion while we cut $1.8 billion in this amendment for 2.4 million children. What kind of Nation has that kind of priority? It is a Nation that will not long succeed. It is a Nation whose children will not compete effectively in world markets. It is a Nation who will see itself increasingly becoming a Nation of the rich and the poor. Let us adopt this amendment. Let us set our priorities straight. Let us act to help those 2.4 million children.

Mr. HOYER. Yes, I do wish to address the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I asked the point of order. I offered an amendment. The amendment under consideration by the Chair now as to whether or not it is in order is an amendment to add $1.883 billion to the bill for the purposes of including 2.4 million children within the ambit of the bill. This bill deals at its base with individuals who are getting child care services, getting Head Start services, getting educational services generally, getting before- and after-care at school. This would expand that. Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinarily relevant to the provisions of this bill.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)