Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I am not sure what this amendment does because it just says that you can't change the Office of Civil Rights in contravention of the statute that set up the Department. There is no change in the Office of Civil Rights. The bottom line is that the Department of Education enforces civil rights laws. Yes, there was misguided guidance by the last administration that actually decreased discipline in the schools in my district because the teachers in my district and the administrators in my district were scared that they would lose Federal funds if they disciplined students because they had to do paperwork, and there were reports, and the Department of Education was going to come down on them. Discipline suffered. The bottom line is that the record of this administration on minorities is clear: the lowest unemployment in history for African Americans in the country and the lowest unemployment in history for Hispanics in this country. The record of this administration in dealing with minorities is clear. It has provided economic opportunity for tens of millions of minorities in this country. The Office of Civil Rights works in the Department of Education, and I oppose the amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, we have heard the debate. I don't know if vouchers are brought into this debate. It is interesting because, with vouchers like the OSP program in the District of Columbia, 97 percent of the students are minorities. That is a voucher program, and 97 percent are minorities supported by the administration. The majority just yesterday rejected an increase in funding to that program that benefits 97 percent that are minorities. Let's get civil rights straight. If my colleagues support opportunity and education for minorities in this country, that is what the administration is doing. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, read the plain language of the amendment. It decreases an amount, and it increases an amount. That is all it does. It doesn't increase funding for firearm violence. If the gentleman were so interested in doing more, more research, he could have increased the amount. He didn't increase the amount. At 1 o'clock in the morning, we are talking about a do-nothing amendment instead of bringing a supplemental bill to the floor that funds the care of children at our border that has been rejected by the majority time and time again. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, this is a modest request, but it is offset by a reduction in departmental management funds. Now, there are a number of amendments that do that. Obviously, if we do too many amendments that do that, you will leave nothing for the department to be properly managed. But this is a modest request, so I believe we should support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise hesitatingly to oppose this amendment. This is not an inconsequential amount of money. This is $3 million, and it is taken out of the Secretary's office. It is not prioritizing and saying, well, this program is more important than this program, so we are going to shift funds from one program to another. It actually strikes at the core of how the Secretary can manage the department. I just don't think that is the responsible way to do business. If we think this program is important, that is fine. Find another program that is less important. But let's not just take it from the Secretary's office because the Secretary has to manage a large organization. And, again, I know we are in Washington, but $3 million is a lot of money to take out of an office, so I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, this is a good cause. This is a good idea. But, you know, we have $10 billion in unspent CHIP funds sitting in a fund. So the question is: Why take this from the Secretary's office? I get it. Some people don't like the Secretary. Some people don't like the administration. But there is $10 billion sitting there that could be spent on programs like this, unspent CHIP funds. So I have to oppose this amendment because, again, let's prioritize. This is an important fund. Don't take it out of the Secretary's office. I get it. You don't like the administration. You don't like the Secretary. Don't take it out of his office. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, are remarks supposed to be directed to the Chair?

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, Mr. Cole supports the children. He actually supports funding these programs for the children past this month, something the majority doesn't. Time after time after time, the majority has refused the funding. Now, Madam Chair, there is no need for this amendment because, in 1 month, we can't take care of any children because the majority has refused, time after time after time, to provide funding to take care of these children. And then, Madam Chair, the majority gets up, Members of the majority get up and claim that they are for the children. Sure, we need reporting. But before we need reporting, we actually need funding. We should bring--instead of being here at 1:40 debating a two-line amendment that says just decrease and increase, we ought to be actually debating a supplemental bill. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, if I can inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, there is no question that suicide prevention is important, no question in anyone's mind. We have an epidemic of it, but we also have an epidemic of substance abuse. Here is the problem. This amendment takes funds from health surveillance and program support, which supplement activities funded under the headings mental health, substance abuse treatment, and substance abuse prevention. So there is a problem there, because no question suicide is important, suicide prevention is important, but this amendment is robbing Peter to pay Paul, Madam Chair. This amendment is taking money from substance abuse. If we are going to set priorities, both should be high priorities. The gentlewoman should have found the money somewhere else, maybe in the $10 billion that is sitting unspent in the CHIP account, instead of taking money from substance abuse. Madam Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, the bottom line is this bill already increases this program. With the committee report, page 59, we suggest an increase of $15 million. The $15 million in this amendment comes out of the Office of the Secretary. Again, I don't know how the Secretary is going to do all the work he has to do to take care of the entire Department if $15 million comes out to supplement a program that is already being supplemented. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).