[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4125-H4137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 125

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1271) to provide protection for family 
     privacy. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight now printed in 
     the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

[[Page H4126]]

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 125 is a very simple 
resolution. It is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate. 
The general debate is to be equally divided between the chairman and 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule. Finally, this resolution provides 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This open rule 
was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote.
  This open rule demonstrates that the new majority intends to honor 
its commitment to have a more fair and open legislative process. The 
resolution provides the House with an opportunity to review the bill, 
debate it, and yes, if necessary, to amend the legislation.
  The Contract With America includes a commitment to protect and 
strengthen the rights of families. H.R. 1271, The Family Privacy 
Protection Act of 1995, provides for parents' rights to supervise and 
choose their children's participation in any federally funded survey or 
questionnaire that involves intrusive questioning on sensitive issues.
  This legislation responds to the concerns of many parents and 
guardians that certain federally funded surveys have inquired into 
matters that should be left to the families themselves.
  The Family Privacy Protection Act, establishes a consent requirement 
for those conducting a survey or questionnaire funded in whole, or in 
part, by the Federal Government. Simply put, individuals seeking 
responses of minors on surveys or questionnaires must obtain parental 
consent before asking seven types of sensitive questions. The bill also 
provides five types of commonsense exceptions from this requirement.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for H.R. 1271, the Family 
Privacy Protection Act, legislation which, as reported unanimously by 
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, appeared to have no 
opposition. In fact, we were advised that the bill would be considered 
on the Suspension Calendar this week along with several other bills 
that enjoy widespread, bipartisan support.
  For that reason, we are concerned about the way this bill happened to 
end up in the Rules Committee at all. Unlike most of the legislation 
that came out of the Contract With America, H.R. 1271 was the result of 
bipartisan deliberation and agreement amongst members of the Government 
Reform Committee and of its Subcommittee on Government Management, 
which is chaired by my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  The hearing was held, expert witnesses representing a cross-section 
of organizations interested in the use of surveys testified, as did 
Senator Grassley and as did representatives of the Census Bureau and of 
OMB.
  In short, the subcommittee and committee consideration of this 
legislation was the model of the kind of careful and detailed 
deliberation we should expect on all the legislation we consider.
  In fact, the ranking minority member of the committee convinced 
Democrats to not offer amendments during the consideration of the bill 
by the full committee. It was her understanding that a bipartisan 
agreement had been reached, she honored that agreement and refused to 
support any amendments.
  Unfortunately, it appears that the reason we now have a rule for the 
bill, instead of considering it under suspension of the rules, is a 
last-minute decision by the Republican leadership not to back the 
committee product, which was so carefully written.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while we do not oppose this open rule, we are 
concerned about the change in direction it represents and the fact that 
a good-faith agreement has not been kept. It is particularly worrisome 
when, as the ranking minority member, Mrs. Collins, told the Rules 
Committee yesterday, the reason for the new strategy is based on the 
desire to ``return to concepts that were rejected by everyone at the 
committee meeting.''
  We feel confident that the ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee and of the full committee will be as convincing during 
floor debate as they were in their committee deliberations on this 
issue. We hope that the Members of the House will listen carefully and 
respond as responsibly as did the committee members themselves.
  We are all, of course, interested in safeguarding the privacy rights 
of minors and their families, which is the objective of this bill. All 
of us should also be appreciative of the great care the members of the 
committee took to ensure that the bill actually reflects that important 
objective and that its provisions are in fact practicable.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule; we urge its passage so that 
we may proceed with the consideration of H.R. 1271 today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking minority member of the full 
committee.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I, too, favor this open rule, 
but I must say that I believe this bill should have been placed on the 
suspension calendar, having been reported by our committee, as amended, 
by a unanimous vote.
  However, late last week, I was informed that unless the minority 
agreed to four changes in the bill proposed by the majority leader's 
staff, the bill would not be placed on the suspension calendar. 
Instead, it would go to the floor under a rule. The subcommittee chair, 
Mrs. Maloney, and I objected to these last minute demands, so that is 
why we went to the Committee on Rules yesterday.
  Let me briefly describe the history of this bill. Several weeks ago, 
Chairman Clinger came to me and indicated that title IV of H.R. 11 was 
part of the Contract With America, and he wanted to pass it out of 
committee before the April district work period. He asked me to support 
the bill.
  After carefully examining the bill, I concluded that the language in 
title IV went well beyond any rational effort to protect the privacy of 
minors. It appeared to me that title IV would have dangerously limited 
local police authority to question minors, and risked investigations of 
child abuse. I was also concerned that the bill could have been 
interpreted to limit the ability of doctors to get timely patient 
information on children. Moreover, since I did not know how this 
language would affect federally-assisted surveys, I suggested that we 
hold a hearing to examine the implications of the legislation. Chairman 
Clinger, of course, agreed to do so.
  On March 16, the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
and Technology, chaired by Mr. Horn, held a hearing on title IV of H.R. 
11. In preparation for that hearing, Mr. Horn asked a cross-section of 
educational, health and related professional associations to comment on 
the bill. In addition, he assembled two expert panels of witnesses to 
testify at the hearing.
  Two major concerns emerged regarding title IV. First, the bill was 
drafted in a fashion that was more than broad. It would have hampered 
law enforcement efforts to protect children. This view was perhaps most 
clearly articulated by the Department of Justice. In a letter to 
Chairman Horn dated March 21, Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney 
General, stated that the bill's proposed restrictions: ``* * * will 
unnecessarily limit disclosure of information developed in criminal 
investigations of child prostitution, child sexual abuse, and child 
pornography, and impede the provision of child protective services.''
  The other major issue concerned the bill's requirement for prior 
written 
[[Page H4127]] consent. Every expert witness who addressed this issue 
testified that requiring prior written consent would undercut the 
effectiveness of critical Federal, State, and local surveys.
  After the subcommittee hearing, discussion commenced to determine 
whether a compromise was possible. Shortly after that meeting, we were 
presented with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Chairman 
Horn and Chairman Clinger. Although we were not involved in drafting 
the substitute, it did address several issues that we had concerns 
about, and the concerns of the witnesses.
  In the spirit of compromise, Mrs. Maloney and I accepted the Horn-
Clinger bill. The bill passed out of subcommittee with two unanimously 
agreed upon changes. The bill was reported unanimously by the full 
committee.
  At the full committee markup, several Democratic Members, as has been 
already suggested, wanted to offer amendments, and I said we have a 
deal here, and, therefore, I am not going to support any amendments at 
all.
  It was not until late last Wednesday, we were informed by Chairman 
Horn, that and I quote: ``There are four changes the majority leader's 
staff would like to see changed in the bill reported from the committee 
in order to reflect the contract language.''
  No Member contacted me to complain about the bill. There was no 
explanation offered by Chairman Clinger to support these changes. No 
one came up with any new revelations to justify the return to concepts 
that were rejected by everyone. The only argument was that the majority 
leader's staff wanted the bill to more closely reflect the contract 
language.
  The last time I looked at the House Rules, staff were prohibited, in 
fact, from offering amendments. The valuable time of the House will be 
taken up because leadership staff have decided that they do not want 
this delicate compromise worked out by Democratic and Republican 
members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  Now, after the fact, Members are trying to justify a staff decision, 
I think, by arguing that written consent is important to conform this 
bill's language to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which requires 
written consent. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1271 has nothing to do with Goals 
2000. Even with these proposed amendments, the bill will be 
significantly different from the Goals 2000 language. For example, this 
bill is limited only to surveys and questionnaires, and does not cover 
evaluations or analysis.
  In addition, it has four major exceptions not included in the Goals 
2000 Act: First, criminal investigations; second, inquiries regarding 
the health, safety, or welfare of a minor; third, administration of 
immigration, internal revenue or customs laws, and fourth, information 
required for participation in a program receiving financial assistance.
  These changes reflect the reality that surveys and questionnaires 
within a school setting are different from surveys in other areas. It 
may be reasonable to require written consent for school-based surveys 
as required by Goals 2000. In that setting, it is common practice for 
children to carry consent forms back and forth on a daily basis. 
However, in other areas, obtaining written consent will be next to 
impossible.
  As Dr. Lloyd Johnston, program director, Survey Research Center, at 
the University of Michigan testified:

       The representativeness of the national samples will be 
     dramatically poorer than in the past, because many parents 
     fail to respond in writing even though they have no objection 
     to their children's participation.

  Similarly, Mr. William Butz, Associate Director for the Bureau of the 
Census testified:

       Written consent would reduce response rates, increase 
     costs, and/or increase survey bias. Requiring written consent 
     would reduce the flexibility of statistical agencies, like 
     the Census bureau, to collect data cost efficiently.

  Moreover, as a matter of federalism, why should we dictate to State 
and local recipients of Federal financial assistance the type of 
consent they should require? If the States know best how to administer 
welfare benefits, they should also know best what type of consent 
should be required.
  In conclusion, I would say that the only reason that this bill was 
not on the suspension calendar is because of shameful backroom 
politics. It points out that the leadership staff and not the committee 
members now control legislation in the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee. This process, I believe, will destroy the bipartisanship on 
the committee. It saddens me that we have come to this point today.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, first of all, to the gentlewoman from Illinois, your statement 
about shameful back-room politics is garbage. I do not know what you 
are objecting to. We have an open rule. What more do you want?
  If I understand the gentlewoman from Illinois, you now want a closed 
rule? Let me explain, as I understand it, there was no deal broken by 
bringing this bill to the floor so Members could offer amendments to 
it.
  As I understand it, I know the committee worked in a bipartisan 
manner. No commitments were made, from what I understand, in the 
committee about the status of the bill when it got to the floor.

                              {time}  1330

  After they had the committee markup I spoke with the chairman of the 
committee who said members had come up to him, and that was at the 
testimony yesterday in the Committee on Rules, that members came up to 
him and asked him for amendments. So the chairman of the committee then 
agreed that this should come to the floor instead of on suspension and 
be offered under an open rule. So I yield to the gentlewoman to 
explain, is she proposing a closed rule? What is her objection?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentleman will yield further, my 
objection is not to the open rule. My objection is to the fact that we 
worked out a bipartisan piece of legislation that some staffer on the 
gentleman's side of the aisle did not like, and that the members on 
both sides of the aisle had worked out in the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee has been negated. This does not make any sense to 
me.
  First of all, if there is a deal, there is a deal, if there is going 
to be bipartisanship on legislation, where there can be, and if not, 
there is no need for us to even try. I think that is what we are all 
about. I thought this was a body where on both sides of the aisle we 
can work together on legislation for the good of the people of the 
United States of America.
  Now if it means we are going to work and hope that we have trust and 
faith in each other and somebody is going to come behind a back door 
and create a deal, there is no need to even try to work in a bipartisan 
manner. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, I do not get that understanding at 
all. I think that when the chairman is there after the markup and 
members have come up to him--and there was no deal made in the 
committee markup about this, about coming to the floor. When members 
came up to the chairman and said ``Look, the bill appears to be 
noncontroversial. We have a few amendments that appear to be 
noncontroversial that we would like to have on the floor.'' I still do 
not understand through all the rhetoric that I have just heard what the 
gentlewoman's objection is to an open rule.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. As I say for the third time, I have no 
objection to the open rule. However, I do have objection to the implied 
understanding that I had that we had fashioned legislation that was 
acceptable to both sides of the aisle. And I find out now that that is 
not the case because a staff member on the gentleman's side of the 
aisle, not an elected Member of Congress but a staff member, has 
decided that a bill that had been worked out with Mr. Horn, worked out 
with Mrs. Maloney, and worked out with Mr. Clinger and myself, should 
be in some way changed. It does not seem to me that that is the way we 
should be operating around here. The staff member is not elected to 
Congress to represent anybody, and we are. And I think we have a 
responsibility to our constituents. And I think when a person tells 
[[Page H4128]] you that we have worked out an agreement that we 
negotiated, that is supposed to stand. Now when I was told that there 
were going to be amendments, nobody showed me any amendment. Nobody 
said that this has been changed. I mean, I am the ranking member on the 
committee and I think the least that could have been done would have 
been if you could have said that, ``Look, why don't you look at these 
and see if you agree with these amendments.'' That has not yet 
happened.
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, there was no deal that was broken. 
There was not any deal made.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the gentlewoman from Illinois for not 
showing her directly my amendments which I have testified about in 
front of the Committee on Rules and which we have discussed with 
committee staff. I also want to make it clear as a member of the 
Government Reform Committee that I am an elected Member of Congress, 
that I am the person who went to the leadership, to the staff of the 
committee and requested additional changes in the language, much of 
which was accommodated. But we felt that going to markup, as we 
progressed through the markup that it was not appropriate for me to 
offer any amendment at that time. I am an elected Member of Congress. I 
do not appreciate that I have been hearing, in ``Dear Colleagues,'' in 
the Rules Committee and on the floor that it was a staff-directed 
request. I had a survey problem in my district as I will bring out, 
with my children, as I stated in the markup in committee. My staff 
worked hard on this. The majority staff worked hard on this. I am not 
taking anything away from the fact that staff members were involved. I 
myself was a Republican staff director in the Children and Family 
Committee for a while, but I am a Member elected to Congress and I am 
the one who initiated the process.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, for point of clarity, I have 
here, and I will bring it over and show it to the gentleman, a note 
that is dated March 29, 1995:

       For Representative Maloney (Fax 54709). Carolyn: There are 
     4 changes the majority leader's staff would like to see 
     changed in the bill reported from the committee in order to 
     reflect the ``Contract'' language. I am assured that there 
     will be no more, and if there are, the Senate will worry 
     about them.

  And there is Mr. Horn's signature on here.
  I will bring it over right now.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on 
this side, and I yield back the balance of our time.
  We urge support for the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and I make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423, 
nays 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 284]

                               YEAS--423

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Abercrombie
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Ford
     McCollum
     McDade
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Saxton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1355

  Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. BROWN of California, and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  [[Page H4129]] So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 125 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union or the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1271.

                              {time}  1356


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1271) to provide protection for family privacy, with Mr. 
Knollenberg in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  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 today in very strong support of H.R. 1271 which 
was recently reported out of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. This is a small, but very important, bill, I believe, that 
will protect and help strengthen family values. The original provision 
was incorporated as part of H.R. 11, the Contract With America, and 
very simply provides that parental consent is required for surveys or 
questionnaires of minors containing highly sensitive or potentially 
objectionable questions.
  This legislation cuts to the core of our value system, Mr. Chairman, 
for it is the American family which is the basis of our civilization. 
Parents have a right to know what their children are taught and 
certainly have a right to know what questions may be asked of them and 
for what purposes those questions are asked.
  Should minors be subjected to questions about their religious beliefs 
or sexual attitudes without parental consent? We have all heard about 
situations that contain what many would view as inappropriate questions 
for minors, but it should be left up to the parents to decide what is 
and is not appropriate for their own child. In some cases questions 
have been phrased in a manner which suggests neutrality or even tactic 
approval for behavior or attitudes which might contradict what the 
child is being taught in the home. Currently, Mr. Chairman, there are 
several large-scale surveys being conducted by the Department of Health 
and Human Services and the Bureau of Census that cover sensitive issues 
and for which parental consent for minors is not required.
  This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not without precedent. Similar 
legislation was enacted into law just last year for the Department of 
Education with an amendment provided by Senator Grassley. H.R. 1271 
simply broadens this provision to include all other Federal departments 
and agencies that are funding surveys or questionnaires given to 
minors. There are questions on these surveys that parents may and have 
in the past found to be objectionable. By strengthening the rights of 
parents, minors and their families will be protected from having to 
answer embarrassing or offensive questions.
                              {time}  1400

  This legislation provides that parental consent is required prior to 
a minor responding to such sensitive questions as parents' political 
beliefs, religious affiliations, sexual behaviors or attitudes, and 
mental or psychological problems.
  In addition, a few very commonsense and, I think, needed exceptions 
are included. For example, exceptions are provided for protection of 
childrens' health and safety, inquiries related to criminal 
investigations, questions related to the administration of immigration, 
Internal Revenue, and customs laws and the seeking of information to 
determine eligibility for participation in a program. The legislation 
also provides that families will have the opportunity for advance 
availability of each survey or questionnaire for review prior to making 
the consent determination.
  Our country has long recognized the rights of parents with respect to 
the education of their children. There is very strong feeling in this 
country that government intervention has undermined that right, that 
very fundamental right. This legislation provides another step toward 
reinforcing support for the rights of families, again, the fundamental 
building block of our society.
  So I would urge strong support of my colleagues for this legislation, 
and would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1271 as it now stands 
unamended, is a good bill that is intended to protect the privacy of 
families, by requiring parental consent for certain types of 
information asked of minors in federally funded surveys. Similar 
language was passed last year by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act 
for most programs administered by the Department of Education.
  I believe we can all agree that parents have a vital role to play in 
research involving children. Standard practice for most social science 
research today requires some form of parental consent before 
interviewing minors. This bill would standardize that practice for the 
Federal Government.
  Several technical issues were raised during the subcommittee hearing 
on the bill. These drafting problems could have created the unintended 
consequences of hampering legitimate inquiry into child abuse, and 
jeopardizing important areas of Federal research. I am pleased that we 
were able to clarify these drafting issues to everyone's satisfaction.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1271 was reported by our committee, as amended, by 
a unanimous vote. It is a good bill as it now stands, and should be 
supported without amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], the chairman of the 
subcommittee that reported this bill, who has worked very long to bring 
us this bill today.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of H.R. 1271, the Family 
Privacy Protection Act of 1995. Safeguarding the privacy rights of 
minors and their families is an essential part of the Contract With 
America. Both our Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
and Technology and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
have taken great care to ensure that the bill's language reflects that 
important objective.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill's provision. H.R. 1271 establishes 
a consent requirement for those conducting a survey or questionnaire 
funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government. Those seeking 
responses of minors on surveys or questionnaires must obtain the 
consent of parents or guardians before asking seven types of invasive 
questions.
  The areas of concern for which parental or guardian consent is 
required for minors are questions related to:
  First, parental political affiliation or beliefs; second, mental or 
psychological problems; third, sexual behavior or attitudes; fourth, 
illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior; fifth, appraisals 
of other individuals with whom the minor has a familial relationship; 
sixth, relationships that are legally recognized as privileged, 
including those with lawyers, physicians, and members of the clergy; 
and seventh, religious affiliations and beliefs.
  The bill also provides five types of commonsense exceptions from this 
requirement. They are: The seeking of information for the purpose of a 
criminal investigation or adjudication; any inquiry made pursuant to a 
good faith concern for the health, safety, or welfare of an individual 
minor; administration of the immigration, internal revenue or customs 
laws of the United States; the seeking of any information required by 
law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for 
receiving financial assistance; and seeking information to conduct 
tests 
[[Page H4130]] intended to measure academic performance.
  The legislation requires that Federal agencies provide implementation 
procedures and ensure full compliance with the legislation. The 
procedures shall provide for advance availability of each survey or 
questionnaire for which
 a response from a minor is sought. The Family Privacy Protection Act 
does not apply to the Department of Education, because a similar 
provision is already contained in the General Education Provisions Act 
pertaining to that department. The act would become effective 90 days 
after enactment.

  On March 16, 1995, the subcommittee held hearings on the legislation. 
Senator Grassley was our lead witness. Other testimony came from 
representatives of the Office of Management and Budget and the Bureau 
of the Census. We also heard from an experienced litigator on behalf of 
families which have suffered harm due to invasive questions posed to 
their children. We solicited and received written comments from a 
cross-section of interested professional, educational, and family 
groups. Both the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services 
also submitted statements.
  We found that a strong mandatory parental consent standard was 
essential for federally funded surveys and questionnaires given to 
minors that contained privacy-intrusive questions. In both the 
statutory and the committee report language we made certain that 
parents and guardians would be able to consent to their children's 
participation in these surveys or questionnaires. We wanted to be 
especially vigilant against situations in which parents would only be 
notified of surveys and would not be given a simple, straightforward 
way to consent or decline before that survey was provided to their 
minor children.
  H.R. 1271 was marked up by the subcommittee on March 22 and by the 
full committee on March 23. At its subcommittee markup, two amendments 
were proposed, briefly, debated, and approved by voice vote. The full 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight favorably reported the 
bill by unanimous voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1271 will advance the protection of our children's 
and our families' privacy beyond the 1994 Grassley safeguards, to 
protection from all surveys or questionnaires administered with any 
degree of Federal funding support. We have crafted this bill in a way 
which will do that without unduly hamstringing legitimate public 
interest activities.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], a member of the committee.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of 
the Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill in fact establishes a parental consent 
requirement for federally funded surveys or questionnaires that ask 
sensitive questions of minors. Concerns have been raised that minors 
may be asked to participate in surveys asking personal or private 
questions. Included as part of the Contract With America (H.R. 11).
  Areas of concern in surveys which would require parental consent 
include questions related to, first, parental political affiliations or 
beliefs; second, mental or psychological problems; third, sexual 
behavior or attitudes, fourth, illegal, anti-social, or self-
incriminating behavior; fifth, appraisals of other individuals with 
whom the minor has a familial relationship; sixth, relationships that 
are legally recognized as privileged, including lawyers, physicians, 
etc. and seventh, religious affiliations and beliefs.
  There are some commonsense exceptions to the parental consent 
requirements for; first, seeking information related for criminal 
investigations or adjudications; second, inquiries related to a good 
faith concern for the health, safety or welfare of an individual minor; 
third, administration of immigration, internal revenue or customs laws 
of the United States and; fourth, seeking of information required by 
law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or 
receiving financial assistance.
  Legislation covers all Federal agencies with the exception of the 
Department of Education. A very similar provision is already contained 
in the General Education Provisions Act which is specific to that 
department.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe this is important legislation. I believe 
that this is the type of legislation that has bipartisan support, and I 
appreciate the time to speak on behalf of it. I would urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1271, the 
Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995. I commend the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger], who serves as chairman of our Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, for his efforts in bringing this important measure to 
the floor.
  I support this proposal which establishes a parental consent 
requirement for federally funded surveys that seek responses of a 
sensitive nature from minors. This legislation requires parental 
consent for questions relating to such sensitive areas as: Parental 
political affiliation, mental or psychological problems, sexual 
attitudes and behaviors, and religious beliefs. Similar provisions have 
already been enacted for the Department of Education under the General 
Education Provisions Act.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this 
measure which will protect the privacy right of American families by 
extending to all Departments of the Federal Government the commonsense 
parental consent provisions which we have previously included in 
legislation pertaining to the Department of Education.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment, and each section is considered as having been 
read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family Privacy Protection 
     Act of 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2. The text of section 2 is 
as follows:

     SEC. 2. FAMILY PRIVACY PROTECTION.

       (a) Restriction on Seeking Information From Minors.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 
     section 6, in conducting a program or activity funded in 
     whole or in part by the Federal Government a person may not, 
     without the consent of at least one parent or guardian of a 
     minor or, in the case of an emancipated minor, the prior 
     consent of the minor, require or otherwise seek the response 
     of the minor to a survey or questionnaire intended to elicit 
     information concerning any of the following:
       (1) Parental political affiliations or beliefs.
       (2) Mental or psychological problems.
       (3) Sexual behavior or attitudes.
       (4) Illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior.
       (5) Appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor has 
     a familial relationship.
       (6) Relationships that are legally recognized as 
     privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and 
     members of the clergy.
       (7) Religious affiliations or beliefs.
       (b) General Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any of the following:
       (1) The seeking of information for the purpose of a 
     criminal investigation or adjudication.
       (2) Any inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern for 
     the health, safety, or welfare of an individual minor.
       (3) Administration of the immigration, internal revenue, or 
     customs laws of the United States.
       (4) The seeking of any information required by law to 
     determine eligibility for participation in a program or for 
     receiving financial assistance.
       (c) Exclusion of Academic Performance Tests From 
     Restrictions.--Any restriction under any provision of Federal 
     law on the seeking of information from minors through 
     surveys, questionnaires, analyses, or evaluations shall not 
     apply to any test intended to measure academic performance.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?


                    amendments offered by mr. souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments for sections 2 and 4, 
and I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Souder: Page 2, line 9, strike 
     ``without the consent'' and insert ``without the prior 
     written consent''.
       [[Page H4131]] Page 2, line 13, strike ``intended to 
     elicit'' and insert ``which is intended to elicit, or has the 
     effect of eliciting,''.
       Page 3, strike lines 13 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Academic Performance Tests.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to tests intended to measure academic performance 
     except to the extent that questions in such tests would 
     require a minor to reveal information listed in a paragraph 
     of subsection (a).
       Page 4, beginning in line 10, strike ``if requested 
     monetary damages are not in excess of $500''.

  Mr. SOUDER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] that the amendments be considered 
en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 1271, but I 
believe it must be strengthened to accomplish our objective of 
protecting family privacy. This amendment is in response to concerns of 
parents around the country about federally funded questionnaires and 
surveys, in general much of what is going on with our children. This 
will finally give parents and children the legal cover that has been 
theirs from the beginning. It will safeguard family privacy unless and 
until the government has legitimate reason to intrude upon it. Written 
consent is essential, not burdensome. The individual dignity of a child 
and the privacy of a family are paramount to saving an agency time or 
money.
  Opponents to this amendment in academia, the Clinton administration, 
and the Census Bureau find it troublesome that we are seeking prior 
written consent because data for their surveys might not be as accurate 
as possible. They are really saying science and data are now more 
important than the family. Is this what we call family values?
  This amendment will not protect parents who abuse their children or 
affect legitimate criminal investigations. This amendment will not 
interfere with academic tests that are truly academic. This amendment 
will not impose any additional requirements on schools. Schools already 
assist the U.S. Department of Education with obtaining written consent 
and administering surveys through the standards of the General 
Education Provisions Act which covers only Department of Education 
surveys. In other words, we already have this type of protection in the 
education bill.
  I have a particular concern in that I am on the Committee on 
Government Reform. I supported this bill. We worked together with the 
committee chairman and subcommittee chairman and ranking members in the 
report language, but I had some additional concerns because of some 
things I have seen going on around the country, not directly related to 
in some cases a Federal survey such as in my district, but some are 
directly related to Federal surveys.
  I would first like to read a survey that was given in my district 
that caught my attention and prompted me to go one step further for 
written consent. One problem we have in schools is that you get consent 
forms, and sometimes mass forms, which we separate, and often you do 
not know whether you have given consent or not given consent. To some 
degree this protects schools. This protects people, whether it be 
religious or political or other types of things such as sexual 
behavior.
  But the particular survey that upset me in my district was asked in a 
high school and had such questions as:

       Are you a virgin?
       What age were you when you lost your virginity?
       Do you use any form of contraceptives?
       Do your parents provide your contraceptives?
       Do you pay for your contraceptives?
       Do you get contraceptives from your friends?
       Have you had sex with more than one person?
       Have you had sex with more than five people?
       Do you have sex more than three times a week?
       Are you going to wait to have sex until you are married?
       Do you know what gonorrhea, genital warts, herpes or 
     syphilis are?
       Do you know if your partner(s) have a sexually transmitted 
     disease?
       Have you ever had an HIV test?
       Have you ever performed or received oral sex?
       Have you ever performed or received anal sex?
       Have you ever had an orgasm?
       Have you ever had a homosexual experience?
       Do your parents know that you have sex?

                              {time}  1415

  This type of questionnaire is reprehensible. I find it particularly 
reprehensible because it was given to my two children, one of whom is a 
junior and one of whom is a freshman.
  I believe it is extremely inappropriate for this type of thing to be 
passed out in English classes, to be distributed by the Federal 
Government in other cases.
  I have a survey here that was distributed under the auspices of HHS, 
where they asked similar questions on religious activity and sexual 
behavior of children.
  There are others. I have one that was sent to me from San Antonio 
where they start to come into religious activity, asking whether the 
parents ever scream at each other, whether the parents take a 
prescription for stress, whether the parents have ever been drunk. Do 
either of your parents get drunk?
  Another question is, do you or your parents, they are asking whether 
they attend school functions. They want to know what the parents know 
about who they are dating. Have you done things in a relationship that 
you would not tell your parents about? Another, do your parents approve 
of your older friend, if you have a friend who is at least five years 
older than you?
  This type of questioning of young people about the parents' behavior, 
about the relationship with their parents is outrageous. We need 
protection for the children of America, for the parents of America so 
that you have to have written consent before you can probe into private 
matters.
  I am sorry for any impact it has on cost. I am sorry for any impact 
it has on future research, if some people do not get their response 
questionnaires back. We have gone past the point of protecting 
individuals, and we need to reinstate the protection for individuals so 
we do not go on witch-hunts for religious behavior, for deviant sexual 
behavior, for normal sexual behavior.
  Many things in these surveys imply that it is normal to have as a 
freshman in high school multiple sexual partners. I think we need to 
stand up, put this in this law.
  My amendment also lifts the $500 cap which, if we leave it at $500, 
means that in effect the parents are going to probably have to pay more 
in attorney costs to challenge a questionnaire than they could recover.
  I believe these amendments are essential. They are in our original 
contract. I hope my colleagues will support them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] has 
expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Horn and by unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, which one of the 
questionnaires were federally funded?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the question that was in my 
district that was asked my children was not. It is unclear to me 
whether the one in San Antonio where I read some of the questions is. 
The HHS questionnaire, which I did not get into detail, had similar 
questions on how many people did you have sexual intercourse with? This 
is a middle school survey. During your life how many people have you 
had sexual intercourse with? At what age did you first have sexual 
intercourse? Did you drink alcohol or drugs? That was an HHS survey.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
wanted to clarify that this legislation only applies to federally 
funded in whole or in part surveys, questionnaires, interview 
instruments. Most of those were not that. It is possible that the 
Federal 
[[Page H4132]] might fund something like that. I cannot quite believe 
it. But that still leaves the local State, the local school district, 
as I think the gentleman would agree, to have such surveys.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, while I intend to vote against the gentleman's 
amendment, I understand his outrage. Mr. Souder distributed a copy of a 
questionnaire which was used at his children's school during the full 
committee markup of H.R. 1271. That questionnaire is absolutely 
revolting to me, and should never have been distributed to school kids 
without the consent of their parents.
  However, that questionnaire would not have been affected by this 
legislation. It was distributed by students from the school who worked 
on the school newspaper. That is a matter internal to the local school 
board, not to the U.S. Congress.
  Local policies on parental notification of surveys and questionnaires 
are rightfully a matter of local law. The Federal Government should not 
dictate to State and local governments how to handle issues of parental 
notification on surveys.
  H.R. 1271, unanimously approved by the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, involves only Federal and federally-assisted surveys. 
The administration tells us that all Federal agencies already receive 
the consent of parents prior to sending surveys to minors. The 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
testified during a subcommittee hearing that it is currently standard 
practice for the Federal Government to require some form of parental 
consent before interviewing minors. H.R. 1271 would merely standardize 
the current administration practice of requiring prior parental 
consent.
  Supporters of written consent point to the Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act as a precedent. However, surveys and questionnaires within 
a school setting are different from surveys in other areas. It may be 
reasonable to require written consent for school-based surveys as 
required by Goals 2000. In that setting, it is common practice for 
children to carry consent forms back and forth on a daily basis. That 
is why school-based surveys receiving Federal funds from the Department 
of Education require written consent. That policy is specifically kept 
in place by H.R. 1271. However, in other areas, obtaining written 
consent will be next to impossible.
  At a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology, chaired by Mr. Horn, every expert witness 
who addressed this issue testified that requiring prior written consent 
would undercut the effectiveness of critical Federal surveys.
  Dr. Lloyd Johnston, program director of the Survey Research Center at 
the University of Michigan, made a number of points:
  First, the national samples will be dramatically less representative 
because many parents will not respond in writing even though they have 
no objection to their children's participation.
  Second, schools, not the researchers, will be required to contact 
parents to encourage their written response, since most schools are 
precluded from giving information about parents, their addresses or 
phone numbers to outside people.
  Third, the required followup will substantially increase the costs of 
the surveys.
  Fourth, many parents will have to be repeatedly contacted to return 
the written consent forms, and they will see that as a further 
intrusion.
  Mr. William Butz, Associate Director for the Bureau of the Census, 
which conducts the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Youth 
Behavior Survey and the Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, 
testified that prior written consent would reduce response rates, 
increase costs, and/or increase survey bias. Requiring written consent 
would reduce the flexibility of statistical agencies, like the Census 
Bureau, to collect data efficiently.
  Let me quote from a letter from Kevin P. Dwyer, assistant executive 
director for the National Association of School Psychologists to 
Chairman Horn:

       It would be functionally more effective to permit 
     ``passive'' consent, where parents are made aware of the 
     information to be surveyed and the purpose of the information 
     gathering. This is more cost effective and less burdensome 
     upon both schools and families.

  Sally Katzen, Administrator for the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, testified that with few exceptions, surveys are 
conducted anonymously. She states:

       In other words, no personal identifier information is 
     collected and the identity of the minor and the family cannot 
     be ascertained. In this circumstance, it is unclear whether 
     written consent is really necessary to protect the privacy of 
     the respondent or the family.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we should not second-guess 
the unanimous position of every expert who testified on this issue. We 
should not second guess the unanimous decision of the subcommittee and 
full committee against requiring prior written consent. In the absence 
of any new evidence. we should support the unanimous committee position 
against requiring written consent.
  The existing prior consent requirement in H.R. 1271 will give all 
parents the ability to prevent their children's participation in 
Federal surveys. As the committee report makes clear, H.R. 1271 
requires active consent from a parent or guardian. The consent can be 
handled in various ways, including in writing. Moreover, mere notice of 
a survey is not enough to satisfy the consent requirement. Consent must 
involve both disclosure and the opportunity to decline.
  The amendment also lifts the $500.00 cap on monetary damages for 
violations of this bill. Lifting this cap would be an open invitation 
for frivolous litigation. Lawyers would have a field day with this 
bill. For example, H.R. 1271 covers surveys involving ``antisocial 
behavior.'' Yet, the bill has no definition of what constitutes 
``antisocial behavior.'' It is not hard to imagine multimillion dollar 
cases for psychological injury because a particular survey covered 
antisocial behavior.''
  Mr. Souder's attempt to lift the cap on monetary damages is even more 
disturbing in view of his other amendment to further broaden H.R. 1271. 
Mr. Souder proposes to cover any survey which has the effect of 
eliciting certain types of prohibited information. This amendment would 
give people the opportunity to bring lawsuits for unforeseeable 
mistakes made by minors in responding to surveys.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would say that at some point this 
mindless marching in lockstep must end. The only reason we are here is 
because a member of the majority leader's staff did not like the bill 
we unanimously reported out of committee. We must stand up for what is 
right, not what some staff thinks is politically correct. If committee 
members lose confidence in the value of talking to one another to reach 
compromises, this House will lose its ability to move forward 
constructively. Unfortunately, it is clear that the bipartisan 
agreement in our committee was not worth the paper it was written on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, these amendments, while well 
intentioned, simply just do not work. As Chairman Horn said during full 
committee approval of this bill, and I quote: ``We have attempted to 
strike the right balance between Government power and individual 
rights.'' The unanimous subcommittee and full committee votes on H.R. 
1271 strongly suggests that we did strike the correct balance. I urge 
defeat of the amendments.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Souder amendment which does 
provide for strengthening and clarifying some issues which are 
contained in the bill. First, as has been discussed, it does provide 
the consent must be in writing.
  [[Page H4133]] I would just emphasize that this is consistent with a 
provision that we have included in the GEPA, that is the Department of 
Education bill, which we passed last year, which did require that the 
consent be in writing. So it falls in line with that statute for the 
Department of Education.
  It extends a similar type of consent request, that is written 
request, written consent to all other agencies which are involved in 
conducting these kinds of surveys. So it is not unique. It is not a new 
provision. It is basically just tracking what we had already provided 
for in GEPA.
  I think the written consent also has the effect of strengthening, 
obviously, the parental consent requirement and ensures that parents 
understand what the survey is about before providing consent, which 
might not be the case without a formal requirement for written consent, 
I think that it would create less confusion.
  I think it might also result in less litigation, because we would 
have proof positive that the consent was in fact given, whereas on an 
oral consent thing, that would always be subject to question.
  Second, the Souder amendment provides for judicial review without a 
cap. The other pieces of the amendment just provide clarifications, 
including the issue that academic tests should not include any of the 
prohibitive issues without parental consent.

                              {time}  1430

  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, there was no deal broken, and I 
listened to the debate on the rule with regard to this. I would suggest 
that no deal was broken by bringing this bill to the floor under an 
open rule. We worked on the bill, as has been indicated, in a very 
bipartisan manner. I think we worked very constructively with the 
Republicans and Democrats to fashion this bill.
  I would also say no commitments were made. It was the intention, 
indeed, to bring this bill to the floor under suspension. It was my 
sense, however, that there were a number of Members who felt very 
strongly that the provision did not go far enough. I really suspected 
perhaps that the measure would not prevail if brought to the floor 
under suspension, and that all Members should be given an opportunity 
to offer amendments, that being the case.
  After the committee markup we started to hear not from staff members 
but from members, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] among them, 
that they wanted to offer amendments to the bill. We do have an open 
rule. That does not preclude any Member both on the majority and 
minority side from offering an amendment to what I think is 
fundamentally a very strong bill as it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say I was very pleased with how we worked 
within the committee on a bipartisan basis on this legislation. I 
believe that the Souder amendment strengthens the legislation, and the 
Members will have a chance to vote their will on this amendment. I 
would rise in support of the amendment and urge all Members to support 
it.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Souder]. This amendment undermines the bipartisan 
spirit of the compromise which was worked out by myself, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Horn], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
chairman. This amendment would require prior written consent for 
surveys or questionnaires with Federal funding.
  This issue was carefully considered in our subcommittee and rejected. 
Several professionals testified that prior written consent would do one 
of two things: Block these surveys from ever being performed, or render 
their conclusions useless, because of skewed data. This rejection was 
confirmed at the full committee, where this issue was raised.
  I think the committee's unanimous, bipartisan decision should stand. 
This amendment addresses no real problem that anyone can identify. It 
would also considerably increase the cost of conducting surveys. 
Requiring parental consent may make some sense for surveys conducted 
through the school system, but expanding it to all federally funded 
surveys makes no sense at all.
  Some who argue in favor of these changes will talk about what goes on 
in schools. Let me make it clear right now, Mr. Chairman, this bill 
does not apply to schools. We already have legislation that does that. 
Our bill as reported requires that any survey or questionnaire using 
Federal funds must get parental consent before interviewing minors.
  We asked OMB for a list of Federal surveys that did not get consent. 
There are not any. Our bill protects minors to the full extent 
possible, but does not destroy information vital to solving some of the 
most important problems facing our country today.
  We are told that this amendment is to bring this bill back into line 
with the contract, but that is just a smokescreen. I believe the 
changes offered in this amendment are designed to block surveys from 
ever being performed, specifically, surveys of teenage behavior, 
including the causes of rising teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and suicide.
  Members of both parties are sincere in their desire to solve these 
problems, but pretending a problem does not exist will not make it 
nonexistent. By rendering these surveys worthless or eliminating them 
altogether, that is what some Members hope to do, that will not work. 
It has never worked. It is naive.
  In order to solve a problem, we first have to research it. We cannot 
cure a sick patient without asking the patient what is wrong. This 
amendment will not cure anything. It will only make it more difficult 
for researchers to study the problem and gain information, and 
information is the most important commodity to any social scientist or 
legislator.
  This amendment would also undo the thoughtful solution the committee 
reached on judicial review. As a result of the hearings, the chairman, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], added to the bill a private 
right of action with a limit to $500 of damages in cases where parental 
consent was not obtained.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] would remove 
that limit. That seems particularly ironic to me. Just a few weeks ago 
the Republicans fought very hard for tort reform to limit damages.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is the best 
compromise attainable. In that bipartisan spirit, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against the Souder amendment, and support the Republicans and 
Democrats who have carefully considered the issues raised by this bill 
and addressed them responsibly in H.R. 1271.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me first say I want to commend the 
committee and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], for their hard work on this bill. I think it is a tremendously 
important piece of legislation for us to move forward. Although we may 
disagree on this particular amendment, I think all are to be commended 
for their hard work on something that will definitely benefit families 
in this country.
  Le me rise in favor of the Souder amendment. I think it is a 
reasonable addition to this bill. It is an area where Federal 
leadership can set the tone of the type of questions that are asked in 
our schools.
  When I go home and talk with parents in my district, time and time 
again, in Anderson, in Yorktown, in Richmond, parents have come up to 
me and said they are very concerned that they do not know what is 
happening in their schools. They do not feel that the moral values that 
they think are important to teach their young children are necessarily 
being conveyed in the school setting.
  When they hear about surveys such as the one that the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder] read to us earlier, 
[[Page H4134]] their concern is reinforced among parents and the 
family. I think the Federal Government is introducing into the personal 
lives of the families, and especially with impressionable young 
schoolchildren, so that I think it is very important that we do have 
this amendment to restrict the options that the Federal Government has 
when it conducts surveys of young people, so their parents know in 
advance what the questions are, and have indeed agreed to those 
questions being asked to their children.
  The Souder amendment will enhance family privacy protection. It is 
not protective of abusive parents. It is well crafted to not affect 
academic testing. I believe it is very important to protect family 
privacy in areas where the Federal Government, quite frankly, has no 
legitimate interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Souder amendment, and want to 
commend him and the other committee members for their work.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I am delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I believe when the gentleman 
said the Federal Government is asking certain questions, the Federal 
Government is not asking the kinds of questions that the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder] read, and also that we have copies of from the 
full committee hearing. The Federal Government is not asking those 
kinds of questions.
  What we are trying to do is to make it so that the Federal Government 
would say that local school boards, et cetera, could ask those 
questions if they had written consent. I do not know if I 
misinterpreted the gentleman or not.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I understand that is the case with the 
particular survey that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] raised. 
I do think it is, nonetheless, important to limit the Federal 
Government in the types of surveys it can do without parental consent. 
I hope that will be a model for States and school boards locally to 
also seek that consent, although I agree, in his amendment we would not 
be extending that requirement.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I also read, in response to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn], some questions that were in a Federal HHS 
survey that asked ``Have you ever had sexual intercourse? How old were 
you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time? During your 
life how many people have you had sexual intercourse with? During the 
past 3 months with how many people did you have sexual intercourse? Did 
you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the 
last time?'' This is an HHS Youth Risk Behavior Survey that was in 
middle schools.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, did the Federal Government ask for written consent or any 
consent before asking those questions?
  Mr. SOUDER. I would hope they asked for written consent. My amendment 
would make sure they ask for written consent.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. We can find out. I think they did. I think 
it was implied in this legislation. Wherever the Federal Government has 
asked for the consent, they have protected the right of written consent 
on matters of that nature, I believe.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me just mention that the survey that 
the gentleman from Indiana just read indicates that there are these 
concerns out there. If in the past the Federal Government has asked for 
consent, his amendment will just make that an absolute requirement in 
the law, so therefore I think it is a valuable addition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Souder amendment, 
although I have to join with the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] and previous speakers in associating myself with the concerns 
that the gentleman raises in this particular amendment. Those concerns 
are legitimate and shared by every parent across this Nation.
  Frankly, however, my concern is that this amendment is so broad and 
so unnecessarily restrictive that the fundamental underpinnings of a 
wide range, if perhaps not all, of Federal data collection efforts 
could be in jeopardy.
  Some of the Members know that I spent a number of years, perhaps more 
years than any existing Member of Congress, in overseeing the conduct 
of the census and the broader Federal statistical systems of this 
country. That was an enlightening experience. The 1990 census 
demonstrated how difficult it is to get Americans to participate in 
Federal surveys, for that matter, in virtually any kind of survey even 
those that are mandatory, as the 10-year census has been for the entire 
existence of this Nation.
  The response rate for the 1990 census was far lower than the census 
before it. It was also worse than the Bureau had anticipated in 
planning for this enormous and complex undertaking. That low response 
rate not only jeopardized the consistency of the data derived from it, 
but it drove up costs, requiring a $100 million supplemental 
appropriation right in the middle of the census. It affected the very 
accuracy of the census. In fact, the 1990 census was the first in 
modern history that was less accurate than the one before it.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York, former Under Secretary of 
HEW, Mr. Moynihan, suggested 30 years ago that if you cannot measure a 
problem, you cannot solve it. What we are trying to do is come to grips 
with some problems of our Nation. I am bringing this troubling 
information about the census to the attention of my colleagues because 
I am afraid that the Souder amendment unintentionally would make data 
collection efforts even more difficult than they already are.
  Policymakers at all levels of government, including the Congress, 
rely on accurate information to develop sound policies and to ensure 
the sound implementation of programs, but the accuracy of those numbers 
directly depends on the willingness of Americans to respond to surveys 
and questionnaires.
  The question here is one of privacy. We need to bear in mind that 
Federal agencies already obtain direct personal permission from parents 
before asking questions of minor children, but requiring prior written 
permission to obtain information from minors almost certainly would 
result in the loss of many valuable responses, and that diminished 
participation would skew the results and make the resulting data 
unreliable and potentially useless.
  Moreover, a requirement for prior written consent would raise the 
cost of Federal research and data collection in much the same way as it 
did for the 1990 census, a hard-learned lesson, adding millions of 
dollars to surveys conducted with taxpayers' funds.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill that was reported unanimously from the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee strikes an appropriate 
balance between the need to protect families against unnecessary 
invasions of privacy and the need to collect accurate information for 
important policy purposes.
  The work that the committee did last year under the gentleman from 
Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, now in the other body, and the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Condit, really created sound underpinnings for, 
perhaps, the single most volatile and sensitive area of information, 
health care information.
  The work on that needs to go forward. It needs to go forward in the 
same way as we have protected information gathered by the Department of 
Education, as the chairman of the committee suggested earlier in his 
commentary, but our ability to collect information about homeless 
youth, about street kids, about kids whom this kind of permission is 
virtually impossible, much less the added cost of dealing directly with 
the problems of gathering information in a way that is being done 
responsibly today, is going to be unnecessarily upset by the overbroad 
language of the Souder amendment.
  It is with great sympathy but grave concern that I rise in opposition 
to this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me.
  [[Page H4135]] Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a peculiar position as a 
physician, and also as a scientist. I am very much interested in 
accurate data collection, and I think it is imperative that we have 
that. I also am very much concerned about the lack of parenting in our 
country, and what has come about through that lack of parenting.
  My worry, and I rise to support the Souder amendment, because I 
think, No. 1, it does put some burden back on parents which we have 
been trying, through many of the bills that we have passed in the last 
weeks, to force more direction on parenting, and I think we should do 
that.

                              {time}  1445

  But I also have a greater problem with the arguments that are used 
against this.
  I guess, No. 1, is scientifically I do not buy the fact that if we 
have a parent's permission we are going to, No. 1, make the cost too 
great or, No. 2, make the scientific data to where it is not accurate. 
That is spurious logic. Because we do that all the time in the medical 
field in terms of informed consent on testing, on data and on 
information. So I find that.
  I think the other thing is that even though this was not a federally 
funded questionnaire I think it shows significantly what the 
opportunity for abuse is in terms of what can happen.
  Again, I would not necessarily say that some of the questions to this 
survey would not be good information as a physician and one who treats 
adolescents and has delivered over 2,000 teenage mothers, very much 
interested in the results of information from that. But I am not more 
interested in that information if it means I violate a parent's right 
to parent. I think that is the real issue.
  I do not think that we will have spurious data. I think the 
Government has an obligation to go beyond a reasonable doubt to make 
sure that parents are informed about what their children are asked.
  I would just urge those that oppose this amendment to ask what 
questions they would like their children asked. And is there any extent 
to which they might go that you would find a point in time when you 
thought that you might want to give permission before those questions 
are asked? I think that is the real issue.
  I do not find fault with your desire to limit. I do not want to limit 
the Government's ability to collect data, but I think the Government 
can already collect data and still fulfill the rights of informing the 
parents about what questions we are going to ask.
  Finally, I think that we certainly would not want the questions as 
outlined in this survey given to 12-year-olds throughout this country 
without their parents' permission. I am not saying that the Federal 
Government has done that, but there is not anything wrong with saying 
that parents ought to have the right to say yes or no to that kind of 
questioning.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill does not say parents do not have to give 
consent. It only says it does not have to be written consent. In fact, 
it says there has to be parental consent. That is what this bill says 
already. H.R. 1271 says that.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclamining my time, I have a great deal of difficulty in 
my own experience in surveys similar to this in this very delicate area 
of teenage sexuality in ascertaining whether or not we have parents' 
consent without written parents' consent. Because in my experience the 
majority of the time we do not have parents' consent, even though we 
have a recognition that we did.
  I think this is a very definable addition to this bill, and I think 
written consent is the least that we can do if we are going to ask 
these types of questions of children.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentleman would not mind yielding 
for a second, I hope that we do not ask children these type of 
questions. But perhaps as a physician, perhaps you find that there is a 
need to do so. I think you have so stated. But these are the kind of 
questions I would not want anyone to ask my child. But if there is 
consent requested already, then I would certainly give my consent to do 
that, in a nonwritten.
  Mr. COBURN. There should be written consent, but we have already seen 
that the Department of Health and Human Services has already asked 
questions similar to this in one of their own surveys. So all we are 
saying with the Souder amendment is that they should have written 
consent to ask this of adolescents.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], the good 
chairman of the subcommittee, would respond to a couple of questions.
  On page 2, I am interested in lines 6 through 9. This says that this 
would affect any program or activity funded in whole or in part by the 
Federal Government.
  Let me ask this, because I truthfully do not know the answer to this: 
Does this mean that if some local agency, some school, receives Federal 
money anywhere in its agency's school or system that this bill would 
then attach to any inquiry or survey that that agency or school is 
conducting?
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. The gentleman is drawing an analogy with some of the civil 
rights laws, and my interpretation would be that this bill does not 
work that way. If the question is who funded the questionnaire, if the 
Federal Government funded the questionnaire in whole or in part, this 
law would apply.
  One point I will need to clarify, because there has been a little 
confusion in the debate, is that the Grassley law that was referred to 
earlier and that you know so well, the General Education Provisions 
Act, that applies only to programs under that particular act, most of 
which occur in a school context.
  This applies to all Federal agencies except those covered by the 
Grassley act who would have questionnaires that are triggered and this 
act is triggered, that discuss areas in the bill that have already been 
noted by many speakers.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me ask the gentleman further, the bill would affect the seeking 
of certain information, among those pieces of information on line 17 of 
page 2, and that is any survey, for example, that would seek 
information about sexual behavior or attitudes.
  Mr. Chairman, on page 3 there are exceptions. And one of the 
exceptions is on line 6 which said any inquiry made for the purpose of 
concern about health or safety.
  It seems to me there is a dichotomy there. One of the great attacks 
on the safety and health of young people has to do with certain of 
their sexual behavior. So my question is, which is it? If we wanted to 
ask questions about young people's sexual behavior in an effort to 
determine whether or not they are practicing safe sex in order to avoid 
the possibility of various difficulties, including, of course, this 
epidemic called AIDS, could we do it under this bill?
  Mr. HORN. Let me refer the distinguished gentleman to the report on 
page 11 where it notes about halfway down the page that each of the 
four exceptions, and the second one, there is the same one the 
gentleman has stated that is in the proposed law, each of these four 
exceptions involves specific individual circumstances in order to be 
triggered.
  The criminal investigation or adjudication requires a specific 
investigation or adjudication. An inquiry can be made pursuant to a 
reasonable concern for the health, safety, and welfare of an 
individual. The essential requirement is a reasonable belief that an 
individual minor is at risk and evidence to show that such an inquiry 
is appropriate.
  [[Page H4136]] Using the health, safety, or welfare exception to 
circumvent parental concern or prohibited topics is not acceptable. In 
other words, it says here, a survey on sexual behavior or attitudes 
would not be covered by this exception.
  Obviously, the questions can be asked if the parent gives consent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate the gentleman's response.
  I will not ask the gentleman, the subcommittee chairman, any further 
questions, but I do want to say that I think he is attempting to arrive 
at moderate and reasonable legislation here.
  We ought to know, though, speaking of moderation and reasonableness, 
that we have already passed similar legislation with regard to 
education in this country. We have taken care of that. I know that we 
took care of it before some of the Members who got elected last 
November were here, so they may not have known it, but we have taken 
care of this very problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Williams was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, in fact, the Federal Government has for 
the past 20 years vigorously promoted the protection of people in its 
research. An institutional review board has been created a couple of 
decades ago for the very purpose of scrutinizing these surveys, and it 
has established procedures for protecting people when we are doing a 
study.
  That can include written consent from the parents. It includes 
follow-up phone calls. It includes notification of parents about a 
study. It includes a variety of other methods.
  We ought not to go off thinking that there has been no thought about 
this whatsoever in the Congress until this moment because that is 
demonstrably not true. The Federal Government actively pursues trying 
to protect people.
  Let me read into the record the following groups that are opposed to 
the amendment, as I am, that is now on the floor: The Society of 
Behavioral Medicine, the National AIDS Fund, the Institute for the 
Advancement of Social Work Research, the Federation of Behavioral, 
Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, the Consortium of Social Science 
Associations, the American Sociological Association, the American 
Psychological Association, the American Educational Research 
Association, the American Anthropological Association and, finally, the 
AIDS Action Council.
  Some of these groups are groups, as the chair knows, that are vitally 
interested in this legislation and, in fact, have been somewhat 
supportive of it and have worked with those on the committee to try to 
write appropriate legislation. But those groups believe, as many of us 
do, that this amendment destroys the basis for cooperation that the 
legislation has reached.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this particular amendment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1271. 
This legislation strengthens the family and has received bipartisan 
support by this Congress.
  I am concerned about protecting the rights of parents in knowing 
about the activities in which their children are involved, and it 
particularly applies to surveys which ask children about their most 
sensitive and private activities.
  We need to bolster family ties. Thus, we need to protect our children 
from answering questions their parents would not have approved of and 
could possibly invade privacy.
  Through H.R. 1271 and the Souder amendment, we would provide written 
consent for parents to protect minors who may or may not want to 
participate in any funded surveys that are designed to obtain 
information on sensitive subjects.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 1271 with the Souder amendment is 
imperative in reaffirming a commitment to privacy and a commitment to 
our Nation's families. I urge my colleagues to support this pro-privacy 
and pro-family legislation.
  The rights of parents, it seems to me, in regard to the welfare and 
privacy of their children is paramount to the Government's need or 
others to collect sensitive data. With written approval, informed 
consent would be a reality achieved. It is a matter of fundamental 
fairness.
  I ask my fellow colleagues to support the Souder amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 379, 
noes 46, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 285]

                               AYES--379

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     [[Page H4137]] Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--46

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Lantos
     Maloney
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moran
     Nadler
     Payne (NJ)
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett (NE)
     Ford
     McCollum
     McDade
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Torres

                              {time}  1519

  Messrs. FOGLIETTA, COYNE, BECERRA, and GONZALEZ changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. HARMAN, Mrs. CLAYTON, and 
Messrs. MEEHAN, FAZIO of California, TOWNS, and MINETA changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________