[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H557-H582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 38 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. 5.

                              {time}  1256


                     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. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal 
Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying 
with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and 
to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private 
sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, January 
23, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Spratt] had been disposed of and section 4 was open for amendment 
at any point.
  Are there further amendments to section 4?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we prepare to return to the unfunded mandates bill 
or, as some would say, the Son of California Wilderness, I would remind 
our colleagues that we have now been on this bill for some measure of 
time, over 10 hours, on nine amendments. I would also point out there 
has been some discussion here this morning about the majority gagging 
of the minority. I would emphasize again this is an open rule, a truly 
open rule, something that we rarely saw in the 103d Congress.
  Having said that, though, I think with the fact we have dealt with 
only nine amendments in over 10 hours and the fact that we have pages 
of amendments just to section 4 of the bill still pending, I would 
exhort my colleagues to recognize that there must be an end to this 
process at some point in time.
  I think there are certain major issues that we need to deal with in 
this legislation. We have been dealing with only one of those major 
issues thus far, and that is the issue whether certain programs or 
statutes or dealings in the Federal Government should be exempt from a 
cost analysis of what they may cost.
  That is one issue, and we have debated that at great length over a 
number of different issues. But I think we have fairly well resolved 
the fact that the majority has prevailed in saying very little should 
be exempt from the provisions of this law, except those things that 
would provide sort of technical reassurance that certain areas were in 
fact exempt under civil rights laws or whatever.
  This is only one issue. We have other issues like, should the 
regulations issued by the Government be subject to judicial review, 
should the effective date be changed, and what do we do with public-
private issues. These are all major issues.
  So I would hope that we might be able to move this along. And in 
hopes that we might be able to do that, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on all of the exemption amendments to section 4 of the bill be 
limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I reserve the right to object because I do not believe that 
such a request would be appropriate at this time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Chairman, in the committee we had no hearings.
  The previous question was ordered on an amendment that had not even 
been heard or read. We were told to hold off on amendments until we 
reached the floor. When we agreed not to make a point of order to the 
bill that would have delayed consideration, the chairman assured us 
that there is no intent at all to in any way proscribe or limit the 
ability of Members to offer amendments.
  Further, when we went to the Committee on Rules, we were told that we 
were going to have open debate. Many Members on the other side of the 
aisle very proudly said, and have even said so today, that, ``We are 
now having open debate. There is going to be no closed rule.''
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I sense some resistance on the other side, 
and I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] withdraws 
his request.
  Are there further amendments to section 4?


                   amendments offered by mr. becerra

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments Nos. 30 and 31 at the 
desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Becerra:
       In section 4(2) insert ``age,'' before ``race''.
       In the proposed section 422(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, insert ``age,'' before ``race''.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on this floor about my 
concerns with H.R. 5, the unfunded mandates legislation, for a number 
of reasons, 
[[Page H558]] least of which, of course, is the fact that the State and 
local governments are taking on burdens.
  More to the point, however, we do not take into account in H.R. 5 
numerous provisions to protect those very States and local governments 
and neighborhood communities that we say we are about to protect 
through this particular legislation. One specific example to me, Mr. 
Chairman, which is very glaring, is that the legislation we have before 
us today does nothing to protect our American people against 
discrimination based on age.
  Today we have before us H.R. 5, that says nothing about preserving 
the rights of people, based on their age, to work, to live freely, and 
I believe it is important that at least something like this be included 
in H.R. 5. The Federal laws prohibiting age discrimination provide 
protection for millions of older Americans from arbitrary and unjust 
discrimination.
  As with all laws prohibiting discrimination, the laws prohibiting age 
discrimination set basic standards for fair treatment in a workplace 
and other areas of American society. The right to work free of age 
discrimination is a fundamental right.
  However, age-based employment discrimination remains prevalent, 
despite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the ADEA. The problem 
is particularly severe for persons who have lost jobs in declining 
industries such as heavy manufacturing. I know in Los Angeles, Mr. 
Chairman, we have a lot of unemployed engineers and scientists who are 
getting on in age, and they are finding it very difficult to find jobs, 
even as qualified as they may be.
  Mr. Chairman, once unemployed, older workers face sharply limited 
employment opportunities. Persons aged 45 to 64 are unemployed longer, 
on average, than younger workers in America, and they become what we 
term under the law discouraged workers. In other words, they are those 
who give up the job search because they feel it is futile.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments for preserving our important civil rights 
laws are the same regardless of whether the laws concern age, race, 
religion, or ethnicity. The authors of H.R. 5 have recognized that 
civil rights laws are deserving of special protection from any burdens 
that may impede their force and effect.
  It is our job now, Mr. Chairman, to ensure the inclusion of age 
discrimination laws among those civil rights laws to be exempted from 
H.R. 5's impact.
  Mr. Chairman, along with the amendment that I have, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], who has worked tremendously on these 
issues, also had an amendment. He has agreed, we have all agreed, to 
join together on this particular subject, along with the chairman of 
the committee, and I thank the chairman for having done that.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to make sure that I do acknowledge 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] graciously allowed 
me to go first on this particular amendment. He has worked tremendously 
on this as well.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman said, this amendment would add age to 
the list of antidiscrimination statutes that would not be covered by 
H.R. 5. There are certainly no intent to exclude this. We certainly 
want to make sure that the antidiscrimination would apply to this 
measure. This particular amendment has already been accepted by the 
Senate, and I am pleased to accept the amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to compliment my 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for noticing this 
and inserting this very important aspect on the issue of 
discrimination. I compliment him on his diligence in addressing this 
issue.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important amendment, and we 
discussed it at the committee markup. However, it points up the very 
reason that we are here today and that we have been involved in 10 
hours of debate, and we have 100-some-odd amendments, because this 
amendment should have been readily seen as valuable to this piece of 
legislation at the markup level. If it had, we would not have spent 
hours of staff time and hours of Members' time preparing for this 
occasion.
  Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing, and I just want to refer to the 
chairman of the committee on the other side, who treats this piece of 
legislation as if it is only a procedural piece of legislation for a 
point of order.
  However, Mr. Chairman, this bill has two particular sections, one 
affecting the right here on the floor to raise a point of order, and 
two, allowing citizens of any type for any reason to raise a legal 
question in a district court throughout America, challenging any rule 
or regulation by a Federal agency.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just so clear, I think, by the acceptance of the 
Committee on Rules, that this should have been put in this bill early 
on, just as we were fortunate enough when the bill was originally 
drafted, and it did not have in it an exemption for Social Security, we 
were fortunate enough to win that single amendment of 40 or 50 
amendments offered in committee markup. Social Security did win, I 
think, by a vote of 39 to 3.
  Mr. Chairman, I am certain if we had had the opportunity to really 
sit down and with open minds discuss this legislation, not only this 
age discrimination amendment but several others that I offered today 
would have been part of the markup that came to the floor, thereby 
saving a great deal of debate time. What some Members of the House, and 
I will not say whether it was on the other side or on our side, seem to 
indicate is that there is some dilatory action here. However, if a 
person is over 65 years of age, and if we were not successful in having 
this amendment made today, their protection as an American citizen 
could be denied on the basis of the unfunded mandate legislation we are 
about to pass in this Chamber. That would be criminal to my
 constituents and criminal to the constituents throughout America.

  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, joining with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra], that I think we have contributed 
materially to the fairness of this legislation, so that when it is 
finally adopted by this House, and I have no suggestion it will not be, 
it will be overwhelmingly accepted, at least we know there will not be 
an allowance for age discrimination in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, further, I would just like to suggest that maybe we 
could have some cooperation with the chairman and the Majority on the 
other side to look a little bit more at these amendments that we are 
about to offer, to recognize that they are not prepared and offered 
here today to waste our time but are very germane, very important, and 
are very substantive.
  For the legislation to pass this House in less than its best form, as 
we can provide it, says that this Congress is not ready to rise.
  One further point, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman in the chair and I are 
probably the only Members of this body that were here in the last 
Republican leadership of the Congress of the United States. We do not 
pretend to have been Members at that time. We were lowly back bench 
pages, but we know that that 83d Congress was very successful because 
there was a tendency to have open debate, because there was not ducking 
of issues or questions as we have in this government, and it is not 
only in the 104th Congress, but it has happened in many past 
Congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, what I hope we can eventually come out of this 
legislation with is recognizing that too often on this House floor we 
are passing laws that allow for the Secretaries of the executive branch 
of government to promulgate rules and regulations. It may be one 
paragraph of legislation and 10,000 pages of rules and regulations.
  It is time that the Congress of the United States, and particularly 
the House of Representatives, takes back 
[[Page H559]] its responsibility of oversight and investigation, so 
that we participate to a large extent in the type of regulations and 
rules we are going to be subjecting our constituents to, and not 
delegating that away to some unnamed, unknown bureaucrat, and then come 
back here and argue that we are hypocrites because we did not know what 
we were empowering some bureaucrat to do in the name of the Congress of 
the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can proceed now with a few of these 
amendments and test them for their viability and for their substance 
and have them accepted.
                              {time}  1310

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Kanjorski was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I appreciate my friend from Missouri. I know how 
Missourians are eminently fair, no matter what side of the aisle they 
sit on and do not delay actions by the House.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], 
the chairman, that we have acceptance of this amendment and my friend 
who is cosponsor of this amendment. I think we are having a 
breakthrough here. I can say I hope over the next several amendments we 
offer that my friends on the other side recognize that these are not 
done to delay and pass time but are very substantive in nature and can 
have dire effects on the American people in the future.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman has been in this body for a good many 
years and has operated very effectively as one of the best-respected 
Members of this House and his committees.
  I understand from what you made during your presentation and since I 
am not a member of the committee and I was not there, I would just like 
to go back and take a little bit of the House time because I think it 
was very important because of things that are being said on this floor 
today, earlier in the 1-minutes, and I heard a gentleman out in the 
lobby doing an interview talking about delaying tactics.
  I want to go back to that committee meeting and just find out how 
many--did the gentleman offer this amendment in committee?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Was this amendment debated in committee?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. No.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It was not debated? Just tell me what happened.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I had a series of four or five amendments that I 
thought were particularly important because of the possibility of 
regulations being
 propounded in the future that could be objected to in court. And since 
we could not get the judicial review section straightened out, we 
recognized we had to have certain exemptions.

  The Chair had suggested that because he was under a calendar 
direction from the Speaker to proceed with the markup of the bill that 
we would have an opportunity between the markup and the floor time to 
consider these amendments. We tried to contact the majority leadership 
and the majority chairman and we were not successful in accomplishing 
that.
  I heard of course yesterday for the first time that this particular 
amendment would be received. But our problem here was the speed at 
which the markup was made. No hearings were held. Some of those, 
myself, a new member of the committee, although having been in the 
House for 10 years now, was not aware of the process of this new 
committee, knew this legislation was important and felt that it was not 
proper for us to draft legislation on the House floor. That is what the 
committee system is all about.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is correct.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. If we are to go about drafting legislation on the 
House floor, we could end up on this bill and many of the other 
substantive bills that the majority undoubtedly will be properly 
presenting to the House, spending weeks or months of what some people 
may consider delay time. But if you are over 65 years of age and you 
have been discriminated in your job and you go to sue your employer and 
he is able to walk into court and enjoin you from taking action, that 
is pretty substantive.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take a long time on this amendment, 
but I think as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has said, it is one that 
is very, very important.
  What my major concern is, is that for the last several days, at least 
today and yesterday, this gentleman heard Members of the opposite party 
talking about us on this side wanting to delay this bill, that the only 
reason that we have these amendments is just to delay the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that is true. I think it is because 
this bill did not have the time in the committee, not because of what 
the chairman may have wanted done but because of the orders the 
chairman got from his leadership, and not sufficient time was given in 
committee.
  This is a major piece of legislation affecting almost every law of 
the United States that has an impact on State or local government, and 
all future laws for sure, and the regulatory process, as well.
  And yet the short time that it was given to Members in committee has 
resulted in the number of amendments that we have here before us.
  It is not because anybody wants to delay the bill. It is because, as 
I said in my 1 minute today, legislation is made up of ideas. And the 
people who proposed this legislation had ideas of what they thought 
should be in the legislation, what the Federal relationship should be 
to State and local governments. No one else had any input into that 
legislation up to that time.
  The first time that any other Member of this House had an opportunity 
to have an input into that legislation was in the committee. And when 
you got to the committee on this very far-reaching bill, and I am sure 
there are other amendments there, too, you did not have the time really 
to work on the amendments.
  The bill had to come to the floor because the leadership has decided 
that this bill has to be passed before we do a balanced budget 
amendment. They put themselves in a straitjacket. It is a very, very, 
very poor way to legislate.
  As one who has been in the legislative business for not 18 years but 
10 years in the State body before I came here, this is one of the worst 
ways to legislate that I have ever seen in my 28 years.
  What we have seen is the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman, 
earlier wanted to shrink the time that Members would have to debate the 
other amendments that are just as important as this amendment.
  It may be that the idea that is in those other amendments does not 
meet the criteria of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of 
the committee, and therefore he will not accept them as he has accepted 
this one. But they are still just as important to the Member who is 
offering that amendment, just as the previous amendments that took 10 
hours to do nine amendments, those were very important, Mr. Chairman.
  Everyone in this House, all Members, should have the right to express 
their ideas as to legislation. They should not be told, ``No, you can't 
do that because we don't have time to do it.''
  The legislation, even when passed, will not take effect until October 
1, 1995. That is almost 9 more months.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. May I say to the gentleman, it was not my intent to in 
any way try to shut off debate. I asked unanimous consent. The 
unanimous consent was rejected. But in no sense was I trying to shut 
off debate.
  What I was trying to say is that one of the major issues in this 
debate is whether there should be any exemptions to the overall impact 
of the bill. I think we have debated that issue, that overriding issue 
very thoroughly and generally have rejected the idea that there should 
be exemptions granted. If we grant a series of exemptions, we might as 
well do away with the bill, 
[[Page H560]] and I think there are some that perhaps would like to see 
that happen. But in no sense am I attempting to gag anybody or 
attempting to shut off debate.
  This is an open rule, we intend to continue to operate under an open 
rule so the issue can be debated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
   reiterate, and I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania, one of the 
cosponsors of the amendment, has really pointed out that this way of 
doing legislation is a very poor way of doing legislation. We should 
not do legislation on the floor of the House and deprive other Members 
of doing other things they could. The legislation should have been 
perfected and time should have been taken to perfect this legislation 
in committee and, therefore, we would not have all this time on the 
floor.

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Volkmer], we could save a great deal of time if the other side 
would realize what our big worry is here and, that is, they do not 
address the question of judicial review. As long as judicial review is 
not addressed and we can infer that you have a right to appeal to a 
district court if you are dissatisfied with the application of this 
legislation, every regulatory rulemaking body of the U.S. Government 
that is not independent is subject to judicial review.

                              {time}  1320

  That is why it is so important to craft the exemptions in this bill. 
If it was just a procedural role of a point of order on this floor, we 
are going to lose that point of order anyway.
  There is a majority and there is a minority. Our problem, we are 
arming every corporation and every individual who does not want to 
comply with a rule or regulation of a Federal agency or U.S. Government 
to stop the impact of that legislation by merely moving to file an 
injunction in Federal district court.
  As I said in committee, if there ever was a piece of legislation that 
should have had the title of Lawyers Relief Act of 1995, it is this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to clause 2 
of rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the 
period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, 
will be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. 
Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:
                             [Roll No. 31]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
                              {time}  1339

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred eleven Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for a recorded vote. This is a 5-minute 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416, 
noes 1, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 32]

                               AYES--416

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     [[Page H561]] Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn (WA)
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--1

       
     Young (AK)
       

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bachus
     Bishop
     Buyer
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Fields (LA)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Packard
     Parker
     Stockman
     Torkildsen
     Wilson

                              {time}  1345

  So the amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will take the lead from the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Ackerman], and I will insert some civility. I am sure the 
Chair and my colleagues will be delighted to know that I was giving a 
speech at Fort Myer a few moments ago. I was unavoidably detained when 
the vote on the amendments offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Becerra], rollcall No. 32, was cast. Had I been present, Mr. 
Chairman, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it should be apparent to every Member of this body that 
the chairman of the committee who is handling this bill agreed to 
accept the amendment that was just voted upon, they agreed to accept 
it. And then they allowed the minority 20 minutes to debate it after 
having said they would accept it. Once again, they said they would 
accept the amendment, and then the minority called not only for a 
rollcall vote but also a quorum call. This is a deliberate attempt on 
the part of the minority to drag this debate out, to hold up the 
Contract With America, and the people across this country are not going 
to accept it. They are going to know it.
  I do not want to belabor this and take the full 5 minutes, but I just 
want to say to my colleagues in the minority: If there is a need for a 
vote on an amendment, let us vote on it. I would just like to say to my 
colleagues, do not use these kind of tactics when we accept the 
amendment. If we accept the amendment, let us get on with the business 
of the House and the Contract With America. If you do not have anything 
to say, do not drag it out.
  I would like to point out one more time the committee chairman and 
the committee said they would accept the amendment. There was no 
controversy about the amendment. There was no need for debate. There 
was no need for a vote. And yet they called not only one vote----
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Briefly I would be happy to yield to my 
colleague.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
brought up a great point and it is a point I have been trying to make 
over several days now. If we had taken the time in committee to 
consider this, we could have considered that last amendment in a matter 
of 10 minutes, it could have been reported like the exemption for 
Social Security that I introduced in committee, which was accepted in 5 
minutes, and we would have not only not delayed a half hour or 45 
minutes here and 20 minutes in debate, but we also would not have 
delayed the times of our staffs and Members who have been waiting this 
week to prepare for this debate.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may reclaim my time, I would just like to 
say it has just been brought to my attention that the gentleman's 
amendment was not presented before the committee, but I would like to 
say, and I do not want to prolong this because we have to get on with 
the business of the House, if an amendment----
  Mr. KANJORSKI. If the gentleman will yield for a correction----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will not yield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] controls the 
time. He may or may not yield, as he chooses.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would not yield. I would just like to say 
that if we accept the amendment, there is no necessity to waste the 
House's time on two votes that are not necessary to drag this thing 
out. The people of this country want us to get on with the Contract 
With America, and I wish the minority would let us do what the people 
of this country want, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that on the first day that we convened 
this year we met until 2 o'clock in the morning and only had two votes. 
It seems to me that last night the majority party sought to limit the 
right of the minority to debate.
  Is the gentleman now trying to limit our rights to vote?
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  [[Page H562]] Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Ackerman] for yielding because I think the gentleman raises a 
good point as we can sit around, and the interesting thing which the 
gentleman from Indiana has done is he has now gotten us fighting over 
what we were fighting over. But the interesting thing on this is that 
we were not permitted to have full discussion of the amendment, we were 
not permitted to have full discussion of the amendment that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania offered in the committee. We were warned 
that this would be the problem.
  Second is I understand the gentleman from Indiana's concern. Some of 
our side might have said in the last session of Congress that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] sometimes might have been--I would 
never have done that of course--might have been involved in some 
delaying tactics. It seemed to me that we were voting unnecessarily 
from time to time when the Republican, then the minority, wanted to 
make a point. The fact is we want to move ahead as well.
  We are concerned about what happens tomorrow. We are concerned about 
what happens if we are being asked to sit, for instance, in the 
Committee on House Oversight on a line item veto at the same time we 
have the balanced budget amendment on the floor or if we are being 
asked to sit in a Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearing 
on the Mexican loan guarantees at the time that we have the balanced 
budget amendment on the floor. So there are legitimate concerns, and 
perhaps we are going to have to discuss about ways we express those 
concerns.
  And finally, as I recall, it was the fact that we could not get a 
vote from the other side that forced us to go to a quorum call that 
then forced us to go on a vote. We could have shortcut this procedure 
if a few more on the other side would have been willing to rise.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, for the new Members here on both sides of 
the aisle:
  I can remember scores of times, scores of times, that amendments were 
accepted on this side offered by the now-distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, as one example, scores of times, and we accepted 
amendments, but they wanted to get votes on those amendments. They 
wanted to get votes on those amendments so they could score us so they 
could take it to the interest groups and say, ``See how they voted?''
  Not one voice was raised in opposition to amendments on a voice vote, 
but they asked for rollcalls. That is the facet of this democracy. They 
wanted to have rollcall votes in committees. They wanted to have 
quorums present in committees. They wanted to make sure that everybody 
was present, no proxy voting.
  Mr. Chairman, we understand that. Very frankly I think on proxy 
voting they probably were correct. But the fact of the matter is on our 
side of the aisle understand we think it to be somewhat ironic that a 
party that time after time after time asked for rollcall votes when 
there was not a dispute, when committee chairs were willing to take it, 
is not now really in a position to criticize those on this side of the 
aisle who seek to have rollcall votes so Americans can know whether we 
are voting with senior citizens, whether we are voting with children, 
whether we are voting with the environment, whether we are voting 
against hazardous waste in communities.
  Mr. Chairman, we think those are legitimate votes, and they did as 
well, apparently until just recently.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 of my 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York, and I 
will take only 1 minute.
  Also for the new Members here: I hope you understand that the 
Committee of the Whole, which we are now in; we are not in the House, 
but we are in the Committee of the Whole. It is a committee, and we 
carry on the amending process in the Committee of the Whole.
  I have sat through a number of weeks in which, for example, 
legislation from the Committee on Armed Services had hundreds of 
amendments that were presented here on the floor, and the question was: 
``Why in the world didn't they deal with them in the committee?''
  The fact of the matter is, I was told by their side, ``We are dealing 
with them in committee, the Committee of the Whole,'' and that is 
exactly what we are doing here.
  I would tell my friend and colleague from Maryland that, if they are 
going to look for particular rollcall votes to begin to draw a line 
between the majority and minority so the American people will know 
where they are, we have had a lot of practice----
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield for a correction?
  Mr. THOMAS. Because the last rollcall vote was 416 to 1, and I fail 
to understand where the gentleman differentiates on a 416-to-1 rollcall 
vote.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
ask that we return to some civility and comity, and I would like to 
remind----
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues who were here at 
the time and the many of us that are also new, just picking a date from 
the Journal of September 21, and my colleagues could pick any page 
almost at random; at 12:45 the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] asked for a vote, a recorded vote. It was 390 to 1.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] at 5:21; the vote was 425 
to 1.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] at 5:41; the vote was 426 
to 1.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] at 5:50; the vote was 423 
to 2.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] at 6:07; the vote was 422 to 
4.
  It goes on and on. Nobody sought----
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield for a correction?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I am sure that there is an error in here. It could not 
have been----
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a 
correction?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Abercrombie and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, again for the benefit of new Members, 
and it should not have to be for old Members:
  As a member of the now-National Security Committee and the Armed 
Services Committee, can we at least have the record straight about 
someone who has conducted himself--I believe I can state factually on 
behalf of both sides of this aisle as, if not the fairest among the 
fairest chairmen that have ever presided over any committee, and that 
is the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. Members, Republican and 
Democrat, will agree that when the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] became chairman, and I believe that if the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] will check with the members of the Committee on 
Armed Services--the then-Committee on Armed Services, every single 
amendment, every single statement, every single request for time, was 
honored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and to state 
that hundreds of amendments had to come to this floor because they are 
unable to be delivered or unable to be presented in the Committee on 
Armed Services is utterly 
[[Page H563]] and totally false and against the factual record.
 Amendments came on this floor because the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums] and the majority recognized the opportunity and, in fact, 
the obligation of the minority to offer amendments under an open rule.

  I say to my colleagues, ``If you would do the same, you would do well 
to follow Mr. Dellums' example instead of trying to lecture us on 
history''----
  Mr. ACKERMAN. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just ask that we please 
observe some sense of civility in this House. We understand the 
mathematics. We understand that they have a majority. It may be very 
wide, but it is very narrow, but they have a majority, and under the 
old math or new math we understand what the vote is going to be.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Will you let me just offer this to you? 
With the majority, please, don't be afraid to debate your ideas, please 
don't be afraid to allow us our say, and don't be afraid to allow us to 
record the votes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ackerman was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield half my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification and to sort of 
correct the record here:
  Every amendment that was offered was considered by the committee. All 
of section 4 was open for amendment in committee. So, every amendment 
that was offered, every Member had an opportunity to offer amendments 
to those sections of this bill which were in the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight so there was no limitation 
on the ability to offer this amendment. This amendment was not offered; 
I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania would agree. This amendment was 
not offered in the committee----
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, so that the record is correct, if the 
Chair recalls, we had a list of seven or eight amendments which we 
thought were extremely important to be considered. We went under--
because the committee was trying to mark up the bill that day and get 
it ready to come to the floor, we had one vote on the Social Security 
amendment, which passed 39 to 3, if I recall, and the other amendments, 
at my request, were packaged so that we could work with the majority to 
see if they could be included in the bill as an en bloc amendment when 
it came to the floor to facilitate----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] 
has expired.


                   amendment offered by mr. kanjorski

  Mr. KANJORSKI. 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. Kanjorski: In section 4, strike 
     ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), 
     strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; 
     or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following new 
     paragraph:
       (8) requires State governments and local governments to 
     participate in establishing and maintaining a national 
     database for the identification of child molesters, child 
     abusers, persons convicted of sex crimes, persons under a 
     restraining order, or persons who have failed to pay child 
     support.

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all the Members of the 
House to perhaps remain on the floor. This is a very important 
amendment that both the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], my 
colleague on the committee, and I had put in a package to offer at the 
full committee markup.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. Chairman, at the end of the 103d Congress, this Congress adopted 
the crime bill, as we all know. A major part of the crime bill called 
for the creation of a database that would record sex offenders in all 
50 States so that that information could be readily available to local 
police and State police of the various municipalities and States in 
these United States.
  It is my understanding that the Justice Department has not 
promulgated the rules and regulations pursuant to that bill as of this 
moment, and that potentially that database will not be able to be 
constructed for several reasons, one of which is that it does not 
comport with the statement of standards required in this bill. Further, 
if we get over that objection, that it was previously passed 
legislation which had not yet had promulgated rules, we run into the 
problem that for every sex crime in the United States that would come 
under that jurisdiction, if the sex offender was discovered because of 
that database, it would give him a cause of action under the judicial 
review of this bill to allow him to charge that he is
 improperly charged because of information developed illegally against 
him and to set aside the regulations as they pertain to him.

  Now, I know that the Members of the minority party have long been 
well recognized for the fact that they want to do away with vicious 
sexual crimes in this country. We also know that in order to protect 
our citizens and protect the privacy of many citizens and the safety of 
most of our families, our wives and our children, it is essential that 
we are able to disseminate multiple sex offenders by having some 
database exist in this country. If we pass this unfunded mandate as it 
is presently constructed and written, it will not allow for this 
database information to go forward.
  I think that it is this type of exemption that should have been 
considered at the level of the committee in markup, and in a matter of 
15 or 20 minutes the reasonableness and the rationality would have been 
clearly understood by both the majority and the minority.
  This is our last attempt to have that database secure so that it can 
be implemented by proper rules and regulations and not to give every 
sex offender in this country the opportunity to vitiate his criminal 
conviction.
  So I urge all my colleagues to take one step back.
  This is just good, sane legislation. Let us allow an exemption here 
for the database that we had originally anticipated and all voted for 
in the crime bill of the 103d Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the cosponsor of the amendment and a 
member of the committee on the minority side, the honorable gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] 
has already made a very compelling argument about the crime that is 
committee against a victim twice by allowing the perpetrator to have an 
edge in court. I would like to speak about the personal side. First, I 
am not trying to stall this bill. I know it is going to pass. The votes 
are there, but I do not want it to pass until I have a chance to speak 
for the victims of rape, or children, and women.
  The national statistics show us that rapists are 10 times more likely 
to repeat their crimes than any other offender. The American people 
have felt outrage, and expressed it many times, over sensational cases 
where the sexual predators were released in their communities and 
neither the police nor the community knew they were there. Polly Klaas 
in California and Megan Kanka in New Jersey are two recent examples of 
young children allegedly abused and murdered by released sex offenders.
  In my home town of Rochester, NY, Arthur Shawcross went on a rampage 
of serial rape and murder while he was on parole for having murdered 
two young children.
  Mr. Chairman, the parole board in the State of New York lost track of 
Mr. Shawcross, and not even the police investigating his crimes knew 
about his past or where he was.
  Communities across the Nation have similar horror stories. Last year 
this database on sexual predators was passed with heavy support on both 
sides of the aisle. Senator Feinstein introduced the bill in the Senate 
where it passed.

[[Page H564]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, why do we want to collect this information nationally? 
We know a lot of things about sexual predators. One thing is that we 
cannot treat them as other criminals, that they are very apt to be 
repeat offenders. We know they cross State lines.
  We had the full support of all the police agencies in the country. 
They feel in the cases of Polly Klaas and Megan Kanka that had they had 
prior record information at their fingertips, they might have been able 
to save Polly Klaas who was alive when the police stopped the car she 
was allegedly in.

                              {time}  1410

  One of the things I would like to say to the people of the country is 
when we talk about the unfunded mandate it is as though they were a 
four-letter swear word. Unfunded mandates has a ring to it of something 
almost repugnant. In truth this bill really says that the Federal 
Government cannot pass any legislation if we are not going to give all 
the money the legislation requires; that States and local governments 
will no longer be required to make any contribution of their own.
  That means we could no longer pass bills as we have over the history 
of the United States such as mine safety. There we said that the people 
who go down in the coal mines of the United States, the most dangerous 
job, to meet our energy requirements, they should be able to be safe in 
that work and certain conditions had to be met so that their lives were 
more likely to be kept out of danger. We did the same thing with child 
labor laws, when we said OK, maybe little fingers are wonderful in the 
textile mills and to clean out the machines, but American children 
should not be exposed to that kind of hazard. And we said the same 
thing about children in the coal mines.
  The same thing happened when we said American children are all going 
to be educated. These are all called unfunded mandates; as are airline 
safety, highway safety, and clean water. We are going to have to 
reauthorize clean water. It is going to come under this law after it is 
passed.
  What we are saying is if the Federal Government does not spend enough 
money to provide clean water for every family in the United States, 
that bill's requirements will be repealed or action will be optional. 
So you may have clean water if you want to in Virginia, but you do not 
have to have it in Alabama.
  Is that what people in the country are looking for with the unfunded 
mandates? Do they want to let sexual predators go? Do they want to let 
the polluters go ahead and pollute? We must not lose this opportunity 
to do everything we can to stop that menace, that horror, of sexual 
predators preying on the children of the United States. I would venture 
that there is not a single district represented in Congress that has 
not had a case where someone has come in from across the State line or 
someone has been released with a prior record as long as your arm, and 
yet unless we act other people will be victimized either with rape or 
with death. Do we have to learn this lesson over and over again?
  In this day of communications is it too much to ask that State and 
local governments help to provide this information, and, yes, help to 
pay for it? Because, believe me, in the long haul, if you really want 
to bring this down to dollars and cents and not to human dignity and 
lives, if you want to just put it down to dollars, it is obviously 
going to be cheaper for us to prevent these kinds of things than to go 
through the costs of the court cases and trials we will have to suffer.
  Let me close with one example where this could have made an 
incredible difference. Two years ago investigators in the State of 
Virginia were puzzled because there was a maintenance man on the loose 
who raped 18 women, all with the same modus operandi. He got access to 
the apartments by claiming to be a repairman
  Tragically, that man, Eugene Dozier, had already been convicted for a 
string of rapes in New York State in which he used the very same 
tactics, and he was released from prison in New York and moved right 
down into Northern Virginia. If we had had the nationwide data base, 
law enforcement in Northern Virginia could have gone right to his door.
  What kind of a thing is it that we are saying is too much? What is it 
that makes that so expensive that we cannot continue to do that so we 
can try to keep people safe? Well, I am sure that anybody in this 
country who has been victimized or lost someone would tell you that it 
is not too much. And when we talk of unfunded mandates, we have got to 
remember that what we are doing is providing for the health and the 
safety and, yes, indeed, saving the lives of many of our people.
  I urge that this be exempted from the unfunded mandate bill.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the committee to oppose 
this bill and move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, for reasons that we have opposed other amendments to 
this section, we would oppose this amendment at all. I think we are all 
against rape or all against child molestation, and as a father of 
three, I do not want to have sexual predators go free either. But I 
will tell you what, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits this 
data base from going forward and that is going to cripple our efforts 
in these areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just becoming increasingly frustrated at the pace 
and content of the debate on this Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Over the 
past several days there has been large amount of disinformation on the 
bill coming out from its opponents and many mischaracterizations about 
the competence of State and local governments to fulfill their duties 
in a number of areas.
  The American people know that all knowledge and competency does not 
reside in Washington, DC, in the Congress. In fact, if you look around, 
some of the most dynamic and innovative programs for the homeless, for 
the hungry, for protecting the environment, fighting sexual predators 
and child molestation, are emanating from local and State governments.
  The federalist system has traditionally challenged State and local 
systems to experiment and invent new programs and policies to meet the 
needs of the citizens. Other levels of the government have a great 
opportunity to gain insights to benefit from these experiments and from 
these programs. But there is a certain arrogance in believing that 
Congress and only Congress has the knowledge of what laws and programs 
should become public policy. This arrogance is intensified when 
Congress does not have the guts to put our money where our mouth is. 
That is, to pass the bill, and then we pass the buck on to States and 
localities to fund what we feel are the priorities.
  I keep hearing the argument that Congress is only trying to help and 
assist State and local governments to provide functions that it 
otherwise could not. But that is ridiculous. In this particular case 
the big seven, including the National Governors Association, National 
Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association 
of Counties, and a number of private sector entities, including the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support this bill and oppose this amendment, 
because they recognize these amendments are basically gutting the bill.
  I served in local governments for 15 years prior to any election to 
this body. What I think Members need to understand is that local and 
State officials want the same things that Members of this body want. 
But we were increasingly frustrated at the local level by having the 
Federal Government take a larger share of our local dollars from our 
local efforts to cut crime, to sexual predators, to fight the whole 
crime area, to improve the environment, to house the homeless and feed 
the hungry, because we had to take those dollars and pay for mandates 
Congress thought were most important, but not important enough to send 
the dollars to go with it.
  As I see exemption after exemption proposed in from the other side of 
the aisle, it is important to put these amendments into perspective and 
into context. A core of Members have consistently supported exempting 
from this bill not just sexual predators in this case in those actions, 
but also the Clean Air Act, wastewater treatment, 
[[Page H565]] aviation and airport security, licensing, construction, 
and operation of nuclear reactors, disposal of nuclear waste and toxic 
substances, health of individuals with disabilities, child labor and 
minimum wages, and OSHA. You put these together, there is no bill. 
There is no bill if you put that altogether, and this bill would have 
no teeth at all. Taking these amendments together, the proposals would 
in fact, the bill would become worthless.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the programs, as the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis] pointed out eloquently, are all worthy. As a 
former assistant district attorney in Pennsylvania, I can tell you a 
national data base is certainly a program worthy of being explored and 
worthy of being adopted, but at the right time. What we have before the 
House right now is a bill, H.R. 5, which will provide the cost analysis 
of what it is going to be for imposing a mandate that we have put on 
State and local governments. And H.R. 5 is why we are here in the House 
today.
  Those are all worthy programs, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis] discussed. But before we vote them up or down, we need H.R. 5 
passed, to make sure this House does not pass on to States and local 
government any bill, any cost, without knowing what it is going to cost 
ahead of time, and this House approving it.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me try to sum up, if 
I may. Keeping these items in the bill does not mean Congress will pass 
no more laws on these matters or even any unfunded mandates. What it 
does is nothing in this act nullifies any existing law or regulation. 
But in this case, child molestation laws and regulations, they can 
still move forward on a prospective, and any act that is currently, of 
course, in effect, is not affected. But we will either pay for it or 
know what the costs we are putting on to our States and localities will 
be before we can proceed and have all of that information in front of 
us.
  The real issue is not the relative merit of any single mandate; the 
issue is who should pay, and if Congress does not pay, what will the 
costs be to those with whom we are passing the bill. What is wrong with 
obtaining the cost to the States and localities before we act. What are 
we afraid of?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Davis was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, if a mandate is required and we believe the 
costs should be allocated to someone else, why not vote on it? Why not 
overrule a point of order and take some responsibility for our actions 
as we send that dollar down to the States and localities.

                              {time}  1420

  Let us remember this: unfunded mandates are basically a cost shift 
from a progressive income tax to more regressive property taxes. I 
believe it is in everyone's interest to know these costs before we pass 
them onto States and localities in taxes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Did I hear the gentleman say that if this bill passes, that we could 
still go ahead and pass unfunded mandates?
  Mr. DAVIS. Of course. We have the flexibility under this act to go 
ahead with that, but we would have the costs in front of us. And we 
would have to affirmatively waive the point of order.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Does the bill not say that if we do pass an unfunded 
mandate, it is optional?
  Mr. DAVIS. What would happen with the bill is----
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the State says, ``I don't want to cooperate with 
you and this river that runs between my border and yours and I am going 
to pollute my side and I am sorry about that.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Davis was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DAVIS. We would still have that option, but we would have the 
costs in front of us and identified before we could act on that instead 
of being automatic. This is not a no-money-no-mandates bill. There may 
be an amendment offered to that later. This would simply put those 
costs in front of us, and we would have to affirmatively vote to waive 
the point of order before we could go forward with an unfunded mandate.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is, what 
in the world would be the point of passing one if everybody could opt 
out of it?
  Mr. DAVIS. They do not have an option of opting out of this. We have 
the same authority we would, but the costs would be identified up 
front. We would have to affirmatively waive that point of order. The 
responsibility would still lie with the counties.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment. I find it absolutely 
incomprehensible that we would debate a bill of such significance as 
this that clearly exempts such provisions as compliance with the county 
and auditing practices or procedures but failed miserably by not 
exempting the requirement that State and local governments participate 
in establishing and maintaining a national data base for the 
identification of child molesters and child abusers and other persons 
convicted of sex crimes and persons under a restraining order and those 
who fail to pay child support.
  Anyone who supports tougher measures against crime and anyone who 
supports reforms in welfare would just have to support this amendment 
or an amendment just like it. It just makes good sense to do so.
  Far more frequently than I or any of us want to know, the media 
constantly brings us the heart-rending news of some little boy or some 
little girl who has been sexually abused or has been even ravaged or 
has been, even worse, been killed by some sex predator. Even when they 
are not killed, they are frequently mentally and physically abused in 
horrible fashions.
  Serial rapists and repeat offenders who sexually abuse women are 
equally perpetrators of various heinous crimes. We just have to know 
who these criminals are. That is all we are saying. We have to know who 
these people are.
  Without this amendment in H.R. 5, we cannot--if we had this 
amendment, we would be able to have a data base so that we could know 
who they are. Without it, we would allow States to refuse to maintain 
data that would enable us to track these very criminals, thereby 
undermining efforts of other States to keep track of individuals in our 
neighborhoods who may threaten our women and children.
  Why, for example, should the kids, the little kids who live in the 
State of Illinois, not be secure as the kids who live in, say, Michigan 
or Iowa that is contiguous to our State? Because that State is doing 
less than it should to fight these terrible crimes by creating a data 
base. Or to let us know through a reciprocal agreement or the sort of 
thing with the data base who these people are who injure our little 
kids.
  In Illinois we will have a stalker law which attempts to address the 
plight of women who are helpless against individuals who terrorize and 
intimidate them. If other States are not required to track these 
individuals who are under restraining orders, then the Illinois law is 
far less effective. It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a data base 
of this kind is something that we simply must have, and not to have it 
would be doing the human thing that Americans do.
  All of us here, most of us here are mothers and fathers or 
grandfathers and what have you. If anything were to happen to one of 
our children or one of our friends or one of our grandchildren, we 
would certainly want to know who those who have done this to other 
children or who are likely to move across a State border and do the 
same thing to another child. How can we in good conscience not support 
this amendment?

[[Page H566]]

  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to exempt laws and regulations 
which require State and local governments to participate in the 
establishment of national data bases to identify child molesters and 
abusers, as well as sex offenders, individuals under restraining order, 
and persons who have failed to pay child support payments.
  Far from empowering States, without this amendment, H.R. 5 could 
actually lessen the ability of a State to protect itself from these 
kinds of crimes.
  Almost everyone agrees that enforcing the payments of child support 
is one of the most important elements of true welfare reform. But 
without a national database, those who try to avoid child support 
responsibilities, or who molest a child or rape a woman can just move 
to another State and keep on committing these crimes. In this sense, 
failing to pass this amendment, could cost the States, and the Federal 
Government millions in unnecessary welfare payments.
  I urge you to support this amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I do not know if the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis] is still on the floor. I wanted to direct something to him.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may, this amendment really structures 
what the issue that the minority and myself have been trying to make 
now for several days, and maybe I could have a colloguy with the 
chairman of the committee, so that we could get an understanding of 
where the problem is.
  Mr. Chairman, as I read the legislation, there is no section denying 
judicial review, is that correct?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. No section denying judicial review, that is correct.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, so that by inference it is open and common practice, when a 
Federal statute is in play, judicial review usually lies as a matter of 
jurisdiction in the Federal court; is that not correct?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. So we have no exemption. We have no denial of judicial 
review here. So anyone subjected under this bill has a right to go to a 
Federal district court to raise the question of whether the rule or 
regulation that they are being charged under or arrested under, whether 
or not that stands.
  Now, what we are addressing ourselves to here is the question of 
section 221, the regulatory process. The criminal bill was passed last 
year. In that bill it authorized the Attorney General and the Justice 
Department to promulgate rules and regulation to bring about the 
intentions of that legislation, of which was to establish a national 
database.
  They have not promulgated those rules and regulations.
  First question, that because it follows this legislation it could be 
contended in a judicial review process that they acted contrary to this 
legislation because it was promulgating a rule and regulation after the 
enactment of this act.
  If that were the case, any information derived from that database 
would be challengeable as having interfered with the privacy or the 
rights of that criminal defendant and could have breached his 
constitutional protection under the law.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, what the majority has not paid attention to is because we have 
not denied judicial review, section 202 sets forth a statement that is 
required to accompany every promulgation of every rule and regulation 
by every Federal agency of the U.S. Government. If the Justice 
Department then promulgates these rules and regulations, even though to 
the best of their ability they comply with the litany of tests, of 
costs and all the other matters, it still does not deny every 
defendant, after a full trial, to go into court and enjoin to reverse 
his conviction because of the violation of the Justice Department in 
promulgating the rules and regulations and creating the database that 
caused his original detention or arrest.
  We do not want that to happen. Every criminal sex offender in this 
country will be able to say 2 years, 3 years from now after this 
database is created that I was caught and my privacy was invaded or my 
constitutional right was denied me and my statutory protection under 
this act, unfunded mandate act, was not properly carried out in the 
promulgation of rules and regulations by the Justice Department that 
are laid in great detail.
  We, by inference, by not denying judicial review, allow judicial 
review to occur in that area.
  What we are saying is, why do we want to raise that tremendous 
question out there? Why can we not just--this is a very limited part.
  I want to say, there are 50 States in the Union, thousands of 
counties, and 32,000 municipalities. Unless we get compliance of every 
one of those units of government, this database is useless. We are not 
going to have voluntarily, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
suggested in his debate, every element of government.
  There are communities in the United States that could care less about 
the crime problem of Washington, DC, Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, 
or Illinois. There are many municipalities in the country that--and I 
will tell Members, I have dealt with some of the officials--when they 
get a vicious sex offender, it is a lot cheaper for them to take him 
down to the bus station, buy his ticket and ship him out of town than 
to go through the trial, prosecution and incarceration of that 
offender.
  I have got counties in my State that because they prosecute the sex 
offender from New York in Pennsylvania, they incur the liability of 
incarceration, health care and every other factor that applies to that 
person. It is much cheaper for them to pay him to get out of town.
  Now, I wash that were not the case, but that is the reality.
  All we are asking for is, why do we not write this legislation in 
such a way with a small exemption that no sex offender in the future 
could ever raise that defense, could ever go into a Federal court to 
get an injunction or could ever raise any violations of his 
constitutional rights propagated on the fact that some regulatory 
agency did not comply with what some future court may consider the act 
intended.

                              {time}  1430

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, the way we avoid that problem is merely 
by exempting out this position in the bill.
  It goes back to what we earlier argued, Mr. Chairman. If in committee 
we had had the opportunity to call the Attorney General, or their 
representative, or law enforcement officials across this country, we 
could have found and created a provision that would have protected the 
database and the ability to prosecute sexual criminals.
  Now we have put that all in question, and some jurisdictions of this 
country, just as we had with the motor-voter legislation, will take an 
action in court to deny their duty to comply with the information 
required for the database.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that is foolish. This Congress wants to work 
right. We are going to, and we will try on this side to support 
unfunded mandates from being improperly imparted on the States and the 
municipalities of this country, but let us do it right. This is our 
only chance.
  If we miss it and for some reason the conference committee does not 
cover it, it will be the law of this land and all of us here today, 
regardless of how we vote on this amendment, are going to be guilty of 
the fact that sex offenders, and rapists, and murderers involving sex 
crimes will be free in the land, because we failed to take the 
opportunity and the rationality and the reasonableness to make sure 
this legislation says what we intend it to say.
  [[Page H567]] Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, in response to the concerns of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], let us back up a minute 
and talk about what the real subject of the debate is.
  No. 1, Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order against the database. 
I think that should be made clear.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the point of 
order provisions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about the point of 
order. The point of order question is a procedural question in the 
House in passing legislation. Section 201 is the regulatory power.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to be very clear, I would say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], because the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter] raised this point earlier, this is not a 
question of applying this legislation in terms of the point of order to 
the existing statute which is in place, which in turn has the 
promulgation of the database. We are talking about the Federal agency 
action. That comes in title II of this legislation.
  Let me be very clear, Mr. Chairman. We mentioned this last night in 
the debate. If in fact the database is going to be subject to the very 
limited requirements in title II of this legislation, that means 
necessarily that such regulations are already subject to the 
Presidential Executive order issued by President Clinton on October 4, 
1993.
  I just counted up the words a little while ago. The Clinton Executive 
order is 6,020 words. It is far broader, far more extensive, far more 
comprehensive than anything in title II.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, that is far more extensive than anything 
in title II to this legislation.
  Let us be clear. Anything in this regulation and the database may or 
may not be covered by this. It has to be over $100 million to be 
covered by title II, but any regulation that could possibly be covered 
by title II, which again is far less broad than the executive order, 
and in fact it is 925 words versus over 6,000 words, would be subject 
to the existing Executive order.
  Mr. Chairman, then the question becomes should the database, as an 
example, if it were in fact covered under either the Executive order or 
title II, and it is necessarily under the Executive order currently in 
place, if it is going to be covered by title II, should the agency, in 
this case the Department of Justice, as I understand it, be required to 
comply with the Clinton Executive order?
  Let me ask the gentleman a question. Is the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] saying that the Executive order is not 
appropriate? This asks for a written statement of the costs and 
expenses. Is that not appropriate?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, if the Attorney 
General determines that the Executive order in some way impacts upon 
the promulgation of these rules and regulations, it takes one man with 
one pen 1 minute to vitiate that. If we pass a statute, and we have 
points of order that could be raised in future legislation----
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is 
precisely why we need to have it in statute. I thought there was an 
agreement in this body, a consensus that the costs and benefits of 
legislation ought to be known, and in addition, that when new 
regulations were promulgated that agencies ought to have a requirement, 
as the Executive order provides, and in fact it goes much further than 
our bill, that the agency provide an assessment of what the costs are 
going to be. That is all we are asking here.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not care how excellent the 
administration operates or the executive agency operates. Every 
individual American, if we do not deny the right of judicial review, 
will have the opportunity to go into court and raise all these legal 
issues after the conviction of a criminal.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, every individual has that right now.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. No, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Absolutely. Anyone can challenge an agency action, 
absolutely.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, every individual cannot challenge 
whether or not the estimate of costs of an unfunded mandate were 
complied with, whether the future costs of the mandate have 
disproportionate effects on State and local government budgets. That is 
not the law today. That is not what a felon can do in determining 
whether or not his name can reside in a database in the Justice 
Department.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman form Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement was that the 
agency action cannot be challenged. It indeed can be challenged. What 
this does is put into statute the written assessment of the cost of 
agency action.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. No. No.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I do not know why you would not want that to be 
enforced. The fact is the Executive order currently in place goes well 
beyond what we are asking for in this legislation. If it is routinely 
waived, then----
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] to answer the 
question.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, what it does is, it gives every 
convicted sex offender in this country another bite at the apple, when 
we are talking about the court system that we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Just a brief response, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], if he could remain standing, to his 
question.
  Mr. Chairman, this new legislation would provide in statute some, not 
all, of the requirements that are currently in the Clinton executive 
order with regard to what the agencies are required to do in terms of 
saying what the costs of new regulations will be to State and local 
government and to the private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, it has a $100 million threshold. In other words, 
anything under $100 million would not be subject to these requirements. 
The gentleman's concern is that judicial review would somehow cause 
additional rights to individuals to raise a concern about this.
  This is not going to result in a stay of the regulation. The 
regulations will go forward. The database will go forward, should in 
fact somebody challenge the fact that a written statement of the cost 
to State and local government was not compiled.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are trying to do in this legislation is to put 
some teeth in the existing standards, and the standards we have even 
relaxed, so the 
[[Page H568]] agencies actually carry out this very important 
responsibility.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, as I read section 202, that is not true. 
Any rules or regulations not presently promulgated fall under this act. 
It is not like for all present existing rules and regulations, these 
are yet unpromulgated rules and regulations.
  Therefore, the crime bill, having the rules and regulations in the 
database not having been established and the rules promulgated, they 
fall subject to this act, and what we are doing in statute now is 
requiring a standard that has to be complied with. Whether it is 
complied with----
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman may have 
misunderstood me. I am not saying that prospective regulations would 
not come under this very limited title II of the bill. Absolutely, they 
should. That is the whole point, is to get a written assessment of the 
cost of new regulation.
  What I said, and where the gentleman perhaps misunderstood me, was 
that does not stay the promulgation of new regulations. All it says is 
we want to have written costs of benefits.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate for several 
days. One of the things that has become increasingly clear to me as I 
rise in support of the amendment is the failure to follow the orderly 
rules and procedures of this House, the failure to have hearings on 
this legislation, the excessive haste in which this matter is brought 
to the floor, the unwillingness of my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle to consider amendments, or indeed, to have a fair analysis made 
on the House floor of what this legislation in fact does to a wide 
spectrum of laws enacted by this Congress by overwhelming votes. This 
makes a prophet and a correct prophet of my colleague on this side of 
the aisle who made the observation if we were to adopt the amendments 
on the environment, on health, on crime, on the problems of the aged, 
on the problems of the young, on clean water, on air, on health, that 
there would be no point in passing this bill.
                              {time}  1440

  I think that Member has pointed very sagely the course that should be 
taken here. Here we are finding that because of inattention in the 
processing of this legislation in committee, failure to have hearings, 
failure to get testimony of witnesses and experts, failure to properly 
analyze, we now are jeopardizing one of the provisions of the crime 
bill in the last Congress which was enthusiastically supported by all. 
That is, a register of serious criminals who have engaged in sexual 
activities prohibited by law against innocent and defenseless women and 
children. That leaves us in position to add another reason for voting 
against this bill.
  What are the other defects that this debate has shown? The defects 
that this debate has shown are that the unfunded mandates in the area 
of clean air which were adopted at the request of all the governors and 
all the States and local units of government who came forward and 
demanded that we follow the traditional pattern and practice that we 
have had in this country, whereby the Federal Government lays down 
standards and the States enforce those standards on clean air, to 
protect people in other States, to protect the health and the well-
being of all the people, and to follow the practice that was set up 
back in the 1950's before the governors came in and they said we want 
the Federal Government to lay down standards, so that we can then 
enforce them by delegation of that responsibility.
  The governors were concerned because the Federal Government had all 
of a sudden realized that if you flush a toilet in Minneapolis, or 
Kansas City, or Denver or in other places, that that is going to impact 
somebody in New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
  And here is where we begin to understand that we had to do things 
like this so that we could keep intact the Federal system. I never 
heard a word of complaint from governors when we were passing the Clean 
Air Act or any of the drinking water legislation or any of the clean 
water legislation, that we were imposing unfair and improper burdens 
upon them. They all came in and they said, ``You are doing something 
which is necessary for the protection of the environment and to protect 
the citizens in one State against wrongdoings in another place.''
  All of a sudden we have come to this great
   sensitivity on unfunded mandates on the States. We are not paying 
heed to the fact that the Federal Government gives the States about 
$750 billion a year and that in many of the programs about which we are 
hearing complaints, that there are major grants to States and local 
units of government. States are going to get large sums of money for 
construction of prisons under the crime bill. Local units of government 
are going to get large sums of money to hire police.

  We never hear a word about that. But we hear great complaints about 
the unfunded mandates that are going to be imposed. What and why? To do 
something that every citizen in this country except the criminals want 
to be done, and, that is, to address the problems of not knowing who 
these people are that travel about committing crimes in a repetitive 
fashion. These are repeaters. These are serial killers, serial rapists. 
All we want to do is know who they are.
  The mandate killing that we are doing here would not only prevent the 
administration from promulgating the regulations but would afford those 
criminal wrongdoers the opportunity to persist and to defend themselves 
with a new procedural defense.
  I say the amendment is a good one, the bill is a bad one. Vote 
against the bill. Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if I understand the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania correctly, he is suggesting that we make an exemption 
in this bill if the Federal Government requires data bases to keep 
track of sex offenders, and if that is not the case and if judicial 
review is allowed of agency actions, then the argument is that every 
sex offender will go to court and prevent this legislation from taking 
place, or stop any regulation from taking place.
  First of all, I want to say again that our bill goes to a cost 
accounting, and a cost accounting it seems to me is not going to be 
very subject to challenge from any part.
  But let me specifically talk about this issue of a data base and sex 
offenders. In the first place, as we put this issue in the crime bill 
at the present time, it is the requirement for Sates to have a data 
base to identify sex offenders, so that they can exchange information.
  As I recall, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, it is a 
condition of a grant, and it is not
 an unfunded mandate, it is to participate in the grant programs that 
we set up in the bill for the States which they can elect to 
participate in or not to participate in as they choose. There is no 
requirement for States to participate in federal grant programs.

  More important on this particular issue is the issue of standing to 
file any kind of lawsuit seeking judicial review in Federal court. Not 
everyone can go into court and raise a question of judicial review of 
the propriety of every act of Congress or even every act of a State 
legislature or every regulation. There must be the standing to go into 
court to show among other things how the person aggrieved or the 
institution aggrieved is affected by the argument that the regulation 
was not adopted in compliance with the law.
  In this particular case, we require State and local government, 
particularly state Government, to maintain this data base. We do not 
require citizens as individuals to maintain this data base.
  I submit that the only bodies that could even try to bring about a 
challenge in judicial review, which I do not think would be successful, 
anyway, given the limited requirements we put on agencies just to 
identify costs, but I submit the only ones that would have 
[[Page H569]] standing before a Federal court would be the States 
themselves and not every individual and therefore not every sex 
offender who does not want such legislation to take effect.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself in an usual position of rising in 
opposition to this amendment and in the process to point out the 
irrationality of the underlying bill and what is happening in this 
body.
  I was one of the few people in this body who actually spoke against 
this provision in the crime bill when it was inserted. I think the 
provision is unconstitutional. It is counter everything that our 
criminal laws have stood for in this country, the presumption of 
innocence. It is counter the notion that I learned all the way through 
law school and in 22 years of practice that once a person has served 
his or her time, they have done the time, they should be given a new 
start, and I expressed this concern.
  So I have consistently been of the position that this provision in 
the crime bill is unconstitutional.
  But what is happening here on this bill is irrationality. There is a 
marching in lockstep without regard to the public policy consequences 
of what is being done. Even people who are on the opposite side of me 
philosophically on this issue and want to keep this bill intact do not 
want to amend it
 even when it makes good sense from a public policy perspective and in 
support of their own position, and that is unforgivable. We should not 
be here just kind of marching, keeping every amendment from going 
forward.

  I think we ought to defeat this amendment, because I think the 
speakers before are absolutely right. People who now believe this 
provision to be unconstitutional are going to have another day in court 
to come and assert that right which they ought to have.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in order to keep any 
amendments from going forward on this bill, even though they do not 
want that right to happen, do not want that right to be real, are 
marching lockstep just to show their muscle on this issue.

                              {time}  1450

  I am telling Members that it does not make sense. In all respects, 
this probably should be the endorsement of a no vote that gets this 
passed, but I tell Members, I think the provision in the underlying 
bill was unconstitutional and I think we ought to stand up and vote 
against it and I intend to vote with you.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been impressed with the brilliance of the 
lawyers on both sides of the House on this, and I must admit while I am 
impressed with the brilliance, I am not a lawyer myself and have gotten 
a little bit muddled down in some of the jargon here. So I would like 
to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff].
  Let me ask, if I was a rapist in the State of Georgia, which I 
represent, and I moved to California, right now am I tracked on a 
database?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, right now the answer to the gentleman's 
question is no.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski], if I move from Georgia to California as a rapist, under the 
crime bill then very soon, when everything is promulgated and the rules 
are in place, I will be tracked, is that correct?
  Mr. SCHIFF. If the States and local government choose to participate 
in the programs offered in the crime bill, and for their part, among 
other things, establish a database as required by the conditions for 
grants, yes, tracking of sex offenders across the country will begin.
  Mr. KINGSTON. One final question. If this bill passes, and I as a 
rapist move from Georgia to California, under this bill, when it 
becomes law, will I still be tracked, with or without the amendment?
  Mr. SCHIFF. In my judgment, the gentleman will continue to be tracked 
without the amendment. The judicial review, in my opinion, would not be 
successful in any event, because the regulatory limitation is very 
limited. But there would be no standing by anyone but a State or local 
government to bring a challenge in the first place. So you would still 
be tracked even without this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I appreciate the learned gentleman's advice on that.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend on the other side who 
is an excellent lawyer. He will agree, however, the rapist in 
California, after the entire prosecution goes through and everything is 
done, will have a cause of action to go into the Federal District Court 
to set aside his arrest or conviction based on the fact that he was 
found in a database that was improperly constituted, because they did 
not comply with the standards set forth in this act, and if anyone 
should determine that to be a fact, he will be released.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman from 
New Mexico. What I was really trying to do, ladies and gentlemen, is 
not get bogged down in legalese at this point, but bring it back home 
to the crime victims. And if I am hearing correctly, the crime victims 
will still be able with this amendment to have their offender tracked, 
is that correct?
  Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield to me, we will still have the 
offender tracked.
  If I can respond to the question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
that is now stretching things beyond, in my judgment, beyond a 
reasonable argument here. At the very least we are not raising issues 
of a constitutional level, which anybody could use to set aside their 
conviction because an institution might have been set up outside of 
regulatory compliance which led to their conviction.
  I was a prosecutor for 14 years and as a defense attorney for 2 
years, I am entirely confident there is no basis to that argument.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would simply want to 
inquire of the gentleman, if you support this or you do not support it, 
do you want to leave this question up in the air or do you want it 
resolved? Because if you want it resolved, then the only way too 
resolve it is to pass the amendment. Now if you want it up in the air, 
as I do, then you should vote with me, and leave it unresolved, so 
that, as the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] knows, every 
criminal defendant will take every opportunity they can to raise any 
conceivable constitutional or legalese right they can. So if we want to 
resolve it, then I would think we would want to vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment. If we want to leave it mushy and up in the air and 
unresolved, then I would say Members ought to be voting against this 
amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If I can reclaim my time, it sounds to me as if we have 
mush one side and maybe mush on the other. But in terms of certainty, 
the gentleman just said if I voted for the amendment then I would have 
some uncertainty, whereas the gentleman over here, the 14-year veteran 
prosecutor, says that there would be no certainty or less uncertainty.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kingston was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. KINGSTON. Again, just to do my duty to the constituents back 
home, particularly victims of crime, what I am concerned about, if a 
rapist moves from Georgia to California under current law, he is not 
tracked. Under the crime bill, he will be tracked. And under this bill, 
without that amendment, he will still be tracked. We may need to come 
back, as we always have to, and revisit something down the road.
  But I do not think that this legislation will diminish the fact that 
that 
[[Page H570]] rapist would be tracked moving from California to 
Georgia.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one clarification. This rapist 
that is the subject of this discussion is not the subject of a criminal 
prosecution at the point we are discussing. We are talking about 
someone who has already been prosecuted, already been adjudged guilty 
of the crime and who has moved to California. So all of this concern 
about this person being able to interject this bill into his defense in 
a criminal prosecution is really totally off the point. This has 
nothing to do with the prosecution. The prosecution would have already 
happened. This person would have been found guilty. And we are merely 
talking about keeping track of him as he moves around the country 
posing a continuing threat to children around the country.
  So for those who have any concern at all that the bill as written 
without this amendment would somehow jeopardize the successful 
prosecution, really have been led down a path that is not the subject 
of this bill.
  I oppose this amendment, and believe strongly that we will continue 
to be able to have this tracking system in place with the bill as 
written.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 255, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--255

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     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
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bishop
     Cardin
     Fields (LA)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Pomeroy
     Wilson

                              {time}  1516

  Mr. McKEON and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present today for 
rollcall vote No. 33. During this vote, I was at a meeting at the 
Pentagon. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
                   AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY Mrs. MALONEY

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mrs. Maloney: in section 4, strike 
     ``or after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike 
     the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'', 
     and at the end add the following new paragraph:
       (8) provides for the protection of the health of children.
       In section 301(2), in the matter proposed to be added as a 
     new section 422 to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph 
     (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert 
     ``; or'', and at the end add the following new paragraph:
       (8) provides for the protection of the health of children.

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent that my 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendments would add to the list of 
exemptions, children. Surely if we are exempting seniors and social 
security, we should give the same support protection to our children.
  I regret, Mr. Chairman, that a bill of this magnitude was not given 
one single public hearing before being rammed through the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Few people in this Chamber today would dispute the need to provide 
for relief from unfunded Federal mandates to our cities and States, but 
instead of taking a scalpel to this problem, we are attacking it with a 
meat cleaver.
                       [[Page H571]] {time}   1520

  No one knows exactly what the consequences may be, particularly for 
our most vulnerable citizens, our children. Mr. Chairman, it makes no 
sense to exempt auditing and accounting procedures, treaties like 
NAFTA, and special emergency legislation such as flood relief, and not 
provide an exemption for children. Our children cannot vote, cannot 
speak for themselves, cannot spend millions of dollars to lobby 
Congress. Maybe that is why our children are in such a deepening 
crisis.
  According to the Children's Defense Fund, every day in America three 
children die from child abuse, 9 children are murdered, 43 children are 
either murdered or injured by guns, 207 children are arrested for 
violent crimes. In 1992, 2.9 million children were reported as abused 
and neglected. We will debate this legislation at least for 3 days, and 
during that time 10 children under the age of 5 will die of abuse and 
neglect. Despite this urgent crisis, Mr. Chairman, this House is about 
to pass legislation that could make it much more difficult to address 
the severe health and safety threats facing our children. How much more 
must our children suffer until we decide that the costs of assisting 
them should enjoy the same exemption as accounting?
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would rectify this deficiency by adding 
legislation and regulation directly affecting the health and safety of 
children to the list of exempted categories. Are children not as worthy 
of protection as accountants, treaties, and flood relief as a national 
emergency? In our haste to pass a bill within an arbitrary time without 
an exemption for children and not knowing the ramifications of the 
impact of this legislation on children we could seriously jeopardize 
the health and safety of millions of American children.
  Mr. Chairman, a Member of the other body referred to this bill as an 
experiment. Do we really have the right to make our children the guinea 
pigs of that experiment? I do not think so. The health, safety and 
general welfare of our children should be a national priority. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Here again, Mr. Chairman, the proponent of the amendment is asking 
for an exemption basically to deny the House information about the 
costs of what we are proposing to do. It seems to me that many of these 
proposed exemptions, and this being another in a long line of 
exemptions that we have been dealing with over these many days, are 
based on the false assumption that States and localities somehow care 
less about kids and know less about what is best for our children than 
does the Federal Government, and yet I would say that the record that 
we have before us over the many, many years that we have had Federal 
programs in effect to protect the health and safety of children, nearly 
15 million American children continue to live in poverty, which is a 6 
percent increase since 1979.
  So, with such a record, Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced that the 
Federal Government knows better, or indeed as well, when it comes to 
the welfare of our children as might be done by localities. H.R. 5 is 
going to force Congress to know what the costs are that we might impose 
on States and localities. If these costs are high enough, I can only 
hope that Congress will stop to ask itself whether what we are 
proposing to do is going to be better for the children of the 
communities, towns and cities of our country than what the communities 
might do themselves.
  Maybe we should give thought to the fact that communities know pretty 
well what to do with their own children and not have the Federal 
Government always telling them what they must do without telling them 
what to do it with.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the statement 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] very briefly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Maloney was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree very much that we should know the 
costs of mandates and programs. I voted for a bill last year in the 
committee that required a cost analysis for every single program. But 
if the gentleman is so certain that the waivers and the procedural 
hurdles that one must overcome are flawless, then why did the authors 
of this bill find it necessary to create any exemptions at all? 
Obviously the authors are not so sure that the waiver will work for 
national security, auditing and accounting, emergency legislation, and 
Social Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just asking that children, our most vulnerable 
resource that cannot vote, cannot speak for themselves, be added to 
this list of exemptions.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that what the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney] is saying is absolutely correct. What higher 
priority should we have in this country than our children? And we 
should not put any more barriers in the way of trying to work at both a 
cooperative level with the Federal Government, and the State and local 
governments, and nonprofit organizations, to serve those kids 
particularly who are coming from poor homes, and there are exemptions 
in this legislation, and I cannot see why any of those exemptions are 
more deserving than having one for the children of this Nation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York for 
this amendment. I think it is a wise one, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my support that if we 
give exemptions, and we cannot find the rationale for giving exemptions 
to our children, and we can still find reason where we can get 
accountability of the costs--now it simply says that for children, 
those we hold precious, we will find a way to support them and not have 
them subject to a point of order. I think it says something about us, 
we as a Nation, when we fail to not respond when there are not politics 
concerned.
  We just responded to senior citizens. I am a card-carrying member. 
Why did we respond? Because they vote.
  Children do not vote. They are vulnerable. My colleagues know that. 
They are the most vulnerable of our population and need more help.
  The general welfare of our country is indeed dependent on us helping 
our children. I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we have heard over and 
over again that we will have a chance to vote on these issues after we 
get this analysis of the cost. But my colleagues know what will happen 
is a lot of people will say, ``I'd like to be for this program for 
kids, but I can't vote for an unfunded mandate. I'd like to be for an 
increase in the minimum wage, but I can't vote for an unfunded mandate. 
I'd like to be for environmental protection, but I can't vote for an 
unfunded mandate.''
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear that over and over again. It is 
going to be a way for people to hide their true feelings and act as if 
they are really for protecting kids when in fact what they are doing is 
not willing to put their votes really up front.
  So, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney], and I urge all my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mr. Chairman, I must say to my colleagues that I think, as Americans 
look at this, they would think this is the most commonsense thing we 
could do because, as we look at every American kitchen table, I do not 
care what State it is in, and I do not care what background the family 
has, but take every American kitchen table where the family is gathered 
around trying to figure out how to make those budget dollars do what 
they have to do. When things are tough, the one thing every 
[[Page H572]] American family agrees on is to hold the children 
harmless as long as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, no one puts the children out there first and says, 
``Gee, things are tough so we won't take them to the doctor, and we 
won't give them their immunization, and we won't feed them, and we 
won't give them milk, and we won't do any of these things,'' and yet 
over, and over, and over again in this body we do it just in reverse. 
It is part of why the American people cannot understand what is wrong.

                              {time}  1530

  We do it just in reverse. The first ones out of the budget are kids. 
They are always first out of the budget because they do not vote. They 
do not vote. They do not have political action committees. They cannot 
go to $5,000-a-head dinners. They cannot do books. They cannot do 
anything, except count on us, who should understand they are the most 
important natural resource this country has.
  Our most important natural resource is not coal and it is not oil and 
it is not any of those. It is our children. And there is no question, 
we all know the statistics. We get terrible grades on this. I do not 
want to see States standing up and saying we are not going to do 
anything about the kids because the Federal Government will not do 
totally everything for the kids. And the Federal Government says we are 
not going to do anything for the kids because the States will not do 
anything for the kids. That should not even be on the table when it 
comes to these issues.
  I must say for so long I have always wished, my great dream was that 
there was a group that had once a year an accountability thing on who 
is for kids and who is just kidding by how they vote. This ought to be 
the number one thing. If you are really kidding about kids, then, of 
course, vote no, because that is really what you are doing. You are 
giving one more excuse.
  No one in this Chamber, no one I have ever known in the history of my 
being in politics, has ever run against children. W. C. Fields could 
not get elected. We all know how important they are. We all know how we 
think family values are the rock of this place.
  So let us look at the most essential family value which every family 
groups around the children, and does not use any excuses to shortchange 
them until they have absolutely no other alternative. That is what we 
are talking about here. We are talking about kids' health.
  My goodness, what are they going to do if they come into a family 
that cannot afford health care for them? It is not their fault. You do 
not get to pick when you are laying in that little bed in the hospital. 
You do not get to say there is the parent I want. It has already been 
preselected, and should your health care depend on that? This is 
talking about eating, this is talking about education, and this is also 
talking about taxpayers.
  So whatever we do here, it is the best thing we can invest in, 
because we get it back over and over and over again.
  So if for once we could just stop thinking that we are in the most 
powerful capital of the most powerful nation where we all want to be on 
power trips, and do the right thing, do the kind of trip every family 
does when they trip in to try to make their checkbook balance at the 
end of the month, and for crying out loud, hold America's children 
harmless. Hold them harmless in every State, hold them harmless 
nationally, and say no more excuses.
  I hope this body votes for this amendment. I cannot believe that we 
all voted to protect the elderly, which of course we should do, and 
then, if we run and throw our children overboard, what we are really 
saying is we are only going to vote to protect those who will vote to 
protect us.
  Well, our children will not vote to protect us when they get to be 
electoral age if we are going to be so quick to throw them over.
  So I salute the gentlewoman from New York for her courageous 
amendment. I really am glad she is here. And I hope we do another good 
thing here today. We voted to help those in the sunset of their life. 
This is in the sunrise. Please vote ``yes.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we in Washington have witnessed a stark display of 
hypocrisy over the last 2 days. Yesterday a few blocks from here 45,000 
so-called pro-life demonstrators marched against reproductive freedom. 
They demanded the protection of fetal life from conception to birth. 
Many Members of this body offered their support.
  Today, Congress debates a Federal responsibility of the highest 
order, the duty to protect the child from birth to the grave. Where are 
the marchers? All gone home. And what of my colleagues? Will each of 
them who spoke in support of yesterday's demonstration rise today in 
support of this amendment? Is the protection of the child of lesser 
value than the alleged right of the fetus?
  I believe that the protection of the child after birth is a national 
priority of the highest order. It is a sacred duty above all others. 
This amendment will ensure that it remains so. It will allow the 
Federal Government to continue to enact and enforce legitimate child 
protection measures without undue restraint. It deserves the support of 
every Member of Congress, pro-life and pro-choice alike.
  Lead exposure is one important area where the Federal Government has 
moved to protect our kids. It is also an area where women need to act 
again. The problem is particularly apparent in my home State of New 
York.
  In New York, 65 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1965 
when lead paint was used extensively. Thirty years later, more than 
30,000 kids were identified with high levels of lead in their blood. 
Another 1.5 million children under the age of 6 were potentially at 
risk of exposure. Lead remains a serious threat to our children's 
health.
  Many of these same children face another grave risk, exposure to 
asbestos. Again, we have enacted legislation and regulations to combat 
the problem. Again, the problem continues. On at least two occasions in 
recent years, children in my district and elsewhere in New York were 
exposed to asbestos dust in their schools, years before the city had 
contracted for the removal of asbestos from school buildings. Little 
follow-up ensued. As a result, cracks developed in ceilings and walls, 
sending chips and dust into classrooms. Some areas had to be closed 
off. Other schools had to be shut down.
  Both of these examples illustrate the fact that the protection of our 
children is an ongoing responsibility as science develops the scope of 
toxic contamination unfolds.
  It was only a few years ago that we understood that substances like 
lead and asbestos were dangerous. Today we realize just how much danger 
they present. The process for controlling dangerous substances is 
likewise an evolving one. Standards for asbestos and lead protection 
and removal adopted only a few years ago may tomorrow prove to be 
inadequate. New regulations may need to be enacted.
  The lesson here is that we as servants of the people must be able to 
enact any measure necessary to protect our kids in their school and in 
their homes. This bill jeopardizes this ability. Its procedural hurdles 
and points of order create delay and gridlock where none can be 
justified.
  Is the drum beat of unfunded mandates so loud that it drums out the 
cries of children in need? Who here will stand up today and state for 
the record that the cost of saving lives is too high? Have we as a 
nation sunk so low?
  I urge my colleagues to uphold our most sacred duty, and exempt child 
protection laws and regulation from this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an open debate. If we had been debating this in 
past years we probably would have been done by now and had two or three 
amendments and would be on to some other issue. I think it is important 
we are going through this process. But as I count the amendments, I 
know that we had a debate on the clean water, and we wanted to exempt 
that. We then wanted to exempt the clean air, and had very impassioned 
reasons why we should do that. The we wanted to exempt airport aviation 
security. Then we wanted to exempt child labor laws and the minimum 
wage, and so on. 
[[Page H573]] Then we wanted to exempt nuclear reactors and nuclear 
waste. Then we wanted to exempt toxic, hazardous, or radioactive 
substances.
                              {time}  1540

  Then we wanted to exempt the national data base for tracking child 
molesters and now we want to exempt issues dealing with children.
  I am convinced we will have voted on every exemption and if every one 
had passed, we would not have a bill.
  Now, I do think children are very important. And for some to make the 
assumption that when we would pass a bill that we would not come up 
with the money to pay for it suggests to me that we must not think 
children are important. If we think they are important, we will come up 
with the money to pay for it. If we do not think we can come up with 
the money to pay for it but we think it is a mandate that is required, 
then we will logically make a motion to overrule the point of order, 
because we think children are important.
  We are debating this bill today because Republican and Democratic 
Governors and Republican and Democratic mayors and Republican and 
Democratic legislatures throughout the country have said, ``You have 
got to stop putting mandates without knowing the cost. And in some 
cases, you simply have got to stop doing the mandates, even if you know 
the cost.
  In my judgment this bill is extraordinarily fair. It strikes me as a 
situation that we need to just wake up from. And I just hope that we do 
not go through the process of continuing to ask ourselves to exempt 
ourselves from this mandate bill, because we will have no bill left.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This amendment is not about protecting children. This amendment is 
about protecting the rights of so many here who want to take away the 
rights of parents and local governments and State governments to have 
their own input into how children should be cared for. We all believe 
in protecting the rights of children. But when we make a decision in 
one place about what we are going to do and in another place about how 
we are going to pay for it, that is a very bad way to handle things. 
And it takes away rights of people who care the most about children, 
and that is their parents.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I urge the defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that if we 
really cared about children, we would be spending more money on 
children now. The gentleman indicated he thought it was a high 
priority, and we will want to spend money. Yet we do not fund health 
care for all kids who are poor. We do not fund adequate immunizations 
for them. The fastest growing poverty group in this country are 
children. We are not doing what we should be doing now.
  Mr. SHAYS. I get the gist of my colleague's comments. I think it is 
very well taken. There are people who feel passionate on this issue, 
and we do not spend the money. That is very true.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised the point that this 
would not protect children but it would actually provide those of us in 
Congress with the ability to somehow obstruct families from caring for 
their children.
  I have the amendment before me. I am trying to figure out where the 
gentleman takes from this particular amendment all those things that he 
ascribed to it.
  All this amendment says is that along with the other nine exemptions 
that we currently provide in the bill, including Social Security being 
exempted, including civil rights laws that protect against age 
discrimination, that protect against racial discrimination, ethnic 
discrimination, we have no provision, and this is the entirety of the 
amendment, that says we would exempt as well those provisions which 
provide for the protection of the health of children.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to the 
question is very simply that we have consistently, in the course of the 
last few days, had amendments offered to exempt more and more 
categories. There is no need to have any exemption because we have a 
very simple process. A simple majority allows the will of this Chamber 
to override a point of order even if money has not been appropriated to 
provide for the legislation that as been argued on the other side.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment to H.R. 5. 
This amendment will rectify a glaring oversight on the part of the 
drafters of this legislation. This amendment will protect children who 
are among our most vulnerable citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I have traveled throughout this world, and I have not 
seen the kind of love and devotion that the Japanese, the Chinese, the 
Russians, Europeans, Africans give to their children. I have not seen 
that same kind of reverence and devotion right here in America. Instead 
I hear Members talking about balancing the budget.
  I have not seen Members love the children in this House, Mr. 
Chairman. Instead, I hear them talk about the rights of States and 
parents for children.
  We must not pass legislation that will put the health of children and 
babies, both inside and outside of the womb, at risk. H.R. 5 currently 
exempts bills that secure constitutional rights, prevents 
discrimination, ensure national security, implement treaties and 
provide for the auditing or accounting of Federal funds. Surely the 
health of our children is just as important as the aforementioned.
  We must protect our children. They have no voice, no vote. So we must 
speak out for them and keep their well-being at the forefront as we 
cast our votes.
  I hear Members saying that there are so many exemptions. There are so 
many amendments. Maybe it is because H.R. 5 is flawed. It needs to be 
cleaned up. Sometimes I would like the Members across the aisle to know 
that we should take the moral high ground, not the low ground, not 
gravel. They are talking about cutting the budget, cutting the deficit. 
Let us talk about saving kids. Let us talk about doing our duties as 
the custodians of the United States of America by protecting the 
people.
  You say Clean Air Act, that is an amendment. Yes. Because if you do 
not have it, you do not breathe. Think about it.
  You talk about exempting the old people. Yes, you are supposed to 
exempt them. If you had moral fiber in your body, they would have been 
in the bill in the first place, same thing as discrimination, same 
thing as children.
  There are 4 million children growing up in American communities that 
cannot assure them the childhood and the hopes to which all American 
kids are entitled. Therefore, it is our obligation to protect our 
children.
  Otherwise, we run the risk of dismantling our status in this world as 
a superpower. But most importantly, ensuring a strong and productive 
future for America.
  Take the high ground. Take the moral ground. Protect our children, 
yours and mine. That is what we are here for. That is what we are 
about.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] to protect the children. I 
support the Maloney amendment because it makes children a national 
priority.
  Listening to the debate yesterday and today, we have had a number of 
initiatives which have addressed children and the priority we give them 
in our society. And let us just say right out that I think we can all 
agree and stipulate that every single Member of this body on both sides 
of the aisle 
[[Page H574]] cares very deeply about the children of our country.
  So this is not about what we care about. It is how we make decisions 
and come down on the side of supporting children.
  We have often heard quoted in this body and in our country the famous 
statement of President Kennedy that child are our greatest resource and 
our best hope for the future. They are, indeed. And so it is not only 
about the compassion and the love and care we feel for children that 
this amendment is important, but it is about our country that this 
amendment is important to the future of our country, as President 
Kennedy so eloquently stated.
  None of us would be here and our country would not be the great 
country that it is today, if generations before us did not decide in 
favor of future preference, that we will say that our highest priority 
is the next generation, that we spend and invest in our children as our 
families each did, that we in this society have done and that we must 
continue to do.
                              {time}  1550

  Mr. Chairman, while I supported the Clean Air Act amendment, the 
clean water, safe drinking water, et cetera, because they are all very 
important, and in fact, very important to the children of our country, 
I believe I can say without any hesitation the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] today is the most important 
amendment that we will have to deal with in this unfunded mandates 
legislation, because it says that the first dollar we spend should be 
on children.
  Yes, we all have sympathy for the localities, the Democratic 
Governors and Republican Governors and mayors, but all levels of 
government must share in the responsibility for preparing our children 
for their futures and investing in their health and well-being. Every 
level of government has that strong responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney] should take precedence over everything else in 
the bill, all the exemptions that are already listed and any other 
consideration that the Governors and the mayors may present, because it 
says who we are as a society, that we believe in future preference, 
that we understand that we have a responsibility to these children, and 
that we understand that our country depends on us honoring that 
responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, other countries have social programs that are different 
from here and they provide a great deal more for children right off the 
bat, without any question, and no debate. We have the debate on this 
issue. They will be watching what we do. The country will be watching 
what we do here today.
  More importantly, Mr. Chairman, the children are listening. The 
children are listening. Let there be no doubt in their minds about 
their importance as individuals and their importance as resources to 
the future of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the Republican side have the votes. 
They may win this vote today and defeat the Maloney amendment, although 
I hope not, because as I say, I recognize and respect the regard and 
concern that they have for children as well.
  They may win the vote, but they must not win the debate about what is 
the most important resource to our country and what should be the very 
first dollar that we spend. I have repeated that a couple of times, Mr. 
Chairman, because I want to reinforce and make the point.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human 
Services-Education of the Committee on Appropriations. We certainly do 
not do enough for the children of our country. We jokingly say it is a 
committee where it is, lamb eat lamb, because every single program is 
very important to the children of our country.
  We do not have enough money to spread around. Therefore, we must say 
that as much as we possibly can will be spent on the children at the 
national, at the State, and at the local levels. That is why this 
amendment is so important, because it says in recognition of the fact 
that unfunded mandates may be a problem to them, and in recognition 
that resources are limited, in recognition of all of that, children 
come first.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first thanking the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney] for this very fine amendment. I think it is the 
kind of amendment that would make this bill better.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, let me just sort of respond to my friend, the 
gentleman from the State of Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who indicated that 
we keep asking for exemptions. There is a reason why we keep asking for 
exemptions.
  The reason we keep asking for exemptions is that this bill did not 
have any hearings. Therefore, there are a lot of things that we feel 
need to be corrected. There should have been some input. Some questions 
should have been asked along the way.
  I have been here 13 years. I have been here 13 years. I can never 
recall a piece of legislation of this magnitude to come before this 
body without having one public hearing, and then want to know as to why 
we want to ask for exemptions, why do we want to ask for amendments.
  It is very obvious that we want to strengthen it, we want to make it 
better, we want to get as much input into it as possible, because we 
are talking about the lives of people.
  We voted earlier, and we were able to exempt the senior citizens. I 
think that was a very wise vote. I think that those of the Members that 
made that vote, it was an important vote and they should have done it. 
However, I also would like to say that here is another one that we need 
to vote in favor of, because the children are extremely important.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to save money, this could be referred to as 
the save money amendment, because when we look at the problems that we 
have with children in terms of their health, if we do not have some 
protection for them, they will end up in emergency rooms, they will end 
up with all kinds of problems, and it will cost us more in the long run 
than it would to correct it now.
  If someone is going to say, ``What about a point of order,'' think 
about the amount of children that will die while we are waiting for a 
point of order. I think that the time has come for us to wake up and to 
address this problem and address it now.
  Mr. Chairman, we are sending the wrong message out there. I do not 
think that we should be guilty of doing that. I think unfunded mandates 
give us an opportunity to correct a lot of things that are going wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, some people want to increase the defense budget. If we 
do not protect our children, who are we going to draft? Who are we 
going to put in the military? Who is going to go? I think we need to 
make certain that we have a healthy population, and we need to do that 
with our children.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my friends on the other side, yes, 
they said to me earlier that they have the votes, and they are right, 
they probably have the votes. However, let me say, they could win the 
battle but they will lose the war if they do not move to protect the 
children of this Nation. I say that is important.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOWNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Brooklyn for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply will respond by saying that at the outset of 
the gentleman's remarks, and I should also say that we are all very 
sympathetic to the plight and the challenges children face, but at the 
outset of my friend's remarks he said there were no hearings held on 
this whatsoever.
  I know there are many new Members of Congress who were not able to 
benefit from the very extensive hearings that were held in the 103d 
Congress, but there is a sense that no hearings were held in this 104th 
Congress, which is 3 weeks old tomorrow. We in the Committee on Rules 
had a briefing, a lengthy briefing, and hearings. We heard from a wide 
range of Members and groups.
  [[Page H575]] I would simply say to my friend that to argue there 
were no hearings whatsoever held on this issue is incorrect, and not 
the kind of assessment of the deliberation that has just for years gone 
into that process.
  Mr. TOWNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in the 103d Congress, 
yes, there were hearings, but this bill is not the bill that was 
brought in the 104th Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we had hearings in the 104th Congress, too.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, it is my time. Let me say to the gentleman, 
so that he will be aware of the fact, more than 50 percent of the 
people that serve on the committee now are brand new. They were not 
even on the committee in the last Congress.
  I am saying to the gentleman that these are the new Members in the 
Congress, this is not the same bill that was dealt with last year, so 
therefore, for the gentleman to say that we had hearings on this bill, 
that is not accurate. This is a new bill. It was not the bill last 
year.
  Let me just say to the gentleman, further, the bill last year was 
sponsored by me so I know what the bill said versus that this bill 
says. I am saying to the gentleman that his Contract With America does 
not mean that he should ignore input coming from America. I think if 
that is the contract the gentleman had, he had better divorce himself 
from it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we are not saying that at all.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is really a debate 
on the issue of unfunded mandates. We all are cognizant and aware of 
the issues that have come forth from our local governments.
  However, I do rise now to support the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney] because I think she has raised an issue 
that all of us have faced firsthand, we have faced it with our 
neighbors, our constituents, the sadness of mothers who are trying to 
raise their children alone, simply trying to make a way.
  Across this Nation we are hearing that voices are being raised for us 
to be children-friendly. State and local governments struggle with 
funding for children's programs. Children suffer from violence against 
them and violence among them. Our children need to be protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I have struggled with this issue on a local basis when 
we have fought at city hall to try and find monies to immunize our 
children, when we fought at city hall to determine do we borrow from 
Peter to pay Paul, when we try to make sure that we tend to children in 
our well-care programs that are over the age of 5. Time and time again 
we have had to turn away children and say: ``No, you cannot come into 
our clinics, we do not have enough money to serve you.'' It is 
important that we work with the Federal Government when it comes to 
protecting children.
                              {time}  1600

  There is no shame in that. Why have commercial advertisements across 
this Nation with television stations telling us be aware of your 
children, be friendly to your children and we in the U.S. Government 
cannot protect them?
  I think about the woman named Delores in my community, living in the 
many housing developments, raising five children, attempting to survive 
on any kind of benefits she may get. Not lounging around, not taking 
welfare because she just wants to take it but trying to raise five 
children, trying to make sure they are healthy, trying to make sure 
that they are strong and yet we do not provide the extra ``mph,'' if 
you will, to protect the children of this country, to help that mother 
preserve her home, to help that mother keep that home together.
  I simply say that we need involvement. We need to protect our 
children. We need to support the amendments of the gentlewoman from New 
York which simply say our children must be protected.
  I ask this House to rise to the level of serving all the people and 
support our children.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like also to support the amendment before us 
today to look after the interests of children.
  I have been a Member of this body for not very many days and I have 
heard a lot in the last few weeks about the 100-day deadline. But I 
would like to talk today not about 100 days from now, but 20 years from 
now, and the things that we do today, how it will affect the world that 
we live in and our children live in 20 years from now.
  All of us who are parents, and I think that includes most of us in 
this House of Representatives, love our children and I know that is 
true of all of the Members here, whether they are voting in favor of 
this amendment or not in favor of this amendment. We know that our 
children are the most precious things that there are in the world, and 
our own families, and I think at some level as parents and as community 
members, we know that all of the children in the country really carry 
the future of our country in their small hands.
  I think if we look at what our economic competitors are doing around 
the world, not just what should we do, what do we feel we should do but 
economically what we should do as a country, we know that our 
competitors are literally betting the farm on the next generation. They 
are throwing everything they have got to make sure that their future 
work force is going to be topnotch and they are going to be competitive 
and they hope will be the next generation work force.
  I have been prepared to offer in the Committee on the Judiciary an 
amendment to the balanced budget amendment that would have exempted 
investments in childhood education, in childhood health for the same 
reasons I am supporting this amendment. If we do not make these long-
term investments and remove every impediment there is to investing in 
the young people in this country, then we are not going to have a good 
country in the future and we are not going to have an educated work 
force, we are not going to have a healthy work force, we will not have 
a good country. I know that I care about that and I know that every 
Member of this House cares about that.
  I would therefore urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at how emotional this issue has become. I 
have been involved in, you might say, politics for years, and I thought 
this was a pretty generic, reasonable bill coming from a State 
government. The bill just says establish and consider the cost you 
require of local governments. That is pretty simple.
  Let us review in general what the bill does. It is not retroactive. 
You would think by the conversation on the floor today that it went 
back and wiped out all the protections for children, for the elderly, 
and for our communities. It is not retroactive. It requires cost 
information.
  I have a history of being a budget person. I also have been involved 
in budgets and politics. The best thing you do for the people is find 
out what it costs. If you ignore those costs, they are still there, and 
they come out somewhere else.
  It requires informed debate, what we have all been talking about. I 
am amazed at how many people stand up and say they have been gagged and 
then talk for 5 minutes. It just says informed debate on the question 
of funding, and that debate is required, so that we do not wake up 1 
day and find out Washington State ends up with a multibillion-dollar 
cost that this Congress passed. And it requires separate votes on 
imposing unfunded mandates to local governments. That is not so 
difficult. It seems to me that that makes some sense.
  This bill is about taking the high ground, telling the truth, all the 
truth up front, debating it, deciding what it is and working with real 
figures, not emotions.
  This is about truth, a reasonable bill about accountability and good 
government, and I think it is time we stop playing around the corners 
of this and say, ``States, we are going to be honest with you and we 
have every intention 
[[Page H576]] of passing this accountability bill that just tells the 
truth.''
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Maloney amendment. I 
have strong concerns about the negative impact the unfunded mandate 
bill will have on children, the Nation's most valuable resource.
  As a Florida State representative for 10 years, I am personally aware 
that States and local government need flexibility and are facing 
increasing fiscal constraints. We must not eliminate the government 
historical role of protecting all citizens, especially children and the 
elderly.
  What has worked well is a partnership between all branches of 
government, at the Federal, State and local level. One branch cannot do 
it alone. Without these partnerships, we jeopardize clean water, clean 
air, and food safety. The results will be high levels of cancer from 
toxic air and polluted waters.
  Without these partnerships, we jeopardize the welfare of our 
children. The rate for childhood shots for some children is only 30 
percent. Some Third World countries have higher rates.
  In the rush to pass a bill, Congress has endangered the health of our 
children. Let us not rush to pass an imperfect bill that would destroy 
a partnership and hurt those who most need our help.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Washington 
and maybe to a lot of other Members on the other side of the aisle who 
are not aware of something, where they say this is not retrospective 
and that it is only going to take into consideration new laws as we do 
this cost analysis or cost versus benefit.
  Let me make you very aware of something, that almost every bill needs 
to be reauthorized, and all the programs. So the Juvenile Justice 
Delinquency Prevention Act, and minority programs we passed, those 
programs in the crime bill, will all have to be reauthorized at some 
point in time, and when we go to reauthorization, we are going to then 
determine that a study has to be done in order to determine if the 
benefits outweigh the costs in what we are mandating to the States.
  Let me tell you something. It is very hard to measure the benefit of 
a compassionate act or responsible act. It is very hard to determine 
just what benefit you get from feeding children, hungry children, so 
they can learn. Not until those children have grown into adults and 
have shown the benefit by being taxpaying citizens of this country can 
you measure the benefit of that nutrition program in that school.
  There is no way on God's good earth that you can do that. So I am 
afraid that when you start measuring the benefit versus the cost in 
many of these program, it gives easy justification to those people who 
would consider cost above the necessary thing to do to ensure that our 
young people are given and afforded every opportunity to succeed in 
these United States.
  let me tell you something. There is no issue that more defines us as 
a people or us as parties than what we do regarding the children of our 
country. Earlier someone said these are our future and I have never 
heard a politician who has not at one time or another uttered that 
phrase, ``Our children are our future.''
  Well, are they really if we are going to consider what it costs to 
feed them nutritional lunches? Are we going to measure what it costs to 
mandate that in States, in jail situations when a lot of times these 
children are put there for their own protection because they were 
abandoned by a parent or a guardian or because they are there because 
they were abused, and say, ``We're not going to mandate that States 
separate those from sight and sound of the adult population because the 
benefit doesn't outweigh the cost''?
  That is the problem we have with this legislation, is that we are 
protecting right now those laws that exist because we are saying it is 
not going to affect any of those laws.
  I guarantee you it will affect those laws as we move forward to 
reauthorization and that is something we really ought to consider, 
especially as it concerns the children of this country.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I want to clear up some comments that 
were just made for the record. First of all, nothing in this bill 
cancels any current mandate or prevents us from passing future unfunded 
mandates. We would of course have to cost these out if they were over 
$50 million across the rest of the country, and we could then decide, 
recognizing those costs that we would pass on the State and local 
governments, whether we would want to fund that mandate or impose an 
unfunded mandate on those other jurisdictions.
  Also this bill does not apply to authorizations, unless in that 
reauthorization there is a new mandate over $50 million that will be 
passed on to State and Federal governments or a reduction in funding 
for existing mandates.
  I just want to set the record straight on that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. Becerra asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to come here and respond 
to some things my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have 
said. I read this bill and I read the amendment, and to those on the 
other side of the aisle who say that this bill is adequately written, 
that as it is written it will protect children, my response to them is, 
if it does that, then what is the problem with accepting an amendment 
that just makes it implicitly clear.
  If the response is, well, we do not need it because it is already 
there, then I turn to the actual bill itself and I see that the bill 
must not have been drafted that well, because there are at least seven 
different distinctions made and explicit references made for exemptions 
to this bill to make sure that those exemptions are identified as being 
protected.
  In the case of Social Security we see it here under subsection 7. We 
see it for emergency legislation that the President might pass. We see 
it for national security. We see it for emergency assistance to State 
and local governments in the cases, for example, of a natural disaster. 
We see it in the case of our constitutional rights.
  If this is such a well-drafted bill, why do we explicitly ensure our 
constitutional rights are protected? I would think that would be 
automatic.
  There is also an exemption for our statutory rights that prohibits 
discrimination. If that is there, clearly there are needs for 
exemptions and we have to stop fooling ourselves and admit to that.
  Then I turn to the amendment and I read the amendment and I look at 
the actual text of the amendment and it is one phrase. So what it would 
do is, add one additional phrase to those seven exemptions I listed, 
and all it does is say we would exempt as well any laws or regulations 
that provide for the protection of the health of children. Simple. But 
yet we have objections to that.
  Why do we have objections? In response to what the gentlewoman said a 
few moments ago about how this bill would provide for informed and 
deliberate debate, H.R. 5 takes care of that. We have had years of 
informed and deliberate debate, but on many occasions when we have had 
a chance in this House to support Head Start for children, we have not 
done so, at least not everybody. Some of us have supported it. I am 
today prepared to support Head Start. I know some of my colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle, though, would not.
  We have had an opportunity to provide full funding for immunization 
of our children in this country and I know Members of the other side of 
the aisle have not done so and have not done so at a time when at this 
stage of this country's development less than 60 percent of this 
Nation's children are immunized, and in some cases, in poor areas, you 
are talking about less than 30 percent of the children in this country 
immunized.
  Remember, that unimmunized child will ultimately cost that local 
government and the neighborhoods more money because, when that child 
does 
[[Page H577]] become infected or sick, chances are it will cost a lot 
more to heal that child.
  So we have no protections and we cannot count on what someone will do 
prospectively. We need to know now, and if we do care about children, 
if we do wish to protect them, then add a simple amendment to this bill 
that would do so.
  I find it ironic. We have the Republicans in this House who have 
proposed a Contract With America, I say a contract on America, and they 
say that they will increase by billions of dollars military spending,
 they will increase the deficit by cutting taxes on the wealthiest of 
Americans, and somehow with all of that they will still find a way to 
balance the budget to the tune of $1.2 trillion.

  We will have to find cuts. We cannot cut entitlement programs, so we 
have to go to discretionary programs. What kind of discretionary 
programs? That is where we find all of the children's programs, 
discretionary cuts to the tune of around something like 30 percent. 
Head Start, immunization, child nutrition programs at our schools, 
health care for children, 30 percent, folks, across-the-board in some 
cases, unless, of course, the Republicans are willing to tell us how 
they would otherwise cut.
  So why are we concerned, and why do we want to have explicit language 
that says you will protect the health of a child? Because there is no 
guarantee and this is not the time to play with the lives of our 
children.
  Now just about an hour or two ago we voted on an amendment that would 
protect seniors or elderly, our older Americans from discrimination 
based on age. There was only one single vote out of this House of 435 
Members, one single vote against that amendment. There was no problem 
explicitly exempting seniors from age discrimination and specifying it 
in this bill.
  But now we talk about kids. There is a clear distinction between 
someone who is a minor and someone who is a senior. Most of us get 
elected by seniors, and it is unfortunate that we find that we cannot 
protect a child here, and in some cases you have to wonder why.
  One of my colleagues from California on the other side of the aisle 
said we have sympathy for what you are doing and for the kids. The kids 
do not want sympathy. They do not want any of our sympathy. They want a 
fighting chance to grow up and succeed and let them prove themselves, 
but let us do our part in having them do that. Let us help the 
children, help, not hurt our children.
  Pass the Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Maloney amendment and to call the 
conscience of this group to the needs of children in our society and to 
know that any bill that has not really researched this in its fullest, 
I would just like to have a few minutes to talk about some reality 
therapy that we must think about. That we can sit here and pass any 
number of bills and write any number of amendments, but to my 
knowledge, no one has researched not only the fiscal impact and the 
cost of lives and societal causes that this bill is going to get us 
into if we do not look at what happens to children in this country.
  We hear a lot of rhetoric regarding save the children, save the 
oceans, save the rivers, but I am here today to say to each of my 
colleagues that of all of the assets this country has, our children are 
our most important assets. So the Maloney amendment is just trying to 
prick the conscience of this group to look at the children.
  Look at what this bill does. I am on the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight. I am a new member. I came to that committee with 
all kinds
 of gung-ho enthusiasm. But I have yet to be able to analyze or look at 
or to research or look at what we are doing in that committee.

  What we are doing in that committee is going to have far-reaching 
impacts on the lives of the citizens of this country, and these are the 
children that we are talking about today. These are the children that 
are going to pull each of us down if we do not do what is right for 
them up front.
  We talk about criminality. If we do not look at what is happening to 
our children, if we do not look into our communities and find out how 
can we help the health of the children, how can we get them immunized, 
how can we get them educated, how can we help them become better 
citizens?
  I want to tell my colleagues something: If we do not look at unfunded 
mandates in such a way as to tear it down to the smallest community and 
to the smallest child and even to the unborn children, we are going to 
leave something out.
  This amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney], has put up here today is not anything meant to cripple the 
bill. It is something meant to supplement the bill and to put in 
something that is so very important, and I really encourage my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at this just as they 
did the amendment for the aging and elderly.

                              {time}  1620

  The children are just as important as elderly people, and we have 
left them out, so that is what the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney] is trying to do.
  Because of these hearings, we do not know how poorly this bill will 
work, but by any standard, we have not researched this bill, and we 
have not looked at the impact of it.
  Now, a lot of children in this country are not as fortunate as some 
of our Members would have you think, and you do not need to read a 
magazine to find it out. You just need to go into some of the homes in 
both urban and suburban and both rural and otherwise to see these 
children. We rank in such a dismal category in terms of infant 
mortality. With all of the scientific discoveries we have made, we are 
19th in countries in infant mortality. Our children are dying before 
the first year of life is over.
  So you mean to tell me you are not going to look at this in terms of 
do you think any State legislature is going to do it? I spent 14 years 
in the State legislature, and I see what is happening here. There is a 
terrible syndrome happening here.
  What is going to happen is after the contract is passed, after the 
100 days, we are going to push all of this down to the State level. You 
are going to get some block grants or any kind of whatever 
configuration you want to call it, geometric, whatever it is; you are 
going to lump all the money in one big pile and ship it to the States, 
and that relieves you of the responsibility of saying to these mothers, 
people throughout this country, ``We do not care that much about you 
enough to look at the impact of these amendments and bills that we are 
writing now.''
  You know what the States are going to do with that. They are getting 
their committees and their priorities that come first, where the most 
of the voters are. That is what they will fund first. It does not take 
a Ph.D. to figure that out, Mr. Chairman, as to what they are going to 
do with the money.
  So the children will probably be left out, because it will not be the 
top priority of every State legislature. I know, I have been there.
  A lot of people have not been on the street where these people are, 
where these people have children who are not being cared for.
  I beg you to realize that one-quarter of the children born in this 
country are born in poverty. Think about it. They are not born with a 
silver spoon in their mouths.
  So when you think about where the money is going when it leaves here 
to the State, to people who do not really realize where our problems 
are. One of every six children under the age of 6 is not covered, Mr. 
Chairman, by health insurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meek of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to say vote for 
the Maloney amendment, because it does, it helps us keep intact this 
safety net which has been placed there for the people who deserve it 
the most, our children. They are our future, and we cannot come to this 
floor and forget them.
  [[Page H578]] The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman cannot withdraw her point of order at 
this juncture.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I request a recorded vote, a rollcall vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already stated that a quorum is not 
present.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members will record their presence by electronic 
device.
  Any recorded vote that is ordered after the quorum call will be a 5-
minute vote.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 34]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Neal
     Oxley
     Stark
     Wilson
                              {time}  1644

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twenty-four Members have answered to their 
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for a recorded vote.
  Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, this will be a 5-minute vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 261, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 35]

                               AYES--161

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--261

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     [[Page H579]] Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop
     Fields (LA)
     Hoyer
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lazio
     McIntosh
     Neal
     Oxley
     Stark
     Wilson
     Wise

                              {time}  1648

  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?


                    amendments offered by mr. owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 4 and 5, 
printed in the Record. and ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Owens: In section 301(2), in the 
     matter proposed to be added as a new section 422 to the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at 
     the end of paragraph (7) and inset ``; or'', and at the end 
     add the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) provides for protection of the health of individuals 
     with disabilities.
       In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph 
     (7) and insert ``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the 
     following:
       (8) provides for protection of the health of individuals 
     with disabilities.

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, my first amendment excludes from the 
unfunded mandates legislation any statute or regulation that acts to 
protect the health of individuals with disabilities. My second 
amendment applies the same protection for individuals with disabilities 
in relation to the Congressional Budget Act provisions in the same 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a high level of anxiety in the community of 
people with disabilities about this piece of legislation. Forty-nine 
million people have disabilities, and the number continues to grow 
because any one of us could be a candidate, and certainly as people get 
older, they end up in large numbers in the category of people with 
disabilities.
  Mr. Chairman, people with disabilities have a high level of anxiety 
for good reason. They feel that they have been targeted in this 
legislation, that they are a particular target because for years now 
there have been expressions of concern about the high cost at the local 
level of programs for people with disabilities, particularly the 
program IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, better known 
to you as special education. That program has been targeted, and there 
are constant complaints from mayors and Governors, from school 
administrators and school board members about its high costs.
  There are other programs related to the Americans With Disabilities 
Act which provide civil rights for people with disabilities. But those 
civil rights sometimes have costs attached to them, especially in the 
area of public accommodations and transportation. It costs money to 
meet the requirements of the ADA bill. For that reason, they feel that 
they are particularly targeted here, and they would be the victims of 
this legislation.
  This is an opportunity for us to clarify what we mean when we say 
that people's civil rights will not be affected. ADA, Americans With 
Disabilities Act, did elevate the rights of people with disabilities to 
the same level as other civil rights. It is a fact that they have some 
economic requirements attached to them that makes for a lot of 
confusion. There are many cases right now in litigation. The Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission has a large number of cases related 
to people with disabilities because of this gray area.
  Here is an opportunity to clarify and let it be known whether this 
act is particularly targeted at people with disabilities.
  Traditionally, State and local governments have been hostile or 
indifferent to these people with disabilities, and the Federal 
Government has had to lead the way. In the case of vocational education 
and vocational rehabilitation, we have led the way. In the area of 
special education, it took the Federal Government's mandate to provide 
for children who needed education who had disabilities. The Federal 
Government has had to lead the way. The States have always complained. 
So if the mandate is taken away, they have good reason to believe they 
may be victimized.
  In the area of health, individuals with disabilities chronically 
experience problems in remaining employed, and therefore they have 
fewer resources and have a higher number who are taken care of by 
Medicaid. Many of the 49 million Americans with disabilities are 
dependent on Medicaid. If we pass the unfunded mandates and that 
results in cuts in Medicaid, Medicaid services would be on the chopping 
block. Inpatient services or outpatient hospital services, physician 
services, the case would have to be made as to which of those are cut. 
If such
 services are cut, the parents of children with disabilities would not 
be able to gain access to needed services which allows them to keep 
their children at home, instead of an institution, which is much 
cheaper to all of us.

  Another Medicaid service jeopardized by this legislation would be the 
early periodic screening diagnostic and treatment, which allows for low 
income children up to age 21 vital health screening, gives them vital 
health screening to prevent the possibility of long-term disabilities. 
Cuts in this program which will result from the passage of this 
legislation would especially be harmful to children with disabilities.
  I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been argued 
already for other children, but children with disabilities have a 
particular problem. Of course, this particular amendment covers more 
than just children; it is all people with disabilities, including 
adults.
  We tried very hard last year to pass health care legislation that 
might have made my amendments unnecessary. But since the 
obstructionists prevailed, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance 
industry, the medical industry, Harry and Louise, all of those 
prevailed; we did not get a health care bill which would provide for 
the needs of people with disabilities. It is important that we in this 
legislation make certain that they are not victimized unnecessarily.
   [[Page H580]] Mr. Chairman, many of the organizations of people with 
disabilities also support this vitally needed legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Owens was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, among the organizations that have supported 
this legislation and feel they are in jeopardy are many organizations 
that have had bipartisan support in the past. In fact, the Americans 
With Disabilities Act had strong bipartisan support. Our great worry is 
that that bipartisan support will no longer be there.
  In the former Committee on Education and Labor, now called the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the one committee 
that dealt with the interests of the people with disabilities all in 
one place, found that it was broken up and the various functions 
related to people with disabilities were spread through three different 
committees.

                              {time}  1700

  We considered that a dangerous and hostile sign of the kind of things 
that are about to happen. Many of the signers of the Contract With 
America have indicated that they think that President Bush signed the 
Americans With Disabilities Act in a weak moment. In fact, one of the 
signers of the Contract With America has stated that the President 
signed that bill in a weak moment, and they want to undo the kind of 
rights that are provided in the legislation for people with 
disabilities.
  So it is very important that a clarification is gained here. I hope 
that all of the numerous Members on both sides of the aisle who do 
support programs for people with disabilities will vote for this 
amendment and send a message to the people with disabilities that they 
still have friends on both sides of the aisle, that they are not being 
targeted, that they will not have their programs taken away because 
they do require funding at the local level.
  The special education, for example, the Federal Government promised 
that they would fund it 40 percent and they only fund about 7 or 8 
percent. There have been complaints about that since it began. So we 
need an indication with this vote that people with disabilities will 
not suffer needlessly, that when we say civil rights statutes are 
exempt, we mean that programs for people with disabilities, including 
the programs which directly affect their health and their children's 
health, are also exempt from this, these mandate requirements.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment just 
very briefly to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the gentleman is 
correct, that Members on both sides of the aisle have great concern for 
the disabled in this country. The Americans With Disabilities Act, 
which the gentleman referred to and which is now law, is unaffected by 
this legislation in any way, shape or manner. This is not in any sense 
a retroactive bill. The Americans With Disabilities Act, which I must 
say there are some who would like to amend because it in fact has 
imposed some rather heavy burdens on our States and local communities 
to comply with the act in terms of retrofitting various things to 
comply with the act, but that is not the point.
  The point is that this is not going to in any way reach back into the 
Americans With Disabilities Act to affect the rights of the disabled, 
nor will it preclude us from in any way passing through a mandate for 
the benefit of the disabled in the future.
  All we say is that this area should not be anymore exempt from 
consideration of the cost that is being imposed than any other area. 
And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, people with disabilities represent the most vulnerable 
and poorest group in America. People with disabilities are 
disproportionately minorities and have the most health problems. Yet 
disabilities touch us all. One in three Americans has a family member 
that has a disability. I myself had a family member that had a 
disability and know firsthand the kinds of other health problems that 
can be created when one has a disability and that might be directly 
caused by that particular disability.
  Conditions for people with disabilities varies greatly from State to 
State and the people with disabilities therefore have looked to the 
Federal Government to help them to improve their quality of life and to 
make the quality of life equal for people who live in Michigan, or 
Illinois, or New York, or Mississippi, or Colorado, or any other State, 
giving them an equal opportunity to have, if you will, the kind of help 
that they certainly deserve to have.
  One example, for example, is when we have all gone through and seen 
these ramps on the side of curbs so that people with disabilities who 
have to use wheelchairs are able to get about, to do things that we 
take for granted because we can walk, for example. We have also cases 
where it is absolutely essential that we provide for people who have 
lost their eyesight, who have certain kinds of disabilities. We want 
people not just in one State to have those provisions made for them. We 
want people in all the States to have those provisions for them so that 
every person who has a loss of eyesight can equally enjoy the quality 
of life no matter where they happen to live or in which communities 
they happen to live. With so many States entering into experiments in 
the Medicaid Program, the health centers of people with disabilities is 
certainly at great risk.
  The move toward managed care as a device to control costs in Illinois 
and other States increases the likelihood that people with disabilities 
will end up in appropriate care settings with disastrous consequences. 
Studies show clearly that managed care does not work well for people 
with disabilities who often require specialized medical care on a very 
routine basis.
  Without this exclusion, H.R. 5 could prevent the Federal Government 
from the insurance that Medicaid programs in the States are appropriate 
to the needs of the people with varying disabilities. We wisely chose 
to exclude antidiscrimination laws, including those that protect people 
with disabilities, from this bill, but what good is it, if there is an 
exclusion for the disabled, if we by some same action undermine their 
rights to decent health.
  It just does not make any kind of sense at all, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Owens amendment to exempt from 
the impact of the unfunded mandates legislation any provisions designed 
to maintain the health of individuals with disabilities. This is not 
only the compassionate thing to do, it is also the sensible and fiscal 
thing to do.
  As a direct result of the advancement in medicine, many individuals 
with disabilities are able to maintain an independent life as 
productive, contributing citizens.
  The absence of medical care for such individuals is, therefore, not 
simply a health problem but one of loss of general functionality as 
well.
  To take away health care for most of us means that we have to 
prioritize resources. For individuals with disabilities, there are no 
other priorities. They must have health care for anything else to 
exist.
  Moreover, it also means that we will have to pay a lot more for other 
support costs once the independence of an individual with disabilities 
is lost.
  What this amendment says, Mr. Chairman, is that we should not treat 
individuals in totally different circumstances as if they were the 
same. Without this amendment, individuals with disabilities would be 
dramatically affected.
  As the gentleman from New York has indicated, Congress has passed 
many bills affecting the rights and independence of individuals with 
disabilities and without this amendment, it would be virtually 
impossible for Congress to take any action to protect this vulnerable 
group in the future.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the fact that this 
amendment is primarily about health, mandates which affect the health 
of people with disabilities. But I deliberately included other matters 
because 
[[Page H581]] the gray area there is always there for people with 
disabilities.
  Their health is affected if they cannot get proper transportation and 
the ADA gives them the right to transportation, which has to be 
provided by local governments. And many local governments have refused 
to take the steps to provide the necessary transportation.
  There are numerous areas which are gray, which have led to a great 
deal of litigation about the civil rights that are supposed to be 
protected under this statute, which always, not always, but usually 
affect the health and the welfare directly of people with disabilities. 
So it cannot be separated. The gray areas are such that it would be, a 
great service would be rendered by, in this legislation, passing this 
amendment and clarifying once and for all the fact that anything 
affecting people's health, people with disabilities' health, is also 
part of the overall protection that is provided for people with 
disabilities.
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. Mr. Owens, who 
shepherded the ADA legislation and the IDEA legislation last year, did 
a commendable job in attempting to preserve the rights of people who 
are handicapped.
  I heard one of the colleagues on the other side say it was a heavy 
burden on our poor States and our local government. It was a heavy 
burden on our transportation companies that they had to make way for 
people with a handicap to have their civil rights so that they could go 
to work, to be productive citizens, so that they could live a quality 
of life that we who are fortunate enough to be unencumbered with a 
handicap have.
  I think that it is relatively callous when we look at the burden that 
is imposed because we are attempting to make the quality of life more 
livable for other individuals. These amendments are essential to many 
individuals in this nation who suffer from disabilities. Individuals 
with disabilities experience more problems with retaining employment. 
They have more problems and more expense and fewer resources, in many 
instances, when they attempt to get to their places of employment than 
most Americans have.
                              {time}  1710

  Many of the 49 million Americans with disabilities are dependent on 
Medicaid for their basic health care. If this unfunded mandates 
legislation is passed without these amendments, and we also have 
entitlement caps, then the list of mandated health services in the 
current Medicaid Program would have to be cut in relation to the 
decreasing amount of funds in State governments.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, if these services are cut, parents of 
children with disabilities will not be able to gain access to needed 
services which enable them to keep their children at home. Instead, 
these parents will be forced to place their children in institutions, 
institutional settings, thereby promoting more dependency rather than 
independent living.
  Mr. Chairman, I though one of the contract's provisions was to make 
people more independent, to make them more self-reliant, but by some of 
these moves, we will make people more interdependent on the system, not 
more independent.
  Mr. Chairman, last year we made a concerted effort to pass health 
care legislation that might have made these amendments unnecessary, as 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] mentioned. However, since we 
could not accomplish this effort, it is now more important than ever 
before that we support these amendments, so that we do not take away 
what little access to health care individuals with disabilities 
currently have.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to reemphasize what we are doing here 
today. We are here, Mr. Chairman, to pass an unfunded mandate bill that 
puts a stop to federally unfunded mandates. All the amendments we have 
heard on the floor today would not be impacted by this. This is 
prospective. The ADA, the amendment we are talking about right now in 
civil rights, everything is prospective. Civil rights is exempted.
  What we are doing here today is talking about accountability again. 
Let me tell the Members, we have heard a lot of amendments. Most of 
them really I think are portrayed incorrectly, but the majority of the 
Members in this House are getting it, because when we count the votes 
today and yesterday, the majority of Members in this House are voting 
down these amendments. They clearly understand that local government is 
watching what we are doing. We are putting some accountability in this 
House.
  The things that the Members advocate are good and I am supportive of 
that, but let me say, if we want to do those things, all we are saying 
is if they are good enough for us to debate, good enough for us to talk 
about, good enough for us to pass, then they are good enough for us to 
pay for. That is simply what we are doing here today.
  All the things we are debating right now sound good, are good, in my 
opinion, but they have little to do with the unfunded mandate bill 
because most of this is about prospective legislative. The civil rights 
has been exempted.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great debate to have, I guess, but let us 
remember what we are doing. We are trying to put some accountability in 
the House. We are trying to get people to say if they are for something 
and they feel that strong about it, take the accountability and 
responsibility to pay for it.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of the fact that 
there is a well-documented history of the State and local governments 
being indifferent and even hostile toward the needs of people with 
disabilities? If the Federal Government had not moved, most of these 
people would never have been helped at all.
  Mr. CONDIT. I understand there have been times that local government 
has been slow to respond to things, and the Federal Government frankly 
has not been perfect in responding to certain things as well, but I 
have much more faith than some of these people who have come to this 
floor, with local governments.
  We have heard stories that ``We would not have cleaned up sanitation 
facilities, we would not have built curb cuts.'' We act as though local 
government officials have no incentive. They represent the same people 
we represent. They are trying to do good for their people as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a disservice for us to come here and 
suggest that they have no incentive to do the right thing for their 
people. Yes, they are slow. I can tell you why they are slow today, 
because they do not have much money. They are just about like we are. 
They are that far from the poorhouse.
  What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is be cooperative and work with 
them and not put unfunded mandates on them. If we think it is a good 
idea, then let us just pay for it. Let us help them out, because I 
think their agenda is the same as my agenda, to do what is right for 
the American people, to do what is right for their constituents.
  If Members have never sat in a city hall chamber at a city council 
meeting, they do not know what the heat is, because the people come 
down there and they want things done. They want their wastewater 
treatment clean. They want their drinking water safe. They want clear 
air, and they let you know it, and they let you know it on Monday night 
at the city council meeting. Therefore, I think that local government 
is more responsible than we are giving them credit for here today.
  All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, let us put some perspective on this. 
We are talking about accountability here. We are talking about if we 
think it is good enough for us to debate, pass, then it is good enough 
for us to pay for. That is it. That is what we are doing here. Mr. 
Chairman, I just want us to focus on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                      [[Page H582]] Recorded Vote

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 275, not voting, 10 as follows:
                              [Roll No 36]

                               AYES--149

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--275

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Chenoweth
     Fields (LA)
     Gekas
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Neal
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1733

  Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. CLINGER. 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. 
Combest] having assumed the chair, Mr. Emerson, 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. 5) to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and 
local governments, to ensure that the Federal Government pays the costs 
incurred by those governments in complying with certain requirements 
under Federal statutes and regulations, and to provide information on 
the cost of Federal mandates on the private sector, and for other 
purposes had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________