[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H861-H879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote Nos. 60 and 61 on H.R.
5, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted
``nay'' on both.
{time} 1920
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?
amendments offered by mr. clay
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, amendment No. 39 and
amendment No. 41.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Clay: At the end of paragraph (6)
of section 4 strike ``or'', at the end of paragraph (7)
strike the period and insert ``; or'', and add after
paragraph (7) the following:
(8) is necessary to protect children from hunger or
homelessness.
In section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period
and insert ``; or'', at the end of paragraph (7), and add
after paragraph (7) the following:
(8) is necessary to protect children from huger or
homelessness.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments
be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer these amendments along
with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I am very proud today to offer this amendment today with my good
friend and colleague from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
As chairman of Houston's task force on homelessness, for many years I
have worked on the issues of hunger and homelessness in the State of
Texas. In my home city of Houston, we have over 10,000 homeless and
many thousands of families who are perhaps only one paycheck away from
losing their homes.
On any given night in this country, even though we have a roof over
our head, we will find 600,000 people are homeless in the United
States. Ne'er-do-wells? I do not think so. People who want a chance or
an opportunity, people who have been one paycheck away from maintaining
their home and are now out on the street; these people have children.
It is estimated that 10 times that number have been homeless at some
time during the past 5 years. Clearly homelessness is increasing,
impacting more and more lives.
I think it is important for this body to acknowledge that
homelessness in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. We
must, as Members of Congress and as private citizens, take time to look
beyond our own experience so that we may fully understand the magnitude
of the crisis.
The majority in this new Congress have said the community at large
can handle this problem of homelessness. Oh, I truly appreciate
charitable institutions in my district, but we all must break the cycle
of homelessness. The Children's Defense Fund estimates over 5 million
children go hungry at some point during the month, and over 6 million
children live in severely inadequate housing. Clearly a child's
nutritional, educational, and overall general health needs are all
compromised when subjected to a life that shuffles them from shelter to
shelter.
By ignoring the need for greater Federal involvement, we are placing
more children at risk for abuse and neglect. The time is now, and I am
very grateful to have joined with the gentleman from Missouri in order
to effect a bipartisan effort in fashioning a program to address the
issue of child hunger and homelessness that should not be eliminated
through unfunded mandates.
Although I support abolishing unfunded mandates, I think we must
protect our children. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the
ramifications this legislation will have on homeless children and their
families.
Realize that literally 10,000 homeless are in the city of Houston;
1,500 of them are children; 150,000 are marginally homeless, doubling
up, living with families, friends, and relatives; 30,000 are children;
250,000 are at risk of becoming homeless, living paycheck to paycheck.
Any layoff, downsizing, or illness will affect them, and throw a family
into a homeless condition. Without safeguards such as our amendment, we
put at risk every program that is designed to help the homeless and
near homeless to self-sufficiency. Remember, what we are looking
forward to is unfunded mandates not to burden our cities, counties, and
towns. Then we need to look forward to assisting those who are seeking
independence to go from dependence in order to make sure we avoid the
homeless cycle.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment today with my friend
and colleague from Missouri, Mr. Clay. As chairman of Houston's task
force on homelessness, for many years I have worked on the issues of
hunger and homelessness in the State of Texas. In my home city of
Houston, we have over 10,000 homeless and many thousands of families
who are perhaps only one paycheck away from losing their homes.
On any given night, as many as 600,000 people are homeless in the
United States. It is also estimated that 10 times that number have been
homeless at some time during the past 5 years. Clearly, homelessness is
increasingly impacting more and more lives. For this Congress to
acknowledge that homelessness in the United States has reached epidemic
proportions is only a small step in the right direction. We must, as
Members of Congress and as private citizens, take time to look beyond
our own experiences so that we may fully understand the magnitude of
their crisis.
The majority in this new Congress has said that the community at
large can handle the problem of homelessness. I respectfully disagree
with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As the chairperson
of the task force on homelessness for the city of Houston, I have
learned first hand that the Federal Government must play a greater role
in breaking the cycle of poverty and homelessness. I have great
admiration for the charitable institutions of my district. However,
even with the good-heartedness of local communities, our cities cannot
and should not be expected to respond to a problem of this magnitude.
More importantly, no longer can we overlook the fact that far too
many children are affected by hunger and homelessness. The Children's
Defense Fund estimates that over 5 million children go hungry at some
point during the month, and over 6 million children live in severely
inadequate housing. Clearly, a child's nutritional, educational, and
overall general health needs are all compromised when subjected to a
life that shuffles them from shelter to shelter. By ignoring the need
for greater Federal involvement, we are placing more children at risk
of abuse and neglect.
The time is now--we must work together in a bipartisan fashion in
addressing the issue of child hunger and homelessness. We must work
together to assist our communities in their efforts. We must work to
provide a coordinated effort to create a system that will help move
homeless people from the street, to transitional support, and then to
permanent housing.
I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the ramifications that
this legislation will have on homeless children and their families.
Without safeguards such as our amendment, we
[[Page H862]] put at risk every program that is designed to help the
homeless and near homeless to self-sufficiency.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue
and strongly urge their support for this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendments for
the same reasons that I opposed the amendment by the gentleman from
Vermont. [Mr. Sanders], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Kanjorski], and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], all of
which dealt with some phase of children's concern.
So I must oppose the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, on any given night there are 9,000
hungry and homeless children in California.
I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee/Clay amendments.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment along
with the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. Sponsors of the
unfunded mandates bill wisely decided that certain laws and regulations
are too vital to the national interest to be subjected to the cost-
benefit and procedural hurdles mandated under this bill. The exclusions
already in section 4 acknowledge that we should not engaged in cost-
benefit analysis and procedural fights when it comes to civil rights,
national emergencies, or international treaties.
Well I think America's children deserve the same protection from the
cost-benefit analysis that lies at the heart of this bill. The Federal
Government has the responsibility to ensure that the States protect
America's children from malnutrition and homelessness. A point of order
should not stand in the way of Federal laws that protect our children.
America's children are at least as important as international treaties.
One out of four children in this country live in poverty. Millions of
children go to bed at night hungry. Too many children have no home to
go to. The problems
generated by the way this society treats children cross State lines;
there are national problems that require national solutions, as set
forth in Federal laws. There are housing problems that demand Federal
solutions. When we consider laws designed to protect our children from
these harms, let us not subject those laws to the obstacles created by
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
amendment offered ms. jackson-lee to the amendments offered by mr. clay
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to the amendments
offered by Mr. Clay: Page 1, line 1, insert ``and adults''
after ``children.''
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment to the amendments offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is not debatable.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] to the amendments offered by the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
The Chair may reduce the next vote to 5 minutes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142,
noes 285, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No 62]
AYES--142
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--285
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
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
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
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
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
Rahall
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
Skaggs
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
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page H863]] NOT VOTING--7
Brown (CA)
Farr
Gilman
Hastert
Hefner
Neal
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1946
Messrs. THORNTON, McDADE, and BEVILL changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. BALDACCI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendments was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. If the gentleman from Missouri, myself, had an amendment
to the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], would it
now be in order to offer that amendment to the amendment of the
gentleman from Missouri?
The CHAIRMAN. A nondebatable amendment could be offered.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan to do it; I just wanted to
be sure.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demanded a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII this will be a 5-
minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151,
noes 277, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No 63]
AYES--151
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
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
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--277
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
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
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
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
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
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
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--6
Brown (CA)
Hastert
Hefner
Houghton
Neal
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1954
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. clay
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 40 and 42,
and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Clay: At the end of paragraph (6)
of section 4 strike ``or'', at the end of paragraph (7)
strike the period and insert ``; or'', and add after
paragraph (7) the following:
(8) is necessary to protect the health and safety of those,
including children and discouraged workers, who, through no
fault of their own, receive welfare assistance.
In section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period
and insert ''; or'', at the end of paragraph (7), and add
after paragraph (7) the following:
(8) is necessary to protect the health and safety of those,
including children and discouraged workers, who, through no
fault of their own, receive welfare assistance.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay] that the amendments numbered 40 and 42 be
considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a much needed exemption to this
bill. It provides that this act shall not apply to Federal laws or
regulations that protect the health and welfare of children,
discouraged workers, and others, who, through no fault of their own,
need welfare assistance.
We as a nation have a duty to ensure that no one is left without the
means to provide for the basic necessities of life. In a society as
wealthy as ours, we have a moral responsibility to lend aid to the most
vulnerable members of our society, including those who cannot find
decent work for decent pay.
[[Page H864]] Our Nation's unemployment rate is approximately 5\1/2\
percent, and while that rate signifies better times for many, it still
leaves almost 8 milion unemployed. Hidden from that number are half a
million others who no longer are counted as unemployed because they
have given up hope of finding gainful employment. They have become
discouraged workers.
There are tens of millions of others, including children, the aged,
and the infirm, who cannot work. They don't have organized lobbyists
pressing their case before Congress. They don't have the resources to
contribute to political campaigns. And, too often, when they are not
being ignored and forgotten, they are being blamed for circumstances
which are as much of our making as their own. The best way to protect
these vulnerable members of our society from the onerous and cost-
benefit provisions under this bill is to shield them from these
provisions.
I disagree with those who claim that this welfare crisis is the fault
of the poor. We have a minimum wage today that does not support a
family of three above the poverty line. We have a fiscal policy that
encourages unemployment to curb inflation. We have a trade policy that
encourages the exporting of low skilled jobs.
Solving this crisis is the greatest challenge we face today.
Without my amendment, H.R. 5 will discourage the Congress from
meeting its moral and constitutional responsibilities to ``provide for
the general welfare'' of the poor, the infirm, and the helpless. While
the Federal Government clearly has a large role in solving the welfare
crisis, State and local governments have significant responsibilities
as well. We, as elected Representatives to the national Government, are
ultimately responsible for ensuring that governments at all levels meet
their responsibilities to the weak and the poor.
Hubert Humphrey said ``The moral test of government is how it treats
those in the dawn of life--the children; those in the twilight of
life--the old; those in the shadow of life--the sick and the
handicapped.'' To adopt H.R. 5 without this amendment is to turn our
backs on our highest responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment for the
reasons that have been repeated here so often this evening and over the
last 5 days.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Portman].
{time} 2000
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, it will not come as a surprise that I rise
again to oppose yet another amendment excluding whole areas of the law
from the very reasonable cost analysis provided in the legislation,
H.R. 5.
It might be of interest to know this is the eighth amendment to
section 4 relating to health, the fifth amendment relating to safety,
and the seventh amendment relating to child welfare.
The reason these amendments went down, they were all voted down with
solid bipartisan votes, the last one was 277 to 155, is that the bill
before us in no way precludes Congress from acting responsibly in these
areas to protect the very important national interests that are the
subject of these amendments.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have no further requests for time, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons
that those amendments have been going down is precisely what I said in
my remarks, that the people that we are attempting to protect here do
not have the benefit of lobbyists and other organizational protections
on their side. It does not have to be that it is a bipartisan effort
that is defeating this. It is a lack of compassion, in my opinion, on
the part of some who do not realize the suffering of the people that we
are trying to exempt.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just in closing, I would say that I think the reason that those
amendments have gone down is not for the reason the gentleman stated
but because the majority of this body recognized that all of the
interest groups that have been the subject of these amendments are not
going to be affected by this law adversely.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138,
noes 284, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No 64]
AYES--138
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--284
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
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
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
[[Page H865]] Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
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
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Bateman
Brown (CA)
Cubin
Hastert
Hefner
Hilliard
Hoyer
Neal
Roybal-Allard
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
{time} 2017
Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?
personal explanation
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during
rollcall No. 64. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''
amendments offered by mr. clay
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments which are numbered 43
and 44, and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
Mr. VOLKMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I do
not plan to object, but I rise to ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Clay] to explain briefly why he is wishing to put these amendments en
bloc, together.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say this is a very important amendment
that would exempt the schoolchildren of this Nation, some 44,000 of
them who are suffering from or endangered by asbestos.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, the
gentleman has two amendments to two sections or titles of the bill.
{time} 2020
Mr. CLAY. Yes, one of them is purely a technical amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. But if the gentleman really wanted to delay this bill,
he could not offer to put them together and could offer them separately
as the bill progresses as other Members could have done who have put
their amendments together; is that correct?
Mr. CLAY. That is correct. One of the reasons I might say to the
gentleman that it is necessary for us to offer these amendments on the
floor is that individuals who were going to offer them in committee
were precluded from offering those amendments. There were no public
hearings on these and, as I understand, only one public witness was
permitted to testify. That is why we are going through the procedure
that we are going through, and Members of Congress who want to be heard
on important issues like this have to and are forced to rely on these
kinds of procedures.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, and with the
clear understanding that the gentleman by offering these amendments en
bloc is not trying to delay the progress of this bill, I withdraw my
reservation.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Clay: At the end of paragraph (6)
of section 4 strike ``or'', at the end of paragraph (7)
strike the period and insert ``; or'', and add after
paragraph (7) the following: (8) is necessary to protect
school children from exposure to dangerous conditions in
schools, including exposure to asbestos and lead paint.
In section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period
and insert ``; or'', at the end of paragraph (7), and add
after paragraph (7) the following: (8) is necessary to
protect school children from exposure to dangerous conditions
in schools, including exposure to asbestos and lead paint.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts from the requirements
of the unfunded mandates bill protections for children from exposure to
environmental hazards in school.
We have heard an awful lot these past few days about concerns Members
have about the future and especially about the future of our young
people. We have been told that we have to reduce the deficit because if
we do not, our children and grandchildren will bear a terrible price.
I think this concern about our young and their future is legitimate.
The amendment I offer goes right to the heart of that concern.
This amendment is a children's protection amendment. It is based on
the simplest of objectives, namely that our children within the
classroom deserve the safest possible environment in which to learn.
That means clean water to drink, clean air to breathe. It means not
being exposed to asbestos, lead and radon. Exposure to these
contaminants is making our children sick from one end of this Nation to
the other. As many as 15 million children attend more than 44,000
schools containing friable asbestos. Children who are exposed to
asbestos on a daily basis are up to 10 times more likely to develop
lung cancer and other diseases than an adult.
The terrible effects that lead exposure has on children have been
well-documented. They are much more vulnerable to lead exposure that
adults and lead-related losses of intellectual capacity is
irreversible. Lead exposure can damage the brain and the central
nervous system. It is estimated, Mr. Chairman, that 3 million children,
one out of every six, have significant blood lead levels.
The Centers for Disease Control found that 67 percent of the children
tested in Oakland schools were lead poisoned. Sixty percent of low-
income children tested in Chicago were lead-poisoned. In Philadelphia,
29 percent of the children tested at inner-city hospital emergency
rooms had blood levels that were 50 percent above the lead poisoning
threshold. Six Midwestern States alone have close to 200,000 children
who suffer from lead poisoning.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the issue of radon.
This is a radioactive gas which has been linked to numerous lung cancer
deaths. Young people are more susceptible than adults to the risks of
cancer caused by radon, and the sad reality is that the source of much
of this radon is in the public schools. Half of the schools recently
surveyed by the EPA contained radon that exceeded acceptable levels.
Mr. Chairman, if that notorious butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein,
invaded our country and contaminated our schools with poisonous levels
of lead, asbestos and radon, we would be up in arms. It is no less of a
threat because it is happening unintentionally.
All unfunded mandates are not inherently bad. Some of them are worth
standing up and fighting for. To me an unfunded mandate that rids our
schools of poison is worth that fight.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up for children and our
future and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment as well. But I want to first
of all express my appreciation to the other side and the gentleman for
the expeditious way in which we handled the previous amendment without
an amendment to the amendment and also to the gentleman for offering
his amendments en bloc. I think that is very helpful.
[[Page H866]] But again I would oppose the amendment because of the
reasons previously stated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all by defeating this amendment, we do not
affect in any way the current law and current regulations affecting
lead paint or asbestos. Those regulations, those rules, stay intact.
This amendment does not even prohibit this House or this Congress from
affecting future mandates and future laws governing these areas as
well. We maintain that flexibility. All we do is we get those costs in
front of us before we act, so that we can understand what the true
costs of the regulations are going to be before we send the bills down
to our State and local governments who are going to have to carry them
out.
Let me give a couple of examples of how sometimes the best intentions
from this body end up having the opposite effect that we intend by the
time they filter down to the State and local governments who we are
supposedly trying to work with and help.
On asbestos removal we had a project over in my county and it cost
the county $7 million in renovations of an old school because of the
asbestos removal, that we had originally hoped to put up as a senior
citizens activity center and a home for the elderly. But the costs
became very, very high in stretching that out. In one case we were able
to build the center. In the other we had to abandon our plans to build
housing for seniors. We could not do it because the costs were so great
that had been sent down to us.
Asbestos removal, unleaded paint, we will have the flexibility under
this law to move ahead, but the unintended effects have been that we
have put untold costs on localities, we have made construction of
homeless shelters, senior housing, community centers too expensive in
many cases because of these removal costs that we have put onto the
localities. So in an adverse and unintended way, instead of protecting
our children, it hampers local and State governments' ability to
provide these services.
I have been in local government for 15 years, Mr. Chairman. This
sounds great but I can tell you it holds so many unintended
consequences that have the adverse effects that work contrary to how we
want them to by the time it gets down to local governments.
I think this is an amendment that should be defeated.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important. Without the kind of
protection that this amendment offers, while we will be debating points
of order under the legislation, children will continue to be exposed to
life-threatening conditions. Under the language of this bill, we will
not be able to reauthorize legislation to protect the children if we do
not pass this kind of legislation without going through the dilatory
kinds of things that are required and the time-consuming estimation of
costs. We will not be able to reauthorize those protections that we now
have in the law for children who are exposed to these kinds of
contaminants.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the gentleman and the
gentleman on the other side, I come to a conclusion that concerns me a
great deal. That is, under the provisions of the bill which is said
that if a reauthorization for one of these matters comes up and it
costs a certain amount, that it is very likely that those people who
are now voting against children and the handicapped and everybody else,
that they probably would not vote in the future for those same people,
and as a result you would not see anything. Is that your concern?
{time} 2030
Mr. CLAY. I agree; that is my concern.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has
expired.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for
the very clear reason that had this bill been in fact in force, the
problems with asbestos removal as we know today would not be there. We
have in fact come close to $100 billion in the costs associated with
asbestos removal.
There are some very significant studies now coming forth in the
medical community that would say that we have in fact increased the
risks to the children through our removal programs with asbestos rather
than decreased their risks. As a physician, my concern is for the
children in the schools and the results of that.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127,
noes 297, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 65]
AYES--127
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--297
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
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
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
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
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
[[Page H867]] LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Maloney
Manzullo
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
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
Skaggs
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
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Bateman
Brown (CA)
Ganske
Hastert
Hefner
Luther
McCarthy
Neal
Ward
Weldon (PA)
{time} 2047
Messrs. MOLLOHAN, BALDACCI, and OLVER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?
amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee: 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) pertains to Medicaid.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
{time} 2050
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because for
those who are the least among us, they have little voice sometimes in
the halls of Congress. The Medicaid program fulfills a promise to
provide much needed health services to over 20 million Americans. This
is a promise that must be honored. Without question, we must reduce
waste and inefficiency in this program. I support that. I want
efficiency and no waste. But I fear that as we visit this legitimate
concern this Congress will use a tactic of not fully funding the
program as an excuse to extremely limit its scope and potential. In
effect, such tactics could even serve to paralyze the program under the
current unfunded mandates legislation.
Medicaid serves the crucial health needs of children, disabled
adults, families and the elderly, all of whom may be indigent. I do not
expect this to be a popular issue, yet it is one that cannot be
ignored.
Many State Governors have voiced dissatisfaction with the Medicaid
program. I want to work with them to make it better. I think their
dissatisfaction stems from the frustration surrounding the inability to
control the costs of health care and the continued increase in the
number of people who are not covered by insurance.
What I fear though, is the notion that Medicaid could crumble under
the tide of programs that are unable to be fully funded. The success of
this program is directly tied to the idea of cost sharing between the
Federal Government, States and localities. We cannot let the indigent
down. It is not an unrealistic idea to expect the States to financially
contribute to a program which serves the health needs of its citizens.
The States should realize that Medicaid is an investment into the
value of the health of its people and Medicaid helps to serve the
indigent. Healthier citizens translate into to more hours worked on the
job, if able, more income generated and higher productivity rate.
In sum, everyone in the State becomes better served when the health
of its residents, including the indigent, becomes a priority.
Let us today make the health of America's economically disadvantaged
a national priority and vote in favor of the Jackson-Lee amendment to
H.R. 5.
Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid program fulfills a promise to provide much
needed services to over 20 million Americans. This is a promise that
must be honored. Without question, we must reduce waste inefficiency
within this program. But I fear that as we visit this legitimate
concern, this Congress will use the tactic of not fully funding the
program as an excuse to extremely limit its scope and potential. In
effect, such tactics could even serve to paralyze the program under the
current unfunded mandates legislation. Medicaid serves the crucial
health needs of indigent children, disabled citizens, indigent families
and indigent elderly.
I do not expect this to be a popular issue, yet it is one that cannot
be ignored. Many State Governors have voiced their dissatisfaction with
the Medicaid program. I think their dissatisfaction stems from the
frustrations surrounding the inability to control the costs of health
care and the continual increase in the number of people who are not
covered by insurance. I am not unsympathetic to their frustrations.
What I fear, though, is the notion that Medicaid could crumble under
the tide of programs that are unable to be fully funded.
The success of this program is directly tied to the idea of cost-
sharing between the Federal Government and the States and localities.
It is not an unrealistic idea to expect the States to financially
contribute to a program which serves the needs of its citizens. The
States should realize that Medicare is an investment into the value of
the health of its people. Healthier citizens translates into more hours
worked on the job, more income generated, and higher productivity
rates. In sum, everyone in the State becomes better served when the
health of its residents becomes a priority.
Let us today make the health of America's economically disadvantaged
a national priority and vote in favor of the Jackson-Lee amendment to
H.R. 5.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment. This is a sweeping amendment which would exempt all of
Medicaid from any future consideration of what the costs might be.
But again I would stress it is not in any sense retroactive, will not
affect Medicare or Medicaid as it exists today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a Member who has
had a great many dealings with this matter, the gentleman and former
governor from Delaware, Mr. Castle.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the argument of the
gentlewoman from Texas. She makes, I think, some valid points. But the
bottom line is that of all the unfunded mandates that probably are a
source of a problem for the governors of the various States and some
local officials, Medicaid probably tops the list. As the gentlewoman
has stated so clearly, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with
this program as it comes from Washington. There is huge inflexibility
in the Medicaid program as you deal with the indigent, long-term care.
There are a lot of problems that need to be addressed, that we are
asked to address more than possibly could be. This is a shared program
with the States depending on the wealth of the States. It is a budget
breaker.
There is tremendous inflation built into Medicaid to begin with,
probably more than any other Federal program that exists out there. In
addition to that, you add the new coverage to it and you mandate it
back to the States, and governors trying to put together their budgets
have one after another gone broke dealing with this particular issue.
The medical needs in particular
[[Page H868]] differ by States. Some States need to take care of
children because they are not doing a very good job. Other States have
particular procedures they are concerned about. The States may be
adjusting some of these procedures by a charity or some other way, and
yet the Federal Government comes along and mandates that this is ``what
you must do.'' It adds to the cost unnecessarily. It is very much like
the Safe Drinking Water Act and others which are getting to the point
beyond the reasonable in the requests that we are making back to the
States.
I think it also important to assert the arguments made all along here
on the other amendments which we have heard. We are not going back and
undoing anything at this point. In time of real need we could waive a
point of order and enact measures if indeed other Medicaid procedures
are found which are not yet discovered. But this is another unfunded
mandate, this is a number one unfunded mandate out there, and this is
probably the one that has triggered this bill as much as anything else.
While we need to continue to work together as the gentlewoman from
Texas has stated, the States and the Federal Government to provide
medical care, unfunded mandates are not the answer.
I would urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Medicaid is the Nation's safety net for our children and families
throughout this country. One-half of all Medicaid recipients are
children and three-fourths of Medicaid recipients are mothers of
children who depend on Medicaid for important health services such as
prenatal care.
Mr. Chairman, in 1994, Medicaid helped meet the medical care needs of
an estimated 34 million men, women, and children in this country.
Protecting Medicaid is critical to low-income people in this country
because without it they would be unable to receive necessary and
critical health care.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply ask the question of my colleagues whether or
not they have gone out into the nursing homes of this country and seen
the elderly indigent not being able to represent themselves, needing
Medicaid and Medicare in particular, and finding the frustration when
some, without any family support, for the slightest of reasons have
been denied their Medicaid benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and
appreciate that sometimes we must fix a broken system. I welcome that.
But I clearly think that as the States begin to address this issue of
Medicaid they must look into the nursing homes of this Nation and look
at the indigent elderly who have no one to speak on their behalf but
this Congress who can protect a Medicaid system that can be fixed. I
support fixing the Medicaid system, but I am clearly concerned about
the potential of not having a system to protect the indigent elderly
and the children in need, the indigent poor, as health care is
something we have advocated in this Congress and yet today we are
asking for those individuals to be abandoned.
Look into the Nation's nursing homes, look at the elderly indigent;
they cannot speak for themselves. They need our support. They need the
support of Medicaid for their health needs. I ask my colleagues to
support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has the
right to close. If the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] has
further speakers, she should yield at this time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, again I would offer to say that Medicaid serves now
some 20 million Americans. The wide range of those constituents and
those individuals cross all States in this country, and in particular
it hits those who are least able to speak for themselves, the children
and the elderly.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we all agree that the Medicaid system is broken and certainly
needs fixing. I think we are all committed to doing that. That is going
to happen, I think, because we have general recognition that there are
egregious problems with the Medicaid system.
But 20 million people will continue to be served when this bill
passes. We are not in any way affecting existing law with respect to
Medicaid.
Mr. Chairman, I would again urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 295, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 66]
AYES--131
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--295
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
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
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
[[Page H869]] Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Bateman
Brown (CA)
Hastert
Hefner
Neal
Ros-Lehtinen
Solomon
Weldon (PA)
{time} 2116
Mr. MOLLOHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?
amendments offered by mr. becerra
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 28 and
29, and I ask unanimous consent to have the two amendments considered
en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Becerra: At the end of paragraph
(6) of section 4 strike ``or'', at the end of paragraph (7)
strike the period and insert ``; or'', and add after
paragraph (7) the following: (8) is necessary to protect
children from exploitation in the workplace.
In section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period
and insert ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (7), and add
after paragraph (7) the following:
(8) is necessary to protect children from exploitation in
the workplace.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra] that the amendments be considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have been debating for quite some time amendments
that would try to protect children from all sorts of calamity that may
result from this unfunded mandate legislation unless we exempt certain
laws and regulations from this particular bill's enforcement.
My amendments merely do the following: They would exempt laws that we
currently have on our books that are there to protect our children who
work right now. They are there to protect our labor laws that protect
children from aggressive employers who would work them beyond the 8
hours. It is to protect them against employers who would have them
working under conditions that would amount to what many would consider
slave conditions. It is an effort to keep us from going back to the bad
old days when we saw children doing the work of adults, not going to
school, not having an opportunity to learn, and ultimately not being
productive members of society once they became adults.
{time} 2120
This is an effort to make sure that in passing reasonable unfunded
mandates legislation, that we do protect our children from enforcement
of a law that I do not believe has the intention of denying children
basic rights of protection. That unattended consequence of denying
protections to our children in the workplace is something that we must
fear in this legislation because as of now it does not provide those
protections. So I would urge Members to consider this amendment closely
and ultimately vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I, again, rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment for the same reason, which is that this should not be exempt
anymore than any of these others should be exempt from consideration of
what costs would be involved.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to a prime cosponsor of
this legislation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I just rise to hopefully once again add a
little perspective to this debate in the quick 1-minute time I have
here.
This amendment I oppose and all amendments that come on this floor to
weaken this bill I want Members to know, I oppose, and I am encouraging
my colleagues to oppose. Not because we are against this amendment or a
lot of the amendments that have been offered in terms of their
substance. We think they are good programs, and we ought to have an
opportunity to look at those programs in a more lengthy and substantive
way.
We can do that with this bill, by the way. This bill does not say we
cannot do these things. It just simply says that we have to pay for
them if we mandate the costs on local and state government.
Once again, this bill is prospective. It does not do anything to
these past programs. Does not mean we cannot do these good programs. It
just says that we have to take the responsibility and accountability to
pay for them. So let us not weaken this bill. Let us keep this bill
strong. And let us defeat these amendments.
I want to say, if Members look at the tally up here tonight, there is
a bipartisan support in defeat of these amendments. We have 60 to 70
Democrats voting with my colleagues, the Republicans, in defeating
these amendments. This is a bipartisan effort.
Let me tell Members, we need to be at the business of putting a stop
to unfunded mandates. We do not need to send out of this House a weak
version. We need to have a strong bill. We can still do the kinds of
things we want to do, but we just need to take the accountability and
responsibility for them.
Let me tell Members, let us bring this thing to a close.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me and commend him for his leadership in bringing this very reasonable
amendment to this legislation to the floor.
Indeed, the gentleman from California, [Mr. Condit] deserves a great
deal of credit for his leadership in subjecting this legislation and
the mandates, the unfunded mandates to the scrutiny which they are
receiving by this House of Representatives.
And he has a chance for us to give him exactly what he wants, a
stronger unfunded mandate bill. Stronger because it protects the rights
of children. It makes children a first priority.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger] in his remarks
contended that he rose in opposition to this amendment ``for the same
reason as I have opposed all the others,'' the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Clinger] said, the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania. He said, it should not be exempt anymore, the children in
the work place should not be exempt any more than any other amendment
should be exempted.
I say children should be our first priority. Let me read Members what
this amendment says. The amendment says, and I read from the bill so
they see where it fits in, ``this act shall not
[[Page H870]] apply to any provision in a Federal statute or a proposed
or final Federal regulation that is necessary to protect children from
exploitation in the work place.''
``That is necessary to protect children from exploitation in the work
place.''
This is not preferred, better, this or that, is necessary to protect
children in the work place.
So, my colleagues, I urge support for the Becerra amendment, because
exploitation of children in the work place is a real and present danger
in our country. We, the United States of America, should be the leader
on this issue. Indeed, the Governors themselves asked for Federal child
labor protection laws. That is how they got on the books in the first
place.
Child labor violations have been on the rise in our country each
year. Work related injuries to children cause more than 100 deaths and
20,000 compensation claims. Children often skip school to work 12 hours
a day as migrant farm workers or in sweatshops. Since 1983, there has
been a 150 percent increase in reported child labor violations.
The unfunded mandate legislation takes away the mechanism for
regulating and prohibiting these violations. The amendment of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] does indeed strengthen the
legislation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] the unfunded
mandate bill. It does indeed improve it, because it says, no, when it
is necessary, as the amendment says, to protect children from
exploitation in the workplace, then we the Congress of the United
States will not, will not prohibit that from happening.
In the course of this debate on unfunded mandates there has been a
great deal of discussion about the impact on children. And really, it
is just always great to hear the Members rise to their feet to protect
children in this body. But this one should not even be a debate because
this legislation calls for what is necessary. It has been requested
originally by the Governors. It would improve the legislation.
I commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for offering
it.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, all Members of this body,
Republicans and Democrats alike, are concerned about the exploitation
of children. Existing State and Federal laws provide protection and
H.R. 5 will in no way abrogate those laws.
As a former prosecutor, I can tell my colleagues there are
outstanding prevention programs like child lawyers, which address this
issue, as well as those sponsored by the National DA's Association and
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
We want to protect children not only from problems that could happen
in the workplace or in schools but from mandating them into oblivion.
The H.R. 5 unfunded mandates bill will give State and local
governments the kind of relief they deserve and under that bill we will
know up front the costs of any new program, and then the Congress can
agree to pay for them instead of passing the buck onto other
governments.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of any legislation that
would prevent the exploitation of children. I also rise in support of
the unfunded mandate bill and in opposition to this amendment. I rise
in opposition to this amendment because it simply is not needed,
because the concerns of the gentleman from California and the
gentlewoman from California have been addressed.
{time} 2130
This bill, the mandate bill, says very simply that there has to be an
estimate of cost to the private sector and to the public sector. If
there is not an estimate of cost, then a point of order can be raised.
If there is an estimate of cost, and it is over $100 million for the
private sector and $50 million for the public sector, a point of order
can be raised if no money is provided, but a simple majority can
override the point of order. The same majority that is needed to pass
the bill, the same simple majority, can also be the same simple
majority that can override the point of order.
This amendment is not needed, Mr. Chairman, as were many of the
amendments that preceded this. The concerns of the gentleman have been
protected in this mandate bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 269, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 67]
AYES--156
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--269
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
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
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
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
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
[[Page H871]] McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
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
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
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)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Bateman
Brown (CA)
Ford
Hastert
Hefner
Neal
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Yates
{time} 2146
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. kanjorski
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment No. 78, which has
been printed in the Record pursuant to clause 6, rule XXIII.
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) pertains to Medicare.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
{time} 2150
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the work of the
House, I ask unanimous consent that it be considered en bloc with an
identical amendment to section 301 of the bill which creates an
identical section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman indicate which numbered amendment
he refers to?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Seventy-eight.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had reference to the other one.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I ask that this be considered as an identical
amendment to the other action. In other words, I am trying to
facilitate a single amendment to apply to all sections of the bill
where appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the second amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kanjorski: In section 301, in the
proposed section 422 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
strike ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph (6), strike
the period at the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'',
and after paragraph (7) add the following: (8) pertains to
medicare.
Mr. KANJORSKI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record, and that they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It was brought up at
committee but not brought to a vote because at committee we ran the
first amendment which was exempting Social Security, and that amendment
received a vote of 39 yeses and 3 noes, and as a result is part of this
bill as it appears on the floor. And now what I would like to do is
have Medicare exempted as Social Security is exempted from the
implications of this bill.
I am particularly asking that because we all know that the Medicare
fund is in difficulty. As the bill is presently constituted, if we are
called upon to increase taxes to shore up the Medicare fund, this bill
will say to the States and municipalities that this is an unfunded
mandate.
If on the one hand the Congress does not provide the funds or
override the point of order, the increase in funding would not apply to
the States and municipal governments across this land and they would
not have to contribute to the Medicare fund, and that additional
taxation necessary to bring the Medicare fund up to its actuarial
soundness would thereby fall on the private sector of our economy.
In order to see that that does not happen, and further in order to
see that each individual State or municipality could not ask for
judicial review to hold up the promulgation of the rules and
regulations, I ask that we now exempt Medicare as we have exempted
Social Security so this question cannot arise.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all know why we should exempt Medicare, and
I can only assume that we will have opposition on the other side, as we
have had to every amendment thus far on the floor.
I am not going to prolong this debate other than the fact that I am
suggesting this: What it appears to me tonight, and we have heard
several statements from the majority that we are being dilatory and
taking up the time of this Chamber in what appears on our side to be
legitimate debate, but as it appears as each amendment has been offered
I do not think we have had the benefit of even one Member of the
majority breaking, so it is very clear that 230 votes reside on the
majority side of the House, and they will be able to accomplish all of
the legislation they have intact.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will my good friend yield on that point?
Mr. KANJORSKI. Surely; I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary to point out that
maybe 230 Republicans did vote the same, but a great number of
Democrats voted with us, and that is worth mentioning here. I think it
says something about the November 8 election.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I do not want to suggest it is only, but we do have a
solid block that is clearly a majority. They are going to prevail.
Let me suggest maybe we can save a lot of frustration and time, and
that is why do we not take the next 2 weeks on the entire Contract With
America, bring it here on the floor. Why should we offer any amendments
if they are not going to be considered as substantive and changing the
legislation to perhaps meet the needs of the American people, but
recognize the power of the majority, and it is all here and we have
that majority, why do not we just run through the entire contract for
America in 2 weeks, get that behind us, and then get to the substantive
action?
I would like to suggest to my friends in the majority that they set
aside, maybe beginning next week, a 10-day period, bring every piece of
legislation that they have to the floor, let us put it up to a vote.
And I would recommend to my friends on the Democratic side who may
think they can make a substantial contribution that they can offer
their substantial contribution as a matter of extension in the Record
so the Record is quite clear where Members stand on these issues, but
we move by this incredible piece of legislation that we are about to
enact anyway, but probably are boring the devil out of people who may
persevere and may be seeing this. But I think we are making a record
that a deliberative body does not have to be deliberative once an
election is held. If, in fact, we can come to the conclusion that the
contract for America should be put into legislation, and passed as
statute in its entirety, let us do it, let us save time. Maybe we can
do it to all of the appropriations bills and maybe we can get out of
here and adjourn by March 1 and let the Government operate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
[[Page H872]]
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time. I too have read the Contract With America. I want to tell my
friend on the other side, while it did talk about doing all of this in
100 days, it did not mention 100 nights; and this may take more than
100 nights if we continually debate the same issue over and over again
and again.
The issue is not the merits of a particular Federal program. You can
bring to this floor an amendment that tries to exempt the most
meritorious of Federal mandates. That is not the issue. That is not the
issue at all.
The issue is whether or not in the future this Congress decides to
continue mandating programs upon local governments and State
governments, whether we believe in those mandates or not enough to fund
them. And if we do not believe in them enough to fund them, this
legislation asked us to think seriously about whether we ought to
mandate them in the first place. That is what this is all about.
The reason why my good friend Gary Condit rose to the floor tonight
is, this has been his issue for some many years. And the reason why so
many Democrats are rising in opposition to all of these amendments that
address indeed good and meritorious programs is because to exempt these
programs with the coverage of this act is to say in the future it is OK
to continue mandating whatever program they think is important and
necessary on State and local government and worry about somebody else
raising the money to pay for them.
Let me tell you the taxpayers of America have had enough of this
business of one government telling another government what to do and
also instructing another government to raise their taxes to pay for it.
That is wrong, it ought to end.
That is what this unfunded mandate bill will end and we ought to
adopt it right tonight.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. If I have additional time, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana has
a good idea. Over the weekend I saw where the Governors unanimously
agreed with the proposition we should bail out Mexico. I think since
they think that is so great, my suggestion is let us not have the
Congress take up that resolution, let us ask the 50 States to bail out
Mexico.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. TAUZIN. My time has expired, but I will agree with the gentleman.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, there is not anything in
this bill that will prevent us from passing unfunded mandate
legislation. Nothing in this bill prevent us from passing laws that
will mandate costs on States that we do not pay for. The only
difference is that 51 percent of us will have to vote to do that. But
this bill is about accountability.
{time} 2200
It will force us to write good law that says specifically whose
responsibility is what and who is going to pay. I, for one, am going to
be perfectly proud to stand on this floor and force States to pay 10
percent of a child-support system; absolutely, we pay 90, they pay 10,
and we all benefit. I will vote to force States to pay 25 percent of
water-treatment plant costs; absolutely a good deal.
But I ought to be voting for that. I ought to be accountable for
that, and I ought to go home and take the rap for that and argue with
my folks about that being a square deal and a sound partnership.
Now, on Medicare, frankly, if the unfunded-mandate law had been in
place, our Congress would not have been able to underfund Medicare
payments to hospitals and physicians. Do you know who takes the rap
because we do not fund Medicare? It is all of those little guys out
there who pay their own health care premiums.
Their premiums in Connecticut are one-third higher because we
underfund Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. That is a
disgrace.
All this bill will do is make us publicly accountable to say what is
important, who is going to pay, and what portion we are going to take
and what portion we are going to push on anybody else.
This is just honesty.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut has clearly
said what my amendment will do. Suppose, if you will, when Medicare has
to be refunded, the point or order is overcome here. It is directed
that the proper Federal agency promulgate rules and regulations to
increase Medicare. It will go on all employers across America, but
under this bill, if the States or any municipality in America disagrees
with the promulgation of that rule or regulation, they will have
because they have judicial review the capacity to go in and tie up that
portion of the increased funding for Medicare for years in court, and
what that would necessitate is to make the fund sound, that the
increase would have to go out to the private employers of America to
make up for those 3 million employees.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, if we write
legislation as sloppily as we have been writing legislation in the last
few years, you bet they will be in court and they will tie it up
forever. But if we write precise law, that clarifies responsibilities
on both sides, if we do our job well, then it will be perfectly clear
who is to pay for what, and I for one will be proud to stand on that
territory.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendments 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 161,
noes 266, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 68]
AYES--161
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
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
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--266
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
[[Page H873]] Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
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
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
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
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
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
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--7
Bateman
Dooley
Hastert
Hefner
Neal
Williams
Yates
{time} 2219
Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2220
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 4?
amendments offered by mr. martinez
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, numbered 93 and
19, which have been printed in the Record, 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. Martinez:
In section 4, before ``This Act'' insert ``(a) In
General.--'',and at the end of the section add the following:
(b) Requirements Under Other Laws.--This Act shall not
apply to any requirement in effect on December 31, 1994,
under--
(1) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.); or
(2) the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).
In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, before ``This part'' insert
``(a) In General.--'', and at the end of the section add the
following:
``(b) Requirements Under Other Laws.--This part shall not
apply to any requirement in effect on December 31, 1994,
under--
``(1) the older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.); or
``(2) the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
(Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise not because I have a great hope
for success but because I have great hope. The people on this side have
raised a lot of concerns about what we are doing here. I have many of
the same concerns for the thing that we are doing and the way we are
doing it, not necessarily for the concept.
Mr. Chairman, I am one who comes from local government and have had
to suffer under unfunded mandates. Let me tell my colleagues the
reality of serving at a local level?
When you have to deal with budgets, especially in California after
the devastation of Proposition 13, when you have a constrained budget
like that, you have a tendency to want to do those things that you feel
are of the highest priorities and of the greatest necessity to your
constituency, and so if there are some things that should be done and
are mandated by the Federal Government because of the responsibility of
doing it, we would rather not do it, and if it were not mandated, we
would not do it.
That is one of the concerns that I have, and the way we pass this
legislation has not taken into consideration those things that deal
with particular
issues concerning people's civil rights, concerning the well-being of
those people. Those protections and medications, I believe, far
outweigh--the benefit far outweighs the cost. The problem is in many of
those instances they are humane, compassionate things and responsible
things to do, but there is no way to measure the benefit other than if
we have a sense of compassion.
My amendment would specifically exempt from this legislation and any
current or future requirement of this law anything that would nullify
the protections of the health, and safety and well-being of senior
citizens under two specific acts: The Older Americans Act and juveniles
under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, today, out of concern for my bill, I called the
legislative counsel's office and asked for an opinion. I raised the
questions that I just raised. I raised the question about the
provisions to establish new points of order in H.R. 5. He told me, ``As
H.R. 5 stands now, when the measure comes up for reauthorization,'' and
these two acts that I am referring to do come up for reauthorizations
and, at some point in time, have to be adjusted in those
reauthorizations. When he said that they would come up, they would be
subject to a point of order if there would be a net increase in duties
mandated by the legislation, or there is a net decrease in funding, or
assistance, or if in any way that bill is changed. ``What it does in
effect,'' he said, ``is that if the bill is changed in any way in any
one part of the bill, the whole bill is open to that same point of
order.''
Now I understand that we can, by a simple majority, waive the point
of order. The problem is that we allow for a lot of mischief to be done
if we do not exempt these two things.
In the case of nutrition programs for children and a nutrition
program for the older Americans in the Older Americans Act, these
things have to be adjusted on a regular basis because of the cost of
living increases. If we were to then adjust it, we would subject the
whole act to the point of order.
Additionally, I have some concern for how we are going to determine
that benefit of that particular cost. Like I said before, it is very
hard to determine a cost, a benefit--rather it is very hard to
establish what the value of a benefit of a compassion to act is versus
the cost of it.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues about the Older Americans
Act. Not too long ago we passed the Older Americans Act off this floor
without one dissenting vote. That means that almost every Member--well,
in fact it means every Member in this legislature who was here at the
time voted in the affirmative for the Older Americans Act, improving
the conditions of that act. In there, there was an ombudsman. I doubt
very much that that ombudsman could stand the scrutiny of this bill as
we are passing it
[[Page H874]] today, and we know what that ombudsman was for. It was to
protect the frail and the elderly in the Older Americans Act.
For many years the frail and elderly have been abused in nursing
homes where they are there for long-term care. Just last Friday ABC,
the program ``20-20,'' contained a piece on the continuing abuse that
has taken place in care facilities across the Nation, and over the past
30 years this body, in the past 30 years this body, has developed a
significant array of programs and protections for senior citizens. I,
for one, would hate to see those damaged in any way. In 1992 that Older
Americans Act was signed into law by Bush, and, like I say, it went on
without a dissenting vote.
I am equally concerned about, Mr. Chairman, the Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention Act. When I was chairman of the Human Resources
Subcommittee we conducted a wide range of hearings all over the
country. In fact we visited--at the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], my colleague on the other side--Nebraska, and
held a hearing there.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight because I, like others on this side,
have real concerns about what we are doing here. H.R. 5 is a concept
that I generally support.
Having served as a councilman, mayor, and in the State legislature, I
know how Federal mandates that are not accompanied by Federal funding
can wreak havoc on already strained local budgets.
But there are some protections that are mandated by the Federal
Government that are necessary for the protection of specific classes of
people, and I believe that the costs of such protections are far
outweighed by the benefit.
Specifically, my amendment would exempt from this legislation any
current or future requirement that nullifies any rule or law that
protects the health, safety, or well being of senior citizens under the
Older Americans Act, and juveniles, under the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act.
Mr. Chairman, under the Older Americans Act, there is a mandate that
States establish a State ombudsman to handle complaints about treatment
of the elderly who are in long-term care in nursing homes.
The ombudsman is there to ensure that complaints of abuse and
negligence are handled.
In the past, we have seen that they have been shrugged off, and frail
elderly have been subjected to inhuman treatment.
Just last Friday, the ABC program ``20/20'' contained a piece on the
continuing problem of elder abuse taking place in some long-term care
facilities.
Over the past 30 years, this body has developed a significant array
of programs and protections for senior citizens.
In 1992, in reauthorizing the Older Americans Act, an act that passed
this Congress on its first vote on the floor without a dissenting vote,
Congress added the ombudsman requirements.
While I am sure that this particular section would meet the terms of
the legislation under consideration today, how do you fix the value of
a humane compassionate act.
Mr. Chairman, I am equally sure that changes in the reauthorization
will open it to a point of order at which time we will see a demise of
this program and others like it.
Yet, most Members of Congress who considered that issue found it
worthy of support and the 1992 amendments were approved by a wide
margin and signed by President Bush in September 1992.
Mr. Chairman, similarly, in reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act in the 102d Congress, the Human Resources
Subcommittee conducted a wide ranging series of hearings around the
country with respect to the needs of vulnerable children in the
juvenile justice system, and especially those who are homeless or have
run away from home.
In fact, we held a hearing in Nebraska at the request of my
colleague, Mr. Barrett, and we visited Boy's Town while we were in
Nebraska * * * authorizing legislation were developed in consultation
with community groups serving these vulnerable children, with local
juvenile authorities with the Department of Justice's office of
juvenile justice programs, with the National Association of Family
Court Judges and others, knowledgeable in dealing with children at risk
of delinquency or other problems.
Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, States and
localities are mandated to provide `sight and sound' separation for
juveniles in the justice system.
Prior to the imposition of that mandate, young children who were in
the juvenile justice system--regardless of the reason for being there--
were housed in the same facilities as hardened adult criminals and, we
were told, subjected to abuse by those adult prisoners.
Very often, the reason a child is in custody is for his or her
protection, in cases such as child abuse, desertion, or abandonment by
a parent or guardian.
Such protective incarceration must be in a safe environment, and the
additional costs to ensure that are certainly worth the effort.
In addition, certain activities and programs are required to be put
in place to assist vulnerable children.
Whether the cost of those programs is a significant burden on the
State or locality, and the extent to which those costs are not being
met by Federal dollars allocated to those programs, is not the issue.
The question is, ``Do we and the States have a moral obligation and a
responsibility for these children?''
If we do, should we mandate specific actions?
I say the answer is yes.
Further, I would point out that the great majority of the juvenile
justice cases are non-Federal cases, and, therefore, the expense is a
State expense, not a Federal responsibility.
I believe that the need for protecting these vulnerable children is
so great, and the potential for inaction is so significant, that
specific exception to the terms of the unfunded mandate legislation
should be modified to specifically exclude mandates under this
particular legislation.
I would also point out that these mandates were not as strict as some
would have us believe--because States were allowed to request waivers
for implementation, and where it was shown that the State had
justification for a waiver, such as in Nebraska, those waivers were
granted.
I urge all of my colleagues, as we rush to judgment on the issue of
unfunded mandates, to consider whether the specifics of a mandate are
not such that the benefit to the specific population on whose behalf
the mandate exists do not outweigh the need for lessening the
restrictions on local and State government or on private concerns.
These are people without an effective voice at the ballot box or in
the budget committees of State or local legislative bodies.
These are people, who, without federally mandated protections, will
suffer the most in our society.
I urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I contacted the Legislative Council office regarding
the concerns we raised about the provisions to establish new points of
order, in H.R. 5.
As H.R. 5 stands now, when measures come up for reauthorization, they
would be subject to a point of order if there is a net increase of
duties mandated by the legislation, if there is a net decrease in the
funding or assistance authorized for the legislation, and if they did
not have the required CBO analysis. The legislation would not be
subject to this point of order if it contains increased funding for the
newly mandated duties. If the authorizing legislation passed with the
increased funding, but the appropriations legislation did not contain
the required funding, then the mandate would be reduced to match the
provided funding.
In the case of children's nutrition programs and senior programs
where we know there has to be increased funding to keep up with
inflation, then if there is funding the act is subject to a point of
order in fact. If any part of the legislation is adjusted in any way
that does increase net duties or decrease net funding then the whole
bill would be subject to a point of order, not just that particular
section.
Additionally, there is some concern that the legislation that will be
coming up for reauthorization has never been subject to a CBO cost
analysis. This could be quite a time-consuming process for some of the
major programs such as OAA.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
Mr. Chairman, the definition of Federal intergovernmental mandate
contained in H.R. 5 would not apply to voluntary nonentitlement
programs. Both of the programs which the gentleman seeks to exempt here
are voluntary, nonentitlement programs.
Mr. Chairman, State participation in the Older Americans Act or in
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which the
gentleman seeks to exempt, is voluntary, and funding for this program
is provided through annual appropriations which are made on a
discretionary basis. The bill that we have before us, H.R. 5, clearly
defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to mean a provision that,
and I am quoting, would impose an enforceable duty upon States, local
governments or private governments except, except, a condition of
Federal assistance or duty
[[Page H875]] arising from participation on a voluntary Federal
program.
Mr. Chairman, specifically these two programs fall within that
definition. Therefore, H.R. 5 does not apply to the Older Americans Act
or the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act. The amendment is really
rhetorical in nature, and I think it is misleading as to what the
intent of this bill is.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic
and Educational Opportunities.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to indicate that this
amendment is not necessary because these programs are already exempt. I
have worked with the gentleman who has offered the amendment this
evening to perfect these programs and to enact these programs and
certainly would not be here today trying to do anything to take away
from the programs. They are voluntary on the basis of the State
participation and, therefore, are not mandates as this legislation
calls for.
{time} 2230
I would not want the public to think that we are trying to do
something in H.R. 5 that would erode protection for vulnerable
populations. Therefore, I believe, and sincerely believe, that the
amendment is unnecessary, because they are already protected.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are two particular things in each of those
programs that I will remind the gentleman of that are unfunded
mandates. One is a sight and sound separation of juveniles in adult
lockups. Recently we passed that because there were young people being
put in the same cell with and in the same area with, even at times
people who had committed crimes against juveniles, and that is why they
were in. Some of these juveniles were taken into custody because they
were deserted by their parents, not necessarily because they did
anything wrong.
The only thing I am telling the gentleman is there is an unfunded
mandate within the juvenile justice delinquency program, and there is
one within the Older Americans Act. The ombudsman was an unfunded
mandate.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, our colloquy will
make it clear they are not unfunded mandates and therefore will not be
part of H.R. 5.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion it is the opinion of this
gentleman and the chairman of the committee that these would not be
covered by H.R. 5. But if in fact there might be some exception that
would cover them, they would still be subject to debate in terms of
what are the costs we are imposing. We could well decide that we might
want to pass that through without paying for it.
Mr. Chairman, yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Martinez].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 296, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 69]
AYES--126
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--296
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Bateman
Cox
Furse
Hastert
Hefner
Herger
Neal
Rangel
Stockman
Studds
Williams
Yates
{time} 2247
Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2250
amendment offered by ms. pelosi
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi of California: In section
4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of paragraph
(6), strike
[[Page H876]] the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
insert ``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the following
new paragraph:
(8) establishes a minimum wage.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted this amendment for the consideration
of our colleagues because I think it is very important. Even though the
hour is late, and the debate has gone on a long time, and indeed, we
have even addressed the minimum wage in the course of debating some
other amendments en bloc, I think it is very important that the House
speak to this issue.
What my amendment does, and I will read it, it says ``This act shall
not apply to any provision in a Federal statute or proposed for final
Federal regulation that establishes a minimum wage.'' That is what the
amendment is.
The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to remove all doubt
from where we go from here in establishing a minimum wage.
I will not go into, because the hour is late, all the reasons why we
need an increase in the minimum wage and how low the purchasing power
is. However, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members to know
that if this amendment does not pass, a situation will exist that
includes the following.
Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate for a moment the purpose of this
amendment, what this amendment does is to say that unfunded mandate
legislation will not affect the establishment of a minimum wage. The
purpose of the amendment is to remove all doubt that when this body
addresses the subject of an increase in the minimum wage, there will
not be an additional barrier to increasing that minimum wage.
If this legislation, the unfunded mandate legislation, passes without
this amendment, the following situation will prevail: When we come to
the floor with an increase in the minimum wage, it will be necessary
for us to have a point of order called on the bill. We would have to
have a majority to override the point of order, and therefore throw up
a higher bar for an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. Chairman, we are sent here to make tough decisions about how we
legislate. We are not sent here to hide behind process.
The simple fact of the matter is that without this amendment, if the
unfunded mandate legislation wins, which it appears to do, we can
count; and if we strive to increase the minimum wage on this floor, and
we do not win on the point of order, and so far we have not had the
votes to win on any of them, then the Federal Government cannot
increase the minimum wage unless the Federal Government pays for the
entire increase in the minimum wage, because it most certainly will
exceed $50 million, point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is that this is an intergovernmental mandate. That would
mean that what I just described would apply to the public sector, but
the private sector would not be affected by the legislation, so it
would differentiate between the public and private sector, giving an
increased burden to the private sector, something I do not think any of
our colleagues want to do.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is very important because it
says in order to increase the minimum wage: First, we do not have the
additional barrier of a point of order vote requiring a majority; and,
second, we do not assume all of the cost of the increase in that
minimum wage.
The working poor in our country deserve this opportunity. The minimum
wage, people working full time, they make less than $9,000 a year. We
are all familiar with those figures. I just bring them to the floor to
once again demonstrate: A, how necessary it is to raise the minimum
wage; B, to not throw up any
further obstacles to doing so; and, C, to not increase the cost to the
Federal taxpayer for the increase in that minimum wage.
Right now today States have that responsibility. Some States, as
Members know, including the State of New Jersey, which was pointed out
by Governor Whitman, have a minimum wage of $5.10 which they enforce.
Therefore, why are we making it more difficult for the working poor in
our country to earn a living wage by hiding behind process?
The fact, Mr. Chairman, is that last week we voted for one of the
mandates. Almost every Republican except the gentleman from Alaska [Mr.
Young], and every Democrat voted for the amendment addressing age
discrimination, so we did exempt already one amendment that was
presented. I am sorry that we could not say children are a priority,
too, in addition to the elderly. I hope that the working poor will be
given a fair shot by this body as well.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentlewoman
is right, Mr. Chairman, this issue has been discussed prior to this
time, on the 23d, in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] which included minimum wage along with
occupational safety and others. We did fully debate the matter at that
time for about 1 hour and 20 minutes, and the vote was 161 in favor and
263 opposed.
The only point I would make to the gentlewoman is that she did
indicate that we would not be able to do this under this existing
legislation. There is nothing, nothing in this bill that would prevent
us from in fact imposing the mandate without funding that.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I said we had debated on this issue as
part of an en bloc amendment before. We did not vote on this particular
minimum wage amendment alone, because I believe that there were Members
in the body who did not want to support some of the other amendments.
Mr. CLINGER. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. PELOSI. It was in the interest of saving time that we rolled some
of those amendments.
Mr. CLINGER. I understand. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we will
not this evening have a vote on this specific issue. The gentlewoman is
right.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren].
Mr. GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the debate tonight is not about the merits of the
programs that are the subject of these amendments. The debate is about
a very simple principle, the principle that any program that is
important enough to pass is important enough to pay for. On the last
amendment I am pleased to report that 72 Democrats voted to uphold that
principle.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and
continue to vote against unfunded mandates.
The CHAIRMAN. All the time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 260, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
AYES--159
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
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
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
[[Page H877]] Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
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
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOES--260
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
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
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
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
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Bateman
Cox
Furse
Gibbons
Hastert
Hefner
Johnson, E. B.
Montgomery
Neal
Roukema
Sisisky
Stockman
Studds
Williams
Yates
{time} 2314
Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendments Offered by Mr. Vento
Mr. VENTO. 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. Vento: 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) applies to life threatening public health and safety
matters.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 161 with the
amendment numbered 137. They are similar amendments in different
sections of the bill. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en
bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the second amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: 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) applies to life threatening public health and safety
matters.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request of
the gentleman from Minnesota that the amendments be considered en bloc?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively straightforward amendment. It
applies to life-threatening public health and safety matters. I am
certain that the Members of the House can enumerate many examples of
life-threatening health and safety actions and laws that we might be
called upon to consider in this House.
Second, of course, while the proponents of this bill have argued that
this is entirely prospective, they are not looking at the entirety of
the legislation they have before them because indeed on page 16 through
page 22 it requires any new rules that are put out that come within the
scope of the language. The point I am trying to make is that it is not
just a matter of information on unfunded mandates. Much like the CBO
process that we would go through today, I think there would be much
less controversy and, in fact, I think I would laud the fact of having
more information before the House on measures that we are considering.
Indeed, I think that very often we are subjected or are left with
subjective information concerning
unfunded mandates, much as we are with other issues about the impacts
of legislation.
Unfortunately, we have no track record to guide us with regards to
what the nature of the quality of that information will be on unfunded
mandates. But this bill reaches far further than most bills we have
considered.
For instance, although we require a CBO report, we have no separate
vote on that with regards to authorizing legislation. And I might add,
ironically this legislation completely exempts the appropriations
measures from its consideration, Mr. Chairman, so there are many facets
to this that concern me.
I think the issue with regard to the straightforward basis with
regards to unfunded mandates is that whenever we have any matter that
would be of any controversy we would be subjected to a process vote.
That is to say that the vote would not come on the issue before us, but
simply on the discussion or on the debate of an unfunded mandate
clearly building a hurdle to the consideration of important
legislation.
Here again I would point out that my amendment deals with life-
threatening health and safety, Mr. Chairman.
Furthermore, of course, the legislation reaches into laws already
enacted, puts in place a procedure whereas new rules or modifications
have to be considered under the scope of this particular bill. So it
does affect every law that affects life-threatening health and safety.
I would not enumerate. I could point out the safety laws that affect
auto traffic, helmet laws, laws that affect health and safety such as
water treatment systems in terms of microsporin or other micronisms
which have in fact
[[Page H878]] caused problems or the myriad of new problems we have had
with infectious agents that have appeared on the scene sadly in the
last many decades, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 2320
I think this is a sensible amendment that speaks really to
circumstances that should not be subjected to an extra vote, that
should not be subjected to a whole new rule and regulation process as
is outlined in this bill.
This bill is not just prospective. It is retroactive, affecting many
of the rules and regulations and the laws we would pass.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think this cuts at the heart of what the
Federal Government does in terms of reaching out. This legislation
proposes to build in confrontation rather than building on cooperation,
which I think should be the hallmark of the Federal system, the States
and the National Government working together.
The fact of the matter is the Federal Government did not take these
actions independently. Many of the States, many political subdivisions,
had decades, hundreds of years, to deal with some of the problems they
did not deal with through compacts, through their States, because they
could not deal with them. We need a national policy.
Mr. Chairman and Members, one of the things that I
think should come to our attention is we live in a country that has
the strongest economy the world has ever seen. It has great advances in
terms of culture and education and the sciences and has made great
strides, greater than almost any other nation on the face of this
Earth. We are taking that Government today, the Federal Government,
that has been a part of that particular system and putting it at great
risk. I know the greatness of this country is in the people of this
country, Mr. Chairman, but I also understand that the governing
structure that we have had has served us quite well.
I think we should be very careful in moving to make the modifications
such as we see in this legislation and on an experimental basis. I
think it is an experiment that may well go awry, and I think in the end
cause great injustice and great harm to the people we represent.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. Eliminating health and safety
is a sensible and common step, and a thread that has run through many
of the amendments we have heard on this floor.
I hope we could vote for it and I think we could move on from this
section of the bill.
Amidst the current fervor to pass the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995 (H.R. 5) important impacts--often passed off as just information
that we should be mindful of--have been trivialized. The advocates are
either naive or misinformed because this proposed law before the House
will significantly impair the Federal Government's ability to govern.
The traditional cooperative relationship between State, local and
Federal Governments would be dramatically altered by the bill before
us, replaced with confrontation and denial. This legislation will leave
the Federal Government without the ability to enact laws to protect
workers in the workplace, to stop pollution from transcending the
boundaries of one State to pollute the air and water of another, to
help the elderly receive proper care in nursing homes, and to protect
the health and safety of the people and of this Nation. These are but a
small sample of the changes inherent in the policy espoused by this
measure.
H.R. 5 as now drafted will unravel decades of public policy that
established common national standards and intergovernmental cooperation
with regards to public health and safety and the environment. If
enacted, State and local governments could no longer be obligated to
follow national programs unless 100 percent of the funding is assured.
That is the goal and most likely the result. Regardless of common sense
and the benefits of these programs and policies for a local area they
would be frustrated by the provision of this measure. In the absence of
national standards, State and local governments will establish, or
worse yet, not establish, their own health, safety and pollution
standards possibly without even the consideration of their neighboring
States. In short, the Federal Government
would be hamstrung in its ability to respond to the needs of the
people we represent, and subject them to an untested and unverified
policy prescription. Now the proponents suggest that a single vote
requirement would save the essence of this Federal-State fabric of law
so carefully woven throughout our history. This belies the dynamics and
impact of the required votes in the congressional process. Today it is
difficult to pass a bill, tomorrow this measure's design is to make it
far more difficult and darn near impossible to pass legislation steeped
in controversy, as without doubt proposed life threatening law and
policy would be. If it were simple, the States acting alone or
collectively would have accomplished many of these policies--the fact
is that Federal law and policy in such arena in by necessity, default,
or denial by the States and political subdivisions.
But, the unintended consequences of H.R. 5 are worsened by the quick
pace at which it is being pushed, and the lack of deliberation and
proper consideration by the House today and the Congress. This bill has
reached the floor of the House without one hearing being held on its
merit, intent, or consequence. This is a very significant piece of
legislation and should be considered with careful analysis--but
politics and instant gratification seem to be the order of the day and
the demand by the majority Republicans in this House.
For these reasons, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 5 to address
one of the problems that has been both overlooked and continues to be
ignored by the proponents of this bill. My amendment will exempt
legislation applying to ``life threatening'' public health and safety
matters. I have carefully chosen this language, ``life threatening,''
which addresses health and safety matters of the utmost significance.
``Life threatening'' is very specific--it means that which endangers
one's life.
Surely the Federal Government, the Congress, must be able to fulfill
its obligation to protect ``life threatening'' health and safety
matters of the people we represent without being subject to the
limitations inherent in this proposal. Look at the list of exceptions
already in this bill: President declared emergency, individuals
constitutional rights, discrimination laws, accounting and auditing
procedures, and national security. Certainly ``life threatening''
health and safety matters could and should be a recognized exception.
This amendment will ensure that the Members of this chamber will be
able to carry out the responsibility that our constituents have
entrusted to us. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]
has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, which is truly a
gutting amendment.
I think all of the measures we have had considered as possible
exemptions under this bill throughout the last 5 days could easily be
considered encompassed within the parameters of this particular
amendment. It is a much broader amendment than anything we have dealt
with thus far. I think it would truly gut the essence of the bill,
because it could be argued it could be exempting everything out from
under the coverage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Condit].
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, with
all due respect to my colleague from Minnesota.
This amendment, above all the amendments we have heard here this
evening, will destroy this bill, and once again, this bill is about
accountability. It is about if we want to do the kinds of things that
the gentleman from Minnesota wants to do, it is fine and well, and I
probably would support many of those things.
This just puts some accountability in it and simply says if we are
going to do these things, then we ought to figure out a way to pay for
it.
I would urge, once again, all of my colleagues, my Democratic
colleagues who have been so faithful in opposing these amendments, to
oppose this amendment.
We have one more after this, and then we move hopefully to the next
section of the bill. I ask for a no vote on the amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H879]] The vote was taken by electronic device, and there
were--ayes 109, noes 308, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 71]
AYES--109
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--308
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
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
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--17
Bateman
Cox
Furse
Gibbons
Hastert
Hefner
Johnson, E.B.
Martinez
Montgomery
Neal
Rose
Roukema
Serrano
Sisisky
Studds
Williams
Yates
{time} 2339
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________