[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.
  

                          ____________________