[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4137-H4141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and was
unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 285. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
amendments offered by mr. dornan
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Are they amendments to section 2 of the bill?
Mr. DORNAN. They are to section 2, Mr. Chairman
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Dornan:
Page 2, line 7, strike ``section 6'' and insert ``section
4''.
Page 2, strike line 9 through line 12 and insert ``person
may not require or otherwise seek the response of a minor to
a survey or questionnaire''.
Page 3, line 5, strike ``Any inquiry'' and insert ``Any
individual inquiry''.
Page 3, beginning at line 19, strike sections 3 and 4 (and
redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly.)
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California request unanimous
consent that his amendments be considered en bloc?
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I do, and this is merely timesaving.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the amendments here.
We do now, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has a copy of the amendment at this
time?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, may I explain the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendments
en bloc?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the amendments.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman like to engage in a
colloquy to explain the unanimous part of my request?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman if the gentleman will yield, I
am still reading this amendment, because it has just been given to us.
We are just trying to see what it does here. I will be ready in just a
second.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois has reserved the right to
object, and the Chair wishes to wait.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I am at the gentlewoman's service for a
colloquy. I will be glad to explain why I have asked unanimous consent
to have all three of them together.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Yes; Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
do that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank my good friend. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, to the gentlewoman, the unanimous aspect
here is a timesaver. I have this broken down into three separate parts.
They are all at the desk, and we can take it one step at a time, but I,
from my viewpoint, do not believe that would make sense, because
although there will be a good, healthy discussion on this, if we take
this unanimously en bloc, it is just all geared toward one objective,
and that is to end these surveys completely. So the unanimous aspect
merely means we get further into the issue and start off right away
taking what I am trying to do all at once.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Further reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, we have now had the time to look at this.
I withdraw my reservation of objection to the request that the
amendments be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, having fenced briefly in my youth, and it
is an elegant sport, the one thing I do remember is the gentlemanly or
ladylike challenge at the beginning, ``En garde,'' I would say to my
friends in this House who want these surveys. This is simply an attempt
to end the surveys at the Federal level totally. So I am saying, En
garde, and I do want to get a vote on this and will proceed, I hope, to
a good discussion under this open rule.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1271 just strengthened somewhat by two simple
words, ``Written consent,'' is still, I believe, not the way this newly
constituted Congress as of November 8 wants go. Even with the written
consent, it requires that Federal funds be spent on surveys aimed at
several unique categories. We have strengthened parental consent
somewhat. Parental political affiliations or beliefs, I do not believe
that is what they are really after. Mental or psychological problems,
not much drive to get these facts down. Sexual behavior or attitudes;
that is the main impetus behind almost all of these surveys. Illegal,
antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior, that really turns off an
overwhelming majority of the Members on both sides of the aisle.
But that is not really what they are after.
Appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor has familial
relationships, an uncle, aunt, siblings, brothers, sisters, all Members
of extended families; that is offensive to be asking questions about
those folks, but that only comes in as an ancillary to the sexual
underpinnings of all of these surveys.
Another point, relationships that are legally recognized as
privileged, including relationships with lawyers or physicians or
members of the clergy. With four or five medial doctors now serving in
the Congress and almost a halfway point with lawyers, I do not think
that is really what a lot of these surveys want to get in the face of
the U.S. Congress about.
Now, what my Dornan amendment would do, the three lines are really
all dovetailed together, it would prohibit the funding of all of these
type surveys, period, end of report. The language specifically strikes
this entire paragraph that we have just slightly made tougher, the
parental-consent provision, and it leaves the remaining text which
prohibits these surveys, period.
And I only have three simple points, and we will get on with the
debate. Point No. 1, the Federal Government has no business subsidizing
government social engineers or people who want this detailed
information. What is the overwhelming evidence mandating that these
types of surveys take place? Who is it really that wants children to
answer questions within these very sensitive subject areas?
H.R. 1271, as now drafted, would indemnify in law a whole new
industry of busybodies feeding on familial dysfunction and
divisiveness.
No. 2, is this bill really aimed at surveys of sexual attitudes and
behaviors? I have just made the point it is. Very
[[Page H4138]] few surveys aimed at schoolchildren address all of those
other categories I mentioned. It really is the sexual attitudes and
behaviors that we are going after.
This has happened out here in Fairfax County just recently. They
withdrew one of these surveys. I will bet it was mentioned in the prior
debate which I missed because I was chairing another committee.
We definitely know some people within the Federal Government are
dying to ask questions about sexual attitudes and behavior. We have
been through this for several years now. First, it was the adult sex
survey
in 1989. Then 1 year later we had to put a stop to a sex survey for
teenagers and preteens, and even still, Centers for Disease Control,
six centers that generally have my respect, in the name of AIDS
research, they just keep pressing for more and more information in
areas that still should remain sensitive without influencing at all
what the specific six Centers for Disease Control are trying to do.
And I repeat, Fairfax County again last week.
{time} 1530
No. 3, no one collects numbers unless they are going to do something
with those survey numbers. Surveys based on personal and intimate
subjects should not end up being the basis for public policy. Such
basis is a prescription for failure.
Not only do we not have the right to intrude into the personal lives
of schoolchildren, often asking that they snitch on this, but we add
insult to injury when we gather the information regarding dysfunctions
and then turn right around and indemnify these dysfunctions in public
policies.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. DORNAN. AIDS education is a perfect example, the results of the
survey on sexual behavior end up becoming the basis to teach
schoolchildren about homosexual sex; surveys revealing not enough
knowledge about sex encourage the sexperts to develop new programs, and
surveys revealing that children know a lot about sex encourage the same
sexperts to develop more programs to handle the flow of information and
traditional families lose either way.
Point No. 4: The House has had to squelch controversial sex studies
of both adults and youths at least 3 times over the past 5 years. If we
pass this bill as it stands, we will encourage the attitude that these
controversial subjects are going to be addressed year after year. Let
us vote right now to end this problem. The majority will decide this.
Let us see where the 104th Congress stands on this first clean-cut
social-issues debate of 1995.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman from California's
amendment. We just enacted an amendment introduced by the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Souder], the objective of which was to do what we
have provided in this legislation with the procedures that are followed
by the Department of Education in terms of these surveys, which I think
places the responsibility and the requirement on those who would seek
to conduct surveys to get the written consent of the parents before
that survey can go forward. Mr. Chairman, I think this provisions goes
way beyond anything that exists in the law relating to the Department
of Education and certainly way beyond what we have provided in this
bill. I believe parents should have the right, they should have the
ultimate right to choose to have their children participate or not
participate in surveys. That is what we have provided. We have
strengthened the requirement that parents be directly involved in
making those determinations. Government should not decide in advance
for the parents, which is what the gentleman from California's
amendment would do. In effect, it would put the government in a
position of saying, no, we are never going to be able to survey, we are
going to ban any survey whatever.
I sympathize with the gentleman from California's concern about
Federal busybodies sticking their noses into parental business. But I
think he goes sort of off the deep end when he says we will never allow
any surveys to be conducted in these areas, even though there may be
very meritorious reasons why we should be conducting these surveys, to
gather vital information with regard to a vast array of things. It is
not just in regard to sexual behavior or sexual activity that we are
talking about.
This amendment which we adopted just a moment ago, the gentleman from
Indiana's amendment, I think strikes the right balance between the
rights of the parents which should be paramount here and the
interests--the very legitimate interests--of having very valuable
information. Obviously, if it is a prurient interest, if it is an
interest where they are sticking their noses into where they clearly do
not belong, clearly the parental consent would not be forthcoming. But
to take away any kind of a survey, the ability of the Federal
Government to gather data, vital data, I think would be a mistake. I
think it becomes a matter really of public policy: Are we going to
totally close the ability of the Federal Government to gather
information which may be useful in setting important matters of public
policy? I would hope not.
I would respectfully and reluctantly ask that the gentleman's
amendment be defeated.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for recognizing me.
I think the problem is not that the last amendment was not a good
amendment. I supported that. It was a step in the right direction. But
I believe we need to go further. Listen to some of the things that are
being asked of kids right now. Should we be involving these things in
the curriculum or in the educational system? They are asking political
affiliations or beliefs. What right does an educational system have to
ask that question? They ask about mental or psychological problems.
They ask about sexual behavior and attitudes, they ask about illegal,
antisocial and self-incriminating behavior, they ask about appraisals
of other individuals with whom the minor had a family relationship or a
family-type relationship. They ask about relationships that are legally
recognized as privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and
members of the clergy. They ask about religious affiliations and
religious beliefs. I do not believe those questions have any business
in the educational system.
Let me give you a couple of questions that were
actually on a questionnaire put out by a school district. I do not
remember the school district. I believe it was in Virginia here.
It says in question number 11, ``Have you ever been in a physical
fight in which we you were hurt and had to be treated by a doctor? Yes
or no.''
Then it says that sometimes people feel so sad and unhappy that they
may think about attempting suicide or killing themselves. The next
three questions ask about attempted suicide. That puts thoughts in
kids' minds that should not be there, in my view.
Here is another question, question number 34: The next four questions
ask about sexual intercourse. Have you ever had sexual intercourse? How
old were you the first time this occurred? What business does the
educational system have in asking these questions of young people? And
it makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot understand why Federal tax
dollars should directly or indirectly be involved in these types of
questions.
I believe that the amendment that just passed that said parents have
to give parental consent before they can give or ask these questions is
a step in the right direction. However, many people are very busy, many
parents do not pay attention to all the things being put in front of
their kids. They have confidence in the educational system, so they do
not really look into them as thoroughly as they should. So I believe
many of these questionnaires will be approved by parents when the
parents really would rather those children not participate in answering
those types of questions.
[[Page H4139]] So the best way to make sure that the educational
systems of this country do not infringe upon the rights of individual
parents and families, do not stick their noses into areas where they
should not, is to make absolutely sure that they cannot do it by not
allowing Federal funding for these kinds of projects.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to the
gentleman. Are any of the surveys and questions that the question
mentioned funded by Federal moneys?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I believe, indirectly.
Mr. HORN. Indirectly?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Indirectly.
Mr. HORN. They either are or they are not.
Mr. DORNAN. Directly, directly.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. They were?
Mr. DORNAN. Some directly.
Mr. HORN. Which agencies did this?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. DORNAN. CDC, the Centers for Disease Control.
Mr. HORN. The Centers for Disease Control?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Centers for Disease Control.
In addition to that, we all know there is Federal aid in the way of
block grants and other ways, and that money then goes down to the
school districts and school corporations through various distribution
formulas and they do use Federal moneys. We do not believe Federal
moneys should be used for these kinds of questionnaires.
Mr. HORN. If the gentleman from California's proposal is adopted, I
say to the gentleman, it will not affect the money given by the
Department of Education one iota, because the gentleman has left in the
exemption here which says in section 6, ``This Act does not apply to
any program or activity which is subject to the General Education
Provisions Act.'' That is the so-called Grassley amendment. That law is
already on the books. The Secretary of Education cannot have
questionnaires that cover the seven areas that we have blocked out.
This is designed to apply to other Federal agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control which is not in the Department of Education, which
might ask those questions.
Let me move to another question.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. But those questions are asked of children in
the schools in the education system.
Mr. HORN. When the gentleman says ``children,'' I do not know what he
means by ``children.'' But I feel we are talking about 5 and 6 and
these questions are generally asked of juniors and seniors in high
school.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may reclaim my time, the gentleman is
saying, generally they are asked of juniors and seniors in high school,
but that is not exclusively the case. Many times they are asked of
children in primary and secondary education, way down below the senior
high school level.
Mr. DORNAN. The gentleman has just been reading from a middle school
survey, not seniors in high school but a middle school, not seniors or
juniors or even sophomores in middle school.
And CDC usually funds about 95, 96, 97, 98 percent of this. So if
there is some other loophole we will look at that later.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does the job.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me reclaim my time once again.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me read once again, since
the gentleman said that this was mostly high school seniors, these were
middle school students, we are talking about children in the 10, 11,
12-year-old age range.
Listen to this question. It is very important: This is of 10, 11, 12-
year-old kids: How old were you when you first had sexual intercourse
for the first time? Many of these kids are still in puberty, and you
are asking them when they had their first sexual experience. And the
answers are ``Never had sexual intercourse.'' ``I was 9 years old.'' Or
younger. Do you believe that they have a right to ask that kind of a
question in that kind of a situation in school? And many of the parents
are working parents and they will not read these questionnaires.
Mr. HORN. If the gentleman will yield, if that was administered under
the GEPA, that is the proposal that is the law of the land, then they
had to have parental consent, if that was federally funded. That
applies to every single questionnaire of the Department of Education.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may recall my time, we are talking about
more than just the Grassley amendment. Does the gentleman from
California have any more comments he would like to make?
Mr. DORNAN. No, except I think we have debated this so many times
over the years.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the opinions of my good colleague from the
adjoining district, to the west of me, Mr. Horn, and I respect the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger's opinion. Obviously, it is
tearing his heart apart, and I appreciate his putting it in that
context. But I think it is about time we just voted on this and saw how
this entire Congress feels about this. Right now controversial surveys
are an iffy proposition at best. This bill will successfully ensure
that these surveys are not allowed. If we go the other way they will
flourish, I predict that. Common sense tells us that.
I will repeat one thing I said early: Why do they want the
information? To act upon it. This is more of the social engineering
that I think the American majority rejected on November 8th last.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Let me ask the author of this amendment, if I might: How does the
gentleman feel about a survey on drugs given to high school students?
Does he think those should be given or not given on use of drugs?
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DORNAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is going for my Achilles heel, because I
feel that there is a war going on in narcotics and it is all on the
side of the cocaine cowboys, and we have never mobilized our country on
the side of the good guys to fight a drug war. But asking kids about
``Are they drug users,'' so totally different and so far removed from
the intimacy of asking about parental sex habits, those of their older
brother or younger sisters' sex habits or their parents' political
affiliation. I would resent a political affiliation question tied to a
survey on drugs, I say to the gentleman.
Mr. HORN. I would ask the gentleman, does he favor surveys on drugs
among high school students, yes or no?
Mr. DORNAN. I think at the State level, I have never seen one
proposed at the Federal level, and I would have to make a judgment on
that when it is presented to me.
Mr. HORN. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I can recall numerous
situations in the 1960's where scholars and people with real ability in
developing questionnaires surveyed classes in California high schools
and California junior high schools and found extensive drug use. When
they brought those surveys to the superintendent of schools' attention
and the school boards' attention, great denial set in, ``Oh, we don't
have a drug problem. Those data must be wrong.'' That happened in Long
Beach, that happened in San Diego. They closed their eyes to what was
going on about them.
All I can say is, if the gentleman's language is adopted, it says
here that you could have no questionnaire that had any questions about
illegal, antisocial or self-incriminating behavior. And all that is
doing is tying reality's hand behind one's back. So you cannot develop
the DARE Programs and you cannot have solid evidence for, ``Let's say
no to drugs.'' All of that grew out of the fact that social scientists
and school counselors who knew what was going on, when the parents did
not know what was going on--with all due
[[Page H4140]] respect--but regardless of whether the parents did or
did not, they would have absolute control whether their child, their
son, their daughter would be able to answer that question under this
legislation.
{time} 1545
So, I suggest that we vote down the gentleman's amendment because all
I see is mischief where the thing that is being turned loose is types
of illicit behavior that are not discovered, and we cannot develop
programs to cope with them, and they need to be coped with, not simply
at home, because for some students there is not much home. They need to
be coped with in the school system whether we like it or not. There is
no question. Society has dumped on the school systems of America many
of the problems that society has not been able to handle in the home,
in the churches, in the community organizations. Like it or not, that
is reality.
I live in a world of reality. I suggest we vote down this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 291, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 286]
AYES--131
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bevill
Bono
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fox
Frisa
Funderburk
Gekas
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
King
Kingston
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Orton
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Poshard
Quillen
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--291
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cremeans
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Coburn
Dingell
Ford
Largent
LaTourette
McCollum
McDade
Minge
Obey
Reynolds
Rush
Torres
{time} 1605
Messrs. SKEEN, CHRYSLER, and KIM changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. McINNIS, ROBERTS, STOCKMAN, SKELTON, WAMP, ORTON, WELLER,
CRAMER, BROWDER, WICKER, HEFLEY, CRANE, SMITH of Texas, Mrs. SEASTRAND,
and Mrs. SMITH of Washington changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.
The head of any Federal department or agency which provides
funds for any program or activity involving the seeking of
any response from a minor to any survey or questionnaire
shall establish procedures by which the department, agency,
or its grantees shall notify minors and their parents of
protections provided under this Act. The procedures shall
also provide for advance public availability of each
questionnaire or survey to which a response from a minor is
sought.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE.
The head of each Federal department or agency shall
establish such procedures as are necessary to ensure
compliance with this Act and the privacy of information
obtained pursuant to this Act by the department or agency and
its grantees; Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
foreclose any individual from obtaining judicial relief if
requested monetary damages are not in excess of $500.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. MINOR DEFINED.
In this Act, the terms ``minor'' and ``emancipated minor''
will be defined under the laws of the State in which the
individual resides.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. 6. APPLICATION.
This Act does not apply to any program or activity which is
subject to the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.
1221 et seq.).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
The text of section 7 is as follows:
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[[Page H4141]] The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Barrett of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Knollenberg,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 1271) to provide protection for family privacy, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 7, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 287]
AYES--418
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
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
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (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 (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
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
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
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
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--7
Abercrombie
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Hastings (FL)
Scott
Williams
Wilson
NOT VOTING--9
Bachus
Buyer
Ford
McCollum
McDade
Reynolds
Rush
Torres
Velazquez
{time} 1615
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________