[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8194-H8268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 
208 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2127.

                              {time}  1237


                     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. 
2127) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walker 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, as amended, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 1 hour and 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a very difficult and contentious 
bill. It cuts $6.3 billion from discretionary budget authority of $67.2 
billion, reducing it to $60.9 billion.
  It is a 9-percent overall cut. It is a cut that is necessary to help 
bring down deficits and bring our budget as quickly as possible into 
balance.
  The cuts range from a high of 15 percent for funding for programs in 
the Department of Education to cuts in discretionary spending in the 
Department of Health and Human Services, which is 3.5 percent. 

[[Page H8195]]

  May I suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
cuts of 9 percent in a bill of this magnitude are not cuts that will 
cause the sky to fall. They are moderate cuts that allow the 
departments and agencies and programs under our jurisdiction to 
contribute to deficit reduction and ensure that we help bring the 
deficits down and stop asking our children and grandchildren to pay for 
what we receive.
  Mr Chairman, we worked very hard on the bill. We attempted to use 
intelligence and thoughtfulness in addressing the priorities for 
spending for our country under our jurisdiction, and we looked very 
carefully at every single line item starting with the premise that 
everything in the bill must contribute something to helping us to 
reduce the deficit.
  We asked ourselves, Mr. Chairman, whether a particular program needed 
to be a Federal responsibility or could it be done better in the 
private sector or by State government or local government?
  We asked ourselves, does the program actually work? In other words, 
is it actually helping people, or is it simply providing work to the 
people in the departments either at the State, Federal, or local level?
  We asked whether it met a national need, whether the administrative 
costs were too high in respect to the benefits to be derived.
  We asked ourselves, was it duplicative of other programs?
  Every single line item was measured against those criteria, and we 
undertook to reduce the discretionary spending under our jurisdiction 
and, at the same time, give commitments to national priorities that 
should be funded at a higher level.
  For example, we provided $11.9 billion to the National Institutes of 
Health, the NIH research done in teaching institutions across our 
country as well as intramurally at the NIH facility in Bethesda, 
Maryland. It provides research to combat disease and injury, helping 
people to live longer and healthier lives.
  On the economic side, the United States leads the world in biomedical 
research and development. Federally supported biomedical research 
creates high-skilled jobs for our people and supports the biotechnology 
industry, which also leads the world in helping to generate a positive 
balance of trade for our country. The increase for fiscal year 1996 is 
$642 million, an increase of 5.7 percent.
  We, at the same time, removed numerous earmarks and instructions that 
placed political considerations ahead of scientific decisions as to the 
most promising avenues of research. We end earmarking of research 
funding and leave the funding priorities not to political 
considerations, but to science.
  We increase funding for prevention programs by $63 million, including 
funding for childhood immunization, sexually transmitted diseases, 
chronic and environemtnal diseases, breast and cervical cancer 
screening, and infectious diseases. Programmatic levels are maintained 
for programs such as the preventive health block grant, the AIDS 
prevention activities, tuberculosis, lead poisoning and epidemic 
services.
                              {time}  1245

  We increased, Mr. Chairman, funding for the Job Corps program, which 
will permit the opening of four newly authorized centers, and, Mr. 
Chairman, we support student assistance very strongly by providing the 
largest increase in maximum Pell grants in history, and by funding the 
maximum grant at $2,440, also the highest level in history.
  We provide level funding for Federal supplemental educational 
opportunities grants, the work study programs and the TRIO program, 
which we consider a very high priority.
  We do terminate 170 programs originally funded in fiscal 1995 at $4.9 
billion. Among those terminated are many of the 163 separate job 
training programs in the Department of Labor and the Department of 
Education and over 50 programs in the Department of Education that 
provide no direct services to students but instead fund research, 
technical assistance, information dissemination, or demonstration 
funds.
  We terminate Goals 2000, Mr. Chairman, a program that also provides 
no direct assistance whatsoever to students but instead funds a variety 
of administrative and planning activities that school districts and 
States can well do without billions of dollars of Federal funding.
  We focus OSHA funds more towards compliance assistance to prevent 
worker injury and away from enforcement, an after-the-fact solution.
  We abolish the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health with its 
allocation of 14 deputy assistant secretaries and six special 
assistants at a grade 15 or above, which the Department itself is in 
the process of reforming.
  We increase assurance that Federal funds are not being used to 
support the advocacy of public policy. We reduce administrative costs 
by cutting overall administrative budgets in every single department, 
program, and agency by 7.5 percent and for congressional and public 
affairs offices by 10 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Labor, we cut discretionary 
spending by $1.1 billion, or 11.4 percent. This includes substantial 
reductions in certain job training programs, including the elimination 
of funding for the summer jobs programs, also previously rescinded 
because of their general lack of effectiveness. This decision reflects 
the need to prioritize programs and reduce spending as well as the fact 
the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities is in the 
process of consolidating these same programs.
  As I mentioned, Job Corps is increased, one-stop career centers are 
level funded, Bureau of Labor Statistics is funded almost at level at 
$347 million, a reduction of 1.3 percent, OSHA funds are shifted, as I 
mentioned, and the bill directs more of the Community Service 
Employment for Older Americans spending to local providers rather than 
to national contracts.
  The bill also contains language to prevent implementation of the 
President's Executive order on striker replacements and to end pressure 
on pension funds to invest in economically targeted investments.
  For the Department of Health and Human Services, the funding declines 
by $1 billion, a 3.5-percent cut.
  The bill funds the health centers activities at $77 million above 
last year's level, $756.5 million, and provides an increase of $116 
million for the maternal and child health block grant to $800 million.
  The bill presently folds the family planning program into the 
community and migrant health programs
 and the maternal and child health block grant, an idea that I do not 
support and will oppose when the amendment comes before the floor for 
our consideration.

  We do provide level funding, maintenance funding, for the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention programs support, supporting a broad 
range of prevention programs and funding many others at last year's 
level, including the CDC AIDS prevention program.
  Funding for breast and cervical cancer screening is increased by 25 
percent to $125 million.
  We provide level funding for community service block grants at $390 
million, for child care and development block grants at $935 million.
  For the Ryan White AIDS program, funding is increased by $23 million 
to a level of $656 million, and NIOSH funding, Mr. Chairman, is reduced 
by 25 percent to $99 million.
  Funding for the Agency of Health Care Policy and Research declines by 
21 percent to $125.5 million.
  We provide level funding for the mental health and substance abuse 
block grants at $275 million and $1.23 billion, respectively.
  Funding for the LIHEAP program, low-income home energy assistance, is 
eliminated because the original justification for this program no 
longer exists and has not existed for many years.
  The bill reduces funding for Head Start by $137 million, or 3.9 
percent, from last year's level, and even with this reduction, Head 
Start is still funded at over $3.3 billion for fiscal year 1996. We are 
not at all hostile to Head Start. We are strong supporters of Head 
Start, but we do believe that it is necessary to send a message to 
those programs that are not being run properly that the funding will 
not go on forever without their cleaning up their act and providing the 
kinds of services 

[[Page H8196]]
that we expect in a program that is well run.
  The bill also changes current law by providing the States with the 
option of providing Federal Medicaid funds for abortion in cases of 
rape or incest and prohibits the use of Federal funds to discriminate 
against medical schools who do not include abortion training as part of 
their overall Ob/Gyn training and bans embryo research by NIH. I might 
say, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with these provisions and will 
address them when we come into that section of the bill where 
amendments are being offered.
  Mr. Chairman, overall, we have a 9-percent reduction. The largest 
departmental reduction is at 13 percent; the lowest is at 3.5 percent.
  This is a responsible bill that chooses priorities for our country, 
funds those programs that are essential and working well to help people 
in our country. It is a bill also that contributes its share to deficit 
reduction and the need for us to put our fiscal house in order.
  Let me say in closing Mr. Chairman, I believe we have done our job in 
a very thoughtful and responsible manner. I believe that we have made 
the reductions necessary to contribute to deficit reduction in a way 
that preserves essential and good programs.
  To say that the sky is falling because we have reduced spending in 
this area is simply to vastly overstate the case. The Federal 
Government has grown for 40 years. It has grown without any control. It 
has grown on deficit spending that has raised our national debt to 
nearly $5 trillion.
  These departments have grown hugely. In the last 10 years alone, the 
Department of Education has gone from 120 programs to 240 programs, 
just in the last 10 years. We must get control over this process. We 
must get back to the core programs that serve people. We must trim the 
tree. Every once in a while you have to do that, Mr. Chairman. You have 
to look at all that has grown up and, however worthy it may be, it is 
very costly to administer. We do not need programs that are very 
tightly targeted with their own separate staff and administrator. We 
need to get back to core programs that really help people. That has 
been the thrust of our thinking in this bill. I think we have done a 
responsible job.
  I commend the bill to all of the Members.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 17 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from 
Illinois, as he knows. He has worked very hard, and he has dealt with 
all of us in a very fair way. But he is, frankly, caught in a maelstrom 
not of his own making. This is not a bill which he would have produced 
had he been able to control events.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the worst appropriation bill that I have seen 
come out of the Committee on Appropriations in the 25 years that I have 
had the privilege to serve the Seventh District of Wisconsin in this 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, the public, in the last election, tried to send us a 
message. I think what happened in the last election is that working 
people for more than a decade saw their living standard fall. They have 
seen costs slowly rise, while their incomes have stood still or even 
declined in real dollar terms after you adjust for inflation. Young 
workers see that it takes two workers per family to maintain the same 
kind of living standards that you could maintain a generation ago with 
one person in the workplace.
  You have what many people call the sandwich generation. They are 
desperately worried about how to take care of their retired parents at 
the same time that they are trying to find enough money to send their 
kids to school. And I think for many years individual Americans have 
been looking in the mirror when they get up in the morning and saying, 
``Hey, what am I doing wrong?''
  But in the 1990's I think they have come to understand that it is not 
just them. I think they have come to understand that everybody is being 
squeezed. And in 1992, President Clinton was elected because I think 
the public wanted him to pursue a solution to fundamental problems.
  In 1994 they were not satisfied with the progress that they thought 
had been made. They saw a national failure on health care. They saw too 
much time being devoted to marginal issues, and so they put our 
Republican friends in charge. And I think what they were hoping was 
that by doing so, that would force both parties to work together to 
produce a common agenda on common ground for the common good of the 
greatest number of people in this country. They wanted us to deliver a 
dollar's worth of service for a dollar's worth of taxes. They wanted 
programs that were as well managed as they were well meaning, and I 
think they wanted us to weed out unnecessary spending and make 
Government smaller and make Government work better at the same time.
  I think they also wanted a war on special interest domination of the 
Congress and the Government.
  Now, certainly I think many of us in the Democratic Party got the 
message. If we did not, we would have had to be deaf. And I think many 
of us are willing to work to try to pursue that kind of agenda. But 
this bill goes far beyond that.
  This bill eliminates a number of unnecessary and duplicative 
programs. I say ``good.'' It makes additional cuts in the name of 
deficit reduction. Maybe we are not thrilled about that because some of 
these programs we deeply care about, but we understand it is necessary. 
But it goes far beyond that and, in doing so, becomes the meanest and 
the most vicious and extreme attack on women and kids and workers of 
any appropriation bill in the postwar era.
  It reveals in the process enormous differences between my party and 
the Republican majority about the priorities that ought to be given to 
raising the quality of our children's education, to protect the
 health and dignity of workers, both in the workplace and at the 
bargaining table, and to provide the skills necessary for workers to 
compete in a changing world economy. And it shreds the vulnerable and 
those who are often cruelly neglected in a materialist society.

  Next to the fight over Medicare, this bill is the epicenter of what I 
call the Gingrich counterrevolution. As I said, some of the cuts are 
necessary to help reduce our Federal spending, but this bill goes far 
beyond that because the economic game plan, of which this bill is a 
part, is insisting that we provide, among other things, some very large 
tax cuts for some very rich people.
  If you take a look at what is being prescribed, you understand what I 
mean. We are being told by our Republican friends that we need to 
eliminate the corporate minimum tax. This is a list of companies who, 
from 1982 to 1985, paid no taxes whatsoever, despite the fact that they 
made one whale of a lot of money. We are going to return to those good 
old days because our majority party friends want us to eliminate the 
minimum tax that those corporations have to pay. So we will go back to 
the good old days when AT&T, DuPont, Boeing, General Dynamics, Pepsico, 
General Mills, Trans America, Texaco, International Paper, Greyhound, 
you get the idea, all the way down. You see, those corporations, during 
the 1982 to 1985 period, made $59 billion in profits, $59 billion in 
profits. Yet in many of those years they escape paying a dime in taxes. 
We are going to gouge Medicare and gouge programs in this bill to help 
finance that kind of nonsense.

                              {time}  1300

  If we take a look at the Federal Reserve studies which have been done 
on what happened in the 1980's, this shows who has gotten what and what 
has happened to the American dream in the 1980's.
  The Federal Reserve shows that from the end of World War II to 
roughly 1979, beginning of 1979, indeed a rising tide did lift all 
boats in this country, because whether one was in the bottom 20 percent 
of income in the country, or in the middle, or in the top, everybody's 
income rose, even after inflation. And so everybody, despite the fact 
that we had the Vietnam war, despite the fact that we had the race 
riots after Martin Luther King was killed, this society hung together 
because everybody was getting a piece of the growing economic pie. But 
from 1979 through the latest year for which the Federal Reserve has 
been able to compile statistics we see that, instead of growing 
together, this country has been growing 

[[Page H8197]]
apart. I say to my colleagues, If you're in
 the bottom 20 percent of income, you have lost a bundle since 1979. If 
you're in the middle, you have lost ground. Only if you're in the top 
20 percent of income earners in this country have you done well, and 
especially the richest \1/2\ million families in this country have done 
exceedingly well because the new Federal Reserve study shows that the 
richest \1/2\ million families in this country, about \1/2\ percent of 
the total family number, have increased their share of national wealth 
since 1980, the beginning year of the Reagan revolution. They've 
increased their share of national wealth from 24 percent of the 
Nation's wealth to 31 percent.

  Mr. Chairman, that is a huge expansion of wealth for the wealthiest 
people in this society who already had a awful lot. The wealth for 
those few families increased by a greater amount, by almost twice as 
much as the entire national debt increased during that period. And yet 
our Republican friends on this side of the aisle think that that is not 
enough disparity, that is not enough trickle-down which starts by 
taking care of the needs of people in the top berths.
  So they have produced a tax package which has a distribution table 
roughly this way:
  The average tax cut per family from the House tax bill is mighty slim 
for someone in the bottom 40 percent, or even in the middle of this 
society, but, oh man, someone in that top 1 percent, $20,000 in a tax 
cut. So we are going to chisel on programs for poverty-ridden senior 
citizens, and we are going to chisel on the aid that we provide local 
school districts to help educate the most difficult to educate kids in 
this society in order to provide those folks a $20,000 tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what is behind this bill, and that is why this 
bill is so wrong.
  If we take a look at what is happening, the biggest cut in this bill 
is aimed at the aid that we have traditionally provided local school 
districts, some $2\1/2\ billion. Going to clobber chapter 1. Going to 
clobber ``Drug-Free Schools'' that helps schools teach kids to avoid 
drugs before they get hooked. Going to clobber vocational education. 
Going to lay it to the School to Work Program which helps non-college-
bound kids move out of high school into the world of work and helps 
them to try to find someplace that will give them a good bit of 
training to transition into the work force. The main results from that, 
my colleagues can be assured, will be lower educational quality and 
higher property taxes.
  For the first time in 34 years the Federal Government is not going to 
make a contribution to the Stafford student loan program. I would bet 
my colleagues that a good third of the people in this Chamber, if they 
are 30 years of age or older, used that Stafford program when they went 
to college, but now we are going to have an awful lot of folks who have 
climbed the economic ladder of opportunity pulling that ladder up after 
them by not making a contribution to that program. Goals 2000 to 
improve educational quality: bipartisan, started under George Bush, 
wiped out under this bill.
  The next biggest hit comes on the vulnerable, the seniors, the 
disabled, and the poor kids in this society. In the late 1970's Senator 
Muskie and I started a program to help low-income people, mostly 
seniors, pay their fuel bills, heat their houses in the wintertime, 
cool them in the summertime, because we got awfully tired of seeing 
senior citizens who had to choose between paying their prescription 
drugs and keeping their house warm in the winter. So we passed a low-
income heating assistance program.
  We just had almost 800 people in this country die in a heat wave 3 
week ago, and lots of Governors put out press releases saying, ``We are 
going to release emergency money under the Low-Income Heating 
Assistance Program that the Federal Government has just given us so 
that we could help people in that situation.'' Guess what? Under this 
bill there is not going to be any more funding available to provide 
that kind of emergency relief because the program is wiped out. Eighty 
percent of the people who use that program make less than $10,000 a 
year, one-third of them are disabled, so that is just another of the 
grace notes in this bill.
  Under this bill we are going to have thousands of students who are 
learning to teach handicapped kids who are going to lose their 
scholarships to do that.
  Under Healthy Start; it was started by President Bush to attack 
infant mortality in communities where it is more than twice as high as 
the national average. That program is going to be cut in half under 
this bill. Thirty-six thousand babies are going to die in this country 
this year.
  Head Start, which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and others 
will talk about later: 45,000 to 55,000 kids going to be tossed out the 
window on that program, and we are essentially going to be saying to 
local school districts, ``You find a way to take care of it, kiddo. 
We're not going to do that anymore.''
  Both parties talk a grand game on welfare reform, and yet this bill 
clobbers virtually every program on the books to move people from 
welfare into work. It clobbers the dislocated worker program, it 
clobbers adult job training, and it hammers State vocational 
educational grants.
  And what disturbs me more than anything in this bill is the attack it 
makes, the attack it makes on the protections that workers have a right 
to expect will remain: protections for worker health, protections for 
worker safety, protections for their bargaining rights. There are deep 
cuts in the Labor Department enforcement here which will make it easier 
for some corporations to make a profit, no doubt. It will also make it 
easier for those corporations to violate wage hour laws. It will make 
it a lot less risky for them to set up bogus pension systems. It will 
make it a whole lot easier for corporations to abuse workers who try to 
organize to get better pay. So that is another one of the ``grace 
notes'' in this bill.
  All in all what this bill is going to do is make it harder for 
ordinary people to hang on to a middle-class lifestyle, and it is going 
to make workers more vulnerable to the whims of their employers who 
want to avoid paying the minimum wage, or the 40-hour week, or rules 
for fair labor practices, or standards for a safe working environment.
  I think what we are regrettably witnessing in this bill--and indeed 
across the board in this Congress, but especially in this bill--I think 
we are witnessing a giving up on our efforts to be one people with a 
common interest and a common cause. We are ceasing to be a country with 
a large and growing middle class. Instead we are accepting the fact 
that we are going to have fewer and fewer tickets into the middle 
class, and we are accepting the fact that we are going to have a level 
of insecurity for those in the middle class that used to be associated 
with being poor. We are becoming in my view a society with a very rich 
people and a great number of people trying desperately to hang on to 
some semblance of what is left of a middle-class living standard, and 
not many people in
 between, and this bill makes all of that worse.

   Mr. Chairman, this bill savagely cuts financial support for crucial 
programs that have been used by millions of Americans to help work 
themselves up the economic ladder. And the New Centurions who are 
running this House, I think, after having made it themselves are 
perfectly willing to pull that ladder up after them, and my response 
is, ``Shame on you, shame on you. You ought to know better.''
  This bill also contains a number of legislative riders which are 
slipped into this bill literally in the dead of night because that is 
when we met, from 9:30 at night until 3 in the morning. And those 
provisions rip into the protections that we provided workers and 
working families for decades. We will be offering amendments to try to 
strip that language out, but we will not be offering amendments to fix 
this bill financially because this bill is beyond repair because of 
votes previously already cast in this House which locks this 
subcommittee into an allocation of resources which will allow this 
Congress to continue to fund the B-2, for instance, over $1 billion a 
plane. That is the cost of the B-2, just one B-2 bomber, and we are 
buying more than the Pentagon asked for, more than the President asked 
for, more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for. Just 

[[Page H8198]]
one of those babies would pay the tuition costs of every single kid at 
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for the next 12 years, to put it 
in perspective.
  While we are going to be gutting the programs for the people in this 
bill, Mr. Chairman, we are going to continue the production, or we are 
going to begin production, of the F-22 in the Speaker's home State; $70 
billion for that airplane to complete production. That is more than we 
have got in this entire bill in discretionary spending, for everything 
that this bill is supposed to do for education, and workers and 
seniors.
  So we will be trying to make people understand, as we go through the 
amendment process, what is at stake, not inside the beltway, but for 
people out there in the country, and we will be trying to focus 
people's attention on the vote on final passage. There are going to be 
a lot of Members offering amendments, what I call get-off-the-hook 
amendments, or what I call holy picture amendments to try to pose for 
holy pictures and look good on a little narrow issue on this bill, 
hoping then people would not notice that they voted for final passage. 
The only way to correct the gross injustices in this bill is to vote 
the bill down, send it back to the committee, insist that the committee 
redo its budget allocation process so that we do not have to gouge 
seniors, gouge our future education prospects in order to provide a big 
tax cut for some of the richest people in this country.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. One of the most profound and thoughtful statements I 
have ever heard, I say to the gentleman.
  I wanted to talk about the gentleman's charts for a moment because I 
thought they were so ominous. The way I read the gentleman's tax-cut 
chart, that last one is for the upper 1 percent? Is that correct?
  Mr. OBEY. Yep, 1 percent.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. The upper 1 percent, and the reason I thought it was 
important to point it out is, as I understand the chart before that, it 
is broken into 20 percent----
  Mr. OBEY. That is right.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. So what the gentleman is saying there is while the 
upper 20 percent had been doing much better, obviously, than the lower 
20 percent, with this tax cut we are forgetting even the upper 19 
percent of that 20 percent. We are just going for the 1 percent; we are 
going for the really fattest of the fat cats.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, I guess what I would say is we have been told that 
this bill represents payback time, and I guess when we see this chart, 
we can see who is getting paid back.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say about the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] that I appreciate his contributions in working with the majority 
and the Members on his side who are excellent members of our 
subcommittee as well. He has contributed throughout the process in 
marking up and reporting the bill. It has not been easy for any of us, 
and I appreciate his kind remarks, and I feel that we have worked very 
well together and have done our best in addressing the difficult 
problems in the bill.
  I might say regarding his chart, the one that shows the quintiles of 
income for people in the country, that that chart is completely 
misleading because it deals only with income. Income used to be a very 
easy quantifiable measure, but the difficulty was that the very times 
he worries that the income has gone down, we began a process in our 
country of providing worker benefits through employment health 
benefits, pension benefits and the like that are not reflected in his 
chart.
  Mr. Chairman, he also ignores Government transfer payments. There is 
nothing in there that takes account of food stamps, Medicaid and like 
programs. So the chart measuring only income does not measure the well-
being of families at all, and I believe that no one should believe that 
the chart really reflects the condition of families across this 
country.
  I might say about the tax package, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with 
what the gentleman said about taxes. We should not be making tax cuts 
at this time. I did not support the tax cut provisions. I believe we 
should make tax cuts when we have balanced the budget and not before. A 
question of timing. I certainly think that they are not appropriate 
right now, and I might agree also with the gentleman, this is not the 
time to provide huge funding for the B-2. Even though it is wonderful 
technology to have, we do have other problems that have to be 
addressed. I have never supported funding for the B-2 bomber.
  Mr. Chairman, let me talk about some of the other things the 
gentleman has talked about and set the record straight. On Perkins 
loans, which he called Stafford loans, the Perkins Loan Program is 
already funded at $6 billion. Yes, it is true we did not add $158 
million of new capital to that account, but the account is a revolving 
account with $6 billion out there. I might say that if every person who 
borrowed a Perkins loan repaid it, we would never need to add capital 
to the account except as the number of students rise that might need 
it. There is a very adequate fund available to students who need help 
in this country. We have not cut that at all. We simply were not able, 
in this budgetary environment, to add to it.
  We talked about the LIHEAP Program earlier. I would have supported it 
in 1979 because Federal policy caused the second Arab oil embargo. It 
did raise prices unconscionably, and the poor were terribly affected by 
the fact that heating oil and energy costs generally went through the 
roof. Today, however, energy costs and heating oil are at historic 
lows. The Federal policy has long since gone. There is no crisis, and 
yet the program continues on and on and on.
  Do we have needs in this country among the poor? Of course, we do. Is 
it the Federal responsibility to address every one of those needs? It 
seems to me it is the responsibility of the utilities and the States 
which regulate them to handle that problem, as they always did in the 
past, and not for the Federal
 Government to create a program that simply is unending. A very 
expensive program indeed.

  The gentleman talked about chapter 1, title I, the program for 
economically disadvantaged students. It would be wonderful to fund that 
forever, except for one thing: The program does not work. The very 
schools that the program sends its money to in the inner cities are 
failing our students. All the money in the world is not going to change 
that and it has not changed that.
  In fact, the schools are in awful condition. What is going to change 
it is the very thing my State is doing. If I can say to the gentleman, 
we have said to the city of Chicago, which has among the poorest public 
schools in America, end it. Get rid of your board of education, get rid 
of all your bureaucracy and levels of administration.
  We are turning over to the mayor of the city of Chicago the entire 
responsibility for the schools; and, believe me, the mayor will 
straighten them out. One of the great problems with school funding in 
America is that it supports huge bureaucracies that do not help 
students one whit. All you have to do is look to our major cities and 
see that that money is money truly down a rat hole. It is not working 
to help kids.
  Healthy Start. Healthy Start is a demonstration program. We support 
that program. It is going to terminate this year. We did cut the 
funding for it to terminate it a little earlier, but it is not an 
ongoing program. It is not any thing other than a demonstration 
program. We think it works well, and maybe should be reauthorized, but 
that is not up to the Committee on Appropriations.
  Head Start I addressed earlier. Let me say once again we strongly 
support Head Start, but we do not support sending money into new Head 
Start programs where it is poorly administered and we are not getting 
value for the money. That is why we made a very small cut in a program 
of over $3 billion that will keep the program going but send a message 
that we want that money spent well and wisely.
  Job training: 163 programs. The gentleman talks about the dislocated 

[[Page H8199]]
  workers program, the displaced workers program, for example. What about 
it? The Department of Labor, in its own departmental evaluations says 
that short-term skills training has not been successful in producing 
earning gains for dislocated workers. Only a minority of displaced 
workers are likely to enter long-term training if the option is offered 
to them.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the program is not a very good program and 
should have received and did receive the kinds of cuts that we made in 
it. We need effective programs that work for people, and the 
authorizing committee is in the process of reforming that entire area 
and I think we are going to see that happen.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a minute to thank the members 
of our subcommittee before I recognize the chairman of the full 
committee. Again, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our 
ranking member. He has done an excellent job, and it is a very 
difficult assignment for him to have this ranking membership in 
addition to being the ranking member on the full committee.
  We also have five new members of the subcommittee: The gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Riggs], and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. All of 
them
 have done a wonderful job on our subcommittee and in their work on 
this bill.

  I also want to thank the staff of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the full committee. They have been extremely helpful to us every step 
of the way, as they have been to all the subcommittees during this very 
difficult appropriation season in the House. I would like to remind the 
Members of the House that this committee has managed the passage and 
signature of the President of two rescission bills already, including 
the largest rescission in history just signed by the President. The 
staff has done an excellent job.
  I would like also, Mr. Chairman, to thank the staff of the minority 
membership, Mike Stephens, who has done an excellent job in 
representing the minority, and he has worked cooperatively and 
courteously with all of our staff. Our staff has done wonderful, 
wonderful work, headed by our clerk, Tony McCann, Bob Knisely, Sue 
Quantius, Mike Myers, Joanne Orndorff, and Jennifer MacKay. All have 
done wonderful work. Jennifer is on detail from the Department of 
Health and Human Services. She has been a very big help to us all year 
long and we appreciate having her.
  Let me take this opportunity, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to thank the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. Livingston]. I cannot 
think of a tougher job than his job. I do not know when he has time to 
get even a minimal amount of sleep. He has played a tremendous role in 
getting this bill through the subcommittee markup and through the full 
committee. His help had been invaluable. I want him to know how much 
all of us appreciate it. He has done a splendid job under very, very 
difficult circumstances throughout the year, and all the major 
appropriation bills, hopefully, including this one, will have been 
passed on our August recess. That accomplishment is a real testimony to 
the leadership of our chairman and the importance of his excellent 
staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for his very kind 
remarks and for his outstanding efforts on behalf of this very 
difficult and complex bill. It was a hard task for him to approach 
preparing and presenting this bill because he does care so deeply about 
each and every one of the items that are the subject matter of the 
bill. He has done a splendid job. This bill meets our budget targets, 
and I commend him, all of the staff, and all of the members of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle.
  I want to say to my friend, the ranking minority member of the 
committee and the subcommittee, that I have enjoyed working with him 
through this very rigorous process. He and I do not agree on every 
single issue, and, as you will soon hear, certainly not on the issues 
involving this bill or his last statement, but we have had a good 
working relationship.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin briefly.
  Mr. OBEY. As the gentleman knows, Will Rogers said once that when two 
people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I would hope the gentleman has just proved that 
neither one of us is unnecessary. One of us will win, and I hope it is 
me.
  At any rate, I want to commend him for the way he has handled his 
business on the subcommittee and on the committee. He is a great Member 
of Congress. He believes deeply in the institution, and I personally 
enjoy working with him very much, and would say to the Members that I 
think he is totally wrong on this bill.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think his statement on the floor is a 
representation, a very good representation, of a very failed and flawed 
philosophy that has gone dry over the last 60 years. It has ended. 
Socialism does not work anymore. We now know you cannot reach into the 
pockets of the taxpayer and expect them to rise up and be happy about 
spending money on every neat idea that some legislator happens to come 
up with, and that is what this bill has come to be. We have never 
scaled this bill back, and for that reason we now have redundancies and 
inefficiencies and unnecessary spending, wasteful spending, riddled all 
through the bill.
  I rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of the bill as it has been confected 
by this subcommittee and hope that the Members will pass the bill on 
the House floor and send it to the Senate, and, ultimately, to the 
President. I think it represents a real transformation; a realization 
that, yes, there has been a revolution of political thought; that we 
cannot afford every good idea or every neat idea that comes down the 
pike, and that we can do things differently. We can actually give money 
to those who need it. We can help people survive without simply 
throwing money at every idea that tries to address every single 
problem.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, the debate today goes way beyond this bill. It 
is really about the legacy that we leave our children, about the 
contract we signed with the American people last September, and about 
the mandate that the American voters gave to all of us in November. 
That mandate is to balance the budget, to end duplication in Federal 
programs, and to downsize government agencies. To paraphrase the debate 
earlier in the year on the Republican budget: Why do we need to balance 
the budget? The chairman of the
 Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said it best: So that our children 
will have a higher standard of living than their parents.

  Now, Mr. Chairman, how long can we really expect to continue to strap 
American citizens with a national debt that is approaching $5 trillion, 
a debt that equates to over $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
America? That debt, just like the debt on your credit cards, is 
gathering interest at a rapid rate. So rapid in fact, that within a 
year and a half, the interest on the debt that we pay will exceed what 
we spend on the National defense of this country.
  The fact is we have to rein in spending. We have to start saving and 
economizing. Government spending is not the be-all end-all to all of 
our problems. We have thrown money for too long at too many problems 
and gotten too little result. Now we realize if we do not start 
balancing our books, just like every family in America has to do and 
every business in America has to do, that this Nation will, like many 
other nations, go bankrupt.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is a legacy we want to leave our 
children or grandchildren. Even with the Republican budget that 
balances spending by the year 2002, total Federal spending will 
continue to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars.

[[Page H8200]]


                              {time}  1330

  In fact, we would just slow the increase in spending with our budget 
between now and then to an annual 3 percent growth rate as the economy 
grows. We are not stopping all spending. We are not even cutting real 
spending. The Government budget will continue to grow at an annual rate 
of 3 percent with the bills that we have passed this year.
  Under the Republican budget for Medicare that you have heard so much 
about, it will still increase at an astronomical 6.4 percent a year. 
Until this and other appropriations bills that have come to the floor 
this year, nondefense domestic discretionary spending since 1985, 
according to this President's own fiscal year 1996 budget submission, 
has increased, even in inflation-adjusted outlay dollars, by 28 
percent, grown by 28 percent since 1985.
  Means-tested entitlements, those programs over which we have little 
or no control because they are written into law, and anybody who 
qualifies gets the money, have increased by 38 percent since 1985. 
Still, despite what others would have you believe, this is the first 
annual Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations 
bill since 1986 that actually decreases spending from the previous 
year, and I say for good reason.
  It is a follow-up to the reductions we made in the rescissions bill, 
the $17 billion rescission bill the President now has, after one veto, 
finally signed into law. So that was the first step the President 
called it down payment on a balanced budget. But in this bill, we take 
that further. Yes; we do eliminate programs and downsize and streamline 
programs in this bill, because we believe that we can provide 
assistance to the truly needy without simply having more wasteful, 
inefficient, redundant, unnecessary, or abusive programs.
  We believe that it is not necessary to have 163 programs across 15 
departments and agencies doing the same thing in terms of Federal 
employment training programs or Federal job training. We believe that 
it is not necessary to have 266 Federal programs across 8 departments 
and agencies for youth at risk. We believe that it is not necessary to 
have 80 Federal welfare programs or 167 Federal programs across 16 
departments and agencies, according to the GAO, for housing purposes, 
or 90 programs across 11 departments and agencies doing early childhood 
programs, or 240
 education programs, or at least six different programs funding family 
planning.

  We can hone these down. We can separate these programs, these 
redundancies and these inefficiencies, and we can have fewer programs 
with less bureaucracy and still provide probably more money to the 
people that are really in need. We can do without this wasteful idea of 
simply raising money from the American taxpayer and throwing it at good 
ideas.
  In this bill, after the cuts that have been described by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin who preceded me, we still provide $68.1 
billion in discretionary outlay spending for hundreds of domestic 
programs. We still provide a total of $278 billion in spending when you 
include mandatory programs under this committee's jurisdiction.
  We provide $11.9 billion for the National Institutes of Health; $642 
million over last year's level, which represents a 6-percent increase.
  We have increased funding for prevention by $62 million for such 
programs like breast and cervical cancer, childhood immunization, and 
infectious diseases. We have provided over $2.16 billion for the 
Centers for Disease Control programs, an increase of $39 million over 
last year, and $802 million for the maternal and child health program, 
which is $116 million over last year's level.
  We increased the Job Corps funding to open four new centers; total 
spending for Job Corps is $1.1 billion in this bill. In this bill we 
provide the largest increase in history for the maximum Pell grant, 
$2,440 per individual.
  This bill provides new funding of $6.9 billion for funding for 
student financial assistance, and combined with the carry-over Pell 
grant funding, the total is $7.7 billion for student assistance, an 
increase of $103.9 million over last year's level, and they say the sky 
is falling. We are not giving enough to students.
  The bill provides, among other things--here is a good one. We have 
heard the President, we have heard those in Congress who decry the cuts 
say the sky is falling, the Sun is rising in the West. Head Start, the 
one they talk about so much, we are cutting it all the way back from 
$3.5 billion to $3.4
 billion; $3.4 billion will be spent on Head Start alone, up from $2.2 
billion in 1992. And where does that money come from? From the American 
taxpayer, the generous American taxpayer. The taxpayer that genuinely 
cares deeply about America's children, is contributing this year, under 
this bill, $3.4 billion for Head Start, as well as $4.3 billion for 
foster care and adoption assistance, $2.8 billion for the social 
services block grant, $1.2 billion for the substance abuse block grant, 
$1 billion for the jobs program, $934.6 million for child care block 
grants, $77 million for the aging programs, or the administration of 
aging programs, $428 million for community services block grant, $357 
million for the congregate nutrition services, and $275.4 million for 
the mental health block grant. And they say the sky is falling, the 
world is coming apart because we are not spending enough money on 
people?

  The money comes from the taxpayer. We owe them the responsibility to 
weed out the waste, the inefficiency, the abuse, the redundancy, the 
unnecessary spending. That is what we try to do, and we do not neglect 
our poor, our needy, our elderly, or middle class.
  In fact, there has been some talk about those tax benefits. I have 
another chart, not blown up unfortunately, but here is the Republican 
tax proposal. People whose income is under $20,000 get 5 percent of the 
proposed tax benefit. The people making between $20,000 and $30,000 of 
income get roughly 10 percent of the proposed tax benefit. The people 
making between $30,000 and $40,000 get 15 percent of the benefit. Those 
making between $40,000 and $50,000 get 15 percent of the benefit. If 
you add all these together and include the people making under $75,000, 
all of these people get 65 percent of the tax benefits. For the $500 
child credit proposal, 75 percent of this tax benefit goes to those 
making under $75,000 in the aggregate.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I will have to tell you that there has been a lot 
of hype. There has been a lot of overplay, a lot of scare mongering. 
People say that this bill should not be adopted because it cuts. It 
spends a total of $278 billion for good causes, and that is $278 
billion from the American taxpayer. It is not unfair, it is not unwise, 
it is not devastating. It is a good bill, it is a critical bill, it 
should be passed, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, just very briefly to respond to the previous two 
gentlemen, I would say first to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], he suggests that our tax charts are not accurate. Is the 
gentleman truly suggesting that the middle-class families in this 
country have done better the last 10 years than the super rich? If he 
is, I would respectfully suggest somebody is smoking something that is 
not legal. I do not think anybody else sees it that way.
  The gentleman says that the Perkins loan is amply funded. All I can 
tell you is there are going to be 150,000 students who are not going to 
be able to be helped by the Perkins loan program this year if we do not 
make a contribution to it.
  The gentleman says in terms of low-income heating assistance, there 
is no crisis. Good gravy, 600 people died in Chicago just 2 weeks ago 
because they were overcome by heat. The low-income heating assistance 
program is the program that is supposed to help folks like that. No 
crisis?
  The gentleman says that because schools are in trouble, we ought to 
cut back on chapter I. To suggest you ought to cut back on the major 
program we have to help local school districts educate the toughest to 
teach kids in their districts, to suggest we ought to cut that back and 
somehow that is going to improve education performance is, I think, 
backwards.
  The gentleman says that we should not worry about the dislocated 
worker program; 193,000 fewer workers aren't going to get help on job 
training after they have lost their jobs, through no fault of their 
own. Is that the answer America is going to give to the workers 

[[Page H8201]]
who have fallen victim to programs like NAFTA and GATT? I hope not.
  With respect to the gentleman from Louisiana, he recites a great 
number of small programs that ought to be eliminated. He is beating a 
dead horse. We have already said 15 times we support the elimination of 
those programs. Fine.
  The gentleman says that this bill is an end to socialism. Well, with 
all due respect, I do not think helping kids to get an education is 
socialistic. I do not think helping workers to get job training is 
socialistic.
  I ran into one young woman in the community of Rhinelander in my 
district, 22 years old, I think she
 was. She was in school, in a 2-year school. She had a couple of kids. 
She and her husband split because her husband had beaten the living 
devil out of her time after time after time. She was homeless for 2 
months last year, yet she kept going to school every day trying to make 
something of her life, and she was using a Perkins loan and other 
educational help. Is it socialism to help a person like this? Nonsense.

  The gentleman says we should stop throwing money at programs. I 
agree. Why do not you join us in eliminating the B-2 and the F-22? We 
will save a whole lot more money than we are spending in this bill.
  The gentleman says that we are going to provide plenty of money for 
the truly needy. Here is a list of the truly needy giant corporations 
in this country who are going to wind up again paying no taxes 
whatsoever because of the Republican party insistence on eliminating 
the corporate minimum tax.
  The gentleman says you are going to have some benefits to lower 
income people in the tax bill. Undoubtedly. But they will be table 
scraps in comparison to the caviar given to the people at the top of 
the income scale.
  The gentleman says we should not worry because this bill is spending 
$68 billion in discretionary funds. It is not. It is spending $62 
billion. If it was spending $68 billion, we would not be having this 
fight.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I point out, as regretful as that 
incident was when all those people died because of the heat, not one of 
them was saved by the existing LIHEAP program which is in full 
operation today. The LIHEAP program did not do them any good.
  Second, the B-2 bomber, a $13 billion investment, is estimated may 
end up saving us well over $640 billion over the long haul because of 
its payload. This is the weapons system for the future. It really has 
no place in this debate, because that is talking about the defense of 
this Nation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, it does have a place in this 
debate, because your allocation gave the Pentagon $7 billion more than 
the President asked for. You have cut at least $7 billion out of this 
bill. That is the problem.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Thomas Jefferson said that the nation that expects to be both free 
and uneducated expects that which never was and will never be. As a 
result of that philosophy, America has historically invested in its 
children, both at the local level, the State level and, yes, at the 
Federal level as well.
  We do so because we believe it is absolutely critical for the success 
of America's way of life. We believe it is absolutely essential if we 
are to remain competitive in an increasingly global economy where young 
people in America are not just in competition with kids from California 
or Maryland or Florida or Louisiana or Maine or Wisconsin, but are in 
competition with kids who are educated in Japan, in Germany, in Taiwan, 
all over the world. Therefore, we have made a commitment to making sure 
that every one of our children is educated.
  The chairman of our committee, Mr. Livingston, has shown a chart at 
least 15 times now, I think I have seen it. He loves that chart. It is 
his Head Start chart. It shows how much money we are spending.
  My colleagues, the reason that escalated in 1989, and 1990, and 1991, 
and 1992 and 1993 is because the Congress and President George Bush 
agreed, we were not doing enough. The bill was not vetoed. In fact, 
President Bush suggested increases. What the gentleman from Louisiana 
did not tell my colleagues is that more than 50 percent of the young 
people in America eligible for Head Start are falling through the 
cracks, that we are not investing in the over 50 percent of the young 
people for whom there are no seats in Head Start.
  All of us in this Nation lament the fact that so many young people 
are falling into lives that are negative, that are going to make them 
tax takers rather than taxpayers. They will not be positive, 
participating citizens in our community. We see them on television. And 
we lament and we get angry, and we say, what is happening?
  Government clearly cannot do it all. We have got to have parents do a 
better job in education. We have got to have our schools doing a better 
job. But we will not solve the problem by disinvestment. A party that 
believes in the capital system, in the free market system knows full 
well if you do not invest your capital, you will not get a return. 
Bottom line.
  Now, I only have 4 minutes. The education budget that is presented by 
this bill would be opposed by the ranking member of this subcommittee, 
the Republican with whom I served for so many years, Silvio Conte. He 
would not countenance this bill. And Bill Natcher, the former chairman 
of this subcommittee, I am aware lamentably, is turning over in his 
grave.
  I said earlier at a press conference that Bill Natcher used to say, 
``If you take care of the health of your people and the education of 
your children, you will continue to live in the strongest and best 
nation on the face of the earth.''
  Now, I am a Democrat. My good friends and colleagues on that side of 
the aisle could shrug their shoulders, oh, there go the Democrats 
again. All they want to do is throw money at problems. The States ought 
to educate people.
  My colleagues, let me call to your attention a statement made by 
Terrel Bell. Most of you will recall this is not a Democrat, this is 
the Secretary of Education appointed by Ronald Reagan, his first 
Secretary of Education, when he first came into office, saying that he 
wanted to have a revolution in this country. Let me tell you what 
Secretary Bell believes of this budget, not the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], not the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer], not 
the Democratic side of the aisle, but Terrel Bell, the Secretary of 
Education under Ronald Reagan.
  Statement, July 13, 1995: ``The drastic and unwarranted education 
cuts made in Congress by the House Appropriations Subcommittee,'' this 
subcommittee, this bill, ``must be restored or we will undercut 
community efforts to help better educate our children.'' Ronald 
Reagan's Secretary of Education.
  He goes on to stay, Secretary Bell, Secretary of Education under 
Ronald Reagan, ``I hope the rest of Congress will take a different 
view.''
  We urge you to reject this bill. that is a different view than the 
subcommittee and committee took.
  Listen, my colleagues, what Terrel Bell says: ``The education of our 
children is too important to fall victim to this attack against 
education that serves a narrow agenda not supported by those who know 
and care about education.''
  He concludes with this: ``The American people support educational 
excellence, not political extremism.''
  My colleagues, the person calling for the rejection of this bill and 
opposition to political extremism was Secretary Terrel Bell of the 
Reagan administration. Reject this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on the last 
couple words that were just mentioned: educational excellence. I want 
to stand here today to take partial responsibility for the slowing down 
of the growth 

[[Page H8202]]
of funding of Head Start and chapter 1. It is based specifically on 
what the gentleman just said: educational excellence.
  That is not what we have been getting in Head Start in many 
instances. That is not what we have been getting in chapter 1 in many 
instances. Anything other than educational excellence. And I have 
crossed this country for 20 years telling these people we want 
excellence. We do not want to just know how many new people you added. 
We do not want to know how much more money you spent. We want to know 
what the results are. And we do not have any studies that show us 
anything to indicate that $40 billion in one program and $20 billion in 
another program have done great things to improve the lives of those 
young people and make them productive citizens.
  But what has happened every time I have spoken all over this country 
about insisting on educational excellence? Those who run the programs 
say, not face to face but behind my back: We do not have to pay any 
attention to you. We know the Congress of the United States is going to 
give us more money. We know that every President, it does not matter 
which side of the aisle they come from, are going to ask for more 
money, and so we are going to get more money and we do not have to 
worry about excellence. And what a disadvantage we have done to 
disadvantaged children in this country in Head Start in many instances 
and in chapter 1 in many instances.
  What we are saying with this slight decrease is, now is the time to 
step forth and offer programs that are based on quality, that offer 
programs that will show us that in their third year, fourth year, fifth 
year of school, they have made dramatic increases and the Head Start 
has remained. The only studies we have to show that we have moved 
forward in these areas are in community college towns, where the 
mentors are college students who are out there doing what we should 
have been doing in Head Start and what we should have been doing in 
many of the chapter 1 programs. That is teaching parenting skills and 
improving the literacy skills of the parents so when the child goes 
home from a Head Start or a chapter 1 experience, they have someone to 
help them to improve, not just a couple hours they may be in a school 
setting.
  So I am not ashamed that I am one who has asked us to slow down 
temporarily these increases until we get the kind of quality that will 
give disadvantaged students an opportunity to be advantaged. In many 
instances, that is not happening today.
  Very few Members have spoken out, in all of these years of $40 
billion of spending in the one program and $20 billion in the other. 
All we have ever heard about is, we need more money because we are not 
covering enough people; we should be covering more. I have always said, 
covering them with what? If you are not covering them with quality, you 
are doing them a disservice.
  So I would hope that we would use those two words, educational 
excellence, to frame this discussion, not how much money we can spend, 
not how many people we can cover, but how much we can do to help them 
get a piece of the American dream. We have not been doing that 
successfully in many of these programs throughout the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  (Mr. STOKES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2127, the bill 
establishing fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. For many years, I have 
been one of the members of this subcommittee who have put this 
particular bill together. Until now, I have always taken pride in this 
bill which our beloved deceased chairman, Bill Natcher used to call the 
people's bill. This is the first time that I have come to the floor 
opposing the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriations measure. I oppose H.R. 2127 
because of the devastating physical, social, and economic burden it 
places on the backs of our children, the elderly, and hard working 
families.
  Neverthess, I want to acknowledge the leadership and fairness of our 
distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
John Porter, as well as the leadership of the distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. David Obey of Wisconsin.
  The 602(B) allocation for this bill is $9 billion, or 13 percent, 
below the fiscal year 1995 allocation. While some of the cuts can be 
justified, far too many of them will create critical quality of life 
problems for the people for whom this bill is intended.
  Within the Department of Labor account, in overall discretionary 
programs, funding is cut 24 percent, or $2.7 billion, below the fiscal 
year 1995 appropriation level. More specifically, funding for summer 
jobs is eliminated, denying jobs to over 600,000 young people who need 
and want to work. The $446 million cut in the dislocated workers 
program will deny re-employment services to hundreds of thousands of 
laid-off workers.
  With the Department of Health and Human Services account, funding for 
the LIHEAP is eliminated. The $55 million, or over 50 percent cut in 
the Healthy Start Program means that over 1 million women would be 
denied critical prenatal health care. Funding for family planning is 
completely eliminated.
  Within the Department of Education account, funding is cut 16 
percent, or $4 billion. The $1.1 billion cut in title I concentration 
grants means that more than 1 million educationally disadvantaged 
students would be deprived of the academic assistance they require in 
reading and math. Funding for safe and drug free schools is cut by $266 
million, or nearly 60 percent below the current funding level. Critical 
cuts are also made in funding for Howard and Gallaudet Universities.
  Drastic cuts are also made in a number of other quality of life 
programs including congregate meals, services for the homeless, 
substance abuse and mental health, unemployment insurance, and 
employment for older Americans. I ask my colleagues to be mindful that 
this is just a glimpse of the devastation contained in H.R. 2127.
  The measure also takes extensive liberties with respect to 
authorizing legislation. An unbelievable number of authorizing 
provisions are contained in this appropriations bill--ranging from 
abolishing the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, to restricting 
women's rights, to gagging political advocacy, to denying worker 
protections.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand and support a balanced approach to 
addressing our Nation's fiscal difficulties. But, I cannot support 
balancing the needs of the wealthy on the backs of our children, the 
elderly, and families. I urge my colleagues to defeat H.R. 2127.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to the gentleman my concern 
over the defunding of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. As we know, 
this Office is charged under the Presidential decision document, NSC-
39, to coordinate the health and medical response of the Federal 
Government in support of State and local governments in the aftermath 
of terrorist acts involving chemical and biological agents. The Office 
is also responsible for coordinating the Public Health Service 
interagency plans and activities to prepare for and respond to the 
consequences of natural disasters and terrorism, with particular 
emphasis on weapons of mass destruction.
  Since 1992, the Office has responded to Hurricane Andrew, the Midwest 
flood, the Southeast flood, the Northridge earthquake, and the Oklahoma 
City bombing.
  Mr. Chairman, I express this concern with the image of a rescue 
worker carrying a small child from the wreckage and devastation of the 
Oklahoma City bombing. No matter how much we wish to put this terrible 
tragedy behind us, it is indelibly etched in our minds, and serves as a 
grim part of our country's history. I feel very strongly that this 
Office should continue its good work.

[[Page H8203]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentlewoman that our 
subcommittee is fully aware of the important work performed by the men 
and women of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. The subcommittee's 
action is in no way a devaluing of their efforts and of the need to 
respond to national emergencies. The subcommittee only removed the 
Office as a line item in the agency's budget. The Secretary of Health 
and Human Services still has the discretion to keep this operation 
functioning if she deems it a priority.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for that 
clarification. I would also like to engage the chairman in a colloquy 
with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman.
  I applaud the leadership of the chairman of the committee and the 
assistance of the chairman of the Committee on National Security, the 
gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, in continuing funding for the DOT 
extramural AIDS program in the Labor-Health and Human Services-
Education appropriations bill. As we know, the Army Research and 
Development Command was originally tasked by Congress in 1996 as lead 
DOD command for HIV-AIDS research. This research has focused on the 
practical aspects of screening, prevention, and early-stage treatment 
affecting military readiness and national security. The Army Medical 
Corps has a long history of battling infections diseases that threaten 
military personnel, and the success of the Army's program has been due 
largely to the unique character of military life.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank 
the chairman of the committee for so wisely continuing this program. I 
also want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] for his 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that the Army is interested in 
only focusing research on finding a vaccine for HIV-AIDS. However, with 
the 10- to 20-year validation period for a suitable vaccine, the 
importance of maintaining a vigorous research treatment program for 
those military personnel who are already infected is obvious.
  I would ask the chairman of the committee, is it his intention that 
the $25 million provided for DOD AIDS research in the bill is to 
continue the natural history cohort and the domestic clinical studies, 
including the chemotherapeutic program and the immune reconstitution 
program?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman from Maryland will 
continue to yield; yes, it is our intention to fund the continuation 
costs of the DOD research project. I agree it is an important research 
and treatment program and should be continued.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership in 
this regard an I reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Young].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding 
time to me, and also for his leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, with the greatest 
respect for our colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], but I oppose the bill and hope 
that all of our colleagues will oppose it, because it is fundamentally 
flawed and must be rewritten.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a sad day for the Congress, and, therefore, for 
the country. It has always been a great privilege to serve on the 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the 
Committee on Appropriations, a place where a bill is developed to 
provide the funds and directions for America's future.
  Others have referenced the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Natcher, and, 
I am sure they will, Mr. Conte, but as Chairman Natcher would always 
say, ``If you educate your children and take care of the health of your 
people, you will live in the strongest country in the world.'' Mr. 
Conte agreed. That definition of strength is one that we should keep 
before us as we establish budget priorities in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget should be a statement of our national 
values, and our national values should measure our strength, not only 
in our military might, which is very important to our country, but also 
in the health, education, and well-being, as Mr. Natcher said, of our 
people.
  While there was often controversy over the Hyde amendment, issues 
like the Hyde amendment, in the past there was no question about the 
broad bipartisan support for the programs in this bill. For many years, 
our subcommittee operated on the basis of consensus, without even 
taking a vote. Both parties worked constructively to fashion a truly 
bipartisan statement of priorities for these programs. The bill was a 
unifying factor between our two parties in this Congress.
  All that has changed. This bill has become an ideological 
battleground. It has driven a wedge into this Congress, because it 
declares war on American workers, it erodes decades of progress for 
women, it declares war on education, it targets for punishment the most 
vulnerable people in America.
  Some argue that this bill is just part of the pain associated with 
balancing the Federal budget. If that is all that was going on here, 
then the bill would be at least understandable, but this debate is 
about priorities within the budget limitations, as I mentioned earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, while recognizing the need for us to have the strongest 
possible defense, it is hard to understand why we are moving more than 
$5 billion more into the defense and military construction projects, 
funds that were not even requested. The Republicans have decided to 
focus the drastic cuts on the Labor-HHS-Education and VA-HUD bills. 
Even if the defense-related programs were frozen rather than taking the 
same proportional hit as other bills, we would have about $4 billion 
more for this bill, enough to make it a much better bill.
  I remind our colleagues that this bill takes a hit of $10 billion. We 
go from $70 billion to $60 billion. On top of all of this, the 
Republican leadership is insisting on a tax break for the wealthiest 
Americans, putting even more pressure on the most defenseless in our 
population. We want to give more money to defense and take money from 
the defenseless. I think it is wrong.
  I think the bill started out bad, it was a very dark night, as our 
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] mentioned, in 
the dark of night when this bill came out of subcommittee. then it got 
even worse as it moved through 3 days of full committee markup. By 
adopting five amendments which were part of the issues alert of the 
Christian Coalition, the bill became worse. Those included attempting 
to gag public interest advocacy, limiting further a woman's right to 
choose, prohibiting human embryo research, interfering with the private 
sector's accreditation of graduate medical education, and eliminating, 
if Members can imagine this, Mr. Chairman, title X, family planning. In 
doing that, the majority has made a bad bill terrible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this most 
unfortunate legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I have 
great respect for the chairman of the committee, and we have worked 
together on many of the issues in this bill, and also, of course, for 
the ranking minority on this committee. I understand the terrible 
choices that our chairman and our ranking minority had to face with us, 
because this bill, the bill that really reflects the priorities of this 
Nation, was cut $10 billion. Therefore, although I am rising in strong 
opposition to the bill, it has no reflection on the chairman's 
commitment to some of the issues we face.
  Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation has always been called the 
people's bill, but today the people will find 

[[Page H8204]]
out whether Congress truly understands their needs and the needs of 
their families. They will find out how serious we are about making 
investments in our most precious resource, our children. The people of 
this Nation will learn whether it matters to Congress if elderly 
Americans have the means to heat their homes in the winter and cool 
them in the 100-degree summer heat, or we are going to just stand by 
when elderly people lose their lives; 100, 200, 300, 400, 500. These 
are people, real people with families. They will discover if we are 
truly committed to giving young people with little hope and laid-off 
workers with few opportunities the means to find a job.
  Today the American people will find out whether Congress is willing 
to disregard our children and make unprecedented cuts in education, 
cuts which will deprive local schools of billions of dollars and 
hardworking college students of the aid they need to have a shot at the 
American dream.
  Mr. Chairman, as a mother of three and a former PTA president, I can 
tell the Members that this bill will have a devastating impact on 
America's children and our community schools. Let us not make any 
mistake about it, this bill will lead to increased local property 
taxes, because our mothers, our parents, will not stand for their 
children not having the best education they can. Therefore, if we cut, 
guess where it is going to come from? Cut here, pay at the other end.
  We will also vote on whether to force poor women who are the victims 
of rape and incest to carry those pregnancies to term. We will vote to 
eliminate an unprecedented intrusion in this bill into medical school 
curriculum which will endanger the health of women. We will have an 
opportunity to restore critically needed family planning funds.
  It is shameful, and I am embarrassed to serve on this committee where 
I was once so proud, to be at a place in history where we are zeroing 
out family planning funds. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly 
what is happening in this bill. Members are going to hear all kinds of 
alibis, but we are zeroing out family planning funds.
  Yes, I am pleased that the increases at the NIH were not on the 
Christian Coalition agenda. I am pleased that important investments, 
investments in breast cancer research will continue. I am pleased that 
the CDC breast and cervical cancer screening program is still alive. 
But this bill takes women backward. The GOP leadership has proudly 
touted its plan to reduce the deficit.
  Today we are seeing, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing what that plan will 
mean, what GOP priorities really are. This bill cuts spending, but it 
does it on the backs of average Americans and on the backs of the 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens. These cuts in education, training, 
student loans, low-income energy assistance, are being made to finance 
the Republicans' proposal to provide a tax cut for the most privileged, 
and to build new weapons that the Pentagon did not even ask for.
  As I sat in committee and subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, two things were 
very clear: first, this bill was deeply flawed from the start, because 
it was a direct outgrowth of mixed-up Republican budget priorities. We 
need to go back to scratch. We need to fix this bill.
  Then the bill was made even worse as the Christian Coalition sent 
their legislative language and had everyone dutifully follow it, passed 
that legislative language, passed that special interest language that 
hurts workers and flies in the face of basic constitutional rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill. Let us send it back and do 
it right.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to one of 
the new and very able members of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to put this bill in 
its proper context. The 104th Congress is in the midst of the most 
important debate about America's domestic future since the New Deal. 
The debate is not about accounting numbers and line items, although 
that is what much of the public will hear in this debate. In fact, at 
its core, the debate is about what kind of America we want to be in the 
21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, America is at a crossroads. As we close the 20th 
century, we are faced with one great battle. The American people have 
defeated fascism and communism and spread democracy around the world. 
Now we are faced with the threat of the national debt. The challenge is 
to leave our children a legacy of both peace and prosperity. We must 
ensure that the American dream lives on. An America that enters the 
21st century free from deficits will be a strong America that has 
resources to meet its obligations for Social Security and Medicare and 
to the American taxpayer. That is what this debate is about. We are 
making the tough choices to start on a glide path to a balanced budget.
  The most obscene thing we have done in this Congress is to build up 
these horrendous deficits and the national debt. Let me put in 
perspective what this is. The national debt is $4.9 trillion. Now, if 
you divide that by the population of the United States, that amounts to 
$18,800 for every man, woman, and child in the United States; $18,800 
for every man, woman, and child.
  We have a Congresswoman on the Republican side who is going to have a 
baby next year. When that child is born, that child immediately 
inherits an $18,800 debt. My wife and I, we have two children. For a 
family of four, that means I have a $75,000 debt that the Federal 
Government has spent that I have inherited. The interest on that debt 
amounts to $5,264 a year. It takes $439 a month for my family to pay 
for the interest on the national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, next year, and in 2 years, we are going to spend more 
money on interest on the national debate than we do for the entire 
national defense. That is insane, and it makes no sense. And that is 
what the real debate is about today, is the fact that we have a debt 
that we need to clear up and move to some fiscal sanity in our process.
  Mr. Chairman, solving this process does not mean 7 years of pain and 
sacrifice. Far from it. If we can balance the budget in 7 years, Alan 
Greenspan says, that will lead to a 2-percent reduction in interest 
rates. Let me explain what a 2-percent reduction in interest rates 
might mean.
  For a family having a $75,000 mortgage, if they refinance it or get a 
new home, that is $100 a month less that they have to spend on that 
$75,000 mortgage. For small business, that is going to give an 
incentive for them to invest more, to create jobs, and to improve our 
economy.
  By balancing this budget and moving on that glide path, we are going 
to stimulate the economy and help restore the American dream. We need 
to stop spending more money here in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1950, the average American family spent 5 percent of 
their wages in Federal taxes. Now we are spending 24 percent to send to 
Washington for a bloated Federal Government. Unless we cut spending and 
eliminate the deficit, the tax burden will continue to grow.
  Mr. Chairman, the President has offered an alternative vision of 
America in the 21st century: $200 billion deficits as far as the eye 
can see. He says the problem is to big and we just cannot deal with it 
right now. Now, not only is that a defeatist attitude, it is 
counterproductive. The job of balancing the budget does not magically 
get easier a decade from now. In fact, it grows exponentially more 
difficult.
  First of all, the more debt we build up, the more interest rates 
payments will grow. In other words, we lock in more and more spending. 
But more importantly, starting in the year 2008, the first of the baby 
boom generation begins to retire, and the costs of Social Security and 
the Medicare programs explode. How can we justify putting off the day 
of reckoning on this budget?
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a moral issue. We all know the 
challenge we face. The facts are the facts. We have a moral obligation 
to meet this challenge now, and we know the problem becomes virtually 
insurmountable in 10 to 15 years. If we fail, we will have failed the 
test of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is fair, and spent $60 billion on some of the 
most important programs in the Federal Government. The cruelest thing 
we can 

[[Page H8205]]
do for the young people today and for future generations is keep 
building up the debt. We must get this deficit under control and get 
our fiscal house in order. This bill makes a significant down payment 
on a balanced budget. It is some of the tough choices we are going to 
have to make in the appropriations process. That is the most important 
issue we are facing, balancing the national debt, and the moral and 
economic imperative of our time, and this bill meets that challenge.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking member of the Committee 
on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to condemn this bill as the meanest, 
most vicious, most inhumane appropriations bill I have seen during my 
long career in the Congress. I implore my colleagues, on both sides of 
the aisle, to reject this cruel legislation and send it back to the 
Appropriations Committee with an instruction to produce a much more 
compassionate and fair-minded bill.
  Mr. Chairman, once there was a time, when Democrats and Republicans 
worked together to expand access to education. Once there was a time 
when Democrats and Republicans supported efforts to help children 
raised in poor communities get a head start in life. Once there was a 
time when Democrats and Republicans believed that the role of 
Government was to protect the weak--from unsafe working conditions, 
oppressive employers, and dishonest pension managers.
  That time has passed. To the Republican leadership in this House, 
people do not matter, profits do. To the Republican leadership, the 
role of Government now is to enhance the privileged and the powerful at 
the expense of the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, the corporations and individuals unfairly enriched by 
this bill read like Who's Who among Fortune 500. The Republicans all 
but placed an ad in the Wall Street Journal that reads: ``This House is 
for sale! And, if you've got a gripe with OSHA let the Republicans 
know; they'll gut funding for OSHA inspectors and render the agency 
impotent.''
  The Republicans are now abusing the appropriations process to carry 
out the political agenda of the radical right. This bill is polluted 
with the legislative wish list of the Christian Coalition. Through 
massive, unconscionable cuts in education, public education is being 
seriously crippled. These cuts support the thinking of religious 
extremists. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition has said ``We should 
de-federalize education policy. * * * Our top legislative priority at 
the Christian Coalition is to abolish the Department of Education.'' 
And, Jerry Falwell said recently ``I hope to see the day when * * * we 
won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over 
again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will 
be.'' These cuts in this bill will have Falwell dancing in his pulpit.
  Mr. Chairman, provisions in the bill reflect promotion of a sinister, 
cynical agenda that is out of sync with mainstream Americans. In the 
middle of the night, Republicans rammed through crippling revisions in 
job safety, pension, and labor laws. They turned the appropriations 
process into a half-way house for those unscrupulous business people 
who would criminally expose their work force to unsafe and unhealthy 
working conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a critical time in our Nation's history, a time 
to better equip our Nation to compete in the world economy; a time to 
expand, not cut, job training opportunities for displaced workers; a 
time to expand, not cut, Head Start; a time to expand, not cut, college 
financial aid. This is no time to destroy the bridges to prosperity and 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis this bill is so bad it is beyond 
repair, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation which attacks children, seniors and working families to pay 
for a tax cut for the wealthy. I call it the American Dream Destruction 
Act.
  The American Dream promises our people that if you work hard, if you 
play by the rules, this country will provide you with opportunity and 
with security. This bill betrays that promise. It betrays the promise 
of educational opportunity by cutting funding for education, from Head 
Start to safe and drug-free schools. It betrays the promise of 
opportunity for our workers by cutting crucial health and safety 
protections that help them on their job, and by cutting retraining, and 
that help could be provided to them if they lose that job.
  This bill also betrays the promise of security for our seniors by 
cutting energy assistance and nutrition programs that help seniors to 
pay for their heating bills and to stay healthy.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues from across the aisle say that they are 
only making these cuts to balance the budget. They would like you to 
believe that this is a shared sacrifice with a noble purpose. But 
folks, this is not a shared sacrifice, and there is nothing noble in 
asking our most vulnerable citizens to pay for a tax break for the 
wealthiest citizens. There is nothing noble in that. It is amoral.
  The American people want us to cut waste, but unneeded tax subsidies 
to giant corporations are wasteful. Taxpayer-funded advertising for 
multinational corporations is waste. Special tax loopholes for 
billionaire expatriates are waste. The Republican leaders in this House 
can never seem to find waste in any program that helps their wealthy 
campaign contributors; they can only find waste in programs that help 
the working families of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget is about making choices. This bill 
makes bad choices, choices that will hurt children, hurt seniors, and 
hurt working families, all to fund a tax cut to the wealthiest 
Americans. Vote against this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to our colleague, the 
very able gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has done so 
much work on this bill and has produced a bill that I am strongly 
supporting. This is a proud day for America, to be able to take one 
appropriations bill, cut $9 billion out of it, and still preserve good 
programs in this country, like Head Start, community and migrant health 
care centers, TRIO, and programs like the National Institutes of 
Health. Imagine that.
  We are hearing a lot of Members come forward today with the same old 
song and dance that we have cut education to give a tax cut to the 
rich. Other days before today we have heard them say that we are trying 
to help the military to provide tax cuts at the expense of the poor, 
and we are providing tax cuts for the rich to cut volunteers in the 
park. You name it, everything is being tagged for the same reason, and 
we all know that this is not true. These are all lies that are just 
continuously spread to try to stop the agenda that the American people 
want us to move forward.
  So instead, let us talk about the truth. In the dark of the night, 
there was an attempted midnight massacre by the opposition when Member 
after Member offered amendments to cut Medicaid for poor States. 
However, today, when the cameras are on and the lights are shining and 
C-SPAN is broadcasting, there will not be a single Member to come 
forward and offer an amendment like that to see what really happened as 
this bill was being drafted. Why is this happening? Because they are 
afraid that the American people may see them saying one thing and doing 
another, and really discover the truth about what is going on around 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill makes tough choices. The gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee, has brought 
this House a bill which reflects responsive and thoughtful decisions to 
support national priorities, not parochial priorities, and to reduce 
the deficit by cutting lower priority and duplicative programs.
  Mr. Chairman, no matter how you slice this bill, we have over $60 
billion 

[[Page H8206]]
of discretionary spending in this bill. For some Members, it is never 
enough. If Members want to take pot shots at this bill, go right ahead. 
We do not claim to be perfect. We know that
 adjustments can be made to improve on what we are doing. But we are 
trying the best we can as a Republican majority to make the tough 
choices necessary that the American people are calling for.

  Mr. Chairman, with over $60 billion in discretionary spending, let me 
give you two examples of how much $1 billion is. One billion seconds 
ago this country was in the middle of the Bay of Pigs. One billion 
minutes ago the world went from BC to AD on a calendar. In this bill we 
have over 60 of those billions. Again, for some Members, that is not 
enough; it is never enough.
  If Members would not support a rescissions bill that cut only 1 
percent of Federal spending this year that we proposed earlier this 
year, I do not anticipate support from Members when we want to cut 13 
percent out of a spending bill. If Members would not support a 
rescissions bill that restored some fiscal sanity, they will not 
support a bill that tries to cut and consolidate 163 Federal employment 
training programs, 266 Federal youth at-risk programs, 90 Federal early 
childhood programs, 340 Federal families and children's programs, and 
86 Federal teachers training programs.

                              {time}  1430

  How much is enough? It is never enough for the opposition.
  I guess the dollar figure like that is whatever it takes to bow down 
to those special interest liberal groups.
  Members will make all kinds of complaints against this bill, some 
based on facts and some are not based on facts. Either way, I am 
reminded of the old saying that says, ``It takes a carpenter to build a 
barn, but just one jackass can knock it down.''
  There is a new way of thinking in Congress. After 40 years of the 
same old ``throw money at the problem and pose for holy pictures,'' let 
us have just 1 year to try it our way. What do my colleagues say? Give 
us a chance to do it one year our way and see what happens.
  The President made a statement last week saying that he would not 
allow our people to be sacrificed for the sake of political ideology. I 
agree with him. Our people are the taxpayers of this country that sent 
us here last November to get our fiscal house in order.
  We must reject those who are slaves to the National Education 
Association, slaves to the American Bar Association, and other special 
interest groups, and others who always want more money, more money, 
more money, more money, without ever spending their own money.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues favor this new philosophy that we 
are bringing forth, I ask them to please support this bill. It is a 
good bill. It is a bill that is the result of many tough decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman I yield myself this time to answer the nonsense that I 
just heard from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. The gentleman 
from Texas is objecting to the fact that we are not offering the 
amendments on the House floor that we offered in the subcommittee. The 
answer is, we cannot do that because the rules of the House prevent 
that kind of en bloc transfer.
  I would be happy to do that if the gentleman wanted to vote on them, 
but he does not want to. I do not blame the gentleman for being 
sensitive on the issue of surplus Medicaid compensation in some States.
  To correct the gentleman, we did not cut Medicare. What we tried to 
do is take into account the fact that my State winds up getting from 
the Feds only 55 cents out of every dollar for the cost of dealing with 
a Medicaid patient. Texas only gets from the Federal Government 64 
cents out of every dollar for the cost of dealing with a Medicaid 
patient, but the State of Louisiana gets 75 cents out of every dollar.
  The gentleman from Texas consistently, in the
   subcommittee, voted to take money out of his own State of Texas and 
give it to Louisiana, because he voted against amendment after 
amendment to try to equalize the formula between States.

  So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman voluntarily, in his own committee, 
voted to give away from the State of Texas $66 million for summer jobs. 
He voted to take away $21 million from Texas for dislocated worker 
training. He voted to take away $29 million under Goals 2000. He voted 
to take away almost $100 million from Texas under title I, because he 
insisted on seeing to it that it kept going to States like Louisiana. I 
do not blame the gentleman for being sensitive on that issue.
  I would also make one additional point. He said ``Let us have it our 
way for a year.'' The reason we have gotten in this debt is because 
Ronald Reagan came into office and told us if we just passed his budget 
in 1981, that in 4 years we could cut taxes, we could double military 
spending, and still balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this chart demonstrates the promise versus what 
happened. These bars demonstrate that in 1981, President Reagan said: 
Pass our package, the deficit will go down from what was then $55 
billion to zero over 4 years' time.
  Guess what? The Congress did it the gentleman's way. The Congress 
swallowed the Reagan budget and guess what. We only missed the deficit 
target by $185 billion, because under the policies rammed through this 
place by the party of the gentleman from Texas, with 29 or so misguided 
souls on my side of the aisle mistakenly joining them, the deficit went 
from $55 billion not to zero, as Ronald Reagan promised, but to $185 
billion.
  Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman from Texas cannot get his story 
straight about what happened in subcommittee, he should at least get 
history straight.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition 
to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation. 
This bill demonstrates the most significant difference between the 
Democrats and the Republicans. We seek to invest in the people of this 
Nation, they seek to destroy that investment, not only through 
elimination and cutting of programs, which this bill does with 
unmeasured precedent, but by using this bill to push through their 
legislative agenda to weaken the rights of workers, women, and the most 
vulnerable in our Nation. Never before have we seen such a systematic 
abuse of the legislative process in order to get the agenda of the 
majority passed.
  At every turn this bill attacks long-held rights and protections for 
people in this country including provisions which weaken the rights of 
workers, takes away first-amendment rights of the people who work 
through nonprofit agencies, eliminates reproductive rights for low-
income women, even if they were raped or a victim of incest, and 
weakens enforcement of equity for women in intercollegiate sports.
  A legislative rider in this bill attempts to weaken the enforcement 
of title IX of the Education Act Amendment of 1972. Title IX is the law 
which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational 
institutions. As one of the coauthors of this legislation I am proud of 
title IX and its success in protecting equal rights for women in 
education and in increasing intercollegiate athletic opportunities for 
women. I am deeply disturbed that the Appropriations Committee would 
allow a provision in their bill which circumvents the legislative 
process, and is clearly intended to weaken the enforcement of title IX.
  The rider prohibits the Department of Education Office of Civil 
Rights from enforcing title IX after December 31, 1995, unless the 
Department has issued objective policy guidance on complying with title 
IX in the area of intercollegiate sports.
  While on its face this provision may seem harmless--a simple request 
for clarification on how to comply with title IX--do not be fooled. 
This provision pushed by opponents of title IX is clearly an attempt to 
force the Office of Civil Rights to weaken its enforcement standards, 
because of a misperception that men's sports are being hurt by overly 
aggressive enforcement of title IX.

[[Page H8207]]

  This is simply not true. Since the passage of title IX, for every new 
dollar spent on women's sports, two new dollars have been spent on 
men's sports. The standards schools must meet under title IX are 
minimal. A school simply has to show that it is
 improving it's women athletic program or that it is meeting the needs 
and abilities of its women students in order to be in compliance with 
the law. I would argue that these standards are far too lenient.

  The Department of Education opposes this language because it is 
unnecessary and micromanaging the Department, the NCAA does not like 
this language, colleges and universities think this language goes too 
far, and most importantly the women of America do not want this 
language because they know it is an attempt to turn back the progress 
we have made toward equity in intercollegiate sports.
  In addition to title IX, this bill is also used to eliminate other 
rights for women--reproductive rights. Legislative language prohibits 
Medicaid from paying for abortions for low-income women, even women who 
have been raped or victims of incest. This provision denies women their 
constitutional right to reproductive freedom.
  The bill also attacks workers rights. Limitations on the National 
Labor Relations Board's enforcement mechanisms in resolving a labor 
dispute means that companies can continue to commit unfair labor 
practices including firing of workers, strong arm tactics to influence 
the outcome of the dispute, efforts to prevent employees from 
organizing a union or issue illegal bargaining demands, while NLRB is 
reviewing a case.
  The bill prohibits the enforcement of a child labor law which 
protects children under 18 from injury and death from cardboard and 
paper balers and halts efforts to protect the health of workers who 
work with computers and other office machinery by prohibiting the 
implementation of OSHA's ergonomics standards.
  Prohibition of the Executive order on striker replacement is simply a 
slap in the face to the workers of this Nation. It is a clear 
indication that the majority party does not believe in workers' right 
to organize and fight for their rights through a union.
  I am alarmed by the inclusion in this appropriations bill of 12 pages 
which strip away individual rights guaranteed to each and every one of 
us to petition our government for any reason whatsoever. Title VI of 
this bill states that you cannot get any Federal funds if you 
participate in political advocacy.
  This bill if passed would prohibit any person who received a Federal 
grant under any law, not just this act, from speaking out on any matter 
relating to laws whether, State, Federal, or local. The prohibition 
against political advocacy which includes attempts to influence 
legislation or agency action explicitly prohibits communication with 
legislators and their staffs. The definition of ``grantee'' includes 
the entire membership of the organization who are explicitly prohibited 
from communicating with legislators or urging others to do so.
  This bill disqualifies anyone from receiving a Federal grant if for 5 
previous years it used funds in excess of the allowed threshold.
  Further anyone receiving Federal grant money cannot spend it on the 
purchase of goods and services from anyone who in the previous year 
spent money on political advocacy in excess of the allowed limit.
  Political activity is defined as including publishing and 
distributing statements in any political campaign, or any judicial 
litigation in which Federal, State, or local governments are parties, 
or contributing funds to any organization whose expenses in political 
advocacy exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures.
  This title of the bill is totally and completely unconstitutional. It 
is a blatant unlawful effort to stifle dissent and advocacy. It is 
contrary to basic principles of our democracy. It is a gag law. It must 
be defeated.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], another able member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the public is demanding that the Congress 
reduce Federal spending. The message from the elections was clear, the 
constant messages we receive from our constituents are clear; they are 
demanding that we do so. They realize that we have built a gigantic 
Government bureaucracy of social programs and Government handouts that 
are cruel. They are cruel because they are killers of initiative, 
killers of self-reliance, and destroyers of the family.
  Do the American people lack compassion because they want to bring 
down the size of Government? Of course not. Do Members of Congress, 
whether they be on this side of the aisle or on that side of the aisle, 
lack compassion because they see the necessity to reduce Government 
spending and to do it in social programs? Of course not.
  Mr. Chairman, we all prove our individual compassion by what we do 
with our own time, our own efforts and our individual dollars. We do 
not prove we have compassion by reaching into the wallets of the 
American taxpayers and extracting, under force of law through the tax 
system, more and more money. That proves that we believe in taking from 
other people, not that we have personal compassion.
  Compassion is measured by what we do individually and what we help 
people to be able to do for themselves, not with the Government 
programs that destroy initiative, that have brought down this country, 
that have generated the national debt that will be the ruin of the next 
generation of our children and our grandchildren, if we do not bring 
spending under control and do it now.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, compared to the task before us, is easy. The 
spending reductions in this bill are about $6.5 billion below what was 
spent last year and about $10 or $11 billion below what the President 
wanted to spend. But even after the reductions are made, the budget 
will still be almost $200 billion out of balance in the next fiscal 
year.
  Even after these cuts that some people think will make the sky fall, 
it is still going to take years and years of effort to be able to meet 
our target of balancing the budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, any Member who thinks that this bill contains tough 
decisions should not come back for another term in the next few years, 
because the decisions will only get tougher. It is a choice: Cut 
spending now or visit ruin upon our children with a bankrupt Federal 
Government and a Federal Government that, according to figures released 
by the Clinton administration, would insist upon taking 83 cents out of 
every dollar that our children make in their future, over their 
lifetimes, in the amount of taxes they have to pay if we do not get 
spending under control, if we do not balance the budget.
  The overall spending reductions in this bill, Mr. Chairman, are only 
11 percent. Yet, we are told it will be the ruin of American 
civilization. That is hogwash, and people know it.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want is a system of 
more personal dependency upon Government bureaucracy. I disagree with 
them on that. I believe the American people disagree with them.
  I applaud what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has done on 
this. The gentleman has things in this bill that frankly he does not 
want to do. The gentleman has programs that he likes, that he thinks 
are good programs. Yet, for the good of the entire country, he has been 
willing to put them forward to reduce and even zero out programs that 
he individually
 likes because he recognizes the scale of the problem. I applaud the 
fashion which the gentleman from Illinois has handled it, the fairness 
to all sides on the issues.

  I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of 
the full committee, and I note, for the benefit of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the very charts that he has had published in the 
report show that the State of Louisiana will have almost $100 million 
less coming to it in Federal spending under the bill already. In fact, 
if my rough figures are correct, I believe Louisiana takes a greater 
dollar hit than the State of Wisconsin does under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations trying to protect people back home; it is the chairman 
working for the common good of the entire country, and I applaud those 
efforts.
  It is tough, but it is going to get tougher. This bill is important 
toward balancing the budget, toward correcting mistakes that have been 
made in the growth of the Federal bureaucracy and the duplication.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this entire bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, President Clinton 2 weeks 
ago said that he would veto this bill because the Republicans have 
approved $36 billion in cuts in education and 

[[Page H8208]]
training over 7 years. In contrast, the President's proposal balances 
the budget while increasing investment in education and training by $40 
billion over that same 7 years.
  In my State of Texas, Republican cuts of $2.5 billion will harm 
working families. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] used the 
term ``hogwash.'' I agree with him.
  Statements of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations seem to 
indicate that he believes that the philosophy here is one of socialism, 
if we do not do what the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] say we need to do.
  Second, the gentleman from Pennsylvania stands up and says we need 
educational excellence, and the gentleman speaks all over the country 
about it.
                              {time}  1445

  We ought to start putting our money where our mouth is. We are told 
in this bill we are going to downsize and streamline. What did you do 
to Goals 2000? Eliminated it.
  Ask the Governors around the country, both Republican and Democrat, 
whether or not they think that is a good idea. They do not think it is 
a good idea. In fact, they consider it one of the dumbest things they 
have seen in a long time.
  Let me tell you what else you did. You took 1,043 out of 1,053 school 
districts in my State of Texas that we have been using a program called 
Safe and Drug Free Schools to prevent crime, violence, and drugs, to 
keep drugs away from the kids in the school room, you cut that program. 
You have also seen to it that we are not going to increase any access 
to college. We are going to deny programs, in fact, to 23,400 kids in 
Texas in 1996 alone. You are probably going to force them to drop out 
of school. That is what your idea is about educational excellence, the 
future for the children of America.
  You are cutting in all the wrong places. That is what is wrong with 
the Republican plan. Each and every one of you stand up here and says, 
``Oh, we have got to do this.'' Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read your bill. 
Compare that to the President's budget for a balanced budget in 10 
years. Take another look at it. You are making a big mistake. This is a 
bad bill.
  Mr. Chairman, President Clinton said 2 weeks ago that he would veto 
the bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee since it 
slashes critical education and training initiatives. Republicans have 
approved $36 billion in cuts from education and training over 7 years. 
In contrast, the President's proposal balances the budget while 
increasing investment in education and training by $40 billion over 7 
years. In Texas, Republican cuts of $2.5 billion over 7 years would 
harm working families:
  Head Start: President Clinton proposes to expand Head Start to serve 
50,000 additional children nationwide by 2002. Republicans have 
approved cuts that would deny Head Start to 180,000 children nationwide 
and 12,512 children in Texas in 2002 compared to 1995.
  Improving basic and advanced skills: President Clinton's budget 
completely protects title I, which helps students from disadvantaged 
backgrounds with reading, writing, mathematics, and advanced skills. 
Republicans would cut funding by $1.1 billion in 1996, denying this 
crucial assistance to 1.1 million students nationwide and 99,600 
students in Texas.
  Goals 2000: With strong bipartisan support, the President created 
Goals 2000 to help communities train teachers, encourage hard work by 
students, and upgrade academic standards in schools. The President 
calls for almost $700 million in 1996. Republicans would eliminate 
Goals 2000 and deny to Texas funding affecting as many as 1,428 
schools.
  Safe and drug-free schools: While President Clinton strongly supports 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Republicans want to gut the program, which 
1,043 out of 1,053 school districts in Texas use to keep crime, 
violence, and drugs away from students and out of schools.
  Increasing access to college: President Clinton would increase annual 
funding for Pell grants by $3.4 billion and raise the top award to a 
record $3,128 by 2002. The GOP would deny Pell grants to 23,400 
students in Texas in 1996 alone, possibly forcing them to drop out of 
college.
  National service: AmeriCorps offers young people a hand in paying for 
their education if they lend a hand to their communities. Republicans 
would eliminate AmeriCorps and deny 3,171 young people in Texas the 
chance to serve in 1996.
  Job training: President Clinton's GI bill for America's workers would 
streamline Federal job training efforts and provide skill grants for 
dislocated and low-income workers. The President would provide 800,000 
skill grants of up to $2,620 in 1996. Republicans would cut funding by 
$68.3 million and would deny training opportunities to 28,688 
dislocated workers in Texas in 1996.
  Summer jobs: Summer jobs are an important first opportunity for many 
low-income youths to get work experience. President Clinton wants to 
finance 600,000 jobs this summer. Republicans would slash the 
President's school-to-work initiative and eliminate summer jobs, 
denying jobs to 42,491 Texas youths in 1996 and 297,437 Texas youths 
over 7 years.
  Student loans: While the President strongly supports the student loan 
program, Republicans want to raise student costs for loans by $10 
billion over 7 years. The GOP cuts could raise the cost of college 
education by as much as $2,111 for 260,700 college students and as much 
as $9,424 for 37,200 graduate students in Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, cut spending first; that is the mandate 
that I got when I came here and not only have I gotten it but it has 
been repeated time and time and time again by those folks whom I 
represent.
  One way you can cut spending is by tax cuts, and what happens is if 
you have tax cuts, you just lessen the amount of money that comes into 
the government. The government then shrinks to match its budget, and we 
have less government, less intrusion, and less waste.
  Another way is to cut spending in the true sense of the word, and 
that is what we are doing to the tune of $9 billion in this bill. I 
think it is a credit to what the committee has done rather than a 
criticism, seeing the criticism we have gotten.
  When we went to cut this budget, we went to the source of the people 
who knew best, where waste was, where the fat was, where the excesses 
were. We went to the agencies. Time after time after time after time, 
we asked those agencies, ``Please, do you realize that we have got to 
cut spending? Do you realize that if we do not, our country is going to 
become insolvent, that we are not going to be able to take care of our 
kids, that we are not going to be able to take care of our elderly 
people? Will you help us, agency, will you help us pinpoint where it is 
we can cut so that we are laymen, the people sitting here trying to do 
our job in cutting spending first, can do it more intelligently?''
  But, no, we were stonewalled. Not a one came in and said, ``This is 
where we should cut.'' Not a one said, ``We want to help you. We want 
to be a part of this partnership, and we want to do what is best for 
America.'' What was said was, ``We have got this program going. We have 
had these programs 30 or 40 years. We own them, and as long as we can 
own them, you are not going to take them away from us, and if you do, 
you are going to do it by the hardest.'' That is exactly what we have 
done. We have taken $9 billion. We said, ``Okay, we are going to cut 
here and here and here,'' all the time asking for help, asking from 
those people who knew where the excesses were.
  Some of the times after we cut the bills, people would come up to us 
and said, ``Oh, if we just knew what you were after, what you were 
going to do, we would have told you this particular program overseas 
did not work, or this particular program is really full of excess and 
waste.'' All I said a couple of those times was, ``Why didn't you tell 
us? Why didn't you tell us?''
  All right, then, let us go to the architects of this. For 30 or 40 
years the people who controlled this House, this Congress, put bill 
after bill after bill in here so they could have a perfectly good HHS 
Committee deliberation, and everybody could go and say, ``Here is some 
more money. Here is what you can do, because we are afraid to say `no' 
to you, and we want immediate gratification rather than to do what is 
best for the country.''
  We went to those people. What did they say? They said with their eyes 
and not with their mouths, ``Yes, we have got you out there. I know we 
have got you out there.'' We could not have gotten back in. We did not 
have the way, the credibility of anything else to get 

[[Page H8209]]
back in. ``We are going to let you do it.'' ``We are not going to help 
you.'' Stonewalled.
  So what did we have to do? The buck stopped. We have to go. Now, as 
we come back in, we are bringing this thing in in compliance with the 
commandment from the American people, the very people who are the 
architects of this are complaining all the way and
 criticizing us for doing what they know in their hearts, and it shows 
in their eyes, what is right, and that is we cut spending first for the 
sake of our country in a patriotic way.

  We are going to make mistakes because the deck is stacked against us. 
Those of us who want this, the deck is stacked up here against us. We 
are going to make mistakes, so what we have to do now is do the best we 
can conscientiously, do the best we can to cut spending, to be obedient 
to the mandate from the American people and then, when things are 
calmed down, go back to these agencies and say, ``Now will you, please, 
help us?'' ``You all know better. Do not leave it to laymen. Will you, 
please, help us?'' ``Help us find the right way to cut, the best way to 
cut.''
  But right now all we are trying to do is just to shrink it. Without 
money, there has to be something that is done by the agencies that is 
efficient, efficiency is in place.
  I call upon this body, the American people, all of these agencies, 
the opposition, to work together, get in alignment.
  We are in a step process right now, and we are willing to take the 
heat. We are willing to take the criticism. We are willing to take that 
which is really contradictory when the opposition says that you all are 
mean-spirited and do not care and are not compassionate. We are willing 
to take that for your sake and for our sake. But what I hope is that we 
will leave enough of conversation, enough of a relationship so we can 
get together with these agencies and with the opposition when this is 
all over and we do our job and do a better job of spending cuts for the 
sake of the American people and in love of the American people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, life and politics are a matter of choices. 
This Congress has made spending choices and is about to make one today.
  Let me tell you some of the choices this Congress has made. Under 
Republican leadership, this Congress has decided we will continue to 
give farm payments to wealthy individuals with more than $100,000 off-
farm income.
  The same Republican leadership comes to us today and says, ``But we 
are going to have to cut money for title I for kids in the classroom.'' 
The Republican leadership tells us, ``We must continue to spend 
millions of dollars every year subsidizing the tobacco industry,'' and 
the Republican leadership comes today in this bill and says, ``But we 
are going to have to tell 150,000 young men and women across the United 
States we cannot help them pay for their college expenses,'' kids from 
working families denied the opportunity of an education.
  The Republican leadership tells us we have to spend billions of 
dollars on wasteful B-2 bombers and then turns right around and tells 
us we cannot afford Head Start to take kids in the toughest family 
situations in America and give them a fighting chance.
  The Republican leadership tells us we have to waste millions of 
dollars on star wars, a welfare program for defense contractors.
  Then they come to us today and say, ``We are going to have to cut 
LIHEAP,'' the program that provides some assistance to the poorest, 
usually elderly, who are trying to survive in the cold of winter and in 
the heat of summer.
  The Republican leadership comes and tells us we have to give $300 
billion in tax breaks, mostly to the wealthiest people in this country, 
and yet we have to turn around and cut the money that is available for 
the agencies that make sure that the workplaces in America are safe for 
our employees, that there is money for workers who have lost their jobs 
because the plants move overseas, workers that need retraining, people 
who want protection so their pension benefits will be there when they 
are retired. We cannot afford that, according to the Republican 
leadership.
  The Republicans are there for the wealthy farmers, for tobacco, and 
for defense contractors, but they are not there when American families 
really need them.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, like a lot of the other 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, I think this today is a defining 
moment in our short term in the 104th Congress. We have dealt with a 
great many of the appropriations bills, but when we see what is 
happening to the education and job training provisions and the 
Department of Labor, we see where the intent really is.
  Like my colleague from Arkansas, who is on the other side of the 
aisle, I would like to balance the budget and aim for that glide path 
to a balanced budget. But the way this bill is doing it is the wrong 
way to do it.
  We hear every morning in our 1-minutes and all during these 
appropriations bills how we need to balance the budget, to save our 
children's futures so our grandchildren and children are not going to 
have to pay off the debt. This bill cuts job training, education 
funding, so those children will not be able to have that education to 
be able to even afford themselves much less pay off the debt.
  We have to look to the future in our country. That is the beauty of 
our Nation. We have children that are in elementary school now who are 
utilizing chapter I funding to be a better citizen 10 years from now, 
12 years from now.
  By voting for this bill today and cutting the funds now instead of 
expecting that investment in those children, we are cutting off our 
nose to spite our face. It is amazing that we are willing to say we 
want to save our children from what they are going to have to pay, and 
yet we are cutting public education funding and we are cutting student 
loans.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, we hear in this debate that we are being 
told that some programs have to be trimmed, we have to trim this tree; 
Head Start, for example, is being penalized because some programs 
apparently did not run or were not managed as well as they should have 
been.
  Yet I remember $500 toilet seats. I remember $100 screw drivers. I 
remember the costly travel junkets, and I remember the heavy cost 
overruns in the Department of Defense, and I see that they do not get 
penalized. In fact, they are rewarded. They are rewarded with $8 
billion more in funding than they even requested.
  Tree trimming? I call it butchering. When we go out there and tell 
our children in our schools that their programs will not be there, 
those are being hacked; when we tell our workers that safety for all of 
our middle-income workers has been axed; when we tell our senior 
citizens section 8 housing subsidies will not be there to help them pay 
for their high cost of living and their rent, that is being sacrificed, 
what we are telling people is that the dream Americans have for their 
children is just that, it is just a dream.
  Let us be serious. We are not putting money into deficit reduction 
when we make these cuts. You could save every single penny we are 
cutting out of education by just cutting a fraction of the tax cuts 
that are going to go to the wealthiest of Americans in this country in 
this House's tax bill. We do not come even close with all the cuts we 
have made in education in paying for those wealthy tax cuts.
  Let us be serious, let us let America know where we are heading in 
this Congress. It is not for the American family.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Labor-HHS appropriation bill. This destructive legislation takes aim at 
the people 

[[Page H8210]]
who need the most help--women, children, students, the poor, and the 
elderly. At a time when we should be giving individuals a helping hand, 
this bill sentences the poor to a life of poverty and despair--all in 
the name of a tax break for rich corporations and the wealthiest 
Americans.
  One of the most devastating parts of this legislation is the $3.8 
billion that is cut from educational spending. Even more alarming, 
bilingual and immigrant educational programs stand to lose $104 
million. I wonder which one of my Republican colleagues would like to 
explain to the thousands of bilingual students like those at Public 
School 169 in my district, why the programs that serve to educate them 
deserve a 50 percent cut?
  It's ironic that this Congress is lecturing the Nation on welfare 
reform, yet systematically denying every opportunity for people to 
become self-sufficient.
  Another terrible blow will come from the elimination of the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Many seniors in the Lower East 
Side of my district depend on this program to survive. Have we already 
forgotten last month's episode in which hundreds of seniors died 
senselessly because they were unable to afford the costs of an electric 
fan? If we do not maintain funding for this critical program, the next 
time the temperature climbs into triple digits or drops below zero more 
people will die.
  Then there will be no one to blame for these shameful cuts but 
ourselves. By then, it may be too late. Shame, shame, shame on all of 
us. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the leader, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, for all she has done on 
this.
  If this bill passes, Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich Republicans will be 
showing a triple feature down at your local movie theater. It will be 
``Dumb and Dumber,'' with sick and sicker and poor and poorer, and let 
me tell you, folks, it is not going to be a bargain matinee. No doubt 
about it, this sweeping and radical legislation is going to cost us 
dearly in the long run.
                              {time}  1500

  My colleagues, I could go on and on about the other faults of this 
bill. It is antichoice, antifamily planning, it is antiwoman, all of 
the provisions that are much too much and numerous to mention. But one 
thing is for sure. This bill will go down in history as the declaration 
of war on our children, on women, on the poor, on working families, and 
on seniors.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Americans who care about education, the 
well-being, health, and safety of their loved ones, to tell their 
Representatives to oppose this bill.
  My friends, this Congress has passed some bad legislation, but this 
bill is worse than I ever thought possible. It is the epitome of the 
us-versus-them mentality which plagues the legislation and the debate 
of the 104th Congress.
  This divisiveness has no place in a national dialogue. It has no 
place, because, it leads to elitist and dangerous policy, never more 
clear than in the bill we are debating today.
  We must defeat the Labor-HHS bill because it abdicates this 
Government's greatest responsibility: to make life better for those who 
are uneducated, untrained, poor, sick, or disabled. It signals the end 
of the Federal Government having any obligation, whatsoever, in the 
education, training, and health and safety of our people.
  Make no mistake, this is sweeping and radical legislation. It guts 
our education and training system. It makes a mockery of our efforts to 
get families off welfare. And, it puts the health and safety of all 
American workers at serious risk.
  First and foremost, this bill flies in the fact of the American 
people's belief that education must be our Nation's No. 1 priority. It 
cuts Head Start for 5 year olds; safe and drug free schools for 10 year 
olds; summer jobs and vocational education for 15 year olds; and 
financial aid for students of all ages.
  Is this any way to take care of our Nation's most important special 
interest: Our children? Absolutely not. And, what about all the talk we 
hear from both sides of the aisle about getting families off welfare?
  Well, combined with the harsh Republican welfare plan passed earlier 
this year, this bill makes it next to impossible for a mother to get a 
job and get off welfare. While the Republican welfare plan shredded the 
safety net, this bill burns the ladder to self-sufficiency--effectively 
trapping families in permanent poverty. And, what about families who 
are working hard every day in our Nation's factories, plants, and 
mines.
  As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, 
I have heard loud and clear from these families that they are 
frightened by the new majority's efforts to weaken workplace health and 
safety rules. Over and over again, spouses, parents, and children tell 
me that they are willing to see some of their taxes go toward enforcing 
health and safety rules, so they can be assured that their loved ones 
will come home from work at night safe and sound.
  That's a reasonable tradeoff for our families, and that's a sound 
investment for our Nation. The majority, however, does not see it that 
way.
  The Labor-HHS bill makes it clear that the Gingrich Republicans would 
rather invest in a tax break for the fat cats, than the education, 
training, and health and safety of American workers.
  In fact, if this bill passes, the Gingrich Republicans will be 
showing a triple feature down at your local movie theatre: It will be 
``Dumb and Dumber''; with ``Sick and Sicker''; and ``Poor and Poorer.'' 
And, let me tell you folks, it is not going to be a bargain matinee. No 
doubt about it, this sweeping and radical legislation is going to cost 
us all dearly in the long run.
  My friends, I could go on and on about the other faults of this bill. 
It is antichoice; antifamily planning; and antiwomen provisions--but 
they are much too numerous to mention. But, one thing is for sure, this 
bill will go down in the history as a declaration of war on our 
children; women; the poor; working families; and seniors.
  I urge all Americans who care about the education; well-being; health 
and safety of their loved ones to tell their representatives to oppose 
this abomination of a bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], a member of the subcommittee.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington with 72 other freshmen Republicans 
to change the way Washington does business. This has included a number 
of important reforms ranging from requiring Congress to live under the 
same laws as everyone else to ensuring that the young men and women in 
our Armed Forces will never again serve under foreign generals. I am 
proud to be a part of this freshman class which I believe has forever 
changed the way Washington works.
  But, Mr. Chairman, while we have taken many steps to restore the 
American people's belief in Congress, I believe the most important step 
is our commitment to balance the budget, and this Labor HHS, Education 
appropriation bill is an important part of that commitment.
  Over the last 40 years our Government in Washington has grown out of 
control. Today the national debt is $4.8 trillion, and the President 
will soon ask the Congress to raise the ceiling to enable us to borrow 
even more money; that is, more money to pay for a spiraling bureaucracy 
today that will be paid for by our children tomorrow, by the very 
children that are shown in this photograph that I have with me today. 
At the current rate of Federal spending the national debt for these 
children will rise to $6\1/2\ trillion in 5 short years.
  Now, these figures are incomprehensible. In more digestible terms, a 
child born today will pay over $187,000 in his lifetime in principal 
and interest on the national debt. Is there a parent or grandparent in 
America today who would knowingly hand one of these children a bill for 
$187,000 to pay for our own excesses? I think it is fair to ask, Mr. 
Chairman, are our children really getting their money's worth? Let us 
look at the Federal Department of Education, for example. Since its 
creation the Department of Education has more than doubled its budget, 
from $15 billion to over $31 billion. More than 240 programs exist 
within the Department today, nearly doubling in size since 1980. Yet 
the uncontrolled growth of the Department of Education has not 
increased our children's test scores. Sadly, we have seen a steady 

[[Page H8211]]
decline in student performance as parents and local communities have 
less control over
 the children's education.

  No doubt, Mr. Chairman, when we get to the title of the bill dealing 
with education spending, we will see opponents of this bill parading 
with charts and perhaps dressed in Save the Children neckties claiming 
to be advocates on behalf of children. The truth is that many will hide 
behind the children to make their case for Federal bureaucrats who are 
in danger of losing their jobs. I would submit to my colleagues that 
those of us who are interested in balancing the budget and reducing the 
national debt on these children are the real advocates of children in 
today's current debate.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also important to point out that we can balance 
the budget by the year 2002 by slowing the rate of growth of Federal 
spending. While people talk about cuts, the truth is that we will spend 
$1.8 trillion more over the next 7 years than we are spending today, 
$1.8 trillion more than we are spending today. This bill is a prime 
example of the fact that we can balance the budget by funding programs 
that work and by cutting redundant, wasteful programs. This bill takes 
a myriad of duplicative and intertwining programs and reshapes them 
into a leaner and smarter Government.
  For example, the Federal Government now funds 163 job training 
programs, over 15 departments and agencies, with 40 inter-departmental 
offices. Each of these programs has its own bureaucracy swallowing tax 
dollars which never make it outside the Beltway. Equally astounding is 
the fact that of these 163 Federal programs to train workers to find 
jobs, less than half can tell us whether or not their participants 
receive jobs, and 40 percent cannot even tell us how many people they 
are training.
  Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves is it morally right for these 
children to pay for a Federal Government:
  which currently funds 119 housing programs across 10 different 
departments and agencies;
  which currently funds 86 federal teacher training programs across 9 
departments and agencies;
  which currently funds 266 programs to help youth at risk across 8 
departments and agencies;
  which currently funds over 80 Federal welfare programs; and
  which currently funds 340 programs for families and children across 
11 departments and agencies to the tune of $60 billion annually.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding this time to me.
  I have been listening with care to the remarks we have heard from the 
other side. They talk about the importance of looking to the future, 
and I agree that we must look to the future, we must recognize the 
imperative that we all face to reduce the debt that we face as a 
nation. That debt will come down on our children. But in understanding 
where we need to go in the future, we also sometimes can learn 
important lessons from our past. No lesson has been more important than 
the last two times we have been in this level of indebtedness.
  In the period following the Civil War, the most devastating conflict 
this Nation has ever faced and in the period following the Second World 
War when our level of indebtedness compared to our economy was even 
more devastating than we face today, both were times of industrial 
transition, much like what we face across this Nation, a time in which 
people's jobs are less secure than they have been in the past, and in 
both circumstances we need to learn the lesson that took place in both 
of those times. In the period following the Civil War we put in place 
the Land Grant Colleges Act. We turned 200 small institutions into 
3,500 institutions of higher education, and job development and nation 
building in this country that not only helped us grow, but helped us 
grow beyond the level of debt that we faced at that time. Again, at the 
end of the Second World War we invested in the education and training 
of an entire work force as a million men came back from that conflict. 
We put them to work at building their skills so that they could go to 
work building the industrial productivity of an entire nation.
  Those are the lessons from the past that we need to learn as we 
address a bill that fails to take advantage of them in building for our 
future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman form 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer six amendments today, 
one on Head Start, Healthy Start, dislocated workers, summer jobs, 
School-to-Work Program, and Foster Grandparents Program, putting money 
back in, but then I realized, even if all of those amendments had 
passed, I could not vote for this bill. This bill is so outrageously 
bad that there is no way I could support it. It devastates education 
and job training.
  Mr. Chairman, since I can only speak for a short time, I came to 
speak about Head Start. I know about Head Start. It changed my life. I 
was just a little teacher aide, a mother of two children, went to work 
for the Head Start Program. They encouraged all of us to continue our 
education, the parents and the workers. I went back to school and 
received my degree, and so did many of the parents in that program. We 
learned how to help children build self-esteem, we learned how to get 
parents involved in the budget, and we learned how to get people making 
decisions about their children's education.
  Mr. Chairman, I saw Head Start change lives, change families, change 
communities. How can my colleagues say they care about children and 
take away money from Head Start? This is a wonderful program that not 
only helps children and families, it breaks the cycle of poverty.
  I say to my colleagues, all of you Republicans who say you care about 
children, shame on you that you would do away with the program that 
everybody agrees is a good program that's helped America. These 
children need Head Start. Only 50 percent of the children in America 
who need Head Start are being served by Head Start. I wish there was 
some way I could convince you not to do this awful, terrible bill that 
is going to hurt so many children, but I know I can't. You're going to 
slash this program. You're going to get rid of some of the programs in 
this country that support Head Start.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing we can do about it but vote against 
this awful bill, and I believe there are some Republicans who are going 
to stand with us on this terrible bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, in the brief time that has been allotted 
me I would like to speak about the increases in funding that the Labor-
HHS bill before us provides, recognizing, and gratefully so, the 
increasing trend of violence against women. This bill provides, as my 
colleagues know, an increase of over $40 million from last year's 
spending just on the Labor-HHS side, the majority of it, $35 million, 
going to rape-prevention programs. We had $400,000 for a domestic 
violence hotline, $400,000 for youth education, $4 million for 
community programs, $100,000 for a Center for Disease Control domestic 
violence study, and an equal amount of $32.6 million for a battered 
women's shelter. This billion under this year's funding provides $72.5 
million to complete our contract with the Violence Against Women bill.
  Now add that to the additional funding that we provided in State, 
Commerce, and Justice where we sent from $25 million in last year's 
funding request to $125 million in this year's funding request, and I 
am extremely proud of the work that has been done under the Republican 
Party to fulfill our commitment in the Violence Against Women Act. I 
want to thank Chairmen Porter, Rogers, Livingston, and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], for bringing this to our 
attention, and also I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey], for leading a bipartisan effort to make sure that this funding 
was in place.
  Again I want to commend my colleagues because this is an important 
initiative as we see the numbers rise 

[[Page H8212]]
where three out of four women will be victims of violent crimes. We 
have adequately responded with the resources at hand.
  Mr. OBEY. I am awaiting my last speaker. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
myself in the meantime.
  Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that we have been told many times 
today by our Republican friends that we have to cut the deficit. Of 
course we do. And I am certainly willing, and so are the rest of us, to 
see education, and job programs, and seniors programs take their fair 
share of deficit reduction. But what we are not willing to do is to see 
them take a double hit so that they can spend $70 billion on the F-22, 
which we do not even need for 15 more years, or that they can continue 
to spend almost $1\1/2\ billion a plane to buy more B-2's than the 
Pentagon itself has asked for. We also do not think we ought to 
continue three different separate subsidies for the nuclear industry. 
We are not willing to gut the NLRB and the protections it affords to 
workers in this country so that we can free up corporations to deal 
with their workers like chattel instead of dignified human beings. And 
we are certainly not willing to see these programs take a double hit so 
that we can provide a $20,000 tax cut for somebody making $300,000 a 
year.
  There are some 17 separate special riders in this bill that have no 
business here. Many of them are flat-out gifts to special interests. 
There is absolutely no reason in the name of deficit reduction to 
provide those slippery-slope riders, none whatsoever, and so I think 
that on all grounds there is a very good reason to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
                             {time}   1515

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2127 with 
regret, because it has come important provisions which I support. It 
contains a title on political advocacy that will end taxpayer subsides 
for lobbyists. It shifts OSHA funding priorities away from enforcement 
and toward helping to make workplaces safer, and it increases funding 
for the National Institutes of Health by 5.7 percent, preserving our 
commitment to biomedical research.
  However, this legislation also has huge flaws, including 
disproportionate cuts in the area of education. If it passes, the Safe 
and Drug Free Schools Program will be cut by more than half. Vocational 
and adult education will be cut by 23 percent, and the Head Start 
Program will be reduced by $137 million.
  The bill cuts funding for seniors as well, including reducing the 
National Senior Volunteer Corps by $21 million and cutting senior 
nutrition programs, which fund the very successful Meals-on-Wheels 
Program--which provides the only daily meal many senior citizens 
receive--by nearly $19 million.
  I recognize and support the need to reduce spending, but the cuts in 
this bill are not properly prioritized.
  The bill also contains some obvious contradictions, especially over 
family planning. My colleagues who worked on this bill want to 
eliminate family planning and--at the same time--reduce abortions, 
unwanted pregnancies, and the size of the welfare rolls. That does not 
add up--and in fact, this bill would increase abortions and welfare 
dependency I cannot in good conscience support that.
  Finally, the issue of Medicaid-funded abortions in the case of rape 
or incest is not adequately addressed in this bill. Although Mr. Kolbe, 
Ms. Pryce, and myself had an amendment which would have provided a 
commonsense solution to this problem, we were not allowed to offer it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill so that we can go back and 
make it better.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman, does he have 
just one remaining speaker to close?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have just 1 minute remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] does have 1 
minute remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GERHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to denounce this mindless 
and mean-spirited package of budget cuts and to urge every one of my 
colleagues to cast their vote against it. This appropriations bill is 
more than a handful of budget reductions to balance the Nation's 
budget, it is more than a few policy changes about which we could 
rationally and reasonably disagree, Mr. Chairman, this appropriations 
bill is a dagger pointed at the heart of working Americans. It is a 
dangerous repeal of basic standards and protections that have been in 
place in this country for nearly a century. If we pass it, America in 
the 1990's will look more and more like America in the 1890's.
  Mr. Chairman, like the days of the Robber Barons, we will have a 
Republican America where hard-working people are overworked, underpaid, 
and underprotected. We will have a Republican America where corporate 
titans wreak trickle-down tax cuts while we slash education, slash job 
training, slash summer jobs, and any chance of protecting average 
workers from abuse and exploitation.
  Is that really what we should be doing? Is that really what America 
voted for last November; a Congress that doles out tax breaks for the 
few and partisan punishment for the many?
  Mr. Chairman, the sole central purpose of this Government is to fight 
for working families and the middle class, to work as partners with the 
private sector, to lift up wages and incomes and our standard of 
living. That used to be a bipartisan commitment in this House. Judged 
by that goal, however, we are already in a crisis. Wages and incomes 
have been falling for all but the wealthiest Americans for a decade and 
a half, and, thanks to failed Republican policies, two-thirds of all 
the new wealth in the boom years of the 1980's went to the top 1 
percent of earners. The bottom 80 percent actually saw their wealth 
decline in that period.
  Mr. Chairman, in the midst of a business boom, the Labor Department 
recently reported the greatest yearly wage decline in nearly 150 years. 
If you do not know what that means, come back to my district, or many 
of the districts across the country. Go door to door and meet the 
families that I meet: Parents who work two and three jobs, barely ever 
seeing their children; couples that spend their precious time together 
fighting over their bills and their inability to pay
 their bills.

  Are we proud of this legacy? Does that bad turn really deserve 
another? That is why Democrats have resisted a Republican agenda that 
slashes Medicare, student loans, and education to pay for a tax cut for 
people that have it made. We cannot afford a transfer of wealth in this 
country for people who work to people who are wealthy and no longer 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could differ on supply side policies, but 
who, in good conscience, can support today's assault on workplace 
decency and children's opportunity? This bill slashes education, it 
slashes training, it slashes the standards under which our workers have 
been protected. The result is a damaging downward spiral: Even more 
children starting school unhealthy and unable to learn; even more 
Americans unable to find jobs and prepare for them; even more of the 
sweat shop standards that Democrats and Republicans together used to 
strive to eliminate for nearly a century. These are not partisan 
issues. These are human issues.
  When it comes to enforcing basic standards and decency, Government 
has a role. When it comes to ensuring access to education and health, 
Government has a role. This bill not only denies it, it destroys it. A 
vote for this bill is a vote against America's working families. A vote 
for this bill is a vote for a lower standard of living. A vote for this 
bill is a vote for a meaner, tougher America where the dream of rising 
wages will be nothing but a mirage.
  This is not the vision of our people, Mr. Chairman, and it is not 
what the people of this country want. I urge Members on both sides of 
this aisle to reject this bill as wrong headed and mean spirited, and 
to stand together in a bipartisan way and say that we can do better for 
the working people of this country.

[[Page H8213]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I take great umbrage on the words 
``mindless'' and ``mean spirited.'' I might say that the subcommittee 
worked very thoughtfully and, I think, very intelligently to provide 
cuts of about $6 billion on a base of $70 billion.
  What I really take issue with is that the Democrats just do not get 
it. They do not seem to understand that we have to get spending under 
control; that we have to get the deficit down; that the special 
interest, serve them all, business as usual that has gone on in this 
Congress for the last 40 years is over.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to get our fiscal house in order. We are 
going to do it thoughtfully and intelligently. We are going to make the 
cuts necessary in order to accomplish that end. I might say it is 
fascinating to me to listen to the sky is falling coming from the other 
side of the aisle when the cuts in our bill are not cuts at all. The 
bill is going up, because entitlement spending is raising it by $11 
billion over last year.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, you have to put all of this in 
perspective and understand that the hyperbole from the other side is 
simply that, hyperbole.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate on the bill has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment numbered 1-1 printed in part 1 of 
House Report 104-224 is now pending.
  Reading of the bill for further amendment shall not proceed until 
after disposition of the amendments printed in part 1 of that report, 
which will be considered in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in that report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  After disposition of the amendments printed in part 1 of the report, 
the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  Further consideration of the bill for amendment shall proceed by 
title and each title shall be considered read.
  Consideration of each of the first three titles of the bill shall 
begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
confined to the pending title and shall not exceed 90 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  It shall be in order at any time during the reading of the bill for 
amendment to consider the amendments printed in part 2 of the report. 
Each amendment printed in part 2 may be offered only by a Member 
designated in that report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  During further consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a 
Member who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated 
place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered 
read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the following amendments 
(identified by their designation in the Congressional Record) may amend 
portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question, if offered by the Member designated:
  Amendment No. 36 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; and
  Amendments 60, 61, and 62 offered en bloc by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Debate on each of the following amendments--identified by their 
designation in the Record, ``unless otherwise specified''--and any 
amendments thereto, shall be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment:
  Amendment No. 36 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey];
  Amendment No. 70 by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes];
  Amendment No. 30 by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey];
  An amendment by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] proposing to 
strike section 509 of the bill;
  Amendment No. 64 by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  An amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] or the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] proposing to amend title VI of the 
bill; and
  An amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] relating to 
the subject of political advocacy.
  Except as otherwise specified in the rule, the time for debate on 
each other amendment to the bill and any amendments thereto shall be 
limited to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent of the amendment.
  After a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a day, 
the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that day only if 
offered by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the 
majority leader or their designee.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes to the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
Amendment No. 1-1 Printed in Part 1 of House Report 104-224 offered by 
                               Mr. Porter

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate amendment No. 1-1 printed in 
part 1 of House Report 104-224.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Number 1-1 printed in Part 1 of House Report 104-
     224 offered by Mr. Porter:
       On page 4, line 17, strike ``$3,109,368,000'' and insert: 
     ``$3,107,404,000''
       On page 5, line 17, strike ``$218,297,000'' and insert: 
     ``$216,333,000''
       On page 16, line 20, strike ``$130,220,000'' and insert: 
     ``$134,220,000''
       On page 33, line 12 and line 15, strike ``$2,136,824,000'' 
     and insert: ``$2,134,533,000'' and
       On page 37, line 7, strike ``$4,543,343,000'' and insert: 
     ``$4,544,643,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will each be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that under the rule it is 
indicated that the manager's amendments, No. 1 and 2, will be disposed 
of before we proceed further at this point, but I also heard as part of 
the rule that amendments could be rolled in the discretion of the 
Chair.
  Is it the Chair's intention to dispose of these amendments if 
recorded votes are requested at this time; or would the Chair intend to 
roll the votes until later in the day?

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN. It would be the Chair's intention to roll the votes 
until later in the day.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the first amendment I intend to offer would do four 
things. The first would be to increase funding for Runaway Youth--
Transitional Living in the Administration for Children and Families, in 
the Department of Health and Human Services by $1.3 million to a level 
of $14.9 million. This funding level will permit the continuation of 
all currently funded projects.
  Second, it would increase funding for International Labor Affairs in 
the Department of Labor by $4 million. This increase will allow the 
Department to fund its portion of the International Labor 
Organization's International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor 
and to carry out other human 

[[Page H8214]]
rights activities conducted by that office. This $4 million increase is 
to be confined to those activities only.
  Third, it would reduce funding for the Medicare Contractors budget by 
$2.3 million. HCFA indicated in fiscal year 1995 claims were below 
estimated levels and that $5 million was available for reprogramming. 
This reduction, along with the reduction approved by the committee, 
would reduce fiscal year 1996 funding by $5 million.
  Four, it would reduce funding for State Unemployment Insurance and 
Employment Service Operations by $2 million. Throughout the bill, 
Federal administration costs were reduced by 7.5 percent. With this 
reduction overall, the State administrative account will have been 
reduced 3 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to correct a statement just made to 
the gentleman. The Chair is in fact under the rule entitled to roll a 
vote, should it occur, on amendment No. 1. However, on amendment No. 2, 
the Chair is not under the rule permitted to roll that vote. That vote 
will have to be taken immediately following the debate on amendment No. 
2.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on the first amendment offered by the gentleman, we 
have no objection.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment No. 1-1 printed in part 1 
of House Report 104-224 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1-2 
printed in part 1 of House Report 104-224.


                    amendment offered by mr. porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 1-2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1-2 printed in part 1 of House Report 104-224 
     offered by Mr. Porter: On page 76, line 12, after 
     ``applicant'' insert: ``, except an individual person,''
       On page 77, lines 7 and 8, after ``grantee'' insert: ``, 
     except an individual person,''
       On page 84, line 13, strike ``, or'' and insert: ``;''
       On page 84, line 14, strike ``or''
       On page 84, line 15, after ``to'' insert: ``or distribution 
     of funds by''
       On page 84, line 15, before the period insert: ``and the 
     provision of grant and scholarship funds to students for 
     educational purposes'' and on page 85, line 7, after 
     ``grantee'' insert: ``, except an individual person,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the second amendment I am offering would, first, 
correct an error in the drafting of the bill with respect to title VI. 
It would insert two phrases that were approved by the committee but 
were inadvertently left out of the version that was sent to the 
printer.
  Second, it would make a technical change in title VI by inserting 
language to exempt individuals from the requirements of title VI. This 
simply clarifies the intent of the legislation, and, again, I would 
urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say here that I think it is important to 
understand that this is not just a technical change. As I understand it 
and as the gentleman from Colorado will point out shortly when I yield 
to him, this language not only accomplishes the technical changes 
desired by the chairman of the subcommittee, but also makes a 
substantive change to carve out individuals from the prohibition in the 
Istook amendment that should not be here in the first place.
  So, it is an effort to put a rose on a pig, so-to-speak, and that 
does not mean that the pig is still anything but a pig.
  So I do not have any objection to the fix-up, but I want people to 
understand, it does not improve the general picture of the animal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just point out to my colleagues, if you can envision a jalopy 
that is up on blocks in somebody's backyard, the headlights have been 
shot out, the engine has been partly dismantled, the tires and wheels 
are gone, it is basically rusted out. This is a rough analogy to the 
quality of legislative product that we are now referring to as the 
Istook amendment.
  What the gentleman's amendment will do to this disarray, mechanically 
and philosophically, is basically perhaps to replace the oil gasket. 
But we still have a jalopy that is unfit for human habitation, much 
less legislative consideration in this body.
  It does go farther than merely correcting the clerical error that 
occurred when this was considered in the full Committee on 
Appropriations, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out. It 
also attempts, unsuccessfully I might add, to repair one of the 
fundamental flaws in this whole cockamamy scheme, which is to try to 
fix it so it does not apply to normal human beings, individuals that 
receive some kind of Federal grant. But it only goes partway in doing 
that. We will have further discussions of that later on, I am sure.
  So it reflects, as will be the case over and over again as we discuss 
this ill-considered proposition, the incredibly sloppy conceptual work 
that was done originally in cobbling it together for ill purpose, and 
the incredibly sloppy drafting work that reflects the incredibly sloppy 
thinking.
  Having said that, this clears up a little bit of the slop.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, I, as the gentleman from Colorado and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin know, opposed the inclusion of this entire 
title in our bill. This I think would, however, improve the intent of 
what the gentleman from Oklahoma had when he offered the amendment that 
included title VI. I would therefore say it makes the product better, 
and would support it for that reason. The gentleman might want to 
oppose it for exactly the same reason.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot avoid commenting on the 
gentleman's characterization that this is attempting to improve on the 
intent of the gentleman from Oklahoma in offering this. His intent is 
unimprovable. This change certainly makes the bad impact of this 
provision somewhat diminished.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the author of title VI.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I want to express appreciation for the 
comments of the gentleman from Colorado. I realize he opposes the 
thrust of the legislation and has his own concerns about that. As the 
gentleman correctly said a moment ago, even though he does not like the 
bill, at least in his opinion it is an improvement. This is certainly 
intended to clarify the intent and to correct the scrivener's error 
that was made when things that were in the actual amendment as offered 
in appropriations were inadvertently left out in the bill printing 
process.
  We have certainly tried to be responsive to the concerns of the 
Members on the other side, and the corrective amendment I think 
certainly addresses those. I appreciate what modicum of favorable 
comment the gentleman was able to make in candor. I thank the 

[[Page H8215]]
gentleman. If there is no other debate on this, I would urge adoption 
of this technical correction.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, there is a simple way we can improve this 
even further.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I think I can anticipate that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the solicitude about improving 
the gentleman's proposal. I think we can make a very, very quick and 
brief act of mercy on it that will effect the real improvements 
necessary.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
I realize we are very much opposed on the legislation as a whole, and 
we certainly do anticipate going forward with it. But this does, 
through the technical correction, make sure that we are addressing some 
concerns. I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment No. 1-2 printed in part 1 
of House Report 104-224 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                      TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration

                    training and employment services

       For expenses necessary to carry into effect the Job 
     Training Partnership Act, as amended, including the purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles, the construction, 
     alteration, and repair of buildings and other facilities, and 
     the purchase of real property for training centers as 
     authorized by the Job Training Partnership Act; title II of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Women in Apprenticeship and 
     Nontraditional Occupations Act; National Skill Standards Act 
     of 1994; and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; 
     $3,180,441,000 plus reimbursements, of which $2,936,154,000 
     is available for obligation for the period July 1, 1996 
     through June 30, 1997; of which $148,535,000 is available for 
     the period July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1999 for necessary 
     expenses of construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of 
     Job Corps centers; and of which $95,000,000 shall be 
     available from July 1, 1996 through September 30, 1997, for 
     carrying out activities of the School-to-Work Opportunities 
     Act: Provided, That $50,000,000 shall be for carrying out 
     section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act, $65,000,000 
     shall be for carrying out section 402 of such Act, $7,300,000 
     shall be for carrying out section 441 of such Act, 
     $830,000,000 shall be for carrying out title II, part A of 
     such Act, and $126,672,000 shall be for carrying out title 
     II, part C of such Act: Provided further, That no funds from 
     any other appropriation shall be used to provide meal 
     services at or for Job Corps centers.

            community service employment for older americans

       To carry out title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as 
     amended, $350,000,000.

              federal unemployment benefits and allowances

       For payments during the current fiscal year of trade 
     adjustment benefit payments and allowances under part I, and 
     for training, for allowances for job search and relocation, 
     and for related State administrative expenses under part II, 
     subchapters B and D, chapter 2, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, as amended, $346,100,000, together with such amounts as 
     may be necessary to be charged to the subsequent 
     appropriation for payments for any period subsequent to 
     September 15 of the current year.

     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       For activities authorized by the Act of June 6, 1933, as 
     amended (29 U.S.C. 49-49l-1; 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E)); title 
     III of the Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-
     504); necessary administrative expenses for carrying out 5 
     U.S.C. 8501-8523, and sections 225, 231-235, 243-244, and 
     250(d)(1), 250(d)(3), title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
     amended; as authorized by section 7c of the Act of June 6, 
     1933, as amended, necessary administrative expenses under 
     sections 101(a)(15)(H), 212(a)(5)(A), (m) (2) and (3), 
     (n)(1), and 218(g) (1), (2), and (3), and 258(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.); necessary administrative expenses to carry out section 
     221(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990, $125,328,000, together 
     with not to exceed $3,109,368,000 (including not to exceed 
     $1,653,000 which may be used for amortization payments to 
     States which had independent retirement plans in their State 
     employment service agencies prior to 1980, and including not 
     to exceed $2,000,000 which may be obligated in contracts with 
     non-State entities for activities such as occupational and 
     test research activities which benefit the Federal-State 
     Employment Service System), which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund, and of which the sums available in 
     the allocation for activities authorized by title III of the 
     Social Security Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 502-504), and the 
     sums available in the allocation for necessary administrative 
     expenses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. 8501-8523, shall be 
     available for obligation by the States through December 31, 
     1996, except that funds used for automation acquisitions 
     shall be available for obligation by States through September 
     30, 1998; and of which $125,328,000, together with not to 
     exceed $738,283,000 of the amount which may be expended from 
     said trust fund shall be available for obligation for the 
     period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, to fund 
     activities under the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, 
     including the cost of penalty mail made available to States 
     in lieu of allotments for such purpose, and of which 
     $218,297,000 shall be available only to the extent necessary 
     for additional State allocations to administer unemployment 
     compensation laws to finance increases in the number of 
     unemployment insurance claims filed and claims paid or 
     changes in a State law: Provided, That to the extent that the 
     Average Weekly Insured Unemployment (AWIU) for fiscal year 
     1996 is projected by the Department of Labor to exceed 2.785 
     million, an additional $28,600,000 shall be available for 
     obligation for every 100,000 increase in the AWIU level 
     (including a pro rata amount for any increment less than 
     100,000) from the Employment Security Administration Account 
     of the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided further, That funds 
     appropriated in this Act which are used to establish a 
     national one-stop career center network may be obligated in 
     contracts, grants or agreements with non-State entities: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this Act for 
     activities authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as 
     amended, and title III of the Social Security Act, may be 
     used by the States to fund integrated Employment Service and 
     Unemployment Insurance automation efforts, notwithstanding 
     cost allocation principles prescribed under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-87.

        advances to the unemployment trust fund and other funds

       For repayable advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund as 
     authorized by sections 905(d) and 1203 of the Social Security 
     Act, as amended, and to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 
     as authorized by section 9501(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1954, as amended; and for nonrepayable advances to 
     the Unemployment Trust Fund as authorized by section 8509 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and section 104(d) of Public Law 
     102-164, and section 5 of Public Law 103-6, and to the 
     ``Federal unemployment benefits and allowances'' account, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1997, $369,000,000.
       In addition, for making repayable advances to the Black 
     Lung Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year after 
     September 15, 1996, for costs incurred by the Black Lung 
     Disability Trust Fund in the current fiscal year, such sums 
     as may be necessary.


                         program administration

       For expenses of administering employment and training 
     programs and for carrying out section 908 of the Social 
     Security Act, $83,505,000, together with not to exceed 
     $40,974,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

              Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Pension and Welfare Benefits 
     Administration, $64,113,000.

                  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

               pension benefit guaranty corporation fund

       The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is authorized to 
     make such expenditures, including financial assistance 
     authorized by section 104 of Public Law 96-364, within limits 
     of funds and borrowing authority available to such 
     Corporation, and in accord with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may 
     be necessary in carrying out the program through September 
     30, 1996, for such Corporation: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $10,603,000 shall be available for administrative expenses of 
     the Corporation: Provided further, That expenses of such 
     Corporation in connection with the collection of premiums, 
     the termination of pension plans, for the acquisition, 
     protection or management, and investment of trust assets, and 
     for benefits administration services shall be considered as 
     non-administrative expenses for the purposes hereof, and 
     excluded from the above limitation.

                  Employment Standards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Employment Standards 
     Administration, including 

[[Page H8216]]
     reimbursement to State, Federal, and local agencies and their employees 
     for inspection services rendered, $246,967,000, together with 
     $978,000 which may be expended from the Special Fund in 
     accordance with sections 39(c) and 44(j) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Labor is authorized to accept, retain, and 
     spend, until expended, in the name of the Department of 
     Labor, all sums of money ordered to be paid to the Secretary 
     of Labor, in accordance with the terms of the Consent 
     Judgment in Civil Action No. 91-0027 of the United States 
     District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands (May 21, 1992): Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Labor is authorized to establish and, in accordance with 
     31 U.S.C. 3302, collect and deposit in the Treasury fees for 
     processing applications and issuing certificates under 
     sections 11(d) and 14 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 211(d) and 214) and for 
     processing applications and issuing registrations under Title 
     I of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection 
     Act, 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

                            special benefits


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses 
     (except administrative expenses) accruing during the current 
     or any prior fiscal year authorized by title 5, chapter 81 of 
     the United States Code; continuation of benefits as provided 
     for under the head ``Civilian War Benefits'' in the Federal 
     Security Agency Appropriation Act, 1947; the Employees' 
     Compensation Commission Appropriation Act, 1944; and sections 
     4(c) and 5(f) of the War Claims Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2012); and 50 per centum of the additional compensation and 
     benefits required by section 10(h) of the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended, $218,000,000 
     together with such amounts as may be necessary to be charged 
     to the subsequent year appropriation for the payment of 
     compensation and other benefits for any period subsequent to 
     August 15 of the current year: Provided, That such sums as 
     are necessary may be used under section 8104 of title 5, 
     United States Code, by the Secretary to reimburse an 
     employer, who is not the employer at the time of injury, for 
     portions of the salary of a reemployed, disabled beneficiary: 
     Provided further, That balances of reimbursements unobligated 
     on September 30, 1995, shall remain available until expended 
     for the payment of compensation, benefits, and expenses: 
     Provided further, That in addition there shall be transferred 
     to this appropriation from the Postal Service and from any 
     other corporation or instrumentality required under section 
     8147(c) of title 5, United States Code, to pay an amount for 
     its fair share of the cost of administration, such sums as 
     the Secretary of Labor determines to be the cost of 
     administration for employees of such fair share entities 
     through September 30, 1996: Provided further, That of those 
     funds transferred to this account from the fair share 
     entities to pay the cost of administration, $11,383,000 shall 
     be made available to the Secretary of Labor for expenditures 
     relating to capital improvements in support of Federal 
     Employees' Compensation Act administration, and the balance 
     of such funds shall be paid into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may require that any person filing a notice of injury or a 
     claim for benefits under Subchapter 5, U.S.C., chapter 81, or 
     under subchapter 33, U.S.C. 901, et seq. (the Longshore and 
     Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, as amended), provide as 
     part of such notice and claim, such identifying information 
     (including Social Security account number) as such 
     regulations may prescribe.

                    black lung disability trust fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 
     $995,447,000, of which $949,494,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 1997, for payment of all benefits as authorized 
     by section 9501(d) (1), (2), (4), and (7), of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and interest on advances as 
     authorized by section 9501(c)(2) of that Act, and of which 
     $26,045,000 shall be available for transfer to Employment 
     Standards Administration, Salaries and Expenses, and 
     $19,621,000 for transfer to Departmental Management, Salaries 
     and Expenses, and $287,000 for transfer to Departmental 
     Management, Office of Inspector General, for expenses of 
     operation and administration of the Black Lung Benefits 
     program as authorized by section 9501(d)(5)(A) of that Act: 
     Provided, That in addition, such amounts as may be necessary 
     may be charged to the subsequent year appropriation for the 
     payment of compensation, interest, or other benefits for any 
     period subsequent to August 15 of the current year: Provided 
     further, That in addition such amounts shall be paid from 
     this fund into miscellaneous receipts as the Secretary of the 
     Treasury determines to be the administrative expenses of the 
     Department of the Treasury for administering the fund during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by section 
     9501(d)(5)(B) of that Act.

             Occupational Safety and Health Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration, $263,985,000 including not to exceed 
     $65,319,000 which shall be the maximum amount available for 
     grants to States under section 23(g) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act, which grants shall be no less than 
     fifty percent of the costs of State occupational safety and 
     health programs required to be incurred under plans approved 
     by the Secretary under section 18 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970; and, in addition, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may retain up to $500,000 per fiscal year of 
     training institute course tuition fees, otherwise authorized 
     by law to be collected, and may utilize such sums for 
     occupational safety and health training and education grants: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, 
     administer, or enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or 
     order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
     which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming 
     operation which does not maintain a temporary labor camp and 
     employs ten or fewer employees: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to administer or enforce any standard, rule, 
     regulation, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Act of 1970 with respect to any employer of ten or fewer 
     employees who is included within a category having an 
     occupational injury lost workday case rate, at the most 
     precise Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published, less than the national average rate 
     as such rates are most recently published by the Secretary, 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in accordance 
     with section 24 of that Act (29 U.S.C. 673), except--
       (1) to provide, as authorized by such Act, consultation, 
     technical assistance, educational and training services, and 
     to conduct surveys and studies;
       (2) to conduct an inspection or investigation in response 
     to an employee complaint, to issue a citation for violations 
     found during such inspection, and to assess a penalty for 
     violations which are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period and for any willful violations found;
       (3) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       (4) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to health hazards;
       (5) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident which is fatal to one 
     or more employees or which results in hospitalization of two 
     or more employees, and to take any action pursuant to such 
     investigation authorized by such Act; and
       (6) to take any action authorized by such Act with respect 
     to complaints of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising rights under such Act:

     Provided further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply 
     to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
     does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs ten or 
     fewer employees.

                 Mine Safety and Health Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Mine Safety and Health 
     Administration, $185,154,000, including purchase and bestowal 
     of certificates and trophies in connection with mine rescue 
     and first-aid work, and the hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept lands, buildings, 
     equipment, and other contributions from public and private 
     sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other 
     agencies, Federal, State, or private; the Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration is authorized to promote health and 
     safety education and training in the mining community through 
     cooperative programs with States, industry, and safety 
     associations; and any funds available to the Department may 
     be used, with the approval of the Secretary, to provide for 
     the costs of mine rescue and survival operations in the event 
     of a major disaster: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or 
     expended to carry out section 115 of the Federal Mine Safety 
     and Health Act of 1977 or to carry out that portion of 
     section 104(g)(1) of such Act relating to the enforcement of 
     any training requirements, with respect to shell dredging, or 
     with respect to any sand, gravel, surface stone, surface 
     clay, colloidal phosphate, or surface limestone mine.

                       Bureau of Labor Statistics

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     including advances or reimbursements to State, Federal, and 
     local agencies and their employees for services rendered, 
     $296,993,000, of which $11,549,000 shall be for expenses of 
     revising the Consumer Price Index and shall remain available 
     until September 30, 1997, together with not to exceed 
     $50,220,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, 
     including the hire of three sedans, and including up to 
     $4,056,000 for the President's Committee on Employment of 
     People With Disabilities, $130,220,000; together with not to 
     exceed $303,000, which may be expended from the Employment 
     Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust 
     Fund.
     
[[Page H8217]]



                          working capital fund

       The language under this heading in Public Law 85-67, as 
     amended, is further amended by adding the following before 
     the last period: ``: Provided further, That within the 
     Working Capital Fund, there is established an Investment in 
     Reinvention Fund (IRF), which shall be available to invest in 
     projects of the Department designed to produce measurable 
     improvements in agency efficiency and significant taxpayer 
     savings. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Labor may retain up to $3,900,000 of the 
     unobligated balances in the Department's annual Salaries and 
     Expenses accounts as of September 30, 1995, and transfer 
     those amounts to the IRF to provide the initial capital for 
     the IRF, to remain available until expended, to make loans to 
     agencies of the Department for projects designed to enhance 
     productivity and generate cost savings. Such loans shall be 
     repaid to the IRF no later than September 30 of the fiscal 
     year following the fiscal year in which the project is 
     completed. Such repayments shall be deposited in the IRF, to 
     be available without further appropriation action.''

        assistant secretary for veterans employment and training

       Not to exceed $175,883,000 may be derived from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund to carry out the provisions of 38 
     U.S.C. 4100-4110A and 4321-4327, and Public Law 103-353, and 
     which shall be available for obligation by the States through 
     December 31, 1996.

                      office of inspector general

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $44,426,000, together with 
     not to exceed $3,615,000, which may be expended from the 
     Employment Security Administration account in the 
     Unemployment Trust Fund.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the Job Corps shall be used to pay the compensation of an 
     individual, either as direct costs or any proration as an 
     indirect cost, at a rate in excess of $125,000.
       Sec. 102. Section 427(c) of the Job Training Partnership 
     Act, as amended, is repealed.
       Sec. 103. No amount of funds appropriated in this Act for 
     fiscal year 1996 may be used to implement, administer, or 
     enforce any executive order, or other rule or order, that 
     prohibits Federal contracts with, or requires the debarment 
     of, or imposes other sanction on, a contractor on the basis 
     that such contractor or organizational unit thereof has 
     permanently replaced lawfully striking workers.
       Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Labor or the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation may be used--
       (1) to implement or administer Interpretive Bulletin 94-1, 
     issued by the Secretary of Labor on June 23, 1994 (59 Fed. 
     Reg. 32606; 29 C.F.R. 2509.94-1),
       (2) to establish or maintain, or to contract with (or 
     otherwise provide assistance to) any other party to establish 
     or maintain, any clearinghouse, database, or other listing 
     which--
       (A) makes available to employee benefit plans (as defined 
     in section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974) information relating to the status of 
     investments as economically targeted investments referred to 
     in such Interpretive Bulletin,
       (B) provides assistance to employee benefit plans (as so 
     defined) or any other party to develop or evaluate 
     investments as economically targeted investments referred to 
     in such Interpretive Bulletin, or
       (C) identifies investments with respect to which the 
     Department or the Corporation will withhold from undertaking 
     enforcement actions under such Act by reason of their status 
     as economically targeted investments referred to in such 
     Interpretive Bulletin,
       (3) to administer or otherwise carry out the contract 
     entered into by the Department of Labor designated ``Contract 
     No. J-9-P-4-0060'' or any other similar contract entered into 
     by the Department or the Corporation (except to the extent 
     required by applicable law to provide for the immediate 
     termination of such contract), or
       (4) to promote economically targeted investments referred 
     to in such Interpretive Bulletin, either by direct means, 
     such as lecture or travel, or by indirect means.
       Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
     directly or through section 23(g) of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act for the development, promulgation or issuance 
     of any proposed or final standard or guideline regarding 
     ergonomic protection or recording and reporting occupational 
     injuries and illnesses directly related thereto.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds shall be expended by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration for the enforcement of the Fall Protection 
     Standard published at subpart M of 29 CFR part 1926, until 30 
     days after a new standard has been promulgated by the 
     Secretary of Labor (``the Secretary'').
       The Secretary shall develop this standard no later than 180 
     days after the enactment of this Act. Until the publishing of 
     the revised final rule, the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration may only expend funds designated for the 
     enforcement of an interim fall protection standard which 
     adjusts all height requirements referenced at subpart M of 29 
     CFR part 1926 from 6 feet to 16 feet.
       Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended by the Department of Labor for the 
     purposes of enforcement and the issuance of fines under 
     Hazardous Occupation Order Number 12 (HO 12) with respect to 
     the placement or loading of materials by a person under 18 
     years of age into a cardboard baler that is in compliance 
     with the American National Standards Institute safety 
     standard ANSI Z245.5 1990, and a compactor that is in 
     compliance with the American National Standards Institute 
     safety standard ANSI Z245.2 1992.
       Sec. 108. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended by the Department of Labor for the 
     purposes of enforcement and the issuance of fines under 
     Hazardous Occupation Order Number 2 (HO 2) with respect to 
     incidental and occasional driving by minors under age 18, 
     unless the Secretary finds that the operation of a motor 
     vehicle is the primary duty of the minor's employment.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Labor 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] will be recognized for 45 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, total discretionary funding for the Department of Labor 
is $8.4 billion. This is a reduction of $1.1 billion below fiscal year 
1995's revised amount and a reduction of $3 billion below the 
President's budget request.
  In addition, the bill includes $1.9 billion for entitlement spending 
in the Labor Department. This is a reduction of $583 million below 
fiscal year 1995 and $3 million below the budget request.
  The budget includes substantial reductions in certain job training 
programs, including elimination of funding for summer jobs program, 
also previously rescinded because of the general lack of effectiveness. 
This decision reflects the need to prioritize programs and reduce 
spending, as well as the fact that the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities is in the process of consolidating these very 
programs.
  We also believe that these job training programs under the Job 
Training Partnership Act are, on the whole, less than effective, in 
that taxpayer funding is not getting full value out of these funds. Job 
Corps funding, however, has increased $31 million over last year, which 
will allow funding for four new centers which were approved in prior 
years and are opening in 1996. No additional new centers were approved 
beyond the ones already approved in prior years.
  The total for Job Corps is $1.1 billion. We know that this program is 
expensive, but we believe that in the majority of centers, it is more 
successful in dealing with the very disadvantaged population than are 
the other principal job training programs which we have reduced very 
substantially. The committee has made it clear that the Government is 
to take all necessary steps to straighten out those centers that are 
not performing up to standards. I might say Job Corps, Mr. Chairman, 
addresses the most at-risk youth in our society.
  The bill directs more of the Community Service Employment for Older 
Americans funding to States rather than to national contractors. We 
think the States can do a better job in this area. The national 
contractors have been in this program for 25 to 30 years, and there is 
essentially no competition in the program. They are simply renewed each 
year, year after year, by the Department of Labor. This includes AARP, 
the National Council on Senior Citizens, and the National Council on 
Aging. We believe these matters should be handled more at the State 
level.
  One-stop career centers are level funded at $100 million. We believe 
this is adequate to maintain this program at current levels until we 
see whether it is going to do what the administration says that it will 
do. This sounds like a good concept, but there are so many job training 
programs operating, according to GAO, 163 of them, that it is not at 
all clear that a new Federal grant program is going to coordinate and 
pull all of this together. Congress needs to take legislative action to 
clean up this maze of job training programs. We are hopeful that this 
will be 

[[Page H8218]]
accomplished by the authorizing committee.
  We fund State unemployment insurance administrative costs at roughly 
the same as the 1995 level. This bill includes $2.3 billion for States 
to administer the unemployment benefit program. We expect that the 
States will tighten their belts on administrative costs, just like the 
Federal agencies are doing in this bill.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics is funded at $347 million, a decrease 
of only 1.3 percent. We provide full funding for the revision of the 
consumer price index, and we expect the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 
give this a very high priority.
  OSHA funding is reduced by 15 percent and shifted to emphasize 
compliance assistance. We increased funding by 19.2 percent over 
enforcement activities, where we cut funding by 33 percent for Federal 
enforcement and 7.5 percent for State enforcement.
                              {time}  1545

  Language is also included to prohibit OSHA from issuing a standard on 
ergonomic protection. This agency serves a useful public purpose, but 
it needs to arrange its priorities from being a policeman to a more 
cooperative and consulting role.
  The bill also contains language to prevent implementation of the 
President's Executive order on striker replacements and to end pressure 
on pension funds to invest in economically targeted investments.
  This language, along with other language included in the bill, was 
included at the request of the authorizing committee. The bill reduces 
administrative costs throughout the Department by cutting overall 
administrative budgets by 7.5 percent and the congressional and public 
affairs offices by 10 percent. The bill includes nearly $1.5 billion 
for Labor Department salaries and expense costs in 1996.
  We believe that the Department can make do with that amount and still 
accomplish its essential duties under the law.
  Overall, this bill substantially downsizes the Department of Labor. 
We think that we have reduced programs that do not work very well and 
have reduced overhead and administrative costs in a reasonable way. We 
have fully maintained the Job Corps. We have tried to redirect the 
priorities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. And we 
have provided adequate funding for the Department to carry out its 
essential responsibilities under the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, working people pay most of the taxes to support the 
activities of Government. Yet the activities of Government that are 
most being chopped by this bill are those that help workers, that help 
the children and the families of workers by way of education, training, 
and health.
  Our Republican friends are evidently not satisfied that between 1980 
and 1993 only 97 percent of all of the income growth that occurred in 
our country went to the wealthiest 20 percent of people in this 
society. The rest of the 80 percent in this society had to settle for 
sharing that tiny little 3 percent. And yet this bill will in fact make 
that situation worse.
  They think workers have too much power in the marketplace. In my view 
that is a joke. Yet their bill goes ahead and guts the ability of the 
NLRB to enforce laws to protect workers on everything from wages and 
hours to the minimum wage. It savages the ability of OSHA to provide a 
safe and healthy workplace; $1 out of every $4 that were present a year 
ago to defend the interests of workers in this society will be gone 
under this bill, $1 out of $4.
  This bill, for instance, provides a healthy appropriation for the 
National Institutes of Health. I applaud that. They deal with diseases 
that anybody can get, whether you are the CEO of a plant or the janitor 
at that same plant. But the National Institutes of Occupational Health 
and Safety is supposed to be that one agency which does the research, 
the medical research which is supposed to underlie the actions that 
OSHA then takes to protect the health of American workers.
  That agency is savaged. All ability to train occupational health 
workers in that agency is ended. Its budget, the budget to provide the 
desperately needed research, is gutted. I think the majority party 
ought to be ashamed of itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi], who will begin essentially our side of this 1\1/2\-hour 
discussion on title I, focused on the problems that it presents to 
American workers.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me, and once again for being such an articulate spokesperson 
for America's workers and America's families.
  There are many reasons to be against this bill. Many of them have 
been enumerated in the debate thus far, and we will hear more later.
  But this part of the bill, title I, deals with the war on American 
workers that this legislation has declared. Indeed, regardless of 
comments to the contrary from the majority Republican side, this 
legislation cuts $10 billion, $10 billion in programs that relate to 
family planning in title 10, workers protections, health, education. 
The list goes on and on.
  This section, title I, goes to, as I said, the war on American 
workers. The Republican majority with this bill says to the American 
worker, essentially: Get lost. When it comes to your safety in the 
workplace, your pension protections, your employment standards and 
collective bargaining and job security, forget it. That is what the 
majority is saying.
  This takes place at a time when workers in America are menaced by 
corporate downsizing to increase profits, the bottom line for corporate 
America, globalization, putting many U.S. jobs offshore, and the 
technological advances which we all support. Those factors make it even 
harder to understand why the Republican majority would strike out at 
the American worker at this very difficult time in our economic 
history.
  We hear a great deal about competitiveness, how can we compete with 
our European and our Japanese competitors when they respect their 
workers? The American workers are the most productive workers in the 
world. Yet our reward to them is to say, in this bill, the law of the 
jungle will prevail. Laissez-faire reigns. We are not interested in 
your progress.
  This committee bill reverses decades of progress to protect American 
workers. Out of respect for those American workers, I offered an 
amendment to restore funding for seven critical worker protections. 
Unfortunately, this amendment is not in order under the rule. 
Therefore, I want to explain to Members the implication of these cuts 
on American workers.
  A vote for this bill, and I think every Member should be very 
conscious of this when they put their
 card in the machine, a vote for this bill is a vote for a 33 percent 
cut in safety and health enforcement in our country. Currently, 6,000 
Americans are injured on the job each day, and these injuries cost 
America more than $112 billion a year. So it does not even make 
economic sense to make this foolish cut. These preventable injuries 
have a direct impact on American families.

  In addition to that, they have a cut of 25 percent in safety and 
health research. Are you ready for this, my colleagues? Even General 
Motors is opposing this cut. This research ultimately saves the Nation 
billions of dollars annually in medical costs. Of course, the health 
care costs borne by the industry directly impact on the price of 
product, making global competition an issue as well. That is why 
General Motors is opposing this cut. Why do we not?
  There are also cuts in mine safety. This means fewer mines will be 
inspected, exposing more miners to injury.
  There are other reductions proposed in pension protections. The 
reductions proposed in this bill place in jeopardy working families' 
pensions. These cutbacks will result in pension plan losses of at least 
$100 million, and the number of pension fraud cases pursued will 
decline by 20 percent.
  Employment standards enforcement is cut by 25 percent. These 
reductions will mean that $25 million in back wages owed to some 50,000 
workers will not be recovered.
  Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am putting elaboration of all of this 
in, but in the interest of time I am just 

[[Page H8219]]
going to proceed to collective bargaining. The collective bargaining 
protections are cut by 30 percent. This is absolutely appalling. The 
National Labor Relations Board was created in 1935 to bring order to 
labor disputes.
  This bill cuts 30 percent of the funds for the NLRB and handcuffs the 
board's ability to enforce existing laws and safeguards on employees 
rights and employers protection. The NLRB guards against unfair labor 
practices both by employers and employees. This is a direct attack on 
the basic rights of both.
  The dislocated worker assistance program is cut by 34 percent. This 
means that 193,000 workers who lose their jobs in 1996, through no 
fault of their own, will not receive training.
  Rapid advancements in technology, defense downsizing, corporate 
restructuring, and intense global competition result in structural 
changes necessary for economical growth. This program works. The 
inspector general has reported that workers served by this program were 
reemployed, remained in the workforce, and regained their earning 
power. Continuing our investment in dislocated workers is essential.
  The cuts in these seven programs for worker protection, along with a 
long list of legislation provisions--limiting the authority of agencies 
to enforce child labor laws, laws which protect workers' right to 
organize, and regulations to protect occupational safety; and language 
blocking the President's Executive order regarding striker 
replacements--constitute a war on the American worker.
  Mr. Chairman, American workers are the engine of our economy. They 
must be treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe 
workplace. Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on 
worker protection. Cuts that will result in increased workplace 
accidents and fatalities will cost our society. This is the wrong place 
to cut back. Shame.
  Mr. Chairman, we will go into this more as we try to bring up other 
amendments. All I am saying here today is that, if Members in this 
Chamber care about the American worker, they will vote against this 
bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Bentonville, AR [Mr. Hutchinson], a member of the Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Committee.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman on his 
leadership that he has displayed on this very fine appropriations bill. 
I also want to commend my chairman on the Subcommittee on Workforce 
Protections, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], for the 
work that he has done on OSHA reform.
  We have had a number of OSHA hearings in recent months in which we 
have heard repeatedly the kind of horror stories of OSHA overkill. So I 
am very glad to support this bill, particularly because of the OSHA 
provisions in which we reduce funding for enforcement, investigation 
and imposition of penalties by 33 percent while increasing compliance 
assistance by 20 percent, as we can see on this chart.
  This bill simply redirects OSHA's current philosophy of assessing 
excessive fines and penalties to one where OSHA will be required to 
work with and assist small businesses in their efforts to promote 
health and safety in the workplace. So we reduce the funding by 33 
percent on the enforcement side while increasing funding by 20 percent 
on compliance assistance.
  Surely it is not too much to ask of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration to work with small businesses to ensure the 
health and safety of their employees. After all, that is why OSHA was 
created.
  We heard so many stories, but this story was faxed to me, and it is 
very typical of the kinds of stories we heard on OSHA overkill in our 
hearings. This small businessman operated for 21 years. None of his 
employees ever had a lost-day injury, not one. No workmen's 
compensation claim was ever paid. Yet after 21 years, that OSHA 
inspector came in, filed 21 alleged violations.
  He said the allegations were that he was exposing his employees to 
hazards such as not having a crane operators manual, and not having 
instructions on how to pour diesel fuel, and not having a list of 
hazards on how to handle gasoline, grease, and concrete.
  I will make a long story short. That happened in 1991, 4 years. After 
he contested the allegations, after he contested the citations, 4 years 
later and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs later, all of 
the citations were vacated.
  Would it not make a lot more sense had that inspector simply said, 
you have got 30 days to make
 the corrections on where we see violations and where you are out of 
compliance? The small businessman makes those corrections, and we go on 
with a good, safe workplace, saving the taxpayers of America hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in litigation costs.

  That is what this bill moves toward. It refocuses its priorities 
toward assisting businesses in having a safe workplace.
  OSHA inspectors are simply misguided in their efforts to promote a 
safe workplace. In recent years, eight of the 10 most cited standards 
by OSHA have been paperwork violations. With OSHA, it is regulation, 
inspection, citation and fine, fine, fine, and we want to change that.
  We have heard that the 11-percent cut overall in Labor-HHS 
appropriations, the sky is falling, you have heard apocalypse now. You 
has heard, as one speaker said, that it is a declaration of war on the 
children. There has been a lot of talk about hurting our children. They 
say they are worried about our children. I want to say I am worried 
about our children. My son, about a year from now, will be getting 
married to a wonderful, wonderful bride. A few years from now they will 
be starting a family. His first child will be my first grandchild, and 
I am worried about them. I am worried about the future we are giving 
them. I am worried about the $18,000 debt that that little grandchild 
will inherit, the day he is born or she is born.
  I am concerned about the $187,000 that they will pay in taxes just to 
pay interest on the national debt. So, when we talk about the children 
and the impact of this bill upon the children, please think about that. 
Think about the burden that we are imposing. And you will hear, as we 
have heard, that the minority leader said this bill is a dagger aimed 
at the heart of the children. No, it is not. It is a dagger aimed at 
the heart of runaway social spending. You heard that it is a war on 
American workers. No, it is not. It is not a war on American workers. 
It is a war on job-killing deficit spending.
                              {time}  1600

  It is time we made the start. This bill does that. Let us pass a good 
Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I believe when 17 Rhode 
Islanders died on the job in 1992, that we are not doing enough to 
protect worker safety; but the Republicans in this bill are saying that 
we are doing enough. In fact, they are saying that we are doing too 
much to protect workers.
  Just think about this for a moment, Mr. Chairman. When 6,000 workers 
die every year, and there is one worker-related fatality every 5 
seconds in this country, the Republicans in this bill we say are 
spending too much money on worker safety. This is madness.
  Since worker safety protections were put in place in order to address 
trenching fatalities, the number of workers killed has declined by 35 
percent, and hundreds of trenching accidents have been prevented. In 
one instance, an OSHA inspector in a Cleveland construction site said 
that the workers had to wear fall protection gear while working on a 
scaffolding 70 feet above the ground. Four days later that scaffolding 
collapsed, 4 days later, while none of the workers were injured, 
because they were all wearing the protective gear that OSHA told them 
they should wear. This is the reason we need to protect it.
  Mr. Chairman, since the agency was charged with protecting worker 
safety, and since it was put in place, overall workplace fatalities 
have declined 57 percent, so why is this bill cutting its budget by 33 
percent? Obviously, as the Member just said, to save money. That is 
obvious. The question is, save money for what? Save money and lose 
jobs? Save money and lose lives? Save money so that the richest 1 
percent of this country can get a $20,000 tax break? To me, that is 
deplorable, and we should not allow it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hickory, NC [Mr. 

[[Page H8220]]
Ballenger], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
of the Committee on Economic and Education Opportunities.
  Mr. BALLENGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk about how if we make any 
cuts in OSHA enforcement we will directly endanger American workers. 
That kind of statement presumes that only the strong enforcement arm of 
OSHA stands between workers and serious injury and death. I think we 
all know that that's nonsense. Employers in this country have a lot 
more reasons than OSHA for providing safe workplaces. The fact of the 
matter is that once one cuts through the rhetoric, the evidence of an 
overall effect of OSHA in reducing injuries and deaths over the past 25 
years is at best very limited.
  It has been claimed that OSHA works because workplace fatality rates 
have decreased by more than 50 percent since the OSH Act was passed. In 
fact, workplace fatality rates have declined steadily since the end of 
World War II, and in fact the fatality rate decreased more during the 
24 years prior to OSHA than it did in the 24 years after OSHA was 
created.
  OSHA itself cites a 1993 study which, OSHA claims, ``confirmed that 
in the three years following an OSHA inspection and fine, injuries at 
the inspected worksite decline by as much as 22%.'' In fact, OSHA is 
trying to make that study's conclusions far more positive than the 
authors were. The authors of the study did estimate that in their 
sample of companies that had been inspected and fined there was a 22-
percent decline in injuries over 3 years. The companies in the sample 
were very large manufacturing facilities; thus the number of injuries 
suffered was relatively high compared to all worksites in the United 
States. The authors did try to extrapolate their findings from this 
sample to all employers, and concluded that OSHA probably reduced 
overall injuries by about 2 percent. Indeed, nearly all economists' 
attempts to estimate the overall effect of OSHA on workplace injuries 
have concluded that the effect is between 0 and 3 percent.
  Since OSHA began the Federal Government has spent over $4 billion 
directly in implementing and enforcing the OSH Act and directed that 
billions more be spent by American employers to comply. Why is there so 
little evidence that OSHA has had a significant effect on workplace 
safety and health?
  If you talk to safety and health directors across this country, what 
you realize is that OSHA's preoccupation on enforcement is not only not 
effective, but often counterproductive. Let me just read a few comments 
from a safety and health director of a major printing company.

       During the 1980's and my first five years with Donnelley, 
     my department's focus was compliance based. During this time 
     period, our accident rates and workers' compensation costs 
     increased dramatically. During this time frame, we averaged 
     about 10 OSHA inspections per year. None of the citations 
     related to the main reasons our accidents were occurring. To 
     use an analogy, all of our citations were for not putting a 
     band-aid on a cut--none were for what was causing the cut. In 
     the beginning of 1992, we returned to our historical focus of 
     managing safety and not compliance. With the return to our 
     historical focus on accident prevention, we achieved an 
     accident rate reduction of 16%, a lost time accident rate 
     reduction of 15% and a workers' compensation cost per claim 
     reduction of 24% from 1991 through the end of 1994.
       In my position, I spend approximately 50% of my time on 
     OSHA compliance issues and our plant safety coordinators 
     spend approximately 80% of their time on compliance 
     activities. The majority of our resources are dedicated to 
     paperwork and programs that are not the cause of our 
     problems. OSHA could be a helpful resource in our efforts to 
     prevent accidents, but the agency needs to be refocused.

  The problem is that OSHA's emphasis has been on compliance with 
regulations, many of which have only indirect or minor relationship to 
safety. More reasonable regulations, combined with other strategies 
which focus on safety and health rather than punishment--expanded 
consultation services, incentives for good safety records, provision 
for private sector workplace reviews, more leeway for employee 
participation and safety committees, and directing that enforcement 
focus on serious health and safety concerns--will make OSHA more 
effective, as well as less onerous.
  Reforms to OSHA are badly needed. We are trying to reform OSHA in my 
subcommittee. This appropriations bill is a realistic reflection of 
where OSHA is today. Don't be deceived by the talk about increased 
worker injuries. The evidence just doesn't support those claims.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not merely about saving money. 
Very little money is saved in the reductions, the cuts on OSHA. This is 
about micromanaging the Department to achieve certain targeted 
objectives.
  There is a conspiracy to wipe out OSHA. There is a conspiracy to 
destroy the effectiveness of OSHA. Thirty-three percent of the 
enforcement budget is cut, 33 percent is cut from an already small work 
force. With the number of inspectors that OSHA has presently, it would 
take them 86 years to inspect every business establishment in America 
one time, 86 years already. Now they are going to cut that by one-
third. There is a conspiracy.
  Mr. Chairman, that conspiracy is documented in a Washington Post 
article, two articles, which appeared July 23 and 24, and I intend to 
submit them in the Committee of the Whole for the Record, the entire 
two articles from the Washington Post. These articles expose the fact 
that there is a covert war to obliterate OSHA and MSHA. This conspiring 
has been underway since the beginning of the 1994 election campaign.
  The Post article indicated that the down payment for the contract to 
assassinate OSHA was $65,000 in North Carolina. I am certain that 
similar war bonds for the destruction of OSHA and MSHA were being 
purchased in other States, also. They are specifically going after 
certain aspects of OSHA to please the business community. The world 
already knows how the Republican Party has turned over the Waco 
investigation to the NRA. That is well documented.
  Thanks to this article in the Post, we now know that certain parts of 
what I call the Death and Injury Act in the authorizing committee was 
turned over to similar outside vested interests, and certain aspects of 
this appropriations bill have been turned over, to be written by 
outside interests.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about life and death. We are talking 
about a bill which will go after the standards which protect the health 
and safety of American workers. Fifty-six thousand workers die per 
year. Ten thousand died last year directly on the job. The rest of them 
died as a result of complications suffered by conditions on the job or 
diseases contracted on the job, but 10,000 died directly.
  In North Carolina, we know about the 25 people who were killed in one 
fire in a North Carolina plant that had not been inspected by OSHA. In 
Georgia, on March 17, 1994, Mr. Sangster, an employee of the Industrial 
Boiler Co., was killed while attempting to test fire a boiler. The 
boiler exploded and the left front door struck Mr. Sangster, killing 
him. There were quite a number of such deaths in the State of Georgia. 
I mention that because there are prominent Members of the State of 
Georgia delegation on the committee seeking to assassinate and destroy 
OSHA.
  Also in Georgia, on April 18, 1994, a Mr. Powel, an employee of 
Harbert-Yeargin Co., was killed while in the process of erecting 
scaffolding. He bent over to pick up his hammer and his safety lantern 
got caught in an ungraded drive shaft. Mr. Powel was dragged into the 
shaft and killed.
  In Pennsylvania, where the head of our authorizing committee that is 
out to assassinate and destroy OSHA resides, on December 13, 1993, a 
Mr. Rever, an employee of Hartlaub's Used Cars and Parts, was crushed 
to death. No safety chain assembly was being used, nor was the vehicle 
jacked and blocked as it is supposed to be to prevent the falling. As a 
result, when Mr. Rever used an impact wrench to remove parts, the van 
fell on him, crushing his head and chest.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a life and death matter for American workers. 
Not only the members of labor unions but all American workers are 
affected. Since 

[[Page H8221]]
OSHA has existed, the number of deaths and injuries have gone down. We 
must save OSHA from this micromanaging, and the authorizing 
language in this bill, which is part of the appropriations for 
appropriation, is part of the conspiracy to destroy it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there are so many cuts on middle-class 
working Americans in this bill, it is hard to know where to start. 
However, one example is an organization called the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, including the Southwest Center at 
the University of Texas in Houston. That is not in my district, but 
what that center and other regional centers do affect people across 
this country in every congressional district.
  This program is purely scientific. It is a research organization. It 
is headed by scientists, not by politicians, not by bureaucrats, but 
scientists who are trying to prevent injury and illness in the 
workplace, to protect people so there are not lawsuits, so there is not 
government interference, so there is not an accident or an illness to 
start with. It is that program that is about prevention, not 
prosecution, that is about research, not redtape, that gets slashed in 
this Republican proposal.
  By cutting this proposal, what Republicans are doing to middle-class 
working Americans is to cut research to improve the protective clothing 
for our firefighters, to cut research to cut out the investigation of 
new ways to improve respirators for our pilots, to cut research in 
painful and debilitating illnesses, like asbestosis and lead poisoning, 
that affect workers in the workplace, to cut research about workers who 
get crushed by machinery, who get crushed in accidental rollovers of 
large equipment.
  Additionally, the Republicans abolish vital training and education 
programs that produced 2,700 health and safety professionals last year. 
They proceed to kill continuing education programs that taught 150,000 
working men and women last year about the dangers of injury and 
illness. The goal of all these programs is to prevent injury and 
illness before it occurs. Stop the testing, stop the training, close 
the labs, turn out the lights. That is what this program is all about.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the committee has struck a good balance with 
what we are trying to accomplish in this Congress, and what we are 
trying to accomplish in this Congress, in my opinion, is to fulfill the 
mandate of the November election. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues 
apparently believe that caring is equated and shown by how much 
commitment you have to fund bureaucracies in Washington, DC.
  I would like to tell them the best I can that people in this country 
understand we can care without spending billions and billions of 
dollars on Federal bureaucracy. I care about safety in the workplace, 
but what I have been elected to do is reform government so we have a 
government that is efficient, that meets the needs of the people, and I 
think our OSHA structure does not meet the needs of the American 
businessman nor the American worker. When 8 out of 10 violations are 
paperwork violations, you can have a safe workplace but it may not be 
OSHA safe.
                              {time}  1615

  For every dollar that you take away from a small business or a large 
business, that is a dollar you take out of the pocket of an employee 
who works for that business.
  Mr. Chairman, reality has finally come home to Congress. The reality 
is that we are broke up here. We are looking at ways to save money, but 
we want to do it in an efficient way without hurting people. We can 
care about the American worker without funding OSHA at the extent that 
people up here want it funded. There is not enough money in the 
printing press to satisfy the needs of some of the people that serve in 
this body to fund Washington, DC.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a city councilman come up to me and talk about 
the EPA reforms that we are engaging in. He says, Congressman, what are 
you going to do if I dump raw sewage in the river? I said, well, the 
EPA is going to get you, because we have not changed that. That is 
still a bad thing to do. However, one thing you forget, Mr. City 
Councilman, is your citizens are going to throw you out of office.
  People care in our community. One way to regulate what happens in the 
community is to have people involved without bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC always being involved. What we have done in this bill is we have 
reduced the enforcement gotcha provisions and we have replaced it with 
money to help people comply.
  If you want to make your workplace safe, we are going to reinvent 
government so that you can come and talk with us and we will sit down 
and talk with you about how to make the workplace safe, rather than 
sending in a bunch of inspectors and take money out of your pocket 
because the paperwork does not add up. That is the new Congress, that 
is what I got elected to do.
  One way to make sure nobody ever gets hurt is to do away with the 
ability to have a job in America. If we do not control our spending and 
the way we regulate in Washington, DC, we are not going to have any 
workplace injuries because nobody is going to have a job. That is what 
this Congress is about, trying to reinvent government with some reality 
in the way it is run in Washington, DC.
  The working stiff, I heard that mentioned 20-something times in my 
committee. I serve on the Workplace Protection Subcommittee with 
Secretary Reich. Well, let me tell him this, that in my district the 
average income is $13,200. I am the first Republican to get elected in 
120 years. I am the first person in my family to graduate college 
because my parents worked hard. Let me tell you, the working stiff has 
broke the code. Caring and funding Federal bureaucracies do not 
necessarily go together.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman form 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has passed some bad 
legislation, but this bill is worse than I ever thought possible.
  It actually signals the end of the Federal Government's obligation, 
to protect the health and safety of the workers of our Nation.
  I am a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities 
Committee, a committee I call the Opportunity to Cut Everything 
Committee and working families from across this country have told me 
they are frightened by the new majority's efforts to gut workplace 
health and safety rules and support.
  These workers' families tell me they are willing to see some of their 
taxes go toward enforcing health and safety rules, so that their loved 
ones come home at night from work safe and sound.
  Mr. Chairman, that's a reasonable tradeoff for our working families, 
and that's a sound investment for our Nation.
  This bill, however, makes it clear that the Gingrich Republicans 
would rather invest in a tax break for the fat cats, than invest in the 
health and safety of American workers.
  I urge all Americans who care about the health and safety of their 
loved ones to tell their representatives to oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not trim, it literally guts 
Occupational Safety and Health by one-third and will adversely impact 
millions of workers across this country. This very morning an 
individual was killed in my district in an oil refinery. He was using 
high pressure hydroblasting equipment to clean refinery equipment, was 
hit by water sprayed at a pressure of in excess of 10,000 pounds per 
square inch, and was killed. This accident could have been prevented.
  Mr. Chairman, 55,000 workers die in our country and another 60,000 
are permanently disabled each year in work-related deaths and injuries. 
Just in my region in the last 6 months there have been 11 work-related 
fatalities, a record number, two electrocutions, a 

[[Page H8222]]
fall from an elevated platform where no fall protection was used, an 
individual crushed by a forklift, a woman who was working on structural 
steel and was killed by a piece of that steel, a worker overcome by 
fumes while filling a rail car with CO2. Let us stand up for 
people who work. Let us value life. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak out against the 25-
percent reduction to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health.
  NIOSH is the only Federal agency charged with conducting research to 
identify the causes of work injuries and diseases and develop 
approaches by which workers can be protected. This is not to be 
confused with OSHA. OSHA does not conduct research, although they rely 
on it.
  Every day 17 Americans die from work injuries and illnesses. Every 
week 67,000 workers are disabled by workplace injuries and illnesses. 
What is more disappointing is the fact that most of these illnesses and 
injuries are preventable.
  NIOSH has been making a difference to working men and women. Research 
and studies conducted by NIOSH has led to a reduction in work-related 
injuries, however, we still have a long way to go.
  In July 1991, a 47-year old female had her entire scalp from the back 
of the neck to the browline removed.
  Other workers have needed amputation and on average about 16 workers 
have been killed annually in entanglements involving rotating drive 
lines on agricultural machinery.
  In 1991, NIOSH eased public concern over an unknown hazard and a 
possible link between use of video display terminals and a cluster of 
miscarriages.
  At that time, there were over 7 million women operating video display 
terminals [VDTs] and there had been widespread concern that the cause 
of the highly publicized clusters of miscarriages among workers were 
caused because of exposure to VDTs. But thanks to NIOSH, these stories 
have happy endings. NIOSH published the definitive report that found no 
connection between VDTs and miscarriages. The NIOSH relieved anxiety of 
both employers and workers.
  We must continue to protect our nation's workers. Do not support 
these cuts.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in support of this 
legislation.
  I would like to make reference to several of the labor references 
which are in the legislation. We have heard a lot of talk about the 
fact that there are tragic cuts being made here, but people often 
overlook some of the labor legislation we have on our books which are 
wasting a great deal of money.
  One reference I would like to make is the economically targeted 
investments which have come to light as of recently. There we have the 
Department of Labor that has entered into what they call economically 
targeted investment, being investments in projects selected primarily 
for the social benefits that they purport to generate rather than the 
financial return and safety that they would give to America's 
pensioners.
  We are talking here about the ERISA law, which has been a tremendous 
success in this Nation, by the way, and it is private financing which 
is going into the private infrastructure in investments. It is all done 
voluntarily by employers under the ERISA law.
  Under that law for the last 20 years we have had this tremendously 
effective private pension plan project in this land of ours, the 
fiduciaries of ERISA and the pension plans rely upon what is called the 
prudent man rule, which is a very simple, basic rule that is well 
understood by the fiduciary community, the investment community, in 
this land.
  Along comes the Department of Labor, and they issue what is called an 
interpretation of the prudent man rule, which is Interpretive Bulletin-
94 that was issued in February 1994, where they try to interpret what 
is a socially beneficial investment, basically. Then, they follow that 
up by contracting for more than $1 million to implement what they refer 
to as a clearinghouse.
  This was done in September 1994. Indeed, they went ahead, without any 
congressional clearance, to give a contract to Hamilton Securities 
Advisory Services at a cost of over $1 million to design and develop 
and operate a clearinghouse for the promotion, basically, of these 
economically targeted investments.
  But the word that the financial community gives to the Department of 
Labor is, do not waste these millions of dollars in that regard. Do not 
promote or encourage or push any specific class of investments.
 You do not have to do that, because we have a very effective working 
prudent man rule in this land which has worked very well in regard to 
what is a proper investment being made in the private pension 
community.

  Of course, what the Department of Labor would like to do is to be 
able to look at that $3.5 trillion of pension funds which are out 
there, having been successfully invested, and they would like to, of 
course, steer those investments into what they deem to be socially 
correct, but that simply is not required. If economically targeted 
investments are just as sound as other investments, which is what the 
Department of Labor likes to say, then promoting them through a 
clearinghouse at a cost of over $1 million just to get it started is 
superfluous, because the market obviously will direct capital to them.
  Mr. Chairman, another area where we are spending money, for instance, 
and do not have to do at all, is the Presidential Executive Order 12954 
which prohibits Federal contractors from hiring permanent replacement 
workers in an economic strike. Now, the President ignored completely 
that for 60 years the established labor law in America was that the 
workers did, indeed, and do, indeed, have the right to strike.
  Also, as a last resort which no employer wants to ever utilize, the 
employer has the right to hire permanent replacement workers in a 
economic strike if indeed he finds that he has no other course but to 
go out of business if he cannot take that particular course.
  Now, it is amazing to me that the President would just go ahead and 
take this action when there is no implied right, no basis in law under 
the procurement law, which he claims is his basis, to be able to enact 
a law like this. Presidents cannot just simply declare what the law 
shall be. It is not only not based on any kind of law, but also it is 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, we should think on these things as we criticize what 
this new Congress is trying to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues what the cut 
proposed in this bill to the budget of the Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration [PWBA] will mean to working people and their families.
  It means that a New York woman who needed emergency surgery to 
correct problems related to her breast cancer would have faced 
bankruptcy to pay her hospitals bills.
  It means that a group of Kansas City employees would have lost all 
the hard-earned money they contributed to their employer's profit 
sharing plan when the employer failed to forward their payroll 
deductions.
  It means that more than 13,00 annuitants of terminated pension plans 
would not have been protected with a guarantee of more than $200 
million when their insurance company failed and went into receivership. 
These are examples of the conscientious people the PWBA helps.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will seriously endanger the security of 
workers' pensions and health benefits. It will make hard earned 
pensions and benefits much more vulnerable to thieves and scoundrels. 
This bill could be called the ``Pension Grab Authorization Act.''
  The Republicans propose to slash the budget for the Pension and 
Welfare Benefits Administration for fiscal year 1996. The PWBA is a 
lean, mean pension
 watchdog. In fact, a recent Brookings Institution report praised the 
PWBA as ``The most highly leveraged operation in the entire Federal 
government.'' On average a single employee of 

[[Page H8223]]
the PWBA oversees $4.8 billion in assets. So while the Republicans talk 
about eliminating wasteful bureaucrats, they contradict themselves with 
this cut. And while the Republicans talk about protecting pensions, 
they contradict themselves with this cut.

  Three trillion dollars in pension and health assets covering more 
than 200 million Americans are protected by the agency. This enormous 
amount of money is an inviting target for flim-flam artists and 
embezzlers.
  Last year, the PWBA responded to 158,000 requests for assistance. And 
its cases resulted in 141 criminal indictments and restored $482 
million in pension wealth to workers. But if the Republicans have their 
way, $100 million that belongs to workers won't be recovered. One out 
of five pension thieves the agency would have indicted will be able to 
commit fraud with no repercussions. And 30,000 requests for information 
and assistance from working families concerned about their health care 
and pension benefits won't be answered.
  Mr. Chairman, despite their claims to the contrary, the Republicans 
are willing to jeopardize workers' hard-earned pensions and benefits by 
gutting the PWBA. Vote against this bill.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the massive crippling in this bill of the 
National Labor Relations Board is a punitive effort to restrict the 
agency responsible for ensuring the rights of workers to organize and 
bargain collectively.
  This agency was created in 1935 to bring order and reduce violence in 
labor organization disputes. The agency has served our Nation for over 
60 years, guarding against unfair labor practices by both employers and 
employees.
  Mr. colleagues who want to gut the NLRB should consider whether or 
not they really want disputes to be settled back in the streets, 
because that is where we are heading. In fact, with these massive cuts, 
it is going to take over 1,000 days before decisions are rendered by 
the NLRB. By disabling this agency, this bill strikes a hard blow 
against working Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, let us stand up for working families. Let us vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tucson, AZ [Mr. Kolbe], my colleague on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill before us today. Although we are now on title I, my comments are 
more general in nature.
  Chairman Porter deserves credit for the outstanding job he has done 
in his subcommittee. He has been patient in the face of extremely 
difficult circumstances as one bad amendment after another was attached 
to his bill during the full Appropriations Committee consideration. 
Unfortunately, this bill has now become a tar baby. Through no fault of 
the chairman, the Labor-HHS-Education bill is now fatally flawed.
  Let me enumerate some of the problems I have with this bill. First, 
it contains extremely restrictive language on a woman's right to 
choose. It prohibits from receiving Federal funds ob/gyn residency 
programs that provide abortion training. The message we are sending is 
that while abortion is legal in our country, we are not going to train 
physicians on how to safely perform this procedure. This is an 
unprecedented Government intrusion into medical education.
  Second, this bill contains a provision which allows Federal funds to 
be available for abortion under Medicaid in the cases of life of the 
mother, rape, or incest. However, States are only required to provide 
abortions under Medicaid in the case of life of the mother.
  This language was added during full committee consideration of the 
bill as a States' rights issue. I had an amendment, that was not made 
in order, which would have reinstated the current Hyde language that 
makes Medicaid abortions available in circumstances involving life of 
the mother, rape, or incest. But, it would relieve the States of any 
financial participation in cases of rape or incest if they choose not 
to fund them.
  Last year, there were all of two Medicaid-funded abortions in the 
entire country in cases of rape and incest. This amendment was a fair 
compromise for Members who support States' rights, but who recognize 
that poor women who are pregnant as a result of a heinous crime like 
rape or incest should not be discriminated against in the process. 
Unfortunately, Members of this body will not have the chance to vote on 
the Kolbe-Pryce-Fowler amendment. I therefore will sponsor with 
Congresswomen Lowey and Morella a motion to strike this language--
though I would have preferred my reasonable alternative.
  Third, the bill zeros out critical money for family planning 
services--though we have an opportunity to restore this when we take up 
the Greenwood amendment.
  Finally, this bill includes a measure which provides for much needed 
Federal grant reform. I strongly support the substance of this measure 
which will curb Federal subsidies for political advocacy groups. I have 
serious reservations, however, about attaching this very complicated 
and large bill to an appropriations bill without the benefit of 
hearings or a markup in the authorizing committee.
  I wish that I could stand here today and tell you I support this 
bill. It is in line with the budget resolution. It reduces overall 
spending by $6.8 billion over current funding levels and terminates 176 
overlapping programs--helping to move us toward a balanced budget by 
2002. The bill also increases funding for the National Institutes of 
Health, cuts the bureaucracy at the Department of Health and Human 
Services, maintains funding for community and migrant health centers 
and increases Pell grant levels. It reforms labor and OSHA rules that 
are in need of reform. Coming out of the subcommittee it was a good 
bill.
  Unfortunately, with the changes made in the full committee, the bad 
outweighs the good in this bill and I must oppose it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we can argue over the size of 
the budget cuts, but we also know that very often a budget cut of not a 
tremendous amount can cripple an agency, and that is unfortunately what 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle intended to do when they 
sought the cuts against the National Labor Relations Board.
  This is the arbiter of America's workplace. This is where employers 
and employees go to get a resolution to the conflicts that erupt in the 
workplace. This is where employers go to get issues resolved, and 
employees go so they can go back to work, they can go about their 
business, they can provide for their families, they can provide for 
their businesses and get on with life.
  But what has happened is that they now seek to attack the National 
Labor Relations Act both through the budget and legislative language 
that would prevent the National Labor Relations Board from seeking an 
injunction if they find activities, by both unions and employers, which 
are so egregious that they prevent a fair election from taking place. 
They want to enjoin those actions. The National Labor Relations Board 
does not enjoin those actions; they go to the district court and they 
make a case.
  Now they are changing the number of votes you will need on the board 
to go and get that injunction. Why? Because one of our colleagues is 
upset with the rendering of an injunction against Overnight 
Transportation Co., whose actions were so egregious that in 19 regions, 
action after action was sought against them because of what they were 
doing to their employees, withholding wage increases and promotions and 
the job opportunities of anybody who wanted to organize that workplace.
  They made a determination that a fair election could not be conducted 
unless the injunction was offered.
  What did our colleagues from Arkansas do? They wrote a letter and 
threatened the National Labor Relations Board and they said, ``If you 
issue this 

[[Page H8224]]
injunction, we have the ability to take action against you,'' and they 
did. They cut their budget by 30 percent to cripple the agency.
  Mr. Chairman, this means that businesses and worker organizations 
will be stymied in their efforts to reconcile the differences that 
exist in the workplace, but it also means that the National Labor 
Relations Board that uses injunctions in only 6 percent of the cases 
against unions and 2 percent of the cases against employees, but 
egregious cases they are, will now be rendered ineffective from doing 
that. That is the goal.
  That is what is wrong with this legislation. Time and again, we see 
private agendas coming into appropriations bills to undermine the laws 
of this country. If you have a problem with the National Labor 
Relations Board, we have an Education and Labor Committee. We will deal 
with that just as we are dealing with OSHA.
  But that is not what is going on in this legislation, Mr. Chairman. 
There is a private agenda, and there are campaign contributions, and 
threatening letters by Members of Congress to an agency. When that does 
not work, because they are an independent agency, we now see them being 
punished in the legislative process.
  It is unconscionable that a nationwide independent agency like the 
National Labor Relations Board would be threatened and then stricken 
with these kinds of budget cuts and this kind of punitive action 
against them, when in fact they provide the basis on which workers and 
employers can get a fair shake about the terms and the conditions of 
working in that place of employment.
  Mr. Chairman, we now believe we have the most productive workers in 
the world in any industry we point to, but what we do here is a 
deliberate attempt to go after those workers to stymie their ability, 
to get a decision rendered on a timely basis so that they can get on 
with providing for their families.
  This legislation, time and again, strikes, through legislative 
language, on an appropriation against the protections that workers 
need, against the protection that employers need, so that they can 
conduct productive workplaces.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell this House about someone who 
took off work to travel all the way to Washington to argue against this 
bill. His name is Donnie McDonald. Donnie worked at the Canny Creek 
mine in Muhlenberg County, KY, from 1963 to 1989.
  In 1974, Donnie was in an accident where a loaded coal rail car fell 
on him He lost his arm and was off work for 6 months. But he went back 
to work and worked for another 16 years.
  Donnie says that because of the Mine Safety Administration his line 
of work is much safer today than it was in 1974 but he warns that we 
cannot go back to the kind of loose regulation we used to have in the 
mining industry. He says that the $15 million cuts that this bill will 
impose in Federal mine safety efforts will do just that and that we 
should defeat this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Topeka, KS [Mr. Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill 
today.
  The bill does a number of things that I think are very important and 
necessary. What it does immediately is, it makes tough choices and it 
does it now. It cuts $11.1 billion out of a $256 billion set of 
funding. It does so now and does not put off future decisions so that 
we do not have higher deficits into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of talk on the floor recently about 
private agendas or that we need to help people out. We clearly do. I 
would contend the best way to do that is to pass bills like this one 
that cut back on Government funding. They cut back on Government 
programs so we can get to balance.
  The cruelest thing we can do to the people of our Nation is to 
continue to add to this deficit. This bill terminates 170 programs, so 
we can get to balance, and it does so now. It is what we need to do.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a private agenda; this is a nation's agenda 
of balancing the budget, and that is what we have got to do. We have a 
nation's agenda of balancing the budget, and it involves making tough 
choices.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has done an excellent job of doing that. 
I commend them and rise in strong support of this bill.
                             {time}   1645

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strong opposition to this 
assault on working men and women made to pay for a tax cut for the 
wealthy. This bill doesn't just pull the rug out from under American 
workers, it pulls out the entire floor.
  The deepest cut is made in crucial worker training and education 
programs that help displaced workers get back into the workforce. That 
cut is shortsighted and wrongheaded.
  The American people are this country's greatest asset as we try to 
compete in a global economy. But, this bill puts people dead last. It 
puts working families dead last. It says--if you lose your job, you're 
on your own.
  I know about the need for worker retraining. I live in a State that 
has lost more than 200,000 jobs over the last several years. Many of 
those jobs have been lost because of the defense build down. Many of 
those jobs aren't coming back.
  And, the bad news just keeps coming for my State. We now face a plant 
closure at the AlliedSignal tank engine plant in Stratford, CT, in my 
district. The decision by the Army to close this facility will mean 
that we lose another 1,400 jobs. These workers in Connecticut, and 
workers like them all across the country, need our help.
  Defense workers aren't looking for a handout. They're looking for a 
helping hand. After years of working to maintain our country's strong 
national defense, these workers are now being told that their skills 
are no longer needed. Their work helped us win the cold war, but now 
they are the ones being left in the cold.
  The Republican leaders in this House say they are cutting across the 
board in order to balance the budget. They want us to believe that this 
is a shared sacrifice for a noble purpose.
  But, this sacrifice is not shared and it is not noble. There is 
nothing noble in asking people who are out of work to pay for a tax cut 
for the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to help our displaced defense 
workers. We have an obligation to provide them with the training and 
education they need to get back on their feet. This bill fails our 
obligation to defense workers and that's why I will oppose it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lexington, NE [Mr. Barrett], a member of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
provision in H.R. 2127, that would prohibit the enforcement of 
President Clinton's Executive order, banning the use of permanent 
replacement workers on Federal contracts of $100,000 or more.
  To put it simply, I believe that the President's Executive order is 
unconstitutional, and is a direct challenge to the prerogatives of the 
Congress to set labor law. The President's order--in the opinion of 
many--is nothing but a backroom deal to coddle favor with labor unions, 
and is a direct challenge to decades of well-established labor law 
which permits the use of permanent replacement workers.
  Allowing employers to hire permanent replacement workers has been a 
long-standing right that employers have used, though sparingly, in 
order to countermand the union's use of the strike. I wouldn't say that 
either option in today's workplace is perfect, but it has provided a 
careful balance that has enabled neither side to claim an unfair 
advantage.
  Instead of allowing this issue to be settled by Congress, the 
President has circumvented Congress and has allowed purely political 
goals to enter into the fray of employer-employee relations.
  As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, 
I believe the committee has rightfully recognized the improper use of 
the 

[[Page H8225]]
President's Executive order, by reporting out H.R. 1176, which would 
make the order null and void.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision in H.R. 2127 preserves the right of 
Congress to set labor laws, and would reverse a dangerous precedent-
setting Executive order. I urge my colleagues to vote against any 
amendment to strike these provisions.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues and others to 
examine what we have just heard from the last speaker. This is a 
situation, or as Ross Perot used to say, here is the deal. You are an 
American worker, you are under contract, your employer violates the 
contract. What is left for you to do? Well, you probably try that 
cherished American right: You withhold your labor in protest.
  Most Americans support that. Not these Republicans. They say if you 
go to that cherished American right of withholding your labor, you are 
fired, you're fired. You are a woman, kids at home, you are trying to 
make it, you have this job, you are fired, you lose health care. Same 
thing with a man, of course. You lose your position, you lose your 
retirement, you lose your tenure, you lose everything you put in that 
company, you are fired.
  Somebody is permanently hired for your job, and you are not offered 
it back. You are fired. Why? Because you dared to withhold your labor, 
because the boss broke his part of your deal, his part of the contract. 
But you? You are fired.
  Bill Clinton, President Clinton, said, well, we are not going to let 
you use Federal money to do that, to fire these people. If you have a 
job and the taxpayers are paying for it, you cannot fire these American 
citizens just because they withhold their labor under the law, legally 
withhold their labor. The Republicans say oh, yes, you can, you can 
fire them. That is extremism run nuts, and that is what is in this 
bill, extremism run nuts.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mount Holly, NJ [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I said to all the folks here who are in this room 
that I wanted to talk to you for a couple of minutes about how pension 
fund managers invest pension moneys, I would see a bunch of people yawn 
and you would all think it was pretty boring, and you would be right. 
But if I said to you that I want to talk to you about your pension 
check when you retire, the size of it and the security of it, and to be 
sure that it would come every month, I am sure there would be a lot 
more interest.
  But if I said to you and anybody else that could hear that the 
pension fund, total amount of pension fund moneys in our country, has 
grown since 1983 from a level of about $1.5 trillion to about $4.8 
trillion today, you know, that is kind of hard to relate to. But if I 
said to you that particularly people who are beginning to think about 
retirement that that pot of money is where your paycheck is going to 
come from after you retire and that it should be protected with all due 
diligence, that would be interesting.
  So let me talk about that for a minute, because
   the Clinton administration, particularly Secretary of Labor Robert 
Reich, has done some things over the last year which I think are very 
unsettling for people who are beginning to think about retirement, 
particularly if their savings for their old age are invested in private 
retirement funds, because you see, in June 1993, Secretary Reich 
reinterpreted the law that provides safeguards for those savings in 
private pension funds.

  Secretary Reich calls the program economically targeted investments. 
What he is saying to the people that manage all of that money for us so 
that we can retire with it, ``We want to change the rules a little bit 
to permit you to do some things that you were not permitted to do 
before,'' because, before, they were considered to be too risky and, in 
my opinion, while nothing has changed to make the things that Secretary 
Reich would like us to do less risky, he wants us to go ahead and begin 
to invest in other kinds of things with other people's money that they 
are saving for their retirement. Now, I think it is a bad idea.
  For years, what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] refers to 
often as the ``prudent man'' rule was followed, and in the late 1960's 
and early 1970's, private pension funds began to have some problems, 
and so in 1974, and I think correctly, the Congress passed a law known 
as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which we refer to as 
ERISA. It says clearly that the people that manage those moneys in 
private pension funds must follow one rule, that those moneys must be 
invested for the sole purpose of providing benefits to the participant 
in the plan, the sole purpose. Secretary Reich would like us to do some 
other things with the money and is encouraging pension fund managers to 
do so, to invest in socially good programs, to make social investments, 
to invest in housing projects, to prop up a failing company if it means 
jobs for a community.
  They are worthy goals, but if I want the moneys that I am investing 
for my old age in a private pension fund invested in those kinds of 
investments, then I will take my IRA fund and invest in some social 
good.
  Most people do not choose to do that, and Secretary Reich, in my 
opinion, should not be encouraging pension fund managers to do that 
with my money either and the money of all the Americans, the 600,000 or 
so that I represent, and I think you will agree, Members on both sides 
of the aisle, that you do not want your constituents' money tampered 
with in an unsafe investment either.
  This bill cuts back on funding that Secretary Reich and his staff are 
using for the purpose of encouraging pension fund managers to make 
these investments.
  Now, we have lots of information that says that these are not good 
investments and they are not safe. For example, in one study at the 
University of Pennsylvania, Olivia Mitchell determined that the public 
pension funds which were required to make certain investments generated 
lower rates of interest, lower returns, and were less safe.
  So I urge everyone to support this bill the way it is.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to look at theories or predictions as to 
what will happen when OSHA is cut the way it is cut in this bill. I 
think OSHA is a agency in need of reform, and I am sure there are some 
bureaucrats in OSHA who are not necessary and who ought to go. That is 
not what this bill is going to do.
  Make no mistake about it, this bill means fewer inspectors, fewer 
inspections, and more risks for workers. We do not need to theorize or 
guess what happens when you have too few inspectors or too few 
inspections.
  We do not have to look to the future. We can look to September 1991, 
in Hamlet, NC, when the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, with too few inspectors, too few inspections, 
underfunded, permitted a facility, a chicken packing plant that had 
committed egregious violations prior to September of 1991, to create a 
situation where 25 people burned to death. That is what we have to look 
for. That is why we should oppose this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to tell this House today about someone who came to Washington 
to argue against this bill. This is the gentleman that I am speaking 
about. His name is Jim Hale. He is a resident of Chattanooga, TN.
  He works in the construction industry. He is opposing this bill 
because his brother was killed 30 years ago at the age of 23 in a 
construction accident.
  Jim will tell you that construction is a dangerous trade under the 
best of circumstances, and he will tell you that since he started 
working, it has become 

[[Page H8226]]
much safer, that it is safer because Federal rules that require 
employers to take steps have made it safer in these last 30 years or 
so. Jim believes that his brother might be alive today, that his 
brother would have had an opportunity to get married and raise kids if 
the protections that we have today had been there in the 1960's, and he 
feels so strongly about that that he took off work and came here to 
oppose this legislation that takes us back to the 19th century.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that the appropriations bill before 
us is fraught with cuts in programs that are important to the working 
men and women of this entire country, a 30-percent cut in the National 
Labor Relations Board, a 33-percent cut in OSHA, elimination of the 
summer youth employment program, and cuts in funding for job training 
for dislocated workers. The working men and women of this Nation 
deserve our gratitude and our thanks, Mr. Chairman, for a job well 
done. Instead we offer this bill which guts the very programs and 
protections we, as a Congress, created for them. We should reward them 
for their hard work, not punish them.
  There is much more than just the labor provisions that are wrong with 
this bill. This bill is fraught with all kinds of problems, but the 
labor provisions are enough in and of themselves to say no to this 
bill, and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to say no to this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a drive here to provide a great 
deal of de-regulation in order to provide much more freedom in this 
society. That may very well be legitimate, but I think we ought to ask 
who is going to be free, what will they be free to do, and who will 
they do it to?
  I want to give my colleagues some examples of who they will do it to. 
Take Jack Gray Transport, Inc. Truck drivers who worked in their 
facility in North Carolina began an organizing campaign in January of 
1994, and they signed cards trying to recognize the union. In response 
their employer coercively interrogated those employees about their 
union activity, they threatened them with a loss of jobs if they did 
not sign a letter disavowing support for the union, and finally they 
laid off eight members of the organizing committee. Based on the facts, 
the district court used the injunctive relief at NLRB which is now 
available to prevent further action by that company, and they helped 
save those workers' jobs. That injunctive authority would be eliminated 
by this bill.
  Krist Oil Co. in Michigan and Wisconsin. In 1993 a man by the name of 
Richard Johnson found out that their pay was being cut by being 
required to perform additional duties for insufficient compensation. 
They met at a park to discuss what appeared to them to be a wage 
crisis. They wrote a letter politely raising a number of questions. Two 
days later the company fired Mr. Johnson, in part, it conceded later, 
because of that letter. Cashiers Yvonne Mains and Jodi Creten were 
fired after presenting the complaints by their store employees to a 
supervisor during a meeting at one of their homes. Mains told the boss 
that the employees were considering contacting the union. The company 
wrote a letter notifying Mains of her termination because she was, 
quote, creating a mutinous situation, end of quote. Again the NLRB used 
their injunctive relief to provide those workers with help. That would 
be gone under this bill.
  Wilen Manufacturing Co.: On June 2 of 1994 the union was certified on 
the day of the election itself. The employer interrogated employees 
about their election, about their election votes, and threatened them 
with discharge and other reprisals for voting for the union. The board 
sought 10(j) injunctive relief in order to prevent further damage
 to the workers.

  One example of workers who are not protected:
  On August 28, 1989, the Gary Enterprises company fired Jerry Whitaker 
for having previously filed an unfair labor practice charge with the 
Board. The Board decided in Mr. Whitaker's favor. The company ignored 
both the Board and the report. After being discharged, Whitaker had a 
hard time finding work, and finally took a job hauling logs. He had a 
heart condition, and frequently complained to his wife that the driving 
job was killing him. He was required to spend nights away from home, 
and had no money for lodgings. He slept in his truck. One morning, 
while the contempt case was pending before the court, Whitaker was 
found dead in his truck from a heart attack at age 55. The Board is 
still trying to collect the backpay owed to his estate by the company.
  That is the kind of case that today could be considered for the 
injunctive relief which is being squeezed out of the law by the 
legislative provision in this bill.
  People on that side of the aisle talk about OSHA as though it was 
created by a bunch of left-wing social engineers. The father of the 
OSHA statute was a man by the mane of Bill Steiger, a respected 
Republican Member of Congress from Wisconsin who, when I came to this 
House as a freshman, was my best friend here.
  We have had some successes under OSHA. The fatality rate is down 57 
percent for workers in this country, and OSHA has contributed to that 
in a very significant way.
  Along with Silvio Conte I helped create at OSHA the first fine-free 
consultation service, and we provided for some narrow exemptions in the 
case of small business and small farms. We did that all on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge our Republican friends not to walk away 
from a bipartisan commitment to OSHA, to OSHA enforcement and worker 
protection. I urge them not to make this issue a partisan issue. Vote 
against this bill because of these provisions.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Fawell] for a response to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to respond to the previous 
speaker when he indicated that the 10(j) injunction had been 
eliminated.
  Now that just is not so. The 10(j) injunction will be alive and well. 
It will require the usual equitable grounds to be shown before one gets 
a preliminary injunction, because a preliminary injunction means they 
get the final determination ahead of time, but understandably they must 
be able to show a likelihood of success, an irrevocable and irreparable 
harm, and a balance of the hardships between the complainant and the 
respondent, and that the injunction relief is in accordance with public 
interest.
  So, that is the accurate way of setting that forth.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the American system of collective 
bargaining is based on the balancing of interest and risk, including 
the right to strike, the right to maintain business operations during a 
strike, if necessary, by hiring replacement workers. The executive 
order takes away this balance in the Federal contractor arena. 
Permanent replacement is not the same as being fired. Permanently 
replaced workers have a right to be recalled until they get equivalent 
employment, and they may vote in union elections for 12 months. But the 
issue in relationship to this legislation is who has the responsibility 
under our form of government to legislate, who writes the laws, who 
passes the laws. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber, 
anybody in the Congress, anybody in the United States, that does not 
understand under our form of government we do that, not the executive 
branch, and what the President has done is usurped our power, and we 
should guard our power jealously. The separation of powers was put 
together very carefully, and we should make sure that we guard that.
  So, the issue is who has the responsibility to legislate, who has the 
responsibility to pass laws, and the answer is very clearly we in the 
Congress of the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].

[[Page H8227]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], the ranking member, for yielding this time to me and for 
his leadership on these workers' issues. I think it was perfectly 
appropriate that he closed his part of the debate on this in speaking 
about individuals and how this policy so cruelly affects them and 
speaking in their own words. I, too, want to bring to the attention of 
our colleagues and individual case of how people are affected by the 
cuts in this legislation. I want to tell the House about someone who 
traveled to Washington all the way from California to argue against 
this bill. Her name is Beverly Reagan, and she is a Republican. She 
votes Republican, but came here to fight against the passage of this 
bill.
  Beverly is a food service worker. She works for private contractors 
at a U.S. Navy base. Repeatedly these contractors have won bids to 
operate food service facilities and then failed to make the pension and 
health insurance benefits that were required under the terms of the 
contract.
  Beverly and her coworkers have had the experience of going to the 
doctor and finding that the health insurance that they thought was 
there to cover their expenses was not there at all. She is not alone. 
Tens of thousands of Americans find themselves in the same situation 
each year. And like Beverly, the only recourse they have is the Pension 
and Welfare Benefit Program in the Department of Labor.
  This bill cuts that program.
  I urge my colleagues to do what Beverly is asking and vote against 
this bill, protect the health benefits and pension plans of our 
constituents, and vote ``no'' on this legislation. This is only one of 
many cuts in the bill that deal harshly with the American worker. The 
cuts in these seven programs for worker protection, along with a long 
list of legislation provisions limiting the authority of agencies to 
enforce child labor laws, laws which protect workers' right to 
organize, and regulations to protect occupational safety, and language 
blocking the President's Executive order regarding striker replacements 
constitute a war on the American worker.
  When I was interrupted by the gavel earlier, I was talking about this 
dislocated worker assistance program which I want to call to our 
colleagues' attention once again, which is being cut in this 
legislation by 34 percent. This means that 193,000 workers who lose 
their jobs in 1996 through no fault of their own will not receive 
training. Rapid advancements in technology, defense downsizing, 
corporate restructuring, and intense global competition result in 
structural changes necessary for economical growth. This program works. 
The inspector general has reported that workers served by this program 
``were reemployed, remained in the workforce and regained their earning 
power.'' Continuing our investment in dislocated workers is essential.
  Of all the cuts in this bill, it is so very difficult to understand 
why, with all of our talk of free trade, et cetera, we will not deliver 
on our promise to dislocated workers who are affected by that kind of 
change.
  Mr. Chairman, American workers are the engine of our economy. They 
must be treated with dignity and respect. They also deserve a safe 
workplace. Despite our budget challenges, we should not retreat on 
worker protections. Cuts that will result in increased workplace 
accidents and fatalities will cost our society.
  There is only one word to describe this, Mr. Chairman: Shame.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for yielding this time to me.
  This entire bill just shows how mean-spirited and radical the 
Republicans have been with this proposal, and it really is for shame 
because from the moment this Congress began we have seen the majority 
try to hurt working men and women of America, we have seen them purge 
the name of Labor from the old Education and Labor Committee, we have 
seen them refuse to raise the minimum wage, we have seen them cut OSHA 
now here by about a third. More American workers are going to die and 
be injured on the job because of these OSHA cuts. We have seen them 
slice the National Labor Relations Board which monitors unfair labor 
practices. We see them slice money, cut money, for dislocated workers.
  Why hypocrisy. We talk about getting people off the welfare rolls, 
and here we have workers that are losing their jobs, and we want to cut 
funding to help them locate new jobs; Davis-Bacon, which pays 
prevailing wage, that is cut.
  So, we have a pattern here, and this bill fits that pattern.
  In my 7 years in Congress this is the most disgraceful appropriations 
bill I have ever seen, and it ought to be defeated.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a button here that I am not allowed 
to wear, but I will show it. It says, ``Why does the NLRB have 628 
lawyers?''
  Why does the NLRB have 628 lawyers? What happened in committee with 
the NLRB appropriation was something like this. The chairman came in 
with a 15 percent reduction in the NLRB budget. I did not think that 
was enough so I scurried around and got an amendment together, and I 
said 15 percent more is what is more like it. A total of $52 million in 
reductions. The $26 million that I put in that particular amendment was 
done only after I had tried to find some way to do otherwise.
  First, when the NLRB came to our committee, I asked them, ``Please 
help us find a way to cut this particular department. Will you do 
that?'' The asnwer was no. I got the general counsel, the general 
counsel of the 628 lawyer law firm to come to the office, and I said, 
``Will you help me? Will you tell me just what you can do to cut the 
expenses created by these 628 lawyers?'' The eighth largest law firm in 
the United States was in his jurisdiction, and I said, ``Can you help? 
He says, ``Oh, heaven sakes, I cannot do that because we have such a 
caseload.'' I said, ``Is there nothing we can do?'' He said, ``No, 
there is nothing we can do.''
  Mr. Chairman, I said, ``OK, if they are going to stonewall us and say 
no to that and not help us, from their position of expertise, then we 
were going to have to cut blindly in some way to get their attention 
and help the American people and reach this deficit.''
  Here is what they have at the NLRB, and maybe others can tell me if 
there is anyplace to cut. There are over 2,000 employees. I have 
mentioned that it is the eight largest law firm in the United States. 
They have 628 lawyers that they let loose on American business and 
industry. Each NLRB Commissioner has between 18 and 22 lawyers assigned 
to him or her.
  Mr. Chairman, our Supreme Court Justices, with all of their 
responsibilities and load, only have five. So we have all the way from 
18 to 22 for the NLRB Commissioners, each one have that many lawyers, 
and the Supreme Court Justices only have 5. They have a D.C. office 
building that pays rent of $21 million per year. It costs $21 million a 
year for rent to keep up a house for these lawyers, to keep them going.
  In Los Angeles alone they have three different offices so they can 
have more lawyers closer to business and industry, to interrupt the 
business and to interrupt workloads and cost our economy untold amounts 
of money. Here these people are saying they do not have any room for 
cuts. They are not going to help us with this. There are 50 field 
offices.
  Mr. Chairman, we went to the committee, and after some hour and a 
half, maybe 2 hours of listening to the committee members talking about 
title I for the children and Head Start for the children, this 15 
percent was not sent back that we were going to cut in this amendment. 
It was not sent back to the deficit, it was not taken to any other 
programs except Head Start.
  Mr. Chairman, we have 628 lawyers on this side and we have all these 
children in Head Start, and there are some persuasive arguments that 
Head Start, in fact, is needed. I said, ``We will take the $26 million 
from the lawyers and put it over here in Head Start. Will you vote for 
this particular provisio if that 

[[Page H8228]]
is the case?'' Eight people on that committee said, yes, they would 
vote for that; that lawyers are not in the priority position when you 
compare them with children. We will take from lawyers and give to the 
children. The liberals on that committee, to the person, all five, 
said, no, we will vote for the lawyers. We will keep the $26 million in 
this burgeoning legal intrusive type of department, one that will not 
tell us what to cut. We would rather go with lawyers than children.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell everyone this because it should give them an 
idea of how this particular Congress has existed for all these years. 
The argument about children, and the argument about Head Start was not 
the last time we found out that people were not sincere. We also had an 
amendment to transfer $135 million from the oldest American project of 
some sort, $135 million from that to Head Start. That was voted down 
also.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are having here is a commitment to lawyers. Not 
everyone will understand it, if they are not businesspeople. Those who 
are business people will understand it. Lawyers are not deal makers, 
they are deal breakers. I say we vote for this and support the 
amendment and the economy.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate on title I has expired.
  The Chair will now recognize Members for amendments in title I.


                    amendment offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, number 70.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stokes: on page 2 line 15, strike 
     $3,180,441,000 and insert $3,185,441,000, on line 16, strike 
     $2,936,154,000 and insert $2,941,154,000, and on line 21 
     strike $95,000,000 and insert $100,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of today, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, while the bill's $55 million, or 22-percent cut in 
school-to-work would devastate the viability of this initiative, my 
concerns extend well beyond this symbolic amendment to the broader 
devastating funding cuts in career and employment training.
  Mr. Chairman, while global competition requires a highly trained 
workforce, while our technology driven and increasingly changing labor 
market requires a highly skilled work force, and while the American 
business community recognizes the importance of training, the majority 
on the committee have gutted funding for employment training.
  No job training or re-employment initiative whether for our youth or 
older Americans was safe from the majority's budget ax. The 60 percent, 
or over $2 billion, cut in employment and related training means that 
194,000 dislocated workers, individuals laid-off through no fault of 
their own, will be denied the re-employment and skills training 
services they desperately need to re-enter the work force; 80,000 
Americans will no longer have access to the employment training they 
need to compete in the job market; 3 million individuals will be denied 
vocational education skills training they need to earn higher wages; 
over 275,000 young people will be denied the employment training they 
so desperately need; and over 600,000 youth will be denied summer jobs 
they need. It is important for us to realize that the unemployment rate 
for teens is three times that of the general population. And, for 
African-American teens, the rate is more than six times higher than 
that of the general population. In fact, the unemployment rate is 
approximately 40 percent.
  Employment training works. Mr. Chairman, the real wages of American 
workers are declining and there is growing disparity between the rich 
and poor. Base closings and corporate downsizing are devastating 
American families. According to the Department of Labor, 2.5 million 
workers will be permanently laid off in 1995. Employment training is 
the key to better jobs and higher wages for the American people. Skills 
matter, job training pays off. Skilled high school graduates earn 
approximately 19 percent more than their nonskilled counterparts. 
Skilled college graduates earn over 40 percent more than their 
nonskilled counterparts.
  Now is not the time to gut employment training. I ask my colleagues 
to restore the Nation's investment in the future of the American 
people. Overturn the $446 million cut in dislocated worker re-
employment assistance, the $299 million cut in vocational education, 
the $55 million cut in school-to-work, and the over $300 million cuts 
in adult and youth employment training. And, my colleagues, overturn 
the majority's elimination of summer jobs for America's youth.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2127 is bad for our children, the elderly, 
families, and the country. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in 
defeating H.R. 2127.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois wish to be recognized 
in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised the value of job training 
programs generally, and I would agree that there are some that do some 
good. There are others that do not at all.
  For example, if we look at adult job training and we look at the 
Department's own reviews, they indicate the program is not very 
effective. The inspector general audit reports indicated only 53 
percent of the participants in the adult job training obtained jobs. 
Furthermore, of the ones who got jobs, half said they found them 
without JTPA assistance. Last year the IG testified the program is 
being asked to address educational failures, physical dependencies, and 
emotional and physical disabilities with no demonstrated pattern of 
success. The IG said in testimony in 1993 that we continue to find 
phantom JTPA participants, bribery, and overbilling by consultants and 
contractors, abuses by brokers and other middlemen, and just plain 
stealing of JTPA funds by those who administer as well as participate 
in the program. In other words, there have been problems in the 
program.
  Youth job training. Little evidence that the program is successfully 
training people for the future job market. The Department's own 
evaluation shows this program has been found to be unsuccessful in 
raising youth employment or earnings, and that it does not appear that 
JTPA youth training has had significant positive impacts.
  The Summer Youth Employment Program. The program has not provided 
permanent skills training or education. It is basically an income 
supplement and the jobs are public sector jobs that do not meet 
critical needs. The Department's own reviews indicate that subsidized 
work experience ``has generally not had long-term positive effects on 
employment in earnings.''
  The Displaced Worker Program. Effectiveness of short-term training 
has been questioned by departmental evaluations. According to the 
Department of Labor, short-term skills training has not been successful 
in producing earning gains for dislocated workers. Further, only a 
minority of displaced workers are likely to enter long-term training if 
the option is offered to them.
  The School-to-Work Program that is the subject of the gentleman's 
amendment. Here we have seen a program that still, even with the cut, 
would receive nearly twice what it received in fiscal year 1994, and we 
had to make a cut here for budgetary reasons, obviously. This is a 
program that will be under intense pressure to turn the program into a 
permanent subsidy rather than a demonstration program, which it is, and 
I would simply have to rise and oppose the gentleman's amendment for 
that reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

[[Page H8229]]

  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. School-to-work is an initiative that 
should command broad-based bipartisan support. Of all of the provisions 
in this bill, the proposal to reduce job training for dislocated 
workers is among the dumbest. As a result of Republican priorities, 
193,000 workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own will 
not receive retraining in 1996.
  This ill-conceived effort is ill-timed. Last month, the Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission recommended closing 132 military bases, 
disrupting 100,000 careers. In June, U.S. corporations announced more 
than 40,000 job cuts.
  Let us look at some of the school-to-work success stories. Cassandra 
Floyd-Dade, of California, had been a clerk-typist at the Norton Air 
Force Base, earning $8.27 per hour. After being laid off, she entered 
classroom training to become a nurse. She completed her classwork with 
flying colors and passed the licensing exam. She now works at the 
Robert Ballard Rehabilitation Hospital, earning $12 an hour.
  There is Susan Day. She was a nuclear technician at the Charleston 
Naval Shipyard. Before leaving the shipyard, she took advantage of 
training in business fundamentals. Then she and two of her friends 
opened a computer retail outlet in one of the most competitive fields 
in business today.
  There is also Jeffrey Bartlett, who lost his job at the University of 
Minnesota in August of 1992. He collected unemployment benefits for 4 
months before finding out about dislocated worker training. The 
services helped him with his job search and his computer skills. In 
August 1993, Jeff found a job at the Metropolitan Sports Commission. He 
has since moved on to become a facilities manager for a computer firm. 
His salary is now higher than it was when he lost his job at the 
University.
  Mr. Chairman, training for dislocated workers actually works. It 
gives workers and their families renewed hope. Shame on those who want 
to cut it. Vote no on this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a case here that the 
Summer Job Program is obviously just a cash distribution system that 
our Government has set up. It is a 12-week program. I see it because I 
am in the restaurant business and we have a surge of business during 
the summer, and we go out and try to find people to work for us during 
that period of time, just the period of time that coincides with being 
out of school.
  What we find is we find ourselves competing with the Federal 
Government and we cannot cut it. We cannot match it, because the 
Federal Government does not require anything of the people who they 
give money to other than you be at your home, we will come pick you up 
or come to the office somewhere around--come into the city hall, or 
whatever it might be, somewhere around 9 o'clock, and we are going to 
have you go out and stand in some ditch and act like you are doing 
something.
  Now, what harm is what? What harm is that? First of all, let us look 
at it from the standpoint of our Government. It is wasting money. It is 
saying we want to give you sugar rather than protein and calcium. We do 
not want to give you any skills.
  When I see someone is on a job program coming into my business with 
that on the resume, I say aha, we are going to have to undo what that 
person has learned from being a part of the welfare system and being a 
part of the cash distribution system that our Government gives, and 
then after we work that out, we are going to have to teach them what it 
is like to really try to satisfy customers, to really be accountable, 
and to really have some consequences from their actions.
  That is what we are doing in this particular program. I cannot see in 
12-week programs that we are doing anybody any good. We cannot find 
workers. We find people during the summer that we find we cannot 
satisfy the demand because workers are off doing those sort of things.
  I just think what we need to do is, if nothing else, for the 
consideration of the kids, get us off this program, have the money 
brought back into the Government, and watch when people smile and say 
our tax dollars at least are not being wasted on a cash distribution 
system called the Summer Jobs Program.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the explanations 
for the majority position. Your bill is extremism run amuck. It rips 
whatever mask is left off of so-called concern about the people of this 
country.
  I want to speak to the millions of Americans who will be permanently 
laid off in the next 2 years. To 46,000 of you, the Republican majority 
says ``Forget it, no training in employment services.'' To 84,000, the 
Republican majority says ``Tough luck, no training grants for you.'' 
And what does the Republican majority have for the kids of America? 
Your training grants are cut 80 percent; your summer jobs are 
eliminated.
  I have seen training work in Michigan in the Transition Program, 
those laid off who were building tanks for this country, nowhere to 
turn. The transition center in Sterling Heights has helped these people 
get back on their feet. And you come here today and mock those 
programs. Shame on you.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just heard the previous speaker say that the 
Republican position on the bill on the floor is extremism run amuck. 
After listening to him, I think his statement is hyperbole run amok. 
The fact of the matter is again we hear this Chicken Littleism. ``The 
sky is falling. Call Henny Penny. The world is going to come apart at 
the seams.''
  My goodness; $270.9 billion is appropriated in this bill to help 
people. A major credit card, perhaps the biggest domestic credit card 
in the history of the free world, paid for by the courtesy of the 
American taxpayer, to help people in need.
  Now, he says all the job programs are going to be eliminated. All the 
people that ever lose their job in the next year, move from one job to 
the other, are going to be without help.
  My goodness, there are currently 163 separate programs for Federal 
employment training operations, across 15 departments and agencies, 
with 40 interdepartmental offices. That is according to the GAO. That 
is what the General Accounting Office says. For the youth at risk on 
which we hear the concerns of the gentleman from Ohio, there are 266 
additional Federal programs across eight departments and agencies.
  For JTPA, the training program that the gentleman talked about that 
sometimes works and sometimes does not, we would spend $3.3 billion; $1 
billion on the JOB Program; another $1.1 billion on Job Corps.
  Sooner or later we have to get some common sense. The fact of the 
matter is, the inner-cities are in deplorable condition because we have 
taxed the people who run businesses out of the cities and left the poor 
folks who just do not have the opportunity to gain employment to 
remain.
  Now, it seems to me that common sense says that maybe we ought to 
stop doing the things the way we have been doing them over the years. 
Maybe we ought to be giving tax incentives to businesses to return to 
the cities, and let the real purveyor of wealth, the private sector, 
take over and generate the jobs to put poor kids in the inner-cities to 
work.
  The gentleman has no more compassion for those out of work than I do. 
I will tell you that I have been working in summer jobs since I was 14 
years old. I believe in summer jobs. I think that summer jobs are 
important for youngsters. They train them for skills that 

[[Page H8230]]
they will need in later life. But the Government is not the employer of 
last resort.
  The fact of the matter is, the only useful skills that employees 
acquire on the job emanate from the private sector. If we can encourage 
every business in America to go into the inner-city and hire one kid, 
then we will make a remarkably better gain toward reducing unemployment 
in this country than the current programs that the gentleman is 
complaining about that are being trimmed back.
  We can consolidate. We can trim. We can scale back. We can save the 
taxpayer money. We can make the programs more efficient. And in the 
long run we can put more kids to work, give them more training, and 
give them better skills, so that they in turn will be productive 
citizens. And when they get a little bit older, maybe they will be rich 
enough to go out and hire other kids and put them to work.
  The hue and cry, from the liberals who have shown us their policies 
that have failed day in and day out for the last 60 years, is just 
intolerable. It is hyperbole run amuck. The gentleman's amendment 
should be discarded.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member 
of the full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my hyperventilating friend 
from Louisiana if I could. Let me simply say that we are resisting the 
cuts in worker training for one very simple reason: Because corporate 
profits are headed up, and wages are headed down, and we would like to 
see the two traveling upward together. That is why we are doing it.
  There are millions of Americans who are going to be downsized out of 
their jobs this year. It would be kind of nice if we provided them the 
same thing every other industrialized society does, which is some 
decent job retraining. It would also be kind of nice if we did not 
ignore kids who are not going to college. That is the purpose of the 
School-to-Work Program, to take kids who are not going to college, who 
usually flounder around for 3 or 4 years in our society, unlike other 
societies who provide a good number of apprenticeship programs. We want 
to take those kids, put them in a program tying together their high 
school, their technical school, and employers, and give them a track 
into a decent job.
  This bill cuts the guts out of most of these programs. We passed 
NAFTA last year and we passed GATT, and I did not vote for them. But 
what we told workers at the time was ``Look, don't worry; if you are 
going to lose your job, you will get some retraining help.''
  Instead, what you are doing is cutting 34 percent out of training 
programs. There are going to be 193,000 American workers who cannot get 
help which they would have gotten previously under the displaced worker 
program.
  Now, you talk about all of the duplicative programs in labor. The 
fact is, and you know it, the Secretary of Labor is already 
reorganizing those programs. He is consolidating a lot of them, and we 
said, five times now, we support the elimination of those programs in 
this bill. Write it down. We support the elimination of that 
duplication. What we do not support is cutting job training by one-
third so you can provide a $20,000 tax cut for somebody making $300,000 
a year. That goes too far.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, a member of the Economic and Educational 
Opportunities Committee.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I am proud to serve on the committee, the authorizing committee, and 
let me talk about some of the things that are being cut. The job 
training, 17 percent less than what was spent last year; dislocated 
workers, 31 percent less than what was spent last year; the school-to-
work that our ranking member talked about, 22 percent. School-to-work 
is a program designed to be successful because it takes those young 
people who may graduate from high school and not have anything to do, 
but it gets them before they get there, so they can have that skill 
that they will be able to sell.
  This bill takes away our future because it cuts the job training for 
the young people. It cuts the adult training for people who are laid 
off, the dislocated workers. It cuts the summer jobs for next year.
  I know on the rescission bill we fought long and hard and had summer 
jobs restored for this year. That is great. But if our chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], said 
anything, we need more than the 1,000 jobs that we may have in Houston. 
We need 18,000.
  I hope private business will step up like he said and do it. But that 
does not mean we need to cut out the summer jobs that are across the 
country that are provided by the summer youth program. In Houston we 
have 6,000 young people who would not be working this summer without 
that. If we pass this bill today, they will not have that job next 
summer.
  We need to triple that amount but not to cut it from the Federal 
program.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Just to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the School-to-Work 
Program was $50 million just 2 years ago. The figure in the bill is $95 
million. That is almost a 100-percent increase in 2 years. The fact 
that we are not increasing it 400 percent is what is sticking in the 
gentleman's craw.
  I have to say that with $3 billion remaining in the JTPA Program, I 
think we are making a very, very healthy commitment to America's 
workers and protecting them at the same time we are rationally and 
reasonably downsizing spending throughout Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla], our colleague on the Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by saying that one 
of the most fortunate occurrences that I have been fortunate to be part 
of in the last 2\1/2\ years is the privilege of having worked with the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] on the subcommittee. He is one of the 
most thoughtful and most sincere and a man with strong convictions and 
every day works very hard for the people of his district in trying to 
do the right thing for this country.
  I rise, however, today in opposition to this amendment. I would like 
to make a couple of points in my remarks.
  First of all, I would like to point out how strong the Republican 
support has been for TRIO programs, which will be debated in a later 
portion of this bill, but is a strong, strong job training program that 
leads to job training. It keeps kids in school, and it helps them get a 
degree in higher education and, therefore, be a contributing member of 
society as they enter the workforce.
  We have also supported very strongly in this bill, to show our 
commitment towards job training, the Job Corps program. This bill 
provides 1.1 billion for the Job Corps program. Job Corps prepares our 
disadvantaged youth for the workforce. its strength lies in providing 
students with the skills to help them succeed later in life.
  I have a Job Corps program in Laredo, TX, which is one of the most 
outstanding programs that is run in this country. It has done so for 
many years. The kids that you see come through that program turn out to 
be responsible, well-behaved members of society and go on to lead 
productive lives in the workforce. Laredo sets an example for the rest 
of the country. There are other programs in other parts of the country 
as well that are part of the Job Corps program that work very well.
  Even though we are expanding Job Corps, we have also sent a clear 
message to those running Job Corps facilities across the country. That 
message is and says very strongly that, if you are mismanaged and will 
not be effective, we will change leadership or shut you down. We are 
closing two centers, and we instruct the Department of Labor to think 
about closing some of the chronic poor performers under the Job Corps 
program.
  Two weeks ago the latest performance figures were released by the 
Department of Labor. They showed that 7 

[[Page H8231]]
out of 10 Job Corps people found jobs or went on to further their 
education. This is a good, solid record. Oftentimes representatives 
from training programs have come before our committee that were part of 
the 163 job training programs that we have. Often they cannot cite 
success stories like the Job Corps training program can. The report 
also shows that students placed in jobs are earning good wages, with 
nearly half working on jobs related to the training they received while 
enrolled in the program; again, a good way to measure the success of 
Job Corps.
  Job Corps is the only program of its kind serving at-risk youth. The 
alternatives, welfare, unemployment, or incarceration, are more costly 
and lack any short- or long-term benefits. Job Corps is an investment 
which continues to yield returns for businesses, communities, and the 
youth who go on to better their lives.
  I am sure if Job Corps graduates like heavyweight champion George 
Foreman were here today, they would thank this Congress for its 
leadership in funding the Job Corps program.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about change; it is 
about retreat. Anybody listening would be confused about whether we are 
spending more or less.
  Here are letters from America's mayors, Republicans and Democrats 
that say, do not do it. Do not do this to job training. Do not do this 
to summer youth. Why? Because they know we are spending less. We are 
sending them less, Republicans and Democratic mayors alike.
  If we are to remain competitive in the world marketplace, we need to 
make sure that our workers, yes, including the new workers that will 
come on into the workplace market, have the skills necessary to move 
ahead. This is a terrible bill.
  For my State of Montana it would be devastating. We would reduce 
adult training funding in my State in this bill, reduce it by more than 
$1,500,000.
  The bill will reduce youth training funds to go to my State by close 
to $4 million. It eliminates every single dollar of summer youth 
program for the State of Montana and for every other State in this 
country.
  The chairman on the Republican side might say that is not a cut, to 
go from what we spend today to zero next summer. The chairman would be 
wrong.
  Finally, let me tell Members this: I serve along with the good 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], a Republican 
chairman, of the committee that has redesigned the Job Training 
Partnership Act. In a bipartisan way we agreed to a 20-percent cut in 
job training funds. That is not what this bill does. This bill cuts 
funds for youth 54 percent and for everyone else in this country 27 
percent. On a bipartisan basis, the education authorizing committee has 
accepted 20 percent and no more. You are cutting beyond us.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the Republicans for their 
candor in how they intend to resolve some of the problems.
  I wish the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was on this 
floor because now I fully understand, having been born and raised and 
living in the inner city, that our problems were and have been today 
the fact that we taxed the rich too much. And if we relieve the rich of 
this burden of tax, they will come back to the inner cities where they 
fled.
  What we are trying to do is to do for those who are held hostage in 
the inner city the same thing that we do for Americans no matter where 
they are born: to give them hope, to give them vision, to give them job 
training, to give them opportunity, to allow them to look forward to 
raising a family; and to be able to live the American dream.
  You keep talking about how much money you are giving. Where do we get 
this idea of reducing the rate of increase? What we are saying is that 
if the poor are getting poorer and coming up in larger numbers, you do 
not cut back the resources that are necessary to give them the strength 
to get back on their feet to become Americans. What have you cut? Have 
you cut out communism, socialism, or any of the things that Americans 
want get rid of? No; you are honest enough to cut those things and 
stand up to the American people, summer jobs for our kids, school-to-
work programs, one-stop employment centers--that is not welfare, my 
brothers and sisters--and drug treatment to have people be able to 
stand on their feet.
  It is a shame what you are doing in order to make the rich even more 
rich.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
his leadership. As I shred this sheet of paper this symbolizes the 
rights of Americans under this legislation. Under this bill, American 
workers simply have no rights. Passing this legislation results in a 
loss of money for Job Corps, and a loss of money for summer jobs. This 
legislation disregards the need of job training for dislocated workers. 
And simply, we are not listening to our constituents, for we are not 
listening to the school districts in Houston, the colleges in Houston 
that say school-to-work programs do work.
  With a 22-percent cut, I do not know what we are saying to the 
American worker and to the young student who needs to have an 
opportunity. I certainly do not know what we are saying to those who 
are advocates of valuable social policy who are to now be gagged by 
this particular legislation so that they cannot speak out on issues 
dealing with those least able to access government.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that I rise to support the Stokes amendment 
because I do believe that the school-to-work program is a valuable tool 
in providing students real career options. I do believe that the Bill 
of Rights works, the Constitution works, and I do believe that we 
should support the Stokes amendment because we are doing nothing under 
this present legislation but eliminating the rights of Americans and 
taking away training and retraining opportunities for Americans.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise how much time 
remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the tragedy with the amendment is the 
fact that, and I suppose that is why it was presented, it gives 40 
minutes of talk time. It gives no money to do all the things that 
Members are talking about doing in job training, et cetera.
  When you look at the authority in relationship to the amount of money 
available, you cannot do any of those things. So basically, the 
amendment gives 40 minutes of talk, zero of dollars in relationship to 
doing the kind of things Members are talking about. I just want to make 
sure that everybody understands that.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand the reasoning of the 
Republicans. They say they want to fight welfare and put people to 
work. But they cut job training programs. They say they want to fight 
crime, they want to straighten out our young people, but then they cut 
summer jobs programs and school-to-work programs. I just do not 
understand.
  They are cutting the vocational education program by $300 million or 
27 percent. People ask me at town meetings, why do we not have 
apprenticeship programs like they have in Germany to give our kids 
technical skills? They say, Congressman, our jobs are going overseas. 
What are we doing to improve the skill level of our young people? Sad 
to say, I will have to tell them, the Republicans want to cut 
vocational training by 27 percent.

[[Page H8232]]

  We talk about our young people. We say we ought to get our young 
people on the proper career tracks. But they cut the school-to-work 
program by 22 percent. I do not understand.
  This puts seniors into a job environment that actually creates jobs. 
Then they talk about fighting crime, but they are cutting summer jobs. 
They are cutting almost 600,000 possible summer jobs, 7,000 jobs in my 
State of Maryland.
   Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand their reasoning.
                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a member of the committee.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to three different 
accusations that have been made. The middle class understands what the 
members are saying about who the rich are. It is anyone who works and 
pays taxes. It is the middle class that we are trying to help. If we 
are helping the middle class and we are helping other people, they want 
to be helped, and the heck with whether or not other people are being 
helped also, so they are not being fooled.
  Better training comes for our young people in businesses, where they 
need to be accountable in their consequences. We do not need to start 
our kids on a welfare program by teaching them they are doing something 
when they are not. Abstract training is not any good. We know that.
  One hundred sixty-one million dollars was attempted to be restored in 
the subcommittee for Head Start. We need to stop talking about this 
particular provision, because not one vote on those restorations came 
from the liberals on that subcommittee, not one vote. They voted to 
keep programs that they think of as higher priority than Head Start, so 
we ought to stop the talk.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, do they not know that 
before Congress passed the school-to-work program last Congress, 
America was the only industrialized country that did not have a 
national program to prepare young people to go directly from school 
into a job? That is why last Congress we crafted a bipartisan plan to 
give students who are not going to college the knowledge and skills 
they need to move directly from high school to high-skills, high-wage 
careers.
  The school-to-work program gives all young people the chance to 
support themselves and their families, and to be able to participate in 
the American dream. The school-to-work program is a sound investment in 
the future of our youth and of our country. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Stokes amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair, do I have the right 
to close under my amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], who advocates 
the committee position, would have the right to close, and the 
gentleman from Texas is presently reserving the balance of his time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to whether the gentleman 
from Texas has other speakers?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers at this 
time, and no objection if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] would 
like to close.
  Mr. STOKES. I accept the gentleman's offer that I be able to close.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is recognized for 
2 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gesture on the part of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. Let me say that it has been a 
pleasure to serve with him on this subcommittee, and there are many 
matters upon which he and I agree and upon which we have worked 
jointly.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to remarks made by the 
chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
where he made reference to consolidation and elimination of small 
programs. We agree to that. We also have agreed to the elimination and 
consolidation of these programs, but we also support funding of the 
training programs, because they work.
  I want to just cite from the adult training program valuation: ``It 
is the only federally funded job training program that has undergone a 
major controlled evaluation. The national JTPA impact evaluation showed 
that participants earned 10 to 15 percent more than those who do not go 
through some form of education or training.''
  Mr. Chairman, those of us who have seen unemployment in our cities, 
those of us who see in some cities black youth unemployed in excess of 
50 percent, those of us who walk the streets in our districts and have 
people yell at us ``Hey, Stokes, how about a job,'' this is a 
meaningful way of us trying to provide an opportunity. We have told 
people over and over again that ``All you have to do is work hard in 
this society, work hard on the job, and you can become a success in 
life. You can have a part of the American dream.'' This is what we are 
asking for here today: Give these young people and give these adults in 
our society a part of the American dream.
  When we talk about the middle class, we are not talking about a lot 
of Americans who will never be able to get into the working class 
without a chance to just work a job. We owe every American that 
opportunity. This amendment would provide the opportunity for us to do 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  the Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 18, strike lines 17 
     through 24.
       On page 19 strike out all beginning on line 1 through line 
     14 on page 20.
       On page 20 strike out lines 15 through 22.
       On page 20 strike out all beginning on line 23 through line 
     12 on page 21.
       On page 21 strike out lines 13 through 23.
       On page 41 strike lines 6 through 8.
       On page 51 strike out all beginning after ``1996'' on line 
     12 through line 18 on page 52.
       On page 54 strike lines 6 through 18.
       On page 58 strike all beginning after the word ``purposes'' 
     on line 20 through page 60 line 8.
       On page 69 strike lines 12 through 17.
       On page 70 strike all beginning on line 17 through line 8 
     on page 71.
       On page 71 strike all beginning on line 7 through line 15 
     on page 72.
       Strike title VI of the bill beginning on page 76 line 1 
     through line 7 on page 88.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of today 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 20 
minutes in support of his amendment, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla] will be recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have often had constituents ask me the following 
question: Why does Congress always seem to have so many riders attached 
to bills that have nothing whatsoever to do with what those bills are 
supposed to accomplish? If this bill passes, they are going to be 
asking a lot more of those questions, because this baby sets a new 
record in terms of illegitimate legislation on what is supposed to be a 
budget bill. There are 29 pages of legislative riders stuffed into this 
bill, which is supposed to be a budget bill to fund education and 
health care and social service and labor programs, 29 pages.
  I want to tell the Members, there is a clear pattern emerging in this 
House. We saw it on the bill earlier this week, the HUD bill, on the 
environment, and we are seeing it all across the board on this bill. 
There are 17 different items that should not be here that were stuffed 
in because either Members have individual gripes with programs or 

[[Page H8233]]
agencies, or else because the authorizing committee chairmen do not 
apparently have the courage to bring these bills before us out of their 
own committees, so that we can debate those policy issues and have 
amendments offered to them the way we can in the authorizing process, 
and we cannot do that in the appropriations process. Therefore, I think 
we are having a clear pattern.
  Whether the issues affect women, whether they affect workers, whether 
they affect health, safety, or bargaining rights, they are rolling back 
basic law in a bill which is not supposed to write new law but only 
supposed to provide funding for budget items. I want to give the 
Members one example. Virtually every time I am in my district going 
through some plant or some business I run into somebody in an office, 
usually a woman at a typewriter, with a device on her wrist. I say, 
``What is the problem?'' She says, ``I have carpal tunnel syndrome.''
  OSHA is in the process of trying to develop a standard to protect 
workers from a malady which costs $20 billion a year, motion injuries, 
$20 billion a year. Yet, they are not going to be allowed, under a 
legislative rider attached to this bill, they are not even going to be 
allowed to collect data on those injuries. They are not even going to 
be allowed to prepare a possible standard, because the whiz kids on 
that side of the aisle have said, ``No way. We know better than the 
agency charged with the responsibility for enforcing the law.''
  We have another provision which says that the President cannot weigh 
in and try to help workers who will see their jobs replaced when they 
go on strike by permanent strikers. I will tell a little story. Last 
year I was in my district. A company that I helped get an industrial 
park for, so they could develop their company in a new location in my 
district, that company decided they wanted their workers to have to 
work Sundays.
  The workers had been willing in most cases to work Sundays, but they 
wanted to maintain the option, because some of them wanted a little 
room for family and a little room for church on Sundays. Therefore, 
they went on strike when they could not get the company to leave 
working Sundays on a voluntary basis. Three days after they went on 
strike, that company started advertising to hire permanent replacement 
workers.
  Shame on people like that, shame on that company. Yet, what you do is 
ram a provision in this bill which says that the President cannot take 
any action whatsoever to help on that front.
  Then there is the Istook amendment. This is the Constitution of the 
United States, article 1. Unless Members have read it, if they have not 
read it lately, let me read what it says: ``Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or 
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the 
Government for a redress of grievances.'' Yet, we have the Istook 
amendment, which says that if you happen to get any kind of a Federal 
grant, even if you are using your own money, you have to zip your lip. 
You can no longer lobby the Government on matters of public policy.
  Does it say that for defense contractors? Oh, no. Lockheed can 
continue to run full-page ads supporting this multi-billion dollar or 
that multi-billion dollar program. Do we try to stifle them? No. It is 
only the nonprofit organizations, who are trying to in many cases help 
people in this society who are at the lowest rung of the ladder.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some people on the Republican side of the 
aisle who are offended by that. We already have laws on the books about 
illegal lobbying. That is clear. What they are trying to do in addition 
to that is to stifle freedom of expression and the right to redress 
one's own Government with one's own money. That is going too far. A lot 
of Republicans on this side of the aisle know that, as well as a lot of 
Democrats.
  This bill has traditionally been a bipartisan bill. I appeal to my 
Republican friends on this side of the aisle, do not abandon that 
bipartisan tradition on this bill. They know this goes too far on a 
number of items, including these legislation items that have been 
attached and rammed through this bill, many times over the objection of 
the chairman himself.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members, return this bill to the 
middle ground. Get rid of this stuff. If Members want to bring these 
legislative items up, have guts enough to do it through the right 
process. Have the right chairman from the right committee who has 
jurisdiction bring it up and debate it here, full-blown, so we can 
amend these crazy items, and possibly get them in a position where we 
can have both parties support them. If they are not willing to do that, 
I ask them to take out the junk. We also got it removed in the HUD bill 
last week. We lost by one vote. Let us hope we have a better result 
this time around.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this amendment presented by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. It strips out a lot of hard work 
and a lot of issues that we attached to this bill that are going to do 
a lot to help the American people. I am proud of the guts that members 
of this committee on our side showed in trying to advance some of these 
issues. I will point out two, because there are other Members who have 
other issues to discuss as well.
  The first I would like to discuss involves ergonomics. Ergonomics is 
one of these words that has small business in America shaking in its 
boots, because it is another tool, a potential tool that OSHA is going 
to use to impose unfair fines and unfair burdens and unfair paperwork 
on small business across this country. Ergonomics is a fancy term for 
designing jobs and tools to fit the physical and physiological limits 
of people.
  In the private sector, there have been many efforts so far to improve 
productivity, to try to help the working environment so people are at 
work more often, have fewer absences, fewer injuries, and fewer 
illnesses. This is a great tribute to the commitment that the private 
sector and small business has to helping their employees. There is a 
myth that exists on the other side of the aisle that somehow employers 
are not interested in keeping workers on the job, keeping them safe, 
keeping them productive, and somehow that we are simply concerned about 
removing any worker safety that exists in this country.
  OSHA was born many years ago as a good idea that now, like many 
cases, is a government program that is out of control. The pendulum has 
now swung too far in the wrong direction. We have OSHA now that is a 
four-letter word in the offices of many small businesses in this 
country.
  Ergonomics is an overly ambitious, burdensome, and possibly the most 
expensive and far-reaching and intrusive regulation ever written by the 
Federal Government. We are not opposed, long-term, to implementing 
ergonomics rules in the workplace. We just say at this time that we 
cannot let OSHA move forward with an aggressive agenda, a burdensome 
agenda, with no scientific background, with no research to base their 
efforts on. We must give OSHA and those responsible for worker safety 
time to develop a thoughtful, scientific basis for implementing any 
kind of rules related to ergonomics. We are simply asking in this bill, 
which is part of this bill now we want to protect and therefore must 
work to defeat the Obey amendment, to preserve the ergonomics aspect of 
this bill.
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to address something in this bill 
that the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is trying 
to strip, and that is the amendment I put in to prohibit funding of the 
office of the Surgeon General. I thought I was doing the current 
president and future Presidents a great service by eliminating funding 
for the Surgeon General.
  How much time has the executive branch spent on this issue? How much 
time has the Senate spent on this issue, which has served to do nothing 
more than embarrass the White House in the last several months in 
trying to fill this job? The Surgeon General serves no role in terms of 
policymaking. It is simply a public relations job that the President 
has at his disposal. 

[[Page H8234]]

  You have a person walking around the country dressed in one of these 
uniforms, and it looks like they work on the Love Boat creating 
controversy all around America. So we do not need this anymore. We want 
to save the executive branch and the Senate a lot of grief and agony in 
the future by not allowing this to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that we think advocating good 
health care policy is important, and this could be done by an assistant 
secretary out of Health and Human Services, or is a role that could be 
filled by the head of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, or 
the private sector could provide leadership in this role via the 
American Medical Association, or many other groups that do a lot of 
work to advance good health care policy in this country. Therefore, 
eliminating the office of the Surgeon General is not in any way to say 
that we are not interested in advocating good health care policy.
  Mr. Chairman, please vote against the Obey amendment, because it 
strips these two elements which are among a list of good reforms that 
the majority is trying to implement in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, one of the many, many virtues of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is that it would 
strike from this bill the incredibly ill-conceived provision generally 
referred to as the Istook amendment, which attempts to control speech 
and political advocacy in this country. It is often described as if the 
only objective were to keep Federal funds from being used for Federal 
lobbying. That is already essentially against the law.
  This proposal would go far further than that innocent-sounding 
purpose and fundamentally put the Federal Government in the business of 
crippling the ability of anyone who is covered by this amendment to 
participate in the political life of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, if it were to become law, large numbers, probably 
millions of Americans, would end up having to file, or participate in 
the filing, if you can conceive of this of a certified annual report 
detailing their political activity. Incredible.
  The proponents of this amendment often trot out a picture of a pig 
eating Federal dollars. I guess that pig is supposed to represent 
farmers and small business people, the Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, the 
YMCA, the U.S. Catholic Conference, some of over 400 organizations that 
are opposing this provision. The proponents say their purpose is to 
keep these people and organizations from spending more than a minimal 
amount of money to affect Federal policy, but the real guts of this is 
to keep Americans from spending their own money, their own money, on 
political advocacy.
  It flies in the face, as the gentleman who opened this debate 
indicated, of the first amendment, whether we are talking about 
university researchers, churches getting funds for day care centers, 
companies receiving help for displaced workers, gun clubs being allowed 
to do target practice on a Federal reservation, on and on and on, being 
swept into this incredible proposal.
  Perhaps worst of all, this amendment would establish a big 
government, big brother system of political controls. It would bring 
about the creation of a national database of political activity, and if 
you can believe this, a master computer file in Washington, DC, 
covering everything from communications to contributions made by 
covered groups and their employees, managed by the Government of the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, a shame, an absolute shame. How any of us who took an 
oath to uphold the Constitution could stand still for this kind of 
nonsense on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in 
a free land, especially those who've spoken over and over again about 
wanting to restrain the reach of the Federal Government, is absolutely 
incredible.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest], the distinguished Chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank my most able friend from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. In particular, I am 
concerned because it would strike a provision in this bill that denies 
funding for the Department of Labor to enforce the Hazardous 
Occupational Order H.O. 12, which prohibits teenagers from merely 
loading a baler.
  I have been involved in this issue ever since these outdated 
restrictions were brought to my attention by grocers in my district who 
were fined by the Labor Department for violating H.O. 12. A fine of up 
to $10,000 can be issued every time a cardboard box is simply tossed 
into a silent, nonoperating baler by teenage employees under 18.
  Unfortunately, efforts to change this regulation through the Labor 
Department fell on deaf ears and that is why we are here today arguing 
against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in typical bureaucratic form, it took 7 months for the 
Labor Department to respond to a letter signed by over 70 Members on 
both sides of the aisle that requested a revision of H.O. 12. The Labor 
Department did not even have substantial evidence to support the 
prohibition of teenagers to load nonoperating balers. In addition, in 
the last Congress, language was included in this very bill that 
instructed the Labor Department to do a review of H.O. 12.
  If I remember correctly, in the last Congress the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the committee 
and the subcommittee. The Labor Department then promised to issue a 
notice of proposed rulemaking by May. We have heard nothing yet.
  Mr. Chairman, you will hear that this provision will undermine child 
safety, but that is a far cry from the truth. The Labor Department 
admits it only has 11 documented cases involving baler-related 
accidents, but in 6 of these there was operation of the baler, and 
under the provision in the bill, operation of the baler would still be 
illegal.
  One case the Labor Department lists happened next to a baler when a 
piece of metal happened to fall that was leaning against it. In another 
documented case an individual had a paper cut when they picked up the 
box.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly, strongly oppose this amendment on 
many grounds, but for the point of this debate, let us just talk about 
his language that strikes the provision to control OSHA and ergonomics. 
Now, what is ergonomics? Ergonomics is simply repetitive motion. It 
might occur from playing tennis, it might occur from skiing, it might 
occur from fly fishing, perhaps it even can occur from using a computer 
too long.
  If we have ergonomics, what really does it do? Well, they call it 
repetitive strain injury. I think we can all agree that there is such a 
thing. All of us over 50 know that there is repetitive strain injury. 
But how pervasive is it? Well, do not bother to find out. There is no 
correct answer.
  Mr. Chairman, OSHA estimates that such injuries account for 60 
percent of all workplace illnesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says 
that that figure is 7 percent. The National Safety Council thinks, 
well, maybe it is 4 percent. Well, that is the problem, the reason 
repetitive strain injury is the workplace's most complicated and 
controversial problem.
  Now, beyond the fact that we know that there is such a thing, there 
is little agreement on this subject. One problem is that no one can 
determine the scope of the phenomena. Remember, these divergent 
statistics are offered by OSHA and the National Safety Council, but 
another involves the question of cause and effect, a science that is 
very muddled at best when it involves RSI, repetitive strain injury.
  For instance, two secretaries work the same hours every day. One 
develops stiffness in her fingers and the other does not. An assembly 
line worker suffers from crippling backaches. His colleague who works 
right beside him and 

[[Page H8235]]
does the same thing whistles all through the day.
  Now, did the employer's work cause the pain, or something else? What 
should an employer reasonably be expected to do about this? The way 
OSHA looked at the issue, every job would become a disorder waiting to 
happen. In its zeal to protect workers' health, the agency drafted a 
report identifying risk factors on the job from heavy lifting to 
working in cramped spaces. The 4-inch thick, 600-page document offers 
guidance to companies in reducing those risks. OSAH's regulations would 
have affected everyone who moves or works on the job.
  Mr. Chairman, medical science cannot yet determine the cause. It 
affects everyone, and medical science cannot pinpoint the cause. This 
will not change the basic fact that there are not always clear causes 
or remedies for RSI. You cannot mandate a fix if the fix is not out 
there. However, we have an agency today who would mandate a fix. We 
have an agency today, and people in that agency, that we cannot allow 
to write ergonomic standards. We all want health and safety in the 
workplace, but this particular OSHA should not be allowed to do such a 
dangerous thing to the economy of this country and the consumers of 
every one of our districts.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Andrews].
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this act is misnamed. It should be called the Special 
Interest Relief Act of 1995. One of the special interests that is no 
doubt dancing with glee over the contents of this act is the student 
loan industry, which has siphoned over $1 billion a year from the 
taxpayers of the United States of America, until 1993 when we adopted 
what I think was a good Republican idea called competition. In 1993 we 
said we would have two student loan systems compete with each other 
side-by-side. One was the expensive and complicated status quo system 
run by the banks, and the other was a new, more efficient system run 
through the college campuses called direct lending.
  Everything that we have seen from around the country, Mr. Chairman, 
says, direct lending is winning. Students like it, universities like 
it, taxpayers like it, but the special interests who profit from the 
student loan system most certainly do not.
  So what they have done in this bill is to cut off the competition at 
its knees. Language in this bill which would be removed by the Obey 
amendment says,
 direct lending will be effectively killed, dead and buried as a result 
of this. That is wrong. It is wrong for taxpayers because direct 
lending costs less than the bank-based system. It is wrong for students 
and administrators because around this country, a vast majority of them 
have said that they prefer the direct lending system. Perhaps most 
importantly, Mr. Chairman, it is wrong as a matter of process. It is 
wrong because it is based upon a CBO report which cooked the numbers.

  Mr. Chairman, anyone who follows this issue and is familiar with it 
knows that the conclusion that somehow or another the direct loans cost 
more than guaranteed loans was a conclusion CBO was told to reach for 
reasons of political convenience, and it is also wrong, Mr. Chairman, 
because this debate and this issue is being tucked away in this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the special interests of the student loan industry know 
that they cannot win a fair fight on this issue, because they do not 
have the facts on their side. So what they have done is to load it up 
in this bill, tuck it away in a corner where a lot of other issues will 
take precedent and it will not see the light of day. The Obey amendment 
is a way to correct that and bring us into the light so that there can 
be a fair and balanced debate. For that and many other reasons I would 
urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on the Obey 
amendment.

                              {time}  1830


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Walker). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Chair is considering rolling 
some votes. The next amendment scheduled to be discussed, depending 
upon whether or not my amendment passes, is the Pelosi amendment, 
which, in contrast to my amendment, is only trying to remove some of 
the legislative language with respect to some labor problems or worker 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, my question is this: How do we proceed to the Pelosi 
amendment if we have not actually had a vote on my amendment; and 
should we not, therefore, vote on my amendment before we proceed to the 
Pelosi amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has the authority to postpone the votes. The 
inconsistency of the amendments does not necessarily impact on the 
Chair's decision with regard to postponement.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
  Is it the Chair's intention to roll the vote on the Obey amendment 
now before us?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is at the present time considering that 
matter and leans toward postponement of votes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since we are not at a point where the Chair 
has to make that decision, I would urge that the Chair make that 
decision in consultation with both sides, not rolling that specific 
vote, so that we could, if it fails, proceed to the Pelosi amendment; 
unless, of course, the committee wants to accept the amendment, in 
which case we do not have any need to go to the Pelosi amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in fairness to both sides, I think it would not make 
sense to vote on the Pelosi amendment, or spend the time debating it, 
if mine passed. I am not asking for a determination now, but I would 
urge the Chair to consider that problem.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will take the gentleman's point under 
advisement.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay], the Republican whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members are watching this debate and 
paying very close attention to what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] is trying to do. It is a huge amendment that affects a lot of 
issues that are very important to a lot of Members.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying to remove legislative language 
that deals with striker replacement. In a situation where the President 
has, in my opinion, stepped way beyond the bounds of his authority by 
writing legislation through Executive order, we are trying to correct 
that.
  The gentleman also strikes a provision in the bill that I think is 
very, very dangerous, if Members do not know about it and vote for this 
amendment, and that is the legislative language that prevents the 
raiding of pension funds by the Department of Labor, a position that 
has gotten a lot of people exercised about a new way of spending, 
designed by the Secretary of Labor, by going in and raiding pension 
funds.
  The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] has already talked about the 
ergonomic standards, another example of overzealous regulatory agencies 
trying to write regulations on an issue that the scientific community 
has no consensus on, yet they are trying to write regulations that 
would have a severe impact on jobs in this country.
  The gentleman is also attempting to stop summer jobs. In this bill, 
we have language that prohibits the Labor Department from stopping 
individuals under the age of 18 from using cardboard balers in grocery 
stores. Right now, they are trying to stop high school kids who work 
summer jobs in grocery stores from operating the cardboard balers in 
those stores. The gentleman strikes that language.
  Also, those that understand, particularly in light of the recent 
Surgeon General, we do not need a Surgeon General in this country. The 
gentleman strikes the language that does away with the Office of 
Surgeon General. We go on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] even includes 
some of the abortion language, so those 

[[Page H8236]]
Members who consider themselves pro-life had better look very carefully 
at this amendment, because it strikes the language that stops medical 
experimentation on human embryos outside the womb. I do not think 
anybody is offering a single amendment to strike that particular 
language.
  I understand the point that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, is 
making. The point is, he is upset with legislating on an appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that in taking over the majority in the 
short period of time that we have had, we did not have time to 
legislate through the normal process; and we feel that it is very 
important to do these kinds of things to stop an overzealous 
administration from accomplishing some really bad things.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we should support the Obey 
amendment because this legislation is just such an incredibly 
comprehensive raid on the rights of American workers.
  Whether those American workers seek to have a bargaining position 
with their employer over their working hours, terms, wages and 
conditions, where that right is taken away because of the attempt here 
to overturn the President's Executive order; whether those workers seek 
to work in a safe workplace, where we see as serious a problem as the 
ergonomic standards being set aside in this bill; going even further, 
not letting OSHA collect the data. Apparently, the Republicans on this 
side do not know this when they see it.
  Let me tell my colleagues, we see it every time we get on an 
airplane. We see a flight attendant with their hands in the braces; 
people that cannot do the job on the airplane, because their hands are 
in braces.
  We see it on the assembly line and we also see it when almost 3 
million claims are paid for the injuries that are suffered for this.
  Mr. Chairman, the question is, do we stick our heads in the sand, as 
the Republican amendment would have us do, or do we go out and try to 
meet this problem? This is about whether or not our workers get to 
continue to be able to work without disability or whether they are sent 
home from the workplace and they are put on disability and they see 
that their ability to support their families is dramatically reduced.
  This is about our families. This is about Americans. This is about 
people who go to work every day and do not want to be hurt, yet 2.7 
million of them file claims and were paid. Mr. Chairman, we know the 
kind of workplace loss that that takes.
  We see it in our own offices. There are people walking around this 
Capitol with braces on their hands, on their elbows and shoulders from 
that kind of work. Do we not owe it to them?
  Mr. Chairman, we also know that employers and insurance companies 
recognize it. They are trying to develop a safer workplace. They are 
redesigning machine tools and redesigning the assets to the people 
working on the assembly lines.
  Somehow the Republicans have just lost sight that these are people; 
these are families; these are bread winners; these are spouses; these 
are mothers; these are fathers; these are sons or daughters who are out 
there working.
  Do they not deserve a safe workplace? The answer in this legislation 
is ``no'' from the Republican side of the aisle.
  I think we have got to understand it extends even further in terms of 
the workers, where there is disagreement in the workplace between 
employer and employee. They make it much more difficult to go and get 
those conflicts resolved. What does that mean? That means it costs 
business more money, it costs workers wages and we do not get on doing 
what this country does very well, and that is produce goods and 
services, not only for this country, but for the international economy.
  Mr. Chairman, why is this necessary? Because they will not deal with 
this through the authorization process as opposed to the appropriations 
process.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that some people 
object now, saying that we should not do other things on appropriations 
bills. I looked at last year's version of this very same piece of 
legislation when the other party was in power and there were in excess 
of 30 examples of what we call authorizing language on the 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is nothing new or unique; it is something that is 
common. But what is not common in this place, Mr. Chairman, is the type 
of outcry that we have heard from the special interests, because they 
realize they are threatened by this piece of legislation.
  This piece of legislation defunds special interests. This bill is to 
stop the system of patronage, that has gone on through so much of the 
government bureaucracy, that hands money out to allies of the governing 
party and uses them to come back and lobby the taxpayers.
  We have steps, not only by reducing the level of spending in this 
bill, but we have what we call the grants reform language, the stopping 
of welfare for lobbyists that goes to the heart of the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we will never get spending in this country under 
control if we do not stop using taxpayers' money for advocacy of 
political positions. This bill contains the language to correct it.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], my 
friend, say, ``Oh, this is going to create a national database.'' My 
goodness, I hope the gentleman realizes that lobbyists already have to 
register. There is already a database. There is a database of grantees. 
There is nothing new in that.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps some people want to hide from public view the 
amount of money that is going to special interest groups. The President 
of the United States, yesterday, decried the special interests in 
Washington. Here we have a bill to take money away from them to make 
them stop taking advantage of the taxpayers and people treat it as 
though the sky is falling.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill on so many fronts addresses the problems with 
how Washington operates, the way that taxpayers' money is used to fund 
giant bureaucracies in the private sector, as well as the government 
sector. This bill is to put a halt to that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Obey amendment tries to gut this piece of 
legislation. It needs to be defeated and the bill as a whole needs to 
be passed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and 
I want to make an observation to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook], my friend with whom I serve on two of the subcommittees. The 
fact of the matter is, we have not had a bill since I have been a 
member of the Committee, January of 1983, in which this kind of 
language was protected. Not one in that 14 years. It was not protected 
last year or the year before that or the year before that or the year 
before that.
  Mr. Chairman, what has happened not just in this bill, but in 
numerous bills, the authorizing committees have been ignored and we are 
trying to jam through legislative language on appropriations bills.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to reject it. Pass the Obey amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment highlights the 
philosophical differences between the parties. We believe in Americans 
and what they have built on their own. We think workers and employers, 
subject to reasonable rules and regulations, are pretty capable of 
creating jobs and economic growth and not helpless and unable to 
protect their own safety.
  The other side believes that we are going to have massive problems, 
unless these people are minutely watched by 

[[Page H8237]]
an agency whose record is largely unblemished by success, and I refer 
to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk specifically about the fall protection 
standard, which is in this bill and on which there were hearings in my 
subcommittee.

                              {time}  1845

  The fall protection standard OSHA recently applied to all work above 
6 feet in height, it was at 16 feet, they applied it to all work above 
16 feet, which means it applies to all residential remodeling, all 
residential roofing, and, Mr. Chairman, everybody in this business, 
management, labor, everybody hates it because the workers have to tie 
on these harnesses and these lanyards and move anchors. It is 
tremendously inefficient, and it is unnecessary, and they resent the 
Federal Government telling them, experts in this, what they have to do 
in order to protect themselves.
   OSHA says if we get full compliance with this fall protection 
standard at 6 feet, and every roofing job and every remodeling job in 
America, and I guess they are going to have cars in every subdivision 
to watch people, if we get full compliance, it will save 20 lives every 
year. I asked the head of OSHA, ``How much does this increase the costs 
of these jobs?'' Because the evidence we have, again pretty much 
undisputed, was that it would increase the cost of labor on the jobs 
about 10 percent, because the workers have to move so much slower. What 
happens when you increase the cost of this work? What do homeowners do? 
They turn to fly-by-night contractors, to handymen, to people who do 
not know and understand safety on roof tops, or maybe they do the jobs 
themselves.
  What happens if you get a bunch of people working on roof tops who do 
not know what they are doing?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether you like the language on paper 
balers. The issue is not whether you like the language on erogonomics 
or whether you like the language on any other OSHA action. The issue is 
whether or not this language ought to be considered as a slipped-in 
provision in this bill with no chance for hearings, no chance for 
examination, or whether we ought to do it in a more orderly way.
  One of the previous speakers said that I was trying to prevent jobs 
because we are taking out the language on paper balers. We are not 
trying to prevent jobs. We are trying to prevent the killing of kids. 
The fact is that it is true that some balers meet the new industry 
standards. But only one in five current machines meets all of the 
requirements, and 15- and 16-year-olds are sometimes not the most 
cautious of people. There have been six deaths because of paper baler 
machines, deaths of children.
  The ergonomics standards, I do not, frankly, know what the standards 
ought to be, but I do not believe that the agency ought to be precluded 
from even developing data on the injuries associated with this problem, 
and that is what this language does.
  Let me simply state, in response to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook], about other labor-health bills providing legislative language. 
The difference is that every single one of those provisions was brought 
to this floor under an open rule, and if a single Member of Congress 
objected, they could strike it on a point of order. That meant the only 
provisions in the bill were noncontroversial, and they were not special 
interest sweet dreams, as these are.
  Let me simply say that when you take, as you have done, 17 different 
legislative provisions and jam them into an appropriations bill, do not 
try to kid us. You know what you are doing. What you do is you 
circumvent the process. When you put it into an appropriation bill, 
what you do is you circumvent the normal congressional hearing process 
and the authorizing committees. You circumvent the process which is 
designed to make certain all of the parties who were impacted by a 
decision have an opportunity to comment on it before we, as the 
publics' Representatives, make a final decision and a final choice. 
What you are doing now when you slip it into an appropriation bill, you 
make sure that only certain special pleaders get taken care of. And the 
other folks who are affected by it? ``Sorry buddy, but you are not 
involved. We got it in before you even knew we were doing it. Your 
comments do not even get heard.'' That is not the way to do business 
when you are dealing with people's lives, when you are dealing with 
people's rights to have a safe and healthy workplace, when your dealing 
with the ability of families to save some money on student loans. That 
is not the way to do business. This is simply, pure and simple, a 
special interest end run of the normal legislative process. If you 
truly believe that some of this legislative language is correct, and 
some of it may very well be, then the way to deal with it is to have 
the proper committee bring it out under conditions which allow us to 
amend that language and change it. You cannot legislate, supposedly, on 
an appropriations bill, so we cannot do that here. Except you have 
slipped in these items so we cannot get at them through the normal 
point of order process. You know that these are special interest 
proposals. You know, if, for instance, you are going to subject a woman 
to fewer choices because she is a victim of rape or incest, it would be 
nice if she at least had a chance to comment on it. They have
 not, not the way you have brought this here.

  Strip out all of this language. Bring it here before us in the 
correct process. Some of it may pass. Some of it may fail. But at least 
you will give everybody in the process a square deal.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 2 
minutes, to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], a great champion 
of free enterprise and small business.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
think the American people have sent us here to get our work done. They 
are tired of us saying we cannot do it on this bill, we cannot do it on 
this vehicle. We have to go through this hearing. They sent us here 
last fall to change the very nature of this city and of this 
Government.
  This bill takes a giant step in the right direction to accomplish 
that. It says to the agencies we are not going to continue giving you 
money to spend on regulations that do not make sense. It says to the 
President, ``We think you have politicized the Surgeon General's 
office, and we are not going to give you more money to finance that 
operation.'' It says to the lobbyists here in Washington, ``We are 
going to cut off your taxpaper funding, no more welfare for lobbyists 
under this Congress.''
  The time to act is now, Mr. Chairman. The American people want these 
measures. They sent us here to do this work.
  The committees and the Committee on Appropriations and subcommittees 
have worked hard to fashion this bill and to craft these provisions in 
a way that reflects the will and the interests of all of the committees 
here in Congress. This is an effort to stop us from doing what the 
American voters sent us here to do, to change America, to cut back on 
regulations, to end welfare for lobbyists, to send a signal that it is 
no longer business as usual.
  We are going to do what the people sent us here to do and 
fundamentally change the nature of this Government. I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment. Support the committee bill as it is 
written, because it does move in the direction of changing this 
Government for the better and for the American people.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would strike section 107 of the bill, which prohibits 
funding for the enforcement of Hazardous Occupation Order 12, relating 
to paper balers.
  The language in section 107 is based on H.R. 1114, legislation which 
has 119 bipartisan cosponsors. It would reform a Labor Department 
regulation which has been on the books since the 1950's and is very 
outdated. The regulation prohibits teenagers from working around paper 
balers in grocery stores, despite the fact that modern paper balers 
cannot cause injury while they are being loaded. The Department has 
been passing out fines up to $10,000 to small grocery stores for 
allowing teenage employees to simply toss an empty box into a 
nonoperating baler, even though they are safe. As a result, many 
grocers have stopped hiring teenagers.
  Our language would simply allow teenagers to load paper balers and 
compactors, but would not allow them to operate or unload the 

[[Page H8238]]
machines. Additionally, they could only load the modern machines which 
have the strict safety standards established by the American National 
Standards Institute.
  This is a jobs issue as well as a safety issue. This small change 
will encourage supermarkets to start hiring teenagers again without the 
fear of huge fines. It will also make the workplace safer for all 
grocery store workers by providing an incentive for grocers to get rid 
of any old machines which are still in use and replace them with the 
modern,
 safe machines.

  Congressman Larry Combest and I have been working for well over 2 
years to get the Labor Department to modify this regulation, and they 
have resisted our requests. Last year the Democratic Congress included 
language in this appropriations bill directing the Labor Department to 
review H.O. 12. In response, the Department told Congress that it would 
issue a ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' on H.O. 12 by May of this 
year. As of today that Notice has still not been issued. That is why we 
strongly support the language contained in this bill.
  The language in the bill is strongly supported by the Food Marketing 
Institute, which represents grocery stores in every congressional 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the Food 
Marketing Institute concerning this amendment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the committee bill.
                                     Food Marketing Institute,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1995.
     Hon. Tom Ewing,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ewing: The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) 
     on behalf of the nation's supermarket industry, wishes to 
     express our strong opposition to the amendment that will be 
     offered by Representative Nancy Pelosi to the FY 1996 Labor/
     HHS Appropriations bill (H.R. 2127).
       Among other things, this amendment will allow the 
     Department of Labor (DOL) to continue issuing huge fines 
     against grocery stores for situations when there is clearly 
     no risk of injury to 16 and 17 year old employees. As you 
     well know, the amendment seeks to preserve as is, Hazardous 
     Occupation Order Number 12 (HO 12), a relic of a regulation 
     that has remained unchanged since its adoption in 1954.
       Similar to the important principles embodied in H.R. 1114 
     that you and Congressman Larry Combest are sponsoring, the 
     language in the FY 1996 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill calls 
     for common-sense reform to HO 12. This important language 
     rejects the status quo and embraces safety standards that 
     have been issued by the American National Standards Institute 
     (ANSI) for cardboard balers and compactors. As provided for 
     in H.R. 1114 and in the FY 1996 Labor/HHS Appropriation bill, 
     employees who are 16 or 17 years of age would be permitted to 
     place materials into a baler or compactor that cannot be 
     operated during the loading phase because the equipment 
     complies with current ANSI standards.
       FMI strongly endorses H.R. 1114 and the common-sense reform 
     relating to HO 12 as specified in H.R. 2127. A vote against 
     the striking amendment achieves the following: Fairness to 
     employers because fines will not be assessed for situations 
     in which there is no risk of injury to workers; enhanced 
     safety in the workplace as supermarkets upgrade or purchase 
     new equipment that meets the ANSI standards; and finally, job 
     opportunities for young people, as grocery stores will once 
     again be encouraged to hire teenagers.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Harry Sullivan,
                        Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey. If he's 
said it once, he's said it a thousand times: This legislative language 
has no place in an appropriations bill.
  The issues that this bill touches--from abortion to workers' rights--
are complicated and controversial. They should be considered out in the 
open in the committee with primary jurisdiction. If the Majority is 
proud of this legislation, its members should have the opportunity to 
hold public hearings to discuss these matters with the public. If this 
legislation--and that's just what it is--is so important, it should 
stand on its own, and not hide behind the cover of an appropriations 
bill.
  That said, I rise in support of Mr. Obey's amendment to strike the 
pages and pages of legislative language in this bill.
  This inclusion is more than unnecessary and a waste of our time. It 
is malicious. It targets the most vulnerable in our communities, women 
who have been assaulted by rapists, and children who have been victims 
of incest. In some cases, this bill rescinds years of legal precedent. 
In this bill, court decisions in labor cases are overruled.
  The demolition does not end here. The supporters are attempting to 
give political pay back to their conservative supporters. Let me give 
you two examples.
  The language in this bill about gender equity in college sports is 
unfair to our daughters. Title IX enforcement ensures that our sons and 
daughters have an equal chance to take part in sports while they are in 
school. The language in this bill would halt Title IX enforcement. 
Intercollegiate athletic opportunities for female students--hampered as 
they already are--would be limited even more. My daughters--each one a 
better athlete than her father--have been denied the access that I had 
to college sports. Halting enforcement of Title IX when there is still 
so much work to do is simply wrong.
  The other example that I find intolerable as well as ironic addresses 
the training of obstetricians and gynecologists. Supporters of this 
language will say that it protects those who have moral and religious 
reservations about abortion from discrimination. But the Accreditation 
Council for Graduate Medical Education--the independent, organization 
of medical professionals who set the standards for medical education--
does not mandate abortion training. Anyone, either an individual or an 
institution, with a legal, moral, or religious objection to such 
training is not required to participate.
  I would argue that the language in this bill serves a different 
purpose. It serves to restrict academic freedom. It serves to restrict 
knowledge about a legal medical procedure its supporters find 
personally unacceptable. In an ironic twist, in order to satisfy the 
personal priorities of many proponents of small government, they have 
inserted this language which represents an unprecedented intrusion into 
the actions of a private organization.
  To repeat, this language has no place in an appropriations bill. Vote 
with Mr. Obey to strike all of these unnecessary and outrageous 
provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Obey's amendment to strike the 
pages and pages of legislative language in this bill. Legislative 
language has no place in an appropriations bill.
  This bill addresses complex and controversial issues--from abortion 
to workers' rights. The American people demand and expect that these 
issues be subject to full Congressional scrutiny--out in the open--in 
the committee of jurisdiction.
  Yet, the Republican back-door strategy is designed to circumvent this 
process.
  This is wrong. Their legislative language deserves to stand on its 
own. These provisions deserves to rise or fall on their own merits, not 
on the basis of some legislative shenanigans.
  My Republican colleagues speak highly of this bill. They are clearly 
proud of their efforts.
  Yet, one could reasonably conclude--based upon the Republican 
decision to insert legislative language in this bill--that they seek to 
avoid a direct confrontation over this language.
  Their motivation is clear. Many of these provisions reflect the most 
radical and extreme elements of Republican agenda.
  This language targets the most vulnerable members of our society: 
rape victims and the victims of incest. In some cases, this bill 
rescinds years of legal precedent. It over-rules a number of 
significant court decisions in the area of labor relations.
  This is a simple instance of political pay-back. My colleagues are 
advancing the interests of narrow, special-interests and right-wing 
conservative supporters.
  Here are just two examples:
  Language in this bill addressing gender equity in college sports is 
outrageously unfair. Currently, title IX enforcement ensures that our 
sons and daughters have an equal opportunity to participate in sports 
while at school.
  Language in this bill would halt title IX enforcement, and 
intercollegiate athletic opportunities for female students--already 
limited--would be further scaled-back.
  My own daughters--each one a better athlete than their father--have 
been denied the same access that I had to college athletics--support, 
facilities, scholarships, * * * the list is long. Undermining title 
IX--while so much inequity remains--is simply wrong.
  Let me present another, more pernicious example of legislative 
meddling:
  Language in this bill interferes with the training of obstetricians 
and gynecologists. While seeking to protect from discrimination, those 
with moral and religious reservations about abortion, this language 
actually serves to restrict academic and personal freedom. This 
language ignores the facts.
  The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education--the 
independent, organization of medical professionals that sets the 
standards for medical education--does not mandate abortion training.
  Anyone, either an individual or an institution, with a legal, moral, 
or religious objection to such training is not required to participate.
  This language has the intended consequence of restricting knowledge 
about a 

[[Page H8239]]
legal medical procedure that some find personally unacceptable.
  In an ironic twist, in order to satisfy the personal priorities of 
many proponents of small government, they have inserted this language 
which represents an unprecedented intrusion into the actions of a 
private organization.
  In closing, let me repeat what Mr. Obey has stated so forcefully: 
This language has no place in an appropriations bill.
  Vote with Mr. Obey to strike all of these unnecessary and outrageous 
provisions.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
                    amendments offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc are as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       Amendment No. 60: Page 20, strike lines 15 through 22 
     (relating to OSHA ergonomic protection standards).
       Amendment No. 61: Page 58, line 20, strike the colon and 
     all that follows through ``Act'' on page 59, line 8 (relating 
     to NLRB and salting).
       Amendment No. 62: Page 59, line 8, strike the colon and all 
     that follows through ``evidence'' on page 60, line 8 
     (relating to NLRB section 10(j) authority).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were 20-20.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California is 20 minutes total, 20 minutes on each side.
  Ms. PELOSI. That is for all three, the en bloc?
  The CHAIRMAN. The en bloc amendments specified under the unanimous-
consent request was for 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that I only have 10 minutes and I 
though I had 20, I will take less time, obviously.
  My en bloc amendment addresses three shortsighted riders to the 
Labor-HHS bill regarding worker protection. It deletes the ergonomics 
rider and can save American corporations $20 billion a year in workers' 
compensation costs. It eliminates one of the chief causes of a 
debilitating work-related disorder.
  My amendment reverses the effects of this misguided rider which falls 
under OSHA. In addition to that, I have two amendments which address 
the NLRB.
  As we know, earlier today we discussed some of the cuts in NLRB, a 
30-percent cut.
  The rules prevent me from introducing an amendment which would 
restore these cuts. Instead, I am addressing some of the legislative 
language in the bill that addresses the NLRB, two provisions in 
particular, the 10(j) provision and salting.
  Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act gives the NLRB the 
power to go into Federal court against an employer or a union to get 
the court to issue an order for interim relief. This is a very 
preliminary step. Such orders, for example, can require an employer or 
union to stop committing additional violations and to reinstate 
employees fired to chill organizing or withdraw illegal bargaining 
demands.
  Mr. Chairman, what is important to note about this is when these 
10(j)'s are issued, most of the time the overwhelming percentage of the 
time, the issue is dealt with expeditiously and in only a small 
minority of cases does it go to the next step.
  This legislation in this bill would say that in order for the NLRB to 
go to Federal court against an employer or union, it would require a 
four-fifths vote of the NLRB, 80 percent. You talk about minority rule, 
20-percent rules, a veto power of one person on the NLRB, so I think 
that in a sense of fairness, our colleagues would recognize that this 
is silly legislative language.
  In fact, had this legislation been in effect at the time of the 
baseball strike, on which the NLRB voted 3 to 2, we would never have 
been able to proceed to the resolution of that strike. I think that the 
figures there speak for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I have so much more to say on these issues, but will 
not, in the interest of time,
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, could I, under the rules, transfer the 
management of the opposition to another Member by unanimous consent?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, by unanimous consent, could do that.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] to control the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina will be recognized to 
control the time in opposition to the Pelosi en bloc amendments.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell], a member of the committee.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to, in the 5 minutes I 
have, make reference to the National Labor Relations Act provisions 
which are involved in this particular amendment.
  First of all, in regard to the 10(j) injunction, I think that is 
oftentimes misunderstood, but basically all that this bill is doing is 
to, in effect, require uniform standards in regard to the issuance of a 
preliminary injunction. Nobody, obviously, should be against something 
like that.
  We are also setting forth that the basic equity principles that 
always apply in all other areas of our civil law in regard to the 
issuance of a preliminary injunction would apply here.
  Here again, when we talk about a preliminary injunction, we are 
talking about a very extraordinary remedy, and you must understand that 
where ordinarily speaking--and any of my lawyer colleagues listening in 
on this would agree--that you do not get a preliminary injunction just 
as a matter of course, which is what the NLRB has been doing for the 
last 2 years. You have got to show a likelihood of success, you have 
got to show irreparable damage that would be done if the preliminary 
injunction were not granted. You would have to show a balance of 
hardships between the complainant and the respondent, and you have to 
show the public interest is something that demands it. That is what is 
being requested here.
  In the last few years, we have had a great increase in the use of the 
10(j) injunction, and both the new chairman, Mr. Gould, and the general 
counsel, Mr. Feinstein, have made a number of speeches where they have 
said that they are going to increase the use greatly and, indeed, they 
have.
  Since 1947, when the Taft-Hartley law first authorized this kind of 
an injunction, it was used on average over the years no more than 30 or 
50 times per year.
                              {time}  1900

  Now we are getting it at something like 160 over a 16-month period or 
roughly 10 times for each of the 16 months, and all of this means that 
what we have, as far as the small business person is concerned, a very 
costly and a very intimidating result because he is dragged into 
Federal court to try to defend himself, and then all too often we have, 
without these provisions 

[[Page H8240]]
applying as would ordinarily apply, we have an injunction that is 
issued against the respondent. The small business person especially 
cannot stand that cost, and it is an intimidating procedure to go 
through, and oftentimes we get what is called a settlement, but it is 
not really a settlement. There is nothing to worry about here if my 
colleagues understand that these kinds of preliminary injunctions 
should never be issued anyway unless there are these extraordinary 
circumstances.
  In regard to the so-called salting issue, this involves unions that 
are sending paid or professional union agents and union members into 
nonunion workplaces under the guise of seeking employment, and the 
question raised in a number of appellate court cases is whether the 
union paid and employed applicants for a job can be classified as an 
employee who would meet the definition of employee under the National 
Labor Relations Act.
  So the issue basically is simply this: Should the NLRB's general 
counsel proceed to investigate and prosecute unfair labor practice 
charges against employers who refuse to hire an applicant who is 
employed by a union full-time and under the control and the supervision 
of the union and there basically to organize?
  In the most recent case, which is now before the Supreme Court, the 
Supreme Court stated, and I quote, ``union members who apply for jobs 
so that they can organize workers are not employees under the 
protection of the National Labor Relations Act,'' so what is being 
suggested here is that they should not spend all that money that is 
necessary to prosecute and to investigate business people. We should 
not be spending all this money when we have a Supreme Court case which 
will very soon make a decision. As soon as that decision is made, then 
this particular ban in regard to spending would be lifted.
  So I think in both of these areas we have some very commonsense 
suggestions.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, 10(j) injunction processes allow the NLRB, 
the National Labor Relations Board, to do the job they set up to do. 
They operated for the last 60 years, done a great job for labor 
relations in America, but in their zeal to destroy organized labor and 
their zeal to destroy the workers of this Nation, the Republicans, the 
majority, has moved in this appropriations bill in a way which is 
abusive, abuses their power and makes a mockery of the democratic 
process. It trivializes the institutions that we have built for the 
last 60 years.
  The 10(j) process, when it was not in existence, caused the National 
Labor Relations Board to be impotent in cases which were life-and-death 
matters. I am going to give my colleagues one extreme example.
  In August 1989 the company fired employee Jerry Whitaker for having 
previously filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. The 
Board ordered the company to reinstate Whitaker, and the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order in 1992. The company 
ignored both the Board and the court. This is Gary Enterprises ignored 
the court and the Board, and the Board was forced to bring a contempt 
case and forced the company to comply. After being discharged, Mr. 
Whitaker, while he is waiting for this process to take place, had to 
find work. He could not find work. He finally found work hauling logs. 
He had to sleep in his car. He had a heart condition, and one morning 
while a contempt case was still pending before the court, Mr. Whitaker 
was found dead in his truck from a heart attack at age 55. The Board is 
still trying to collect the back pay owed to Mr. Whitaker's estate by 
the company. This is the kind of case that today would be considered 
for a 10(j) injunction. It could not happen today. The use of the 10(j) 
injunction today successfully could have put Mr. Whitaker back to work 
promptly, reduced the back pay owed by the company, and possibly saved 
and prolonged Jerry Whitaker's life.
  This is a life-or-death matter, and we are using a shortcut process 
in the appropriations process to deal with it.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Geogia [Mr. Norwood], a member of the committee.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment on the same grounds 
that I opposed the Obey amendment 10 minutes ago. We must not allow 
OSHA to write an ergonomic standard about a medical condition they know 
nothing about. We do not even know for sure how many repetitive-strain 
injuries occur in this country. How can we say that it costs $20 
billion when we are not sure exactly who has a repetitive-strain 
injury? How is it two employess can do the exact same thing, and one of 
them has a strain injury, and one does not?
  Mr. Chairman, OSHA cannot write this standard yet. They do not have 
the ability, medical science does not have the ability, to determine 
when a person has a repetitive-strain injury.
  I ask, ``Is your sore elbow sore from tennis, or is it sore from 
work? Is your sore ankle from skiing, or is it sore from work?''
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have the ability yet to understand this. Vote 
against this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, responding to the previous speaker, it is interesting 
to hear our colleagues talk about needing a scientific basis for OSHA 
before proceeding with further ergonomic regulations. We do have that 
scientific basis with NIOSH, and these same colleagues want to cut 
$32.9 million of our safety and health research [NIOSH] which is the 
foundation for the OSHA work.
  Mr.Chairman, I also would like to point out to our colleagues who are 
railing against the ergonomics regulation that a letter received in our 
offices that came from the Office of Inspector General, the House of 
Representatives. The letter says that among the provisions we recommend 
the Chief Administrative Officer develop proposals for the approval of 
the Committee on House Oversight to phase out nonfunctioning 
furnishings with ergonomic modern furnishings over the next 9 years.
  Let us take the advice of the administration of this House and have 
ergonomics considerations for people outside as well as in the 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, my father has never skied in his life, my father has 
never played tennis in his life. I doubt he even wore a pair of skis or 
touched a tennis racquet in his life. But for more than 50 years he did 
work with a pick and shovel, and now my father has tendons in his hands 
which are contracted and tendons in his hands which are hardened.
  Pick and shovel and constantly stooping down, that is what my father 
did in building the great Nation that we have in America.
  Now was it repetitive action that caused those tendons to contract 
and harden? I do not know, but we should have information to determine 
if in fact that is what caused my father's tendons to contract and 
harden. But this legislation does not even allow OSHA to collect the 
information to make that determination.
  Whether or not we should have standards now, I will not make that 
judgment, but we should at least be allowed to collect the information 
needed to make that judgment. This bill under the Republican leadership 
would not allow it to happen.
  I will go back and tell my father what the Republican Congress wishes 
to do on this particular issue.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Ballenger] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pelosi amendment to strike 
the OSHA ergonomic provision, the provision on the 10(j) injunctions, 
and the provision regarding the processing of 

[[Page H8241]]
salting charges by the NLRB. We have talked about these issues in our 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. We concur with the 
work that has gone on here in the Committee on Appropriations. These 
provisions included in the bill simply are statements by the Committee 
on Appropriations that these are areas which are not a priority for the 
expenditure of resources.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of making difficult choices. The 
ergonomic provision would prevent OSHA from issuing an overly expensive 
regulation as indicated by the draft proposal already issued. When 
there are other demands on OSHA, we should focus OSHA's limited 
resources on reducing fatalities and workplace accidents rather than on 
developing regulations to protect workers from repetitive injuries and 
other ergonomic hazards, regulations which will cost jobs, create 
paperwork, and will not work.
  What we need to do in the area of repetitive-motion injuries is use 
common sense and not look for a bureaucratic paperwork maze to solve 
our problems.
  The provision on 10(j) injunctions requires the Board to pursue 
injunctive relief to be guided by uniform standard in determining when 
injunctive relief would be appropriate. It would also allow parties 
impacted by injunctive relief a opportunity, an opportunity to present 
their cases to the Board to open up the process. These seem to me to be 
matters of simple fairness and due process.
  The provision on salting merely requires the NLRB to suspend 
processing of charges until the Supreme Court has made a determination 
of whether or not these employees are covered under the National Labor 
Relations Act. It does not make sense for the NLRB to expend resources 
in an area where it might ultimately be determined that the NLRB has no 
jurisdiction.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the labor title of this legislation really 
is not about money. It is all about legislating a return to the labor 
philosophy of the 19th century just as we are entering the 21st 
century. The amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
corrects some of the worst of those features, but, pending that, the 
amendment that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has offered 
removes some of the limitations on the NLRB's actions, but it also 
allows OSHA to set standards protecting workers from repetitive-motion 
injuries, and that is clearly going to be one of the largest of the 
issues of the communication and information revolution that we are 
going to be having in the 21st century.
  So, this is an extremely important amendment that we adopt and make 
certain that we go ahead with the ability to deal with ergonomic 
standards now and on into the future that is part of the communications 
information revolution of the 21st century.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress passed a number of regulatory reforms 
which have benefited America's employee community as much as its 
employer community. We have said that we cannot protect the safety of 
the employees without destroying their jobs. We can reduce the risk 
without reducing employment. This is why we passed risk assessment, 
cost-benefit, and a regulatory moratorium.
  OSHA has said that in developing ergonomic standards it wants to do 
business as usual, no matter what Congress says. Cumulative trauma 
disorders represent less than 4 percent of the workplace illnesses, but 
to drive this 4 percent higher, OSHA arbitrarily decided to include 
back pain, which would increase the figure to 28 percent. But there is 
a great controversy in the scientific community over whether such back 
pain can be attributed to workplace causes.
  In Australia, when an ergonomic standard was adopted in the 1980's, 
injury rates increased. Workers' compensation costs increased as much 
as 40 percent in some industries, and a single company lost more than 
$15 million in 5 years due to increased production costs.
  As Tom Leamon, vice president and research director for Liberty 
Mutual Insurance, a company which has worked with OSHA to try to 
develop a standard, has concluded:

       I've spent a long time trying to make jobs better and 
     lighter, but there is amazingly little evidence to support a 
     mandatory standard.
                             {time}   1915

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In that time I want to urge our colleagues to support this amendment 
which supports American workers, and to give to the people in America 
concerned about ergonomics the same opportunity that the leadership of 
this House of Representatives wants to give to the workers in the 
Congress of the United States.
  I believe that the calling for a four-fifths majority for 10(j) 
injunction is really antidemocratic. I urge our colleagues to vote for 
fairness and against that proposal in the appropriations bill. Please 
vote for the Pelosi amendment to support American workers and to treat 
them with the same fairness in regard to ergonomics we wish to have in 
this Congress.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of people here that seem to 
laugh at OSHA as a pointy-headed agency. I want to tell you a story. 
The first day I ever served on this subcommittee, I walked into the 
hearing and I heard a witness saying that 40 percent of the workers, 
shipyard workers, who had worked with asbestos in World War II, had 
died of cancer. That got my attention because I used to work with 
asbestos.
  What I found out, after I started to dig into it is, that Manville 
Corp. knew since 1939 that their product killed people. They knew that 
workers like me were at risk. They did not bother to tell anybody. It 
is only the protection you get from an agency like OSHA that assures 
that people eventually find out what threatens their health in the 
workplace.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether you like individual OSHA 
standards or not. Frankly, none of us are qualified to determine 
exactly what those standards should be because those should be 
scientific not political judgments. All I am saying with this amendment 
tonight, on these labor issues, on these worker health related and 
worker rights related issues, all we are saying is leave the choice to 
the people who are supposed to be objective about it. Do not turn each 
and every one of these choices into political decisions.
  The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] smiles. With all 
due respect, he is not objective on this issue and neither can I. We 
have both had our personal experiences. That is why we established 
these agencies, so they can make neutral judgments based on the best 
possible scientific information and based on the best possible legal 
evidence.
  If we want to toss this into the political arena and have worker 
health decided by a bunch of politicians based on which special 
interest got to them last, vote against the Pelosi amendment. If we 
think workers deserve better, vote for it.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment submitted by my colleague from California, Congresswoman 
Pelosi--an amendment which will restore some equilibrium to the 
relationship between American workers and employers.
  By reducing funding for and restricting the operations of the 
National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], this bill damages one of the 
most important tools that we have in this country for ensuring that 
fairness and balance remain in the collective-bargaining process.
  The NLRB ensures that American workers do not lose their legal right 
to choose whether or not they will be represented by a union, and it 
keeps both unions and employers from interfering with the organizing 
and collective-bargaining process. The NLRB is an independent agency 
and acts only in response to charges--charges that can be initiated by 
either employers or employees.

[[Page H8242]]

  Impeding the work of the NLRB just makes it harder for middle-income 
workers and their families. By striking at the very heart of labor-
management cooperation and teamwork, erosion of the NLRB lays the 
groundwork for making millions of American workers more vulnerable to 
the whims of employers who want to avoid the rules of fair labor 
practice. By undermining the collective-bargaining system, we pave the 
way for unfair labor practices, and contribute to the disintegration of 
the American middle class. Without the protection of the NLRB--
safeguards that ensure that both workers and managers engage fully in 
the collective-bargaining process--we are on the road back to the days 
when workers had no security. We cannot backslide to the days when the 
relationship between employers and employees was ruled solely by 
management. I urge my colleagues to support fairness and balance for 
American workers, families, and companies by supporting Congresswoman 
Pelosi's amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this 
amendment and my strongest opposition to the provisions in this bill 
which seek to limit the responsibilities and enforcement authority of 
the National Labor Relations Board.
  The NLRB measures in this bill chip away at the basic organizing 
rights of American workers.
  This attack on the NLRB could mean the closing of half of the NLRB 
field offices--an obvious attempt to dismantle the ability of the NLRB 
to halt flagrantly unfair labor practices by employers and to provide 
necessary worker protections.
  The NLRB now takes over a year to resolve unfair labor practice 
cases. Ten percent of the cases are not resolved for 3 to 7 years. In 
the meantime, workers who have been improperly fired for union 
organizing activities remain out of work. Is it any wonder many workers 
are intimidated from being involved in organizing? The Republican 
leadership, by cutting NLRB funds by 30 percent, even in the face of 
this backlog, shows its true intent to make the rights of American 
workers, enshrined in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, to 
choose freely whether to join a union, a fiction.
  This provision is a direct attack on the democratic rights of 
workers. It is an attack on their right to organize, and on their basic 
right to a fair, safe and healthy workplace. It is an attack on every 
working American.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to ensure the basic rights of 
America's working men and women and support this very important 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] will be postponed.


                     amendment offered by mr. crapo

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part 2, amendment number 2-3, offered by Mr. Crapo: Page 
     88, after line 7, add the following new title:

                 TITLE VII--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction Lock-box 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 702. DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX ACCOUNT.

       (a) Establishment of Account.--Title III of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:


                  ``deficit reduction lock-box account

       ``Sec. 314. (a) Establishment of Account.--There is 
     established in the Congressional Budget Office an account to 
     be known as the `Deficit Reduction Lock-box Account'. The 
     Account shall be divided into subaccounts corresponding to 
     the subcommittees of the Committees on Appropriations. Each 
     subaccount shall consist of three entries: the `House Lock-
     box Balance'; the `Senate Lock-box Balance'; and the `Joint 
     House-Senate Lock-box Balance'.
       ``(b) Contents of Account.--Each entry in a subaccount 
     shall consist only of amounts credited to it under subsection 
     (c). No entry of a negative amount shall be made.
       ``(c) Credit of Amounts to Account.--(1) The Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Director') shall, upon the engrossment of 
     any appropriation bill by the House of Representatives and 
     upon the engrossment of that bill by the Senate, credit to 
     the applicable subaccount balance of that House amounts of 
     new budget authority and outlays equal to the net amounts of 
     reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting 
     from amendments agreed to by that House to that bill.
       ``(2) The Director shall, upon the engrossment of Senate 
     amendments to any appropriation bill, credit to the 
     applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-box Balance the amounts of 
     new budget authority and outlays equal to--
       ``(A) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of new budget authority in the House Lock-box Balance 
     plus (ii) the amount of new budget authority in the Senate 
     Lock-box Balance for that bill; and
       ``(B) an amount equal to one-half of the sum of (i) the 
     amount of outlays in the House Lock-box Balance plus (ii) the 
     amount of outlays in the Senate Lock-box Balance for that 
     bill,
      under section 314(c), as calculated by the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       ``(d) Calculation of Lock-Box Savings in Senate.--For 
     purposes of calculating under this section the net amounts of 
     reductions in new budget authority and in outlays resulting 
     from amendments agreed to by the Senate on an appropriation 
     bill, the amendments reported to the Senate by its Committee 
     on Appropriations shall be considered to be part of the 
     original text of the bill.
       ``(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `appropriation bill' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of a fiscal year.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 313 the following new item:
``Sec. 314. Deficit reduction lock-box account.''
     SEC. 703. TALLY DURING HOUSE CONSIDERATION.

       There shall be available to Members in the House of 
     Representatives during consideration of any appropriations 
     bill by the House a running tally of the amendments adopted 
     reflecting increases and decreases of budget authority in the 
     bill as reported.

     SEC. 704. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 602(a) ALLOCATIONS AND 
                   SECTION 602(b) SUBALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Allocations.--Section 602(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end of the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Upon the engrossment of Senate amendments to any 
     appropriation bill (as defined in section 314(d)) for a 
     fiscal year, the amounts allocated under paragraph (1) or (2) 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of each House upon the 
     adoption of the most recent concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for that fiscal year shall be adjusted downward by the 
     amounts credited to the applicable Joint House-Senate Lock-
     box Balance under section 314(c)(2), as calculated by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the revised 
     levels of budget authority and outlays shall be submitted to 
     each House by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     that House and shall be printed in the Congressional 
     Record.''.
       (b) Suballocations.--Section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end of the 
     following new sentence: ``Whenever an adjustment is made 
     under subsection (a)(5) to an allocation under that 
     subsection, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall make downward adjustments in the most recent 
     suballocations of new budget authority and outlays under 
     subparagraph (A) to the appropriate subcommittees of that 
     committee in the total amounts of those adjustments under 
     section 314(c)(2). The revised suballoctions shall be 
     submitted to each House by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of that House and shall be printed in the 
     Congressional Record.''.

     SEC. 705. PERIODIC REPORTING OF ACCOUNT STATEMENTS.

       Section 308(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Such reports shall also include an up-to-date tabulation of 
     the amounts contained in the account and each subaccount 
     established by section 314(a).''.

     SEC. 706. DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING 
                   LIMITS.

       The discretionary spending limit for new budget authority 
     for any fiscal year set forth in section 601(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as adjusted in strict 
     conformance with section 251 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, shall be reduced by 
     the amount of the adjustment to the section 602(a) 
     allocations made under section 602(a)(5) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, as calculated by the
      Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The 
     adjusted discretionary spending limit for outlays for that 
     fiscal year, as set forth in such section 601(a)(2), shall 
     be reduced as a result of the reduction of such budget 
     authority, as calculated by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget based upon programmatic and other 
     assumptions set forth in the joint explanatory statement 
     of managers accompanying the conference report on that 
     bill. Reductions (if any) shall occur upon the enactment 
     of all regular appropriation bills for 
 
[[Page H8243]]

     a fiscal year or a resolution making continuing 
     appropriations through the end of that fiscal year. This 
     adjustment shall be reflected in reports under sections 
     254(g) and 254(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

     SEC. 707. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This title shall apply to all 
     appropriation bills making appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 or any subsequent fiscal year.
       (b) FY96 Application.--In the case of any appropriation 
     bill for fiscal year 1996 engrossed by the House of 
     Representatives on or after the date this bill was engrossed 
     by the House of Representatives and before the date of 
     enactment of this bill, the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and the Committees on Appropriations and the 
     Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and 
     of the Senate shall, within 10 calendar days after that date 
     of enactment of this Act, carry out the duties required by 
     this title and amendments made by it that occur after the 
     date this Act was engrossed by the House of Representatives.
       (c) FY96 Allocations.--The duties of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office and of the Committees on Budget 
     and on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     pursuant to this title and the amendments made by it 
     regarding appropriation bills for fiscal year 1996 shall be 
     based upon the revised section 602(a) alloations in effect on 
     the date this Act was engrossed by the House of 
     Representatives.
       (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``appropriation bill'' means any general or special 
     appropriation bill, and any bill or joint resolution making 
     supplemental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations 
     through the end of a fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] will be recognized for 20 minutes and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized in opposition 
for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have finally made it to where the lock-box amendment 
is now getting an opportunity to be debated and voted on the floor. It 
has been nearly 2 years since a bipartisan group has been working to 
try to get this critical budget reform brought forward, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman], from the Democratic side, for their 
support and continued effort to try to bring this issue forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Royce, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Zimmer, the gentlemen from 
Florida, Mr. Foley and Mr. Goss, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Upton, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Neumann, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, for 
their strong effort on the Republican side to be sure that this 
important reform comes forward.
  In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, what does this amendment do? It corrects 
one of the basic problems in our budget process. Right now, as we vote 
to reduce spending, to try to balance our budget, and we reduce 
spending in a particular program, project or line item of our budget, 
all that happens is that particular program or project is eliminated. 
The money allocated to that project is not eliminated. It simply goes 
into the conference committee so that those in the conference committee 
can reallocate it to their special projects.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to have a system where when we 
make a cut that counts, and that when we talk about deficit reduction 
on this floor, our cuts reduce the deficit. This bill does just that. 
It takes those cuts and puts them into a lock box and makes certain 
when this bill is conferenced, those lock-box items are used to reduce 
the statutory as well as the budgetary limits on our spending.
  I encourage the support of the Members of this body for this critical 
reform and think that we are now going to take one of the major steps 
in this Congress for budgetary reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the idea behind the lockbox is that, supposedly, when 
savings are made on the floor in bills that are brought out of the 
Appropriations Committee, that that money, instead of being used for 
another purpose, is locked up in a box and used for deficit reduction. 
Sounds great.
  I think we ought to go through the history of the lockbox in this 
Congress. The first time that it was raised as a major issue was on the 
rescissions bill, when major reductions in the existing fiscal year's 
budget were being considered by this House. In that bill, in committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] tried to offer an 
amendment assuring that every dollar that was cut in that bill be used 
for deficit reduction, not for tax cuts. That amendment was defeated.
  We then came to the floor, and our Republican friends in the majority 
had a change of heart. Essentially, they were looking for votes. What 
they said was, ``All right, I tell you what. We will support the Murtha 
amendment.'' They supported the Murtha amendment and they also 
supported the Brewster amendment, which said ``No money for tax cuts, 
just use it for deficit reduction.''
  One day after it was adopted, Mr. Chairman, the Republican chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget said, ``Oh, that was just a game to get 
the votes to pass the rescissions bill.'' They dumped it in Congress 
and came back with a hugely modified provision which allowed only the 
first year's savings to go for deficit reduction, and they allowed all 
of the out-year savings, billions and billions of dollars, over 90 
percent of the savings in the bill, to be used for their tax cut.
  Guess who gets most of that tax cut, Mr. Chairman? The folks at the 
top of the heap. Folks making $100,000 a year or more.
  We then tried to help the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and others, 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] another, who wanted to 
have the lockbox attached to other appropriation bills as they moved 
through here. Bill after bill, ``Sorry, kiddo, no way.'' It was not 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, now, when we have the last of the major appropriation 
bills before us, or almost the last, all of a sudden the lockbox is 
attached to this bill. Why? Because our Republican friends are
 desperately looking for some Democratic votes for this turkey of a 
bill on final passage. I want to assure our friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle, I do not think that there are very many people on 
our side of the aisle naive enough to think that this lockbox provision 
is going to be sweet enough to make them vote for this labor, health 
appropriation bill.

  Let us not be fooled, Mr. Chairman. There are $9 billion or more in 
cuts in this bill from last year, but none of those dollars are going 
to go in a box for deficit reduction. Those babies are all going to be 
used to help finance that nice fat $20,000 tax cut for somebody making 
$300,000 a year and all of the other tax cuts associated with it.
  I would simply suggest, Mr. Chairman, lockbox has been spectacularly 
manipulated politically for the past 7 months. I find it ironic that 
the only bill that you wind up debating this on is this bill which 
contains funding for the poorest people in this country and for middle 
class working people.
  It did not apply when the Klug-Obey amendment passed to eliminate a 
fat subsidy for the nuclear power industry. Oh, no. You would not apply 
the lockbox to that. You would not apply the lockbox to pork projects 
when we had the public works bill before us. Oh, no. You would not 
apply it to the transportation bill when we had transportation pork out 
here. Oh, no. Now that it affects education, health, labor, however, 
now you are going to say, well, let us save the money.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think there will be any amendments adopted 
which cut this bill anyway. What that means is that this is an empty 
gesture from the majority party. It is a desperate effort to pick up a 
few votes on our side. Frankly, I do not care how people vote on this 
amendment, because it is so meaningless, but I hope it does not divert 
Members from the fact that if anyone really cares about a fair 
balancing of budget priorities in this country, they will vote against 
the underlying bill when the opportunity presents itself.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to those who have been 
following the progress of the Republican revolution, this amendment 
today on the 

[[Page H8244]]
lockbox is critically important. There are a lot of people all over 
this country, we call them C-SPAN junkies, and many of them are as 
informed as any group of people you can find within this country, but 
they did not know, many of them, that if you actually cut spending on 
an appropriations bill, the money does not go to reduce the deficit; 
that the money, instead, will go for another spending program. This has 
been the practice now for about 40-plus years.
  The Republicans have now been in the majority since January. This is 
now August. We have essentially been in charge a very limited period of 
time. Within this very short period of time, however, we are actually, 
today, going to pass the first official lockbox bill on the House 
floor, so that as we cut spending, instead of using Washington rules 
and using it to spend on something else, this actually is going to 
reduce spending and we will use it to reduce the deficit.
  You know what that is, Mr. Chairman? That is Main-Street-USA common 
sense. People on the other side criticize us for the way in which we 
have got lockbox to the floor. I say wait a minute. The minority had 40 
years to do it, why did they not do it? They response is, ``Well, if we 
would have just had one more week to be in control, we would have got 
it done.'' That is kind of a joke around here. We could give them 
another 40 years and it probably would not have been done because this 
means real spending cuts, real reductions in the deficit, and it means 
common sense, USA, a Main-Street-America idea.
  The beauty of this, Mr. Chairman, is it is on this bill and we are 
going to permanently extend the lockbox for as long as the Republicans, 
joined by some Democrats who have stuck their necks out, in order to 
get a lockbox and save this country's fiscal future.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I commend him for his effective leadership on this issue.
  First of all, I agree that Mr. Obey that the lockbox should have been 
passed a lot sooner. Had we had a lockbox at the beginning of this 
Congress, $479 million in cuts from 11 appropriations bills would have 
been in it. Instead, today, the lockbox, sadly, is still empty. It will 
be empty at the end of this bill, because, as has been pointed out, we 
do not expect to cut money from this bill.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, we start today on a very good footing with 
a bipartisan lockbox amendment that many of us have worked on for 
years. Had it been adopted in the last Congress it could have included 
more than $600 million in cuts adopted to appropriations bills.
  I would like to commend the many freshmen on the other side whose 
involvement was critical in moving the amendment as quickly as it did 
move. Let me not forget my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster], sitting to right whose formidable presence and leadership on 
this issue made a big contribution. I also thank Rules Committee 
Chairman Terry Solomon and Porter Goss for their concerted efforts to 
report H.R. 1162.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that a reasonable person would believe a 
cut in a cut, but not here in Congress. Money cut from one 
appropriation bill is simply shifted to another.

                              {time}  1930

  Lockbox will stop this practice and make a cut in spending a cut in 
the deficit. The lockbox, as I have said, has many fathers, but I am 
its mother, and as a mother, I would like to say how proud I am that 
after a very long gestation the baby will be born.
  Congratulations again to all the bipartisan group that worked on 
this. I offer my strong support for the Crapo amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan effort 
to make our cuts, the cuts that we make on this House floor, count. 
What this bill would do would be to ensure that spending cuts to 
appropriations bills will be designated directly to deficit reduction. 
They will not disappear in conference to be respent later.
  This reform, I should share with Members, is supported by such 
bipartisan groups as the Concord Coalition. It is supported by Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the 
National Taxpayers Union. The amendment makes a statutory change to the 
Budget Act of 1974, and would require that all net savings below the 
budgeted 602(b) allocation, whether from amendments on the floor or in 
committee, will go toward debt reduction and not for other spending 
projects.
  In the case of this bill, the committee is already $320 million under 
its 602(b) budget authority allocation, and the net amount of savings 
and any more savings adopted on the floor of this House will be 
credited to the deficit reduction lockbox. The lockbox provision 
applies to this bill and to any other general or special appropriations 
bill or measure which follows, including supplemental appropriations, 
deficiency appropriations, and continuing resolutions upon their 
engrossment by either house.
  I want to share with Members that had this passed last year, we would 
have saved $659 million that we cut on this floor, but was later 
respent rather than go to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is supported by the American people. 
They desperately want and need deficit reduction. Interest on the 
national debt is now the third highest item in the federal budget, and 
a child born today will have to pay, on average, taxes of $187,000 over 
his or her lifetime just to cover their share of interest on the 
national debt. That does not include the off-budget impact of the 
national debt itself, which causes higher interest rates on everything 
from homes to cars.
  Please support the amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, as somewhat of a technician in the effort to 
devise a lockbox mechanism that could work and still meet the 
legitimate need of flexibility for those who must write our spending 
bills, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this lockbox proposal. 
Our Rules Committee--members and staff--worked long hours to ensure 
that lockbox would be more than just a catchy phrase--that it would be 
a powerful and workable budgetary tool to help us meet and maintain our 
commitment to a balanced budget. And I believe we have succeeded in 
that effort.
  When the House and the Senate vote to save money in spending bills, 
those savings should not be spent elsewhere, they should be credited 
toward deficit reduction.
  On its face, this appears to be a simple matter--and the principle, 
that a
 cut should be a cut, truly is simple. But given the complexities of 
our current budget process, this simple principle becomes complicated 
in its application and one can get hopelessly mired in arcane 
commentary on such things as 602(a) allocations, 602(b) suballocations, 
statutory spending limits, and the like. These are beltway terms but 
they are important to understanding the minutia of how this thing will 
work.

  As chairman of the Rules Committee's Subcommittee on Legislative and 
Budget Process, I am deeply committed to reforming our entire budget 
process--it is complicated, it is cumbersome, it is confusing, it is 
often redundant, and it is generally geared toward spending and 
preserving the status quo.
  While we proceed on the larger reform effort, there is no reason not 
to move forward now on this one important piece of the budget process 
reform puzzle. I urge strong support for this lockbox proposal.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is anyone in this House that is 
not pleased to see us with a lockbox amendment finally before us so 
that when we do see cuts being made, we 

[[Page H8245]]
know they are not just going to be for naught, because the money that 
will have been saved will go on to other programs within that 
particular agency.
  If I may, I would like to propound a question to the sponsor of the 
amendment and tell the gentleman that I noticed something. This is an 
amendment that was made in order by the Committee on Rules. It was 
printed up. Unlike many amendments that were not included within the 
Committee on Rules report, this one was. As I understand it, this 
amendment applies to all the cuts and savings that will be made 
henceforth.
  But as the gentlewoman from California mentioned, there were $400 
million worth of cuts that have been made in the previously passed 
appropriations bills over the last couple of weeks, but those $400 
million will not be put into this lockbox. They will be used for other 
purposes, which I imagine include a tax cut for the very wealthy.
  So I would ask the gentleman, when he went to the Committee on Rules, 
if he had asked the Committee on Rules to make this lockbox amendment 
applicable retroactively to the appropriations bills which we have 
passed over the last 2 weeks?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I agree that we have been trying to get this lockbox amendment put 
into the process much earlier, and it should have been, so we could 
have caught some of the savings we already voted on. We did ask for 
retroactivity. We found there were some significant technical problems 
with that. The amendment has been written to give as much retroactivity 
as we can within the process that we are working in. I have to say it 
is not going to catch all of that which has now gone under the bridge.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for this response, because that worries me, because I know this 
committee can do quite a bit, technical or not, to make sure we save 
the money. It is unfortunate we did not take the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who has been of great assistance in this bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I took the well on this side of the aisle 
to look straight at two people sitting over here, because this truly is 
a bipartisan effort, and it is so badly needed. You know, there is 
nothing more disheartening for any Member of Congress than to stand up 
here and have the guts and the courage to vote for cuts of programs, 
some good program, but you have to do it. You have to get this deficit 
under control. And then, after you have cast that tough vote, to see 
the moneys not go toward lowering the deficit. That is so discouraging. 
The American people are just so disturbed with that.
  Finally we have a lockbox that is going to correct that. That means 
when the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] or the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman] or the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] or all 
of the rest of us, when we have the courage to come out here and vote 
for those cuts, it means now they are going to lower the deficit, and 
we are going to get this deficit under control.
  I think this is a great day. I am just so excited I can hardly stand 
it. I want to jump up and down. Come over here and vote for this. I 
want to give the
 gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] great credit, because for 2 years the 
gentleman has pursued this. Now we are going to get it. Pass it 
overwhelmingly. I thank the gentleman for the American people.

  Mr. Obey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I tried to listen to the previous speech with a 
straight face. I just want to say that it was my impression that just 
last night the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] tried to, in the 
Committee on Rules, amend this proposal so that the lockbox could be 
applied to all of the appropriations bills which had passed the House 
in this section, and that in fact he was turned down. It seems to me 
that that fact indicates the basic disingenuousness of the situation in 
which we find ourselves.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will my good friend yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that there is nothing we 
would rather do than make this retroactive, to make it affect 
everything. But the gentleman knows after you pass these bills, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, David Obey, is one of the smartest Members of 
this body, once we had made those cuts and then the 602(b) allocations 
has been redistributed, where had they been redistributed to? Mostly to 
NASA, which people felt we had to reinstate some of the cuts, and 
mostly to veterans affairs. We could not do that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply say that I 
did not see that side of the aisle getting any double hernias trying to 
do heavy lifting in order to get the lockbox adopted on the rescissions 
bill. In fact, I saw them after they accepted the Brewster amendment, 
the rescission bill in this House, applying the lockbox principle to 
all of the savings, both near year and outyear in the rescissions bill. 
I did then see them swallow a process in which all of the outyear 
dollars were diverted for the tax cut, rather then for deficit 
reduction.
  I find it interesting that the lockbox will be used to provide tax 
cuts for somebody making $200,000 a year, but we will also pretend we 
are going to make additional savings in this bill for people at the 
lower end of the economic scale, when in fact we know that all of the 
savings you are going to have in this bill have already been made, they 
have already been cut, and, again, they are being used to justify a tax 
cut.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to say if the only argument that we have 
to overcome in order to pass this lockbox is simply that it is not good 
timing, that I look forward to an overwhelming vote on the lockbox, 
because that is no argument against voting for the lockbox. I am 
encouraged by that. It is fun to take the field with so little 
opposition.
  For the last month, we have been going at the annual ritual of 
offering amendments to reduce spending in the Federal budget. As a 
freshman and a freshman of the Committee on the Budget, to find out 
only hours later that we really did not reduce spending, we merely 
reallocated it, was really frustrating. I can tell you that in all 
sincerity we have been working morning, noon and night to try to get 
this lockbox retroactive, to get it passed as quickly as possible, and 
get it passed as a freestanding bill, which we are still committed to 
do, in order to make this lockbox truly effective right now. We want to 
make it effective yesterday and last month.
  This is the best we can do, and I am glad to see that we should 
expect overwhelming bipartisan support.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
   Mr. Chairman, I do agree it would have been an excellent idea to 
have enacted the lockbox earlier. In fact, it would have been an 
excellent idea to have enacted the lockbox shortly after the gentleman 
from Idaho introduced the legislation along with the gentlewoman from 
California in the 103d Congress. Think of all the money we could have 
saved if it had been passed under the previous majority.
  But, fortunately, we have today for the first time a meaningful 
lockbox amendment before us, and it will establish that the budget 
allocations that we so solemnly adopt each year will be not floors, but 
ceilings. It will make it clear that we can reduce spending below those 
allocations and have those spending cuts stick. Budget cuts can go 
straight to deficit reduction, so we can reduce the amount we add to 
the national debt every single day until that blessed day when we 
finally reach a balanced budget.
  Those of us who have been fighting to cut the budget over the years 
have felt 

[[Page H8246]]
sometimes like Sisyphus, the mythical character who would roll a rock 
up a hill only to see it roll back down again. Every cut would be 
reallocated and respent.
                              {time}  1945

  And more than that, the effort to make the spending reductions in the 
first place would be undermined because everybody here knew that the 
reductions were not real cuts in spending, so why bother to make 
enemies by voting not to find programs.
  What we are doing is truth in packaging. What we are doing is 
authenticity in Government. We are making good on our promise to be 
fiscally responsible. Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Crapo amendment. 
I commend the gentleman, and also the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] for the 
bulldogged work that they have provided this year to see that we have a 
chance to vote on this tonight.
  I have had an interest in the lockbox idea for several years myself. 
In fact, Tim Penny, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and I 
included in our commonsense budget reform bill last year, but this 
provision was one of only four of our provisions that the House did not 
approve.
  This amendment would simply guarantee that spending cuts we approve 
as part of any appropriation bills could be designated for deficit 
reduction, a novel idea.
  Having watched year after year after year spending cuts voted in the 
House never ever, ever becoming true spending cuts, to say that we are 
a little bit excited about the possibility this time in spite of the 
fact that this is the second time this year we have done this, perhaps 
this time we are going serious and that this will not only pass tonight 
but that it will receive the full and complete support which it 
deserves and see that it in fact becomes the law of this House. This is 
a commonsense legislative effort.
  When Congress votes for cuts, we should not deceive the American 
public or ourselves about what those cuts mean. Citizens assume a cut 
means a reduction in the deficit, not just a reshuffling of funds as 
has always been the case. With this change, budget savings will be 
placed in the lockbox, locked in for deficit reduction, without 
loopholes. These spending cuts should be initiated automatically unless 
otherwise specifically designated or transferred, which can be done.
  I commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman], the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster], and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] 
for the effort, the leadership that they have shown in seeing that we 
have an opportunity tonight to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo] in this effort. I also commend the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
on their leadership on this issue.
  The American public is telling us to quit spending their money, quit 
wasting their dollars. This is a mechanism by which we can start 
locking up some of those savings and putting them towards deficit 
reduction.
  Simply put, I cut a project the other day $25 million. I found out 
hours later that that money, that $25 million, was swept off the table 
and spent somewhere else. It frustrated this Floridian to know that all 
of that effort was in vain because somebody else spent the dollars.
  Let me tell my colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] 
spoke eloquently on the freshman class. I want to read you from the 
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel an editorial, ``Applaud House Foley, for 
`revolt''':

       Congress has played the old shell-and-pea game with the 
     appropriations process for years, shifting federal money from 
     shell to shell with so much speed and dexterity that the 
     befuddled taxpayer soon loses track of the pea.
       Foley and many of his colleagues in the Class of 1994 were 
     sent to Congress partly because they pledged to get serious 
     about reducing the deficit. In this instance at least, they 
     seem determined to make good on their pledge. Foley's 
     prominent role on this important issue may not endear him to 
     the House leadership, but it should earn him some deserved 
     points with the people he was elected to serve.

  My colleagues, we were sent here from districts across America to 
serve the taxpayers, not the leadership of this Congress.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, today first I want to thank my good 
friend from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. We have worked on this project for 3 
years, were joined by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] last 
year, and it has been a long road. But we finally reached the point of 
getting a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the lockbox amendment to 
H.R. 2127. Many Members on both sides of the aisle have worked 
tirelessly to get to this point. We have many times seen amendments 
come up on the floor. We have made difficult votes to make cuts in 
those bills out there and then seen that money spent later by the 
Committee on Appropriations on other programs. That is just not right. 
Since I came here in 1991, I have been astounded that those kinds of 
things continued to happen.
  I committed myself to make sure this practice would not continue. 
Today we have a vote on the lockbox amendment. This lockbox represents 
the most substantive change in the way this place does business that 
has occurred in many decades.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] and I have appeared 
before the Committee on Rules on every appropriations bill this year. I 
am sure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is tired of seeing us 
there.
  As we testified for the Brewster-Harman lockbox to be made in order, 
savings were slipping away and being used by the Committee on 
Appropriations elsewhere. Although a lockbox amendment does not capture 
the $480 million in cuts the House has already made this year, it 
symbolizes our commitment toward deficit reduction.
  I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss] for bringing this issue before the House today 
and agreeing to also debate H.R. 1162 as a stand-alone bill after the 
August recess. I think this twofold process is important for the House 
to work its will on the lockbox issue and to better ensure that the 
lockbox becomes law as soon as possible.
  Our constituents sent a message to Congress last November to reduce 
the deficit. Let us be honest to our constituents. Let us make sure a 
cut is really a cut, not additional spending for someone else. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the lockbox amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question: If you asked the 
American people, do we need to change the way Congress works, I think 
you would get a large percentage that would say yes.
  There is another question. Shortly we are going to see on this voting 
board around here the votes on this amendment. The American people are 
going to look to see who votes against this very simple amendment for a 
lockbox. That is the other question. Let us show the American taxpayers 
that we are serious, very serious about reducing the deficit. 
Supporting this amendment should make it clear that we are going to put 
our money where our mouths are. In other words, we will ensure that any 
savings realized in the appropriations bill will automatically go into 
a lockbox and not be spent in another way.
  Such a trust fund is long overdue, my colleagues. If we show the 
folks back home that we are truly committed to 

[[Page H8247]]
reducing the deficit, it will be easier for our citizens to accept some 
of the other tough choices we are asking them to accept.
  Again, I want to compliment my colleagues for offering this 
amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, first, I will start by complimenting my 
Republican colleagues for what I think is an excellent proposal and 
also those Members on the Democratic side who have been so active in 
proposing and advocating and bringing this to the floor for a vote.
  The lockbox principle is important; it is very important. One can 
simply say, a cut is not a cut unless we have the lockbox principle in 
place, because as others have explained, it is altogether too easy to 
take the cut, reallocate it among other programs, and undermine or 
defeat the entire effort that took place to save money and to reduce 
the deficit and ultimately to balance this budget.
  There are aspects of this which remain troubling, and I trust that we 
will deal with these aspects in the weeks to come.
  One that is most significant, in my opinion, is the unfortunate 
tension that exists in our Federal Government, the tension between the 
House and the Senate and between the White House and Congress. And what 
we find is that some of these bills and provisions are lost in that 
process. As a consequence, our efforts here to insert the lockbox 
principle in this appropriations bill may not survive the entire 
conference process and the possibility of a veto and work with the 
White House subsequently.
  I urge the Committee on Rules and the Members of this body to work 
aggressively to not just pass this but to also make sure that if this 
does not pass and is not ultimately signed by the President that we, in 
fact, have a lockbox that this body will observe as its own internal 
operating procedure so that we, in fact, as the U.S. House of 
Representatives, are committed to deficit reduction and we do not abuse 
the cuts that are made and reallocate these funds for other programs.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ran for Congress to fight spending and to 
reduce the deficit. What has been more frustrating than ever has been 
when we have been able to get amendments on this House floor to cut 
spending, more times than not we have lost those battles. But in the 
times that we have actually been successful in cutting spending, 
something happens. The folks in the gallery, the folks at home may 
cheer watching C-SPAN, but ultimately when the bill goes to the Senate 
and those bills come back from conference, the spending level is at the 
same if not even higher.
  This lockbox changes things. Thanks to a bipartisan approach from the 
very beginning, we have been able, I think, to change history with that 
we are going to be doing tonight. Because in the future when we cut 
spending for whatever project it might be, defense, nondefense, foreign 
aid, I do not care, the spending is going to come down and we are going 
to win and the taxpayers are going to win big time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Crapo-Harman-Brewster lockbox amendment. It is an amendment that I 
think is long overdue.
  I have to admit that I was sitting in my office listening to the 
debate and hearing many of my colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle get up and talk about their shock, their shock and amazement that 
the cuts that they thought that they had voted for were not going to 
deficit reduction but were going back into be spent again by the 
appropriators. This shock was unbelievable to them.
  What I find ironic is that we have had this debate for 7 months this 
year, and over and over again we have said, If we are going to truly 
address the deficit reduction problem, we have to have cuts made on 
this floor apply to deficit reduction. And time and time and time again 
we have been shot down. We have been unable to have those cuts go to 
deficit reduction.
  I think it is wonderful that we have it in this bill. Of course, 
there are not going to be many cuts in this bill. It is ironic that we 
did not have this provision in the bill that dealt with transportation 
spending, that dealt with highway projects, that dealt with true pork, 
because that is the place where we should have been making cuts and 
having those cuts go to deficit reduction.
  I am happy it is here now, but when I hear my colleagues talk about 
their shock, it makes me think, maybe it is not as shocking as they 
pretend that it is.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, we have done a lot, we have gone a long way 
to reform this Congress. But one of the things that we have not done 
is, we have not really tackled a systemic problem that needs systemic 
and systematic reform.
  One of the problems we have got in the Congress is that we really 
have three parties. We have got Republicans; we have Democrats; and 
then we have appropriators. And sometimes the appropriators forget 
which party they originally came from.
  The reason that it creates such a problem is that the appropriators 
run this place in a different way, knowing that if we do in fact get to 
the floor and make a cut, that when we make that cut, it will not 
matter. They can reprogram it however they want anyhow afterward, 
because it will not actually cut the budget in a way that goes to the 
deficit but it will simply be available to be used in another program 
in that particular appropriations bill.
  That is wrong. It is part of what gives a certain kind of arrogance 
to the appropriations process that, frankly, becomes problematic to the 
rest of the Members.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity that we have had to have 
this critical debate. As the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] 
said, we have been fighting for a long time to get this issue to the 
floor, and I again want to say thank you to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Brewster] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for 
their strong help in getting this moved forward. This has been a 
bipartisan effort.
  For those on the Republican side whom I mentioned earlier, we have 
fought long and hard to bring this critical reform forward, and now, 
tonight, we are going to have a vote on one of the most important 
reforms of our budget process that we have seen in years.
  Mr. Chairman, as the previous speakers have said, we now have an 
opportunity to make our budget process real, so that when we vote, when 
those C-SPAN viewers see across the bottom of the screen that the 
debate is on whether to cut spending or to spend money on a certain 
project, then it is true that we are truly talking about making our 
cuts count. We now have the opportunity to create the lockbox; to 
create a true system in which when we vote on this floor to cut 
spending, spending is cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I again want to say that this vote, this bill, has 
support of the Concord Coalition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Citizens For a Sound Economy, 
and the National Taxpayers Union. Those who are interested in our 
budget process, in protecting the fiscal stability of our budget 
system, in protecting against the increasing taxes that we have seen 
across the country, are all standing up tonight, watching the vote here 
on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, one final point. I think it is very important that we 
have a strong vote tonight, so that we can send a signal to the other 
body that we are serious, that this reform was put into this 
appropriations bill because we expect to see it back, we expect it to 
come out of conference, and we expect it to be delivered to the 
President for 

[[Page H8248]]
his signature. That kind of a vote is what we need to see tonight to 
send a strong signal. I think that the debate today has shown that 
there is that kind of support, and I am encouraged that we pass the 
lockbox.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment and would like to commend him for his tireless 
work in bringing the lockbox amendment before the House.
  The concept of this proposal is so simple, so basic, and so common 
sense, that only in Washington could we have missed it for so many 
years.
  In essence, the term ``lockbox'' simply means that a dollar saved is 
a dollar saved--that when Congress votes to cut funding for a program, 
the money won't be spent.
  Most taxpayers--and maybe even most Members of Congress--believe that 
when Congress agrees to eliminate $5 billion in funding for the space 
station or $7 billion for the super collider, that the money remains in 
the Treasury. But, in fact, under current law, those tax dollars go 
back to the pot and can be reallocated, or spent, later that same year.
  A ludicrous concept at any time, the practice is simply unsupportable 
in this era of $200 billion deficits and ongoing struggles to balance 
the budget by the year 2002.
  When the American people voted last November 8, they sent us a 
message. The message was one of smaller Government, less costly Federal 
programs, and overall fiscal responsibility. Our ability to meet these 
demands hinges upon two factors.
  First, we must engage in plain old-fashioned tough decisionmaking. We 
must determine which programs merit continuing, which can be 
privatized, and which should be eliminated altogether. My committee, 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, is serving as overall 
House coordinator of this government-wide downsizing effort and is a 
strong champion of substantial Federal reform.
  But even as we go about our business and make the hard choices on 
departmental restructuring and program eliminations, we recognize the 
need for a second type of fundamental reform. That is reform of the 
legislative process itself--reform which compels fiscal responsibility 
by promoting saving and making spending harder.
  The Crapo lockbox amendment offers just such a change. It permits 
lawmakers to choose saving over spending, and allows us, for the very 
first time to honestly tell our constituents that a dollar saved is a 
dollar saved.
  The amendment is long overdue, and should be supported. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Crapo 
amendment which establishes a deficit reduction lockbox and finally 
makes our cuts count.
  When I was first elected to Congress, one of my first priorities was 
to reduce and eliminate the deficit. I became a cosponsor of the 
Deficit Reduction Lockbox Act then and have again cosponsored the bill 
in the 104th Congress.
  Why is this bill necessary? Every time we vote to cut spending in 
appropriations bills, these funds can be reallocated to other programs 
rather than being used for deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, we must get our House in order before we reorder 
anything else.
  I worked hard to keep my own congressional office budget as low as 
possible both to save money and set an example of accountability to my 
constituents.
  I was one of the rock-bottom, low spenders in my class, returning the 
unspent dollars of my office account back to the Federal Treasury for 
deficit reduction.
  It's an outrage that we cannot do the same with our annual 
appropriations. This amendment will bring some accountability and 
common sense into our appropriations process, rebuild the confidence of 
the American people in what we do, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho 
[Mr. Crapo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo] will be postponed.
  Are there additional amendments to title I, or are there amendments 
made in order under the rule?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the Labor, HHS, Education Committee report 
contains language that highlights the need for a Comprehensive 
Scientific Research Program addressing characteristics of extra-
societal groups. Many Americans are concerned and puzzled by the 
conduct of individuals involved in events such as the bombing of the 
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the Sarin attack in the Tokyo 
subway and the extreme hold that David Koresh had on his followers. The 
National Institute of Mental Health is particularly suited to examine 
such concerns in a scientific manner.
  The current state of understanding of such groups is extremely 
limited. Through efforts by the National Institute of Mental Health, we 
hope to increase our understanding of characteristics of such groups 
which are associated with increased potential for terrorism, violence 
or other criminal behavior; the manner in which such groups recruit 
individuals and influence their behavior sufficiently to move them 
toward terrorism, violence, and other criminality; the causes behind 
members leaving such groups; and mental health effects of membership in 
such groups.
  I want to clarify the committee report language. The committee 
language discusses the need for increased understanding of such extra-
societal groups, but does not specifically request information on the 
above mentioned causes and characteristics to the extent the National 
Institute of Mental Health concludes that these concerns can be 
addressed scientifically, based on present knowledge and additional 
research.
  I ask the subcommittee chairman if the intent of the committee 
language includes addressing the concerns I just mentioned?
  Mr. PORTER. Reclaiming my time, it is important to note that one of 
the major goals of this bill is to provide for maximum flexibility 
within the National Institutes of Health as a whole and, in this 
particular case, within the National Institute of Mental Health.
  With that in mind, yes, the committee recognizes that the intent of 
this request to the National Institute of Mental Health includes 
addressing the specific concerns that you mentioned in their research.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the 
chairman of the subcommittee to include this language in the report. 
This program of research is vital to effective and strategic planning 
of dealings with terrorism, violence and other criminality associated 
with certain organizations.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman of Ohio [Mr. 
Sawyer].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman I have sought this time to enter into a 
brief colloquy with the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Porter, concerning title III of H.R. 2127.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, after many months of bipartisan discussions 
and negotiations, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, including the title I program for educational 
disadvantaged children.
  One fundamental element in determining how to allocate title I 
dollars was the accuracy of the data itself. Because reliable poverty 
numbers for areas below the national level were only available every 10 
years from the census, title I funds were being distributed on the 
basis of data that was as much as 13 years out of date.
  Therefore, Congress decided that these critical program dollars 
should be allocated using poverty estimates that were updated every 2 
years. Equally important, the funds would be allocated based on school 
district-level numbers, to ensure maximum targeting of shrinking 
dollars to those students most in need.
  Congress recognized that producing poverty data for small geographic 
areas between censuses was a complex scientific task. That is why, as 
part of the reauthorization bill, it directed the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a 4-year review of the Census Bureau's efforts to 
produce updated poverty numbers for States, counties, cities, and 
eventually school districts.
  The Academy study would have two important purposes. First, it would 
provide an objective, scientific review of the Census Bureau's 
methodology, and be able to recommend alternative approaches as the 
project moved forward.

[[Page H8249]]

  Second, it would help the Congress determine the reliability of the 
updated poverty numbers at various geographic levels, and for various 
purposes. Without the Academy's review, I am not at all sure that 
Congress will have confidence in the numbers that the Census Bureau 
publishes.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Education has not yet been able to 
fund the National Academy's study, due to a substantial rescission in 
the Department's evaluation funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am enormously pleased and grateful that the committee 
has included specific funding in this appropriations measure for the 
Department to obtain updated, school district-level poverty data from 
the Census Bureau. Those funds should allow the Bureau to proceed with 
its program as planned.
  But I am afraid that failure to proceed with the National Academy 
study at the same time may render the Bureau's hard work irrelevant in 
the end, if Congress does not have confidence in the accuracy and 
soundness of the resulting numbers for purposes of the title I program.
  Therefore, I would ask if you agree that the Department of Education 
should be able to use a portion of the $3.5 million set aside in this 
bill for updated, small area poverty data, for the National Academy 
study that Congress directed under the Improving America's Schools Act?
  Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] for bringing 
this important matter to the committee's attention.
  As a member of the committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, Mr. Sawyer was instrumental in bringing the problem of 
outdated poverty numbers to the attention of this body and in 
developing the solution that we are funding in this appropriations 
measure.
  I agree with the gentleman from Ohio that the National Academy study 
is an important part of the effort to ensure that we have accurate and 
timely poverty data on which to base the allocation of title I funds.
  Therefore, I support the gentleman's point that a portion of the $3.5 
million, as the Department deems appropriate, could be used to fund the 
National Academy study of the Census Bureau's poverty estimates 
program.
  Mr. SAWYER. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his assistance in 
this very important effort.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to inquire about the coordination of 
disease prevention and health promotion activities at the Federal 
level. H.R. 2127 eliminates explicit funding for the activities carried 
out by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, including 
the aggressive implementation of the national prevention strategy, 
Healthy People 2000. Although the activities of this office are to be 
continued at the Secretary's discretion, no moneys were transferred to 
carry out this mandate.
  I would like to clarify with the chairman his intent on maintaining 
disease prevention and health promotion as an integral part of our 
national health policy and ensuring coordination of the array of 
Federal efforts in this domain.
  I understand the budget constraints that you faced in putting 
together this legislation and appreciate the considerable flexibility 
that this bill gives the Secretary of Health. I also appreciate the 
increased funding for specific, categorical prevention programs 
supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as 
for breast and cervical cancer screening. However, I am concerned that 
we are abdicating a strong Federal leadership role in orchestrating and 
coordinating prevention policy.
  Would the chairman agree that a strong emphasis on disease prevention 
and health promotion must be part of our national health strategy?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I very definitely, do agree.
  Mr. MORAN. Would the chairman further agree that it is the Office of 
the Secretary is best suited to coordinate all prevention activities in 
the various health-related agencies?
  Mr. PORTER. Yes, I do.
  Mr. MORAN. And so you would clarify your intent to ensure that funds 
are available for orchestrating disease prevention policy at the 
Federal level.
                   amendment offered by mr. greenwood

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Greenwood:
       Page 22, line 13, insert ``X,'' after ``VIII,''.
       Page 23, line 8, insert before the period the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $193,349,000 shall be for the program under 
     title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That 
     amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not 
     be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling 
     shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be 
     expended for any activity (including the publication or 
     distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote 
     public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or 
     candidate for public office''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Greenwood] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 15 minutes. Does any Member rise in opposition?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
 amendment offered by mr. livingston as a substitute for the amendment 
                       offered by mr. greenwood.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 2, 
as a substitute for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment
  The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment 
is as follows:

       Part 2, amendment No. 2-2 offered by Mr. Livingston as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Greenwood:
       On page 23, after line 8, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``Funding for the Title X categorical program is terminated 
     and $193,349,000 is transferred to the Maternal and Child 
     Health block grant and Community and Migrant Health Centers 
     programs. Of the $193,349,000 amount, $116,349,000 is 
     transferred to the Maternal and Child Health block grant 
     program and $77,000,000 is transferred to the Community and 
     Migrant Health Centers program. The additional funds 
     transferred to these two programs are available through 
     programs that also provide comprehensive health services to 
     women and children.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment offered as a substitute 
for the amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is 
also a 30-minute amendment, with 15 minutes being controlled by the 
gentleman from Louisiana and 15 minutes by a Member in opposition.
  Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], take the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Greenwood] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the time will be 
fungible.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago legislation sponsored by then-Congressman 
George Bush, signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon, 
established an American family planning program. It has been one of the 
most successful programs in the history of our Nation, and its success 
is for simple reasons. Family planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. 
And when you prevent unplanned pregnancies, you prevent abortions, and 
we all support that, and every American supports that goal.
  Preventing unplanned pregnancies prevents welfare dependency. It 
allows poor working women who have no health insurance to have access 
to contraception, to birth control, to the kind of counseling and 
health services they need, so that they can plan their families and 
stay off of the welfare rolls.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has not been controversial. It is 
supported by 70 percent of Americans for good reason. But lately it has 
become controversial. The Committee on House 

[[Page H8250]]
Appropriations chose to zero out, after 25 years, to eliminate entirely 
the title X family planning bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. My amendment restores 
the title X family planning program. It is also very simple in these 
regards. It makes it clear, in black and white, that not a penny of 
these funds can be used to provide abortion services. That would be 
controversial. These funds are not for that purpose. It makes it clear 
that all counseling must be nondirective. Counselors in these programs 
may not suggest that a client choose abortion, but would simply lay out 
the legal options under the State laws that are applied. My amendment 
makes clear that not a penny of these funds can be used to advocate 
either in favor or against pending legislation at any level, nor for or 
against any candidate for public office.

                              {time}  2015

  This is strictly a birth control, family planning debate.
  Now we have an agreement that we have reached that makes the 
Livingston-Smith amendment to my amendment in order as a substitute. We 
have agreed to do that for the purposes of a fair debate. But let me 
tell my colleagues what the Livingston-Smith amendment does.
  The Livingston-Smith amendment kills title X family planning. It is 
just that simple. The program is gone, and at least in 781 counties 
across the United States there would be no family planning services at 
all, at all.
  What we have to do is we have to defeat the Livingston-Smith 
amendment and then vote in favor of the Greenwood amendment.
  The opponents will say all they choose to do is block-grant these 
funds into existing programs. They are wrong; that is not what their 
amendment does because those programs are already written into law in 
ways that prohibit these funds from being available for family 
planning. For the most part perhaps 30 percent of the funds might be 
available, and in many States not a dime will be available to help 
women with
 their family planning needs.

  The opponents will say that this is about abortion. It is not about 
abortion. This debate is not about abortion. This debate is about 
family planning. Ninety-eight percent of the recipients of these funds 
perform zero abortions, zero abortions, and of the small 2 percent that 
do provide abortions, half of those happen to be hospitals where 
abortions are performed.
  I say to my colleagues if they support family planning, a 25-year-
old, successful, noncontroversial, mainstream program, then I ask them 
tonight to stand up, vote against the Smith amendment, the Livingston-
Smith amendment, and vote for the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] 
for his participation in what will be a meaningful debate, however I 
might say that while the Livingston-Smith amendment kills title X, it 
certainly does not kill family planning.
  The fact is that the Livingston-Smith amendment transfers the entire 
$193.3 million for title X, which the Greenwood amendment would hope to 
restore, the same amount allocated in fiscal year 1995, and it 
maintains that amount and places the entire $193.3 million into the 
maternal and child health care block grant and the community migrant 
health centers program, divided between them. About 60 percent of title 
X funding or $116.3 million would be transferred to the maternal and 
child health block grant, and the remaining 40 percent or $77 million 
will be transferred to the community and migrant health centers 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, the most important thing is that this amendment does 
not, does not, eliminate or cut one single dollar in funding for family 
planning programs. What it does do is transfer the funding from a 
separate categorical family planning program centralized here in 
Washington into two other comprehensive health care programs for low-
income women and children. Both of these programs already provide 
family planning services, so this amendment does not cut family 
planning, does not eliminate family planning, and even if I were to 
eliminate the funding as opposed to transferring it to other programs, 
family planning funds already provided by the Federal Government would 
still be considerable.
  Family planning funds and services are already provided under 
Medicaid, under the maternal and child health block grant program 
today, and the social services block grant and the community and 
migrant health centers program. In fact, the total conservative 
estimate that the Federal Government will spend on domestic family 
planning services in fiscal year 1995 is over $750 million, three-
quarters of a billion dollars, and that is if we eliminate this 
funding, which we do not do. We transfer every single dollar of it. 
But, in 1994 alone approximately 2.6 million Medicaid-eligible people 
receive family planning services totaling over $580 million apart from 
this program. This is in addition to the
 millions of dollars available from State and private resources.

  Under the Livingston-Smith amendment the same private and public 
nonprofit institutions, the same ones that currently receive title X 
family planning funds, can apply for funds for family planning under 
the maternal and child health block grant and the Community and Migrant 
Health Centers program. Under the maternal and child health care block 
grant program the decision as to what entities will receive funds will 
be left strictly to the State and local authorities. Now that is what 
opponents may not like, but it localizes the decisionmaking.
  Under the community and migrant health centers categorical program 
the decision will be left to well over 150 community and migrant health 
centers in every State and territory who are allowed under present law 
to provide family planning services or, under present law, can contract 
out to other public and private organizations for family planning 
services. These community and migrant health centers already do 
contract out for other services.
  According to HHS' own budget justifications, over 115 centers have 
contracting procedures with outside groups and have contracted out for 
other managed health care services. The maternal and child health care 
block grant program serves currently 13 million low-income women and 
children, age 19 and under, and infants. The Federal law leaves the 
discretion to States and localities as to what services to spend. Forty 
percent of those funds can be used for various services including 
family planning. The Library of Congress has documented that States can 
and do use their funds for family planning. But the Federal law 
guarantees the States provide services to, quote, assure mothers and 
children, and particularly those low-income mothers and children, 
access to quality maternal and child health services, unquote, and they 
determine that the low-income mothers and children are those with 
family incomes below 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.
  The HHS officials have cited the maternal and child care health block 
grant as a model of the Federal-State partnership in that it provides 
the maximum flexibility to the States to achieve what they determine is 
best for their citizens. Under the community and migrant health centers 
program, comprehensive health care services, including family planning, 
are already provided to over 7.6 million low-income and medically 
underserved people. These centers are all community based, and 61 
percent of the people receiving services under this program are of 
minority ethnicity. Sixty-six percent of the users of community and 
migrant health centers are below the poverty level.
  I say to my colleagues, if you believe that we should continue to 
streamline programs, downsize and operate more comprehensive, efficient 
health care programs for our needy, if you want to get the dollars to 
those who need it most and take it away from the Beltway bandits, then 
I urge you to support the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood-
Lowey amendment to restore funds to our Nation's family planning 
programs. 

[[Page H8251]]
The amendment would restore $193 million to the bill for the network of 
family planning services provided through the title X program.
  Those who oppose this amendment and support the Livingston-Smith 
amendment say that they are not cutting family planning, they are just 
putting the money somewhere else. They contend that family planning 
services will continue as before. Well, my colleagues, this is simply 
untrue. Here are the facts:
  By law the maternal and child health program will be able to spend 
only the $34 million it would receive under this bill for family 
planning. That is a cut in family planning services of 72 percent. The 
rest of the title X funds that go to community health centers may or 
may not be used for family planning. We simply do not now if community 
health centers will use these new funds for family planning or for 
other very crucial health services.
  Here is what we can be sure of. Without a designated source of 
Federal funds for family planning Congress' commitment to the 
prevention of unwanted pregnancies, to the prevention of out-of-wedlock 
births, is merely empty rhetoric. If we fail tonight to restore funds 
for family planning, we are reneging on our commitment to reduce this 
epidemic.
  My colleagues, let us be clear about why title X was eliminated in 
committee. Title X is on the Christian Coalition's hit list, and I 
quote. They call it the notorious family planning program. Despite the 
fact that title X funds are not and may not be used for abortions, the 
Christian Coalition has chosen to make this a fight over the right to 
choose. I frankly just do not understand it.
  We may disagree in this body about the right to choose, but why can 
we not work together to support a program to prevent unwanted 
pregnancies? Can we not work together, my colleagues, to prevent 
abortions?
  To my colleagues who do not believe that government should be in the 
business of family planning, failure to restore title X funds today 
would affect more than just family planning services. Title X clinics 
provide over 4 million American women with their primary health care. 
If we fail to restore title X family planning funds today, the health 
of
 millions of American women will be jeopardized. Eliminating title X 
would cut out pap smears and exams for cervical and breast cancer. It 
would cut prenatal and postnatal care.

  Earlier this year the House passed a welfare reform bill which stated 
that reduction of out-of-wedlock births was an important Government 
interest. How can this body claim it wants to decrease out-of-wedlock 
births while at the same time eliminating the cornerstone of our 
Nation's family planning efforts? Family planning services prevent 
abortions, prevent teenage pregnancies, help keep women off welfare. 
Let us work together, my colleagues, to maintain our Nation's 
commitment to family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Greenwood-
Lowey amendment and ``no'' on the Livingston-Smith amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to save the Nation's family planning program.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the title 10 family planning program was 
created in the 1970's with the expressed mission to decrease teen 
pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, that mission has failed. I repeat, title X has 
bee an abject failure.
  Unfortunately, more money does not solve our country's social ills. 
The increase in funding for title 10 over the past 25 years has 
actually paralleled a dramatic increase in teen pregnancy, between 1970 
and 1992, the teen pregnancy rate has increased 23 percent. In 
addition, when title 10 began, 3 in 10 teen births were out of wedlock. 
Today, 7 out of 10 teen births occur outside of marriage.
  The increase in funding not only correlates an increase in teen 
pregnancy, but also in teen abortions, the transmission of sexually 
transmitted disease and the HIV virus.
  In addition, title 10 gives a $33 million subsidy to Planned 
Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider, which also provides 
contraceptive services and abortion counseling without parental consent 
or knowledge.
  I have to say, as a father, the idea of some other adult counseling 
my daughter to have an abortion, without my knowledge or consent, makes 
me sick to my stomach.
  Mr. Chairman, title 10 has never been evaluated and has yet to show 
any success, and in this bill the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] directs the $193 million back to the 
States, and, if my colleagues do not believe in block grants, I 
understand it, but they can compete for this money through the block 
grant system. This is in addition to the $560 million we already spent 
in 1995 for family planning services through Medicaid and social 
services block grants.
  Vote ``no'' on Greenwood and ``yes'' on Livingston.
                              {time}  2030

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood/Lowey 
amendment to restore funding for the title X family planning program.
  To eliminate this Federal program when we are trying to curtail 
dependence on welfare; when we are trying to reduce the number of 
abortions and unwanted pregnancies; when we are trying to reduce the 
number of breast and cervical cancer deaths; when we are trying to 
reduce the number of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV; when 
we are trying to increase access to health care for low-income 
individuals--flies in the face of common sense.
  The elimination of title X as a categorical program could be 
devastating to the availability of family planning services to women, 
particularly low-income women. While the funding designated for title X 
has been divided between the maternal and child health block grant, and 
the community and migrant health centers, there is no requirement that 
these additional dollars be used for family planning services. States 
would be given the option of using the dollars for any purpose allowed 
under the block grant.
  Even more damaging is the fact that the maternal and child health 
block grant includes a number of set-asides: The result being that the 
maximum amount of the $116 million transferred to that program that 
could be actually used for family planning services would be $34 
million--that is a cut of $83.6 million. Thus, this provision would not 
be a simple transfer of money for family planning--it would represent a 
drastic cut.
  The title X program currently serves 4 million women--and some men--
through more than 4,000 title X clinics across the country, with 
preference given to low-income women. In Maryland, 20 of our 23 
counties have title X clinics only; there are no community health 
centers or MCH funded health department clinics currently providing 
family planning services in those 20 counties. And, 94 percent of the 
women served at title X clinics in Maryland were served in those same 
counties.
  Title X clinics provide contraceptive services, including natural 
family planning methods and supplies, infertility services, and basic 
gynecologic care. The clinics also provide screening services for 
STD's--some test for HIV--breast and cervical cancer, hypertension and 
diabetes. Training is also provided for nurse practitioners and other 
clinic personnel.
  The program is clearly prohibited from using any funds for abortion 
services. Title X clinics do not provide abortion services.
  The Greenwood-Lowey amendment specifically includes language clearly 
stating that no title X funding can be used for abortions. Mr. Speaker, 
title X prevents abortions. How can we on the one hand talk about the 
need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and then vote to eliminate 
funding devoted to family planning services.
  It is estimated that for every dollar spent on family planning 
services saves an estimated $4.40 in medical, welfare, and nutritional 
services provided by Federal and State governments. If title 

[[Page H8252]]
X services were not provided, between 1.2 million and 2.1 million 
unintended pregnancies would occur each year, rather than the 400,000 
occurring today.
  The Greenwood-Lowey amendment restores funding for this critical 
program, and it restores common sense. Vote for the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment and against the Smith amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
Livingston-Smith compromise which makes needed reforms in the Nation's 
family planning effort.
  This vote, Mr. Chairman, is not about ending Federal family planning 
assistance. It is about defunding the abortion industry, restoring 
State and local control, and redirecting funds to organizations which 
recognize that the worst problems of teenage children cannot be solved 
by shutting their parents out of the process.
  Make no mistake about it, the Livingston-Smith compromise does not 
end Federal family planning assistance. Instead, it redirects to the 
States a little over 25 percent of what the Federal Government spends 
on family planning programs--that's the $193 million we spend on title 
X--through block grants them and lets States decide how and where to 
best use these needed funds. As many of my colleagues know, the Federal 
Government will spend in excess of $745 million on family planning 
programs this year alone. The lion's share of the Federal spending on 
family planning is through Medicaid--the Nation's program for the 
poor--which is expected to spend in excess of $525 million on family 
planning for poor women in fiscal year 1995. The Livingston compromise 
leaves this money and this program as is--untouched. The argument that 
the Federal Government is abandoning family planning support for poor 
women is simply not true.
  It's a red herring.
  The truth is that under Chairman Livingston's proposal, the Federal 
funds now used for title X are redirected on a dollar-for-dollar basis 
to the Maternal and Child Health block grant, as well as the 
Consolidated Health Centers program. Each of these programs already 
provides primary health services and preventive services, including 
family planning, to low-income people. Under the Livingston-Smith 
compromise the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program will 
receive an infusion of more than $116 million which they can target to 
family planning programs while the Consolidated Health Center program 
will receive an additional $77 million that can be targeted for family 
planning initiatives across the country.
  Federal family planning assistance is not eliminated. But duplication 
of effort and administrative costs are. Right off the bat, the 
Livingston-Smith amendment will free up $3 million from overhead costs 
and allow that money to go to direct services. And as this Congress has 
searched for ways to bring the Federal budget under control, programs 
that are unauthorized have naturally been subject to particular 
scrutiny. The title X program hasn't been authorized in 10 years.
  The Livingston-Smith compromise will provide greater power to the 
States to administer their own family planning programs. As we have 
seen with many other areas of Government spending, the State 
governments are closer to the problem and can more effectively channel 
funds so that the greatest number of persons--in each State--are served 
in the most efficient and most effective way possible. Who is more 
capable of delivering services to the people, the States or the Federal 
Government?
  Part of the answer to this question includes a long, hard look at the 
title X program, its pet recipients and its record of controversy and 
failure. Most of us agree that the purpose of Federal involvement in 
family planning efforts is to reduce the number of children born 
outside of wedlock, particularly to teenagers.
  Yet, since 1972, teen pregnancy has skyrocketed from about 50 
pregnancies per 1,000 teenage girls to about 100 pregnancies per 1,000 
girls in 1990. This is a staggering increase of 100 percent--in a time 
span of less than two decades.
  As with many other social problems, we are slowly making the 
realization that throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. 
The problem with title X is not the amount of money, but who spends it 
and how.
  The largest single recipient of title X funds is a private 
organization--the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. And 
its no coincidence that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion 
provider in the United States today. Planned Parenthood organizations 
perform or refer for over 215,000 abortions each year. This is an 
organization that believes in giving out contraceptives to children, 
and performing abortions on them, without their parents being informed. 
Planned Parenthood proudly boasts of lobbying to overturn State laws 
that require informed consent before women undergo abortions, and which 
require parents to be notified before minors have abortions.
  The ideology of Planned Parenthood is one that undermines parental 
authority. Unbelievably, title X regulations actually prohibit grantees 
from informing parents about treatment of and drugs that are given to 
teens, if the teenager in question requests that the parents be left in 
the dark. This bizarre requirement in the title X program has actually 
prevented some States from receiving title X funds because they have 
laws on the books which require parents to be informed about medical 
treatment given to their children. For example, the State of Utah was 
denied title X funds in the past because of the State's parental 
notification requirements.
  And here's another coincidence. The Office of Population Affairs, 
which overseas the title X program, is headed by an abortionist from 
California who performed abortions for Planned Parenthood for over 20 
years. This is the Clinton administration's idea of a family planning 
expert.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope no one will be fooled by the language on 
abortion that is contained in the Greenwood amendment. The intent of 
the amendment is to nullify the Livingston compromise and take the $116 
million in new moneys from the Community Health Centers in order to re-
fund title X, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion industry.
  The Greenwood amendment sounds like it has restrictions on funding of 
abortion, but it doesn't. It merely restates current law and policy 
with respect to title X recipients and abortion funding, counseling, 
and lobbying with Federal funds.
  The Greenwood amendment provides no further protections than current 
law. Everyone on both sides of the abortion debate knows that the 
current restrictions on abortion funding do not really restrict. The 
proabortion side knows that they don't work and that's why the 
proabortion side supports the Greenwood amendment. The pro-life side 
knows the current restrictions don't work and that's why we oppose the 
Greenwood amendment. Money is fungible, and when more than $34 million 
in title X funds goes to the Nation's leading provider of abortions, we 
are subsidizing the abortion industry. Consider this: Planned 
Parenthood's records show that it is an organization which favors 
abortion over childbirth. In 1993, for example, Planned Parenthood 
clinics directly provided 134,277 abortions, but only provided prenatal 
care to 9,943 women--a staggering 13.5 to 1 ratio of planned abortions 
to planned births. With this record it cannot be denied that whenever 
tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood they prop up the abortion 
industry.
  Supporters of the Greenwood amendment will say it prohibits title X 
funds from being used to pay for abortions. But abortion funding is 
already prohibited under the Hyde amendment. And yet, title X funds 
regularly go to support organizations and clinics which perform 
abortions as a method of birth control.
  And they will argue that the Greenwood amendment says that title X 
funds cannot be used for lobbying for or against candidates or 
legislation. But this too is already in current law. And it has never 
stopped title X recipients from lobbying for abortion on demand and 
continued title X funding.
  Just this month, a pro-life Member got hold of an ``Action Alert'' 
from Planned Parenthood of Central Florida--which receives title X 
funding--opposing the Livingston compromise. The alert urges PP 
supporters to write and call the Member and ``express your outrage.'' 
It also encourages people to go to town hall meetings and ``to clap or 
boo even if you don't 

[[Page H8253]]
want to speak.'' It concludes: ``We need to let him know we are 
watching him . . .''
  We should not be surprised that the Planned Parenthood Federation is 
opposed to the changes proposed to title X by Chairman Livingston. It 
is not often that a private organization can ride the gravy train and 
receive tens of millions of dollars in public funding each year, all 
from a program that is administered by one of its own.
  Finally Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that under the 
Livingston/Smith amendment, Planned Parenthood can and presumably will 
apply to receive funding from the States, which would receive the title 
X funds that are redirected to the Maternal and Child Health block 
grant, and the Community and Migrant Health Centers program. But there 
will be no more sweetheart deals from the Federal Government. Planned 
Parenthood will have to compete on a level field with other service 
providers, many of whom are less ideological, less controversial, and 
more effective at providing family planning services other than 
abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider what we would 
gain by restoring funding for the title X program. Billions more 
dollars for an unauthorized program which has a solid record of failure 
in reducing teen pregnancy? more funding for organizations like Planned 
Parenthood which undermine parental authority and perform or arrange 
hundreds of thousands of abortions every year? is that what the 
American taxpayers really want?
  Our choice today is not about whether we should continue to support 
family planning. It is about whether we should continue supporting a 
failed and controversial Federal program, or give the money to the 
States, and let them experiment with different approaches to solve 
these persistent and tenacious problems.
  I urge my colleagues to support the compromise worked out by our 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Livingston.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, in 1970, President Nixon signed into law 
the Title X Family Planning Program to provide disadvantaged women with 
the means to avoid unintended pregnancies. No one would have imagined 
25 years later, tonight, what we are trying to do.
  In a country where our health bills are skyrocketing, the abolition 
of title X will deny preventive health care to millions of American 
women. In a world where too many unwanted kids become the victims of 
neglect and abuse, abolishing title X will result in more unintended 
pregnancies. In a Nation where we should work to keep abortion safe, 
legal, and rare, abolishing title X will result in more than 500,000 
more abortions each year. At a time when we should encourage women to 
do the responsible thing in planning the size of their families, the 
abolishing of title X will slam the door on over 1 million women each 
year who turned to title X for family planning services.
  Mr. Chairman, the abolishing of title X means more misery, more 
abused children, more abortions, and more American women locked in 
poverty.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 19 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] 
has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by 
Congressman Greenwood, which would decrease the appropriation for the 
maternal and child health block grant by $16.3 million and decrease the 
consolidated health centers block grant by $77 million in order to fund 
the unauthorized title X program. I do strongly support the Livingston-
Smith amendment and wish to speak on its behalf.
  Since 1970 this program has never had an official impartial 
evaluation of its effectiveness, while its funding has continued to 
increase. However, we do know that the teenage pregnancy rate has 
doubled, out of wedlock births have increased, the teenage abortion 
rate has more than doubled, and sexually transmitted
 diseases among teenagers have increased to where one in four sexually 
active teenagers will be infected by a sexually transmitted disease 
every year.

  In addition, Mr. Chairman, while title X prohibits the use of these 
funds for abortion, many of the clinics perform abortions as well as 
provide family planning services. This arrangement implies that 
abortion is just another family planning method. No one supports 
abortion as a method of family planning.
  This program is a disaster. The Livingston-Smith amendment would 
terminate funding for title X and transfer all of the money to the 
maternal and child health block grant in community and migrant health 
centers programs. Services such as preventive and family planning 
health care for women would be better funded under a block grant. 
Preventive health care is also provided to pregnant women, infants, 
children, and adolescents. Health care and support services are also 
provided to families in rural and underserved areas and to children 
with chronic health conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be irresponsible of us to again fund an 
ineffective program that has not even been authorized since 1985. We 
have an obligation to the American people to fund programs that work 
and provide real family planning assistance. I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  All during the 1980s, never was title X a target. On a bipartisan 
basis, even though from 1985 on the program was unauthorized, people on 
both sides of the aisle supported funding for family planning. There 
was an issue on the gag rule that was debated furiously, but not for a 
minute was there a question about funding of title X itself.
  Mr. Chairman, now, somehow, the agenda has changed. Suddenly people 
are jumping up who were supporters of title X and saying how terrible a 
program it is. I heard a minute ago one of the Members say that he 
would be very, very concerned that his daughter was going to be 
counseled to have an abortion.
  No one has ever been counseled to have an abortion by a title X 
clinic. It is against the law to do that. Never has a dollar been spent 
on abortion by a title X clinic. It is against the law to do that. GAO 
has repeatedly, over and over again, certified that no money is spent 
for abortion by title X clinics, yet here we are with some kind of new 
agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a program that helps poor women avoid unwanted 
pregnancies through
 contraception. Through contraception. Abortion is not a legitimate 
family planning method. Nobody thinks that, but, good God, here we are 
about to destroy, and make no mistake, this is an attempt to destroy 
title X family planning, a program that has served poor women for all 
of these years, sponsored originally in this House by George Bush, I 
might say, when he was a Member of Congress. The agenda has completely 
changed and it is a bad, bad agenda.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks. This is not about abortions, this is about 
education and stopping unwanted pregnancies.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, and would like to thank him 
for his hard work on this issue of family planning which is so very 
important to the health of women and their families throughout the 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get one thing straight about the Greenwood 
amendment: it provides funding for family planning services, and not 
abortions, as critics of this program argue. To make this a debate on 
abortion is to, once again, distort the truth--a misfortune that now 
seems to permeate every abortion debate. By attempting to link family 
planning funds to providing abortions, it would appear to me that many 
of my colleagues don't want to educate young women about the 
responsibilities and consequences of becoming pregnant without 
obtaining abortions. Let me repeat, under the 

[[Page H8254]]
Public Health Service Act, title X funds cannot be used in programs 
that perform abortions.
  What the Greenwood amendment would do is to help reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies. Under title X, grantees such as State and local 
health departments, hospitals, family planning clinics, and 
organizations such as planned parenthood raise awareness among
 low-income women and adolescents about comprehensive reproductive 
services and the prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually 
transmitted diseases.

  In 1995 alone, it is estimated that over 4,000 family planning 
clinics will provide basic infertility and gynecological services and 
screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and other health problems 
to more than 4 million low-income women.
  Mr. Chairman, critics of family planning like to cast a black eye on 
family planning by pointing their fingers at organizations such as 
planned parenthood. Well, let me tell you something Mr. Chairman. In 
case you didn't know, opponents of family planning don't like planned 
parenthood anyway because of its pro-choice position. And, as evidenced 
in this bill, they will do anything they can to destroy its and any 
other organizations or clinics ability to function if they either 
perform or promote abortion. And, as I have said already, even though 
title X funds can't be used for abortions, critics say that that's not 
good enough. Well, I say to them, enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that I find it rather ironic 
that many of those same Members who so strongly supported punitive 
welfare provisions denying benefits to mothers under the age of 18 who 
had more children or to mothers who had children out of wedlock, would 
oppose the very funding that would help prevent such births. Because, 
if we refuse to address issues related to family planning, then many of 
the other costs associated with our present welfare system that we are 
attempting to control in the welfare bill we recently passed will 
continue to rise.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud those pro-life Members who support family 
planning and who recognize how vital its services are. But, 
unfortunately, for many other abortion opponents, there is no common 
ground. For them, it is all or nothing. As we have already seen and as 
we will see again with Congressman Lowey's amendment, even rape and 
incest is too much to consider. Opponents insist on taking it one step 
further, and that is what the Smith amendment does.
  If we adopt the Smith amendment, then there is a real possibility 
that no family planning services will be provided at all, especially 
since under current law the maternal and child health block grant 
earmarks most of the funds for non-family planning related services. If 
this were to happen, then my State of New Jersey would lose the over $5 
million that it receives to provide family planning services to 106,000 
low-income women. And, I refuse to accept this.
  I urge my colleagues not to let this happen. Vote no on the Smith 
amendment. Support the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman that someone 
said it is not something they can quantify. I would say that this means 
798,000 unintended pregnancies to unmarried women.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from Illinois 
that the reason we have not really looked at this program is we did not 
have the majority here to do anything. The funding for this program 
just increased exponentially under the Democrats, and the only reason 
we have not taken the time to look at this program carefully is because 
we never had the votes.
  Now let us talk about what the real problem is. This all comes down 
to a debate on, and I think it basically could be thought of this way, 
do you want young women to be counseled for abortions without parental 
consent, without informed consent? Do you want your Federal Government 
to spend your money to do that? Do you want this same agency that is 
getting your taxpayer dollars to go out and lobby, lobby through the 
Supreme Court, using your tax dollars, to fight for more abortions? 
That is what it all comes down to.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood 
amendment to appropriate $193 million for title X.
  The Federal family planning program, title X, was enacted in 1970. 
Before 1970, people will say, what happened? As the whip has said, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has mentioned that since title X, we 
have had no studies to show that it has worked, that it has done any of 
the things they have talked about. At this point it has ballooned into 
such a program that well-to-do families are using it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to support the Smith amendment.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the 
Greenwood-Lowey amendment to restore title X funds to provide for 
voluntary family planning projects. Title X funds support clinics that 
provide 5 million low-income women with access to affordable, basic 
health care services, including access to all major methods of family 
planning. In my State of California, the working poor are caught 
without health insurance. Consequently, one out of five women of 
reproductive age are uninsured. For any of these women, title X 
services are essential to allow them to make informed personal 
decisions regarding their own health and well-being.
  Furthermore, family planning is essential to preventing unintended 
pregnancies. The title X program is estimated to avert 1.2 unintended 
pregnancies every year. No title X funds are spent on abortions. Rather 
than supporting abortions, title X family planning prevents abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, I therefore strongly support the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Greenwood amendment and support for the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened as an earlier speaker said that he could not 
imagine that 25 years ago we would picture this happening. I cannot 
imagine that it takes 25 years of failure before we decide to fix the 
problem.
  We all know the abortion rate and the illegitimacy rate have 
increased. Do we need to go another 5 years of failure before we fix it 
or 10 or 20 years? We also had an earlier speaker say that title X 
provides basic medical services. It provides some services. It does not 
provide the kind of services that the maternal and child health block 
grants will. It does not provide the kind of programs that the 
community and migrant health centers are all about.
  I think it is important to note this does not make family planning go 
away. Family planning is covered under the maternal and child health 
block grant, Medicaid, social services block grants and State moneys. I 
wanted to emphasize that this change does set a priority. It sets a 
priority, for example, with the community and migrant health centers to 
provide physician care, dental care, hearing care, prenatal care, and, 
yes, family planning services.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his initiative in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment 
and in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], whom I have the deepest respect for.
  However, this issue is not really about abortion politics. At least 
it should not be. It is whether the Federal Government ought to be 
involved in family planning and pregnancy prevention efforts. It seems 
to me the proponents of the Smith amendment are really driving a wedge 
in an area where we ought to be able to find middle ground and build 
some form of bipartisan consensus, and that is the overall goal in this 
Chamber ought to be preventing unwanted abortions by preventing 
unwanted pregnancies.
  I will admit there are elements of the title X program that I would 
like to see 

[[Page H8255]]
reviewed and revised through the reauthorization process. I am 
certainly willing to consider means testing the program. However, I 
strongly submit that you can be both pro-choice and pro-life and 
support the title X family planning area. Let us tonight indicate to 
our fellow Americans that we are capable of reaching bipartisan 
consensus. Let us preserve the title X family program. Support the 
Greenwood amendment and, unfortunately, reject the language included in 
the appropriations bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the distinguished candidate for 
President.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, no commercials. I did not ask for that. No 
commercials.
  Mr. Chairman, Planned Parenthood is what we are debating here 
tonight. Money is fungible, and title X funding must be abolished. It 
has been nothing but an annual subsidy for the largest abortion 
provider on the plant Earth with the sole exception of the Chinese 
oppressive communist government. They promote abortion, they lobby for 
abortion, and they litigate about abortion.
  How many Members saw the movie, TV movie, this last few months 
glorifying Margaret Sanger, the very first president of Planned 
Parenthood, still praised by its rank and file members? A young 
talented actress, Dana Delaney, Irish, one time I guess practicing 
Catholic, played her in this glorification piece.
  Here is a few Sanger quotes, and I will fade out. She believed that 
Negroes, as she used the term, and Southern Europeans were mentally 
inferior to native born Americans. She said the Jewish were 
feebleminded, human weeds, and a menace to society. The poor were 
sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility. She 
argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the surest
 sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating 
constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and 
dependents.

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman], with the comment that 85 percent of these 
funds never go to Planned Parenthood.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear what the Smith-Livingston 
amendment is all about. It is not to improve family planning around 
this country. It is not for women to get better access to primary care, 
which they now get under the existing title X program, which, for the 
most part, is distributed through State funds for the States to 
operate.
  What this is is ideological; it is a payback to the religious right, 
who hate the idea that some people feel free to engage in sex outside 
of marriage because of contraception.
  Well, let us understand something: Many of the women who go to 
clinics are married and they do not want to have a child, and they want 
contraception for that reason. Let us understand something else: That 
many of the people who are going to be denied family planning services 
are still going to have sex. But what they are also going to have is 
unintended pregnancies.
  What is the answer we get from those who oppose this program? Well, 
what they suggest, those who claim they are against abortion, is end 
this program, which will lead to more abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a defeat of the Smith-Livingston amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to first stand and 
commend the genius of the chairman of the committee. It looked to me 
like it was a no-win when I heard both sides of this issue, and then 
the committee came out with a compromise, which is the genius of the 
committee chair.
  It did not make me so happy, because I have, after 30-some years of 
being pro-abortion, I decided that I could not stay in that position 
and became pro-life. And it did not make the other side so happy, but 
it really probably did what the American people would like. And what it 
did is it left most of the family planning money, in fact, all of it 
for welfare women, poor women, all the access points still there. It 
just said a little tiny part called title X was going to be block 
granted back to the States where we could mix it with programs I helped 
start in our State, called the prenatal health program, and we could 
mix it with that and have some more money for those type of things and 
let the states make choices.
  It sounded like a great genius. Then I found out there was all this 
controversy. Still could have abortion? Decide they did not like it, 
still does not like it. But what was happening, then I started getting 
letters and figured out what it was all about.
  Planned Parenthood gets 21 percent of the money in title X. And 
Planned Parenthood is a political lobby that is very big in campaigns, 
both sides. So it became an issue of they would have to go to the 
States and compete for this money, where States values and people's 
values would have to be reflected.
  I am not so sure I would want to compete for it. I would just as soon 
get rid of title X. I think it failed. I think we need to figure out 
how to prevent pregnancies and do family planning a different way. 
Title X has not worked real well. I did not get my way, but I am 
willing to take this compromise and say okay, this place is a place of 
compromise.
  So I urge Members to vote for the Smith amendment and against the 
Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, wonders never cease. Only a few months 
ago, this body voted to deny assistance to unwed teenage mothers and 
their children. Tonight we are voting on an amendment that would 
eliminate a program that actually prevents teenage pregnancies, family 
planning.
  I agree with a letter sent by 35 Republicans to our Speaker, Mr. 
Gingrich. This debate does not need to be divisive, it should not be 
politicized. Family planning is an important national health issue. 
Without family planning, thousands of additional low income women will 
go on the welfare rolls. Title X focuses on preventing unplanned 
pregnancy in the first place.
  In fact, publicly funding public planning services such as Planned 
Parenthood has prevented 1.2 million pregnancies in a year. Let us not 
turn our back on common sense. Family planning is important so every 
child is a wanted child.
  Please support the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the camel's nose under the tent.
  It purports to refund title X but exclude abortion from the services 
title X and its clinics provide.
  Well Mr. Chairman, we've been there, seen this and done that before.
  During the Reagan and Bush administrations Title X clinics were 
prohibited from providing abortion counseling, but Planned Parenthood 
clinics continued to provide abortion counseling anyway as well as 
abortion on demand, even though they were receiving title X funds.
  With the stroke of a pen, President Clinton made title X funds taken 
from the pockets of hard-working Americans available to provide 
abortions and abortion counseling.
  Mr. Chairman, when it comes to title X it's not enough to say ``you 
can't''. The time has come to say--``you will never again.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say I cannot believe what Richard Nixon would 
think if he were here tonight to watch this program that he really 
tried to utilize to build a bridge, to build a bridge over an issue 
that people hate. We all hate the abortion issue. But people constantly 
say the solution is family planning, and title X is family planning, 
and states are allowed to get title X funds. But if you flip it the way 
they are trying to go, what you are really 

[[Page H8256]]
going to say is states are going to be able to take the funds and 
decide not to spend them for family planning if they opt to do that.
  That is wrong. The recipients of this planning, family planning in 
title X, are women, tax paying American Women. We have heard all sorts 
of outrageous charges on this floor that title X has caused teen 
pregnancy. Please, no. Title 10 funds are given under state funds and 
they are not given without family permission and whatever the state law 
says.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be sensible. Let us vote for the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood amendment and in 
support of the Smith amendment on title X.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say right off the bat that elimination of 
title X as a government program does not mean the elimination of family 
planning services for the poor. What title X supporters fail to tell 
the American people is that its funding level is maintained in this 
bill. $193 million in family planning assistance--the same level as 
fiscal year 1995--remains available through block grants. All current 
recipients of title X funding will still be able to apply for funds 
from their States.
  What we are doing in this bill is recognizing the inefficiencies of 
title X as a federal program. Title X was established in 1970 as a way 
to reduce unintended pregnancies by providing services to low-income, 
poor women. In fact the program was originally designed to help poor 
couples--not individuals--plan their families.
  Over its 25 years title X has mushroomed into a model of government 
inefficiency and been a contributing factor to the steady increases in 
areas where we were supposed to see dramatic reductions: single-parent 
families; illegitimacy; sexually transmitted diseases; and despite the 
assertions of its supporters, abortions. The program is another example 
of where the hand of Federal Government--well intended as it may have 
been--has compounded a problem.
  Block granting these funds allow us to do away with a costly and 
inefficient government bureaucracy that has failed to direct services 
exclusively to those in need. We are giving States the flexibility they 
need to ensure that services are going directly to those who need them.
  This Smith amendment is perfectly consistent with Republican efforts 
in this Congress to move power and money away from Washington, DC and 
into the hands of States and communities where it belongs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Smith amendment.
                              {time}  2100

  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Lowey amendment. 
Many referred to 1992 as the year of the woman. Today, Mr. Chairman, we 
face a Congress far more hostile to women's rights and health than any 
I remember.
  It is hard to understand why anyone would want to cut the Nation's 
principal family planning program, one that through preventive medicine 
saves $5 for every dollar spent. If family planning is cut, 4 million 
women, most of whom are young and low-income, will lose their only 
health care.
  How can anyone oppose such an essential program? Whose better 
interests are being served? Certainly not those of American women. Once 
again, the radical right's agenda is put ahead of a good government. 
Protect American women. Vote to keep funding for title X. Save the 
Nation's family planning program.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, prior to coming to this body, I 
was a practicing physician. So I used to see a lot of this stuff on a 
daily basis. I have to say this program was initiated with the intent 
of helping to deal with the terrible problem of unwanted pregnancies. 
The unwanted pregnancy rate has skyrocketed. The abortion rate has 
skyrocketed. Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed. This is a dismal 
failure.
  I saw an amazing statistic yesterday: The U.S. people get more upset 
about wasteful government spending than they get upset about violent 
criminals being let out of jail prematurely. That is the thing that 
gets them more upset than anything else. Here we are today arguing 
about whether or not we should continue to fund a program that has been 
a dismal failure.
  The abortion rate is up. The teen pregnancy rate is up. The venereal 
disease rate is up. That is why this program was initiated, and it has 
not worked. Now we are asked today to continue its funding. I support 
the Smith-Livingston amendment. Oppose Greenwood.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a new Member, our physician.
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Let me make myself perfectly clear. I have been strongly and 
consistently anti-abortion. I will base my vote on this amendment on my 
view of the best way to decrease the incidence of abortion.
  I do feel there are too many abortions and do not believe abortion is 
an acceptable method of birth control or should be used to select the 
sex of a baby. And I firmly believe that abstinence is the best choice 
for unwed couples.
  But I recognize that abstinence is not always practiced, and, in its 
place, contraception is far preferable to abortion.
  Let me give some facts. We can never know how many abortions have 
been prevented in Iowa and around the country because young couples 
have had access to family planning services. But I do know that title X 
funds support 67 clinics in Iowa, provided family planning services to 
nearly 75,000 women in 1994. In my district alone, two-thirds of the 
18,000 women receiving these services were at or below 150 percent of 
the poverty line. Without the assistance of title X services, they may 
be unable to obtain the family planning necessary to prevent unwanted 
pregnancies which may end in abortion. Title X funds provide support 
for 10 family planning clinics in my District four in Polk County, one 
in Pottawattamie County, one in Montgomery County, one in Harrison 
County, one in Shelby County, one in Audubon County, and one in Dallas 
County. Only one of the four sites in Polk County performs abortion 
services, and they do that without any title X funds.
  If the Greenwood amendment fails, the funds transferred to the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant will not provide any family 
planning in Iowa. That is because the State has determined that none of 
the MCH funds should be used for that purpose.
  The loss of title X funds in Iowa would leave a Community Health 
Center in my district of 1,800 sq miles, to provide family planning to 
the nearly 13,000 women at or below 150 percent of the poverty line. 
This clinic had 1,500 visits for family planning last year. The 
program's director, Dr. Bery Engebretsen told me today it would be 
impossible for the clinic to handle the approximately 36,000 visits 
needed to make up for the closure of the title X sites.
  Dr. Engebretsen also said, ``without adequate access to birth 
control, I expect the rate of abortion will increase in the Fourth 
District.''
  The Greenwood amendment recognizes the importance of separating 
family planning from abortion. It makes clear that none of these funds 
may be used to perform or counsel on abortion. These safeguards are 
important to ensure that the title X funds are used for family 
planning, not the termination of a pregnancy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly antiabortion. And I believe that a vote 
against the Greenwood amendment would betray my goal of reducing the 
incidence of abortion in America. We 

[[Page H8257]]
cannot eliminate effective family planning without inviting a dangerous 
increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies, too many of which end 
in an abortion.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that every one of us, whether we are pro-life or 
pro-choice, is anti-abortion. Ask yourself this simple question before 
voting. ``Will the elimination of title X funding increase the 
incidence of abortion in your district?'' I think the answer is yes. 
And that is why I support the Greenwood amendment. I urge all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood 
amendment and in support of the Livingston-Smith language.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to Mr. Greenwood's 
amendment.
  Each year as we review funding for title X, abortion supporters 
manage to cloud the debate, claiming that women will not receive 
complete medical care if title X is defunded. Let me remind you that 
title X is not the only source of family planning assistance available 
to women who are economically disadvantaged. Each year hundreds of 
millions of dollars from private and State resources and the Federal 
Government through Medicaid, the Social Services Block Grant, the 
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and several other smaller 
programs are allocated for this type of health services.
  I cannot support Mr. Greenwood's amendment which would essentially 
reinstate the hypocritical title X program. By hypocrical I am 
referring to the clause in title X that states, ``none of the funds 
appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion 
is a method of family planning,'' however, last year title X allocated 
$33 million of its $193 million to planned parenthood, the single 
largest abortion provider and advocate for legal abortion on demand in 
the United States.
  Plainly and simply, if Mr. Greenwood's amendment is passed title X 
funds will be retained at present levels. Under these levels millions 
of taxpayer dollars will be funneled to abortion providers and 
advocates. Abortion is not family planning. It is family cancellation. 
As we all know planning is something you do before the fact. Abortion 
happens after the fact. I cannot support spending my fellow citizens 
tax dollars on a program that promotes abortion and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose Mr. Greenwood's amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  (Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Livingston and 
Smith language and in opposition to the Greenwood language.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Greenwood amendment, and support the 
proposals of Mr. Livingston and Mr. Smith.
  The current title X programs hurt America's families; they undercut 
America's families and our values.
  How?
  Because current title X programs promote teenage promiscuity and 
other sex outside of marriage. American history since title X was 
adopted shows that abortions are up, and out-of-wedlock births are also 
up dramatically. Why? Because the Federal Government, with taxpayers' 
money, is subsidizing sex outside of marriage.
  Let's look just at the teenagers who are subsidized by title X: One-
third of those who use title X are juveniles. Minors. Children. 
Teenagers. Over 1 million young people each year, who the law says are 
too young to vote, too young to enter a contract, often too young to 
have their ears pierced without a parent's permission, can go to a 
government family planning clinic, without knowledge of parents or 
family. There they don't get instruction in the moral and other 
consequences of sex outside marriage. Instead, they get free birth 
control pills, condoms, and other contraception, and treatment for 
sexually-transmitted diseases: AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other 
forms of venereal diseases. And their parents are never told.
  No wonder America's families find it hard to guide their children, 
when the government offers their children an end-run around the family 
on this, the most intimate of family issues. As a father of five, I 
don't want government using my tax dollars to undercut what I teach my 
children about morality.
  And these teens are not all poor, not by a long shot. That's because 
title X ignores the family's income, and looks only at the teenagers'. 
Thus, even children from wealthy families qualify for private 
government help in maintaining their sexual conduct. Our tax dollars 
are used to by-pass Mom, and by-pass Dad, and by-pass the entire 
family. In their place, a federally-paid worker tells our youth it's 
OK, you can sleep around all you want with your boyfriend or 
girlfriend, regardless of what your family has taught you. The Federal 
worker won't focus on the fact that it's wrong. They don't give you 
love and moral guidance. They just give this young person more birth 
control, and treatment for V-D if they catch something.
  Title X in this insidious fashion undercuts America's families and 
promotes teenage promiscuity. Is this what we want to do with $193-
million a year of our tax dollars?? I do not believe this is what 
America wants, or what our families want. I urge defeat of the 
Greenwood amendment, and adoption of the Livingston and Smith language.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.
  The question before us tonight is clear. Should we let the title X 
program, which has been a failure by any objective measure, simply 
continue to exist? Or should we attempt to reprogram these scarce 
Federal tax dollars where they might provide a better service and value 
to our Nation?
  The title X program was created with the best of intentions, but it 
has proven to be a dismal failure. It was supposed to reduce unplanned 
pregnancies among teenagers, but teenage pregnancy has risen 
dramatically. It was supposed to educate teenagers to prevent the 
number of abortions, but teenage abortion has doubled since the 
inception of the title X program.
  Now, it is hard for some Members to admit that one of their social 
engineering schemes may be a failure, but title X is a failure. It is 
time we admitted that fact.
  It is also important for us to stress that title X funds will be 
transferred under the Livingston amendment to block grants for the 
States. They will be used by individual States who will be able to set 
priorities for the use of these funds to benefit their citizens. No 
longer will these funds be a Washington setaside for Planned Parenthood 
and like-minded groups.
  Planned Parenthood itself received approximately $35 million in 1995, 
approximately 19 percent of the entire program services budget for 
title X programs.
  All the ills designed to be addressed by the title X program have 
increased. We have a national epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, 
teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion. It is 
time to let the States attempt to devise their own solutions. For all 
of these reasons, I urge a yes vote on the Livingston substitute and a 
no vote on the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Greenwood amendment.
  I rise in support of Mr. Greenwood's amendment to restore title X 
family planning grants to the Department of Health and Human Services. 
After consulting with Kansas health officials, I am gravely concerned 
that ending title X and rolling the money into the Maternal and Child 
Health Block Grant and Migrant and Community Health Care Centers will 
seriously reduce family planning access for working low-income women 
across this Nation.
  The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant has a four-part mission, 
none of which has to do with providing basic routine gynecological care 
or birth control to women. The Maternal and Child Health block grant's 
mission is a 
 
[[Page H8258]]

laudable one: (A) to ensure mothers and children access to maternal and 
child health services; (B) to reduce infant mortality; (C) to 
rehabilitate blind and disabled children; (D) to promote community-
based care for disabled children.
  But because of these four specific earmarks there are very few 
dollars left for family planning. This is not block granting--the Smith 
amendment simply destroys a successful and tremendously important 
program which allows women control over their reproductive lives.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Greenwood amendment and in opposition to the Smith amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support title 10 funding and the Greenwood amendment. 
I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for his leadership and 
patience in bringing his amendment to the floor.
  This issue is about family planning--not abortion. Title 10 is the 
only program that exclusively addresses the health of women in this 
country. It helps keep women off of welfare, and helps prevent 
abortions.
  A facility in my district, HealthQuarters, is the only source of 
health care for thousands of women. Seventy percent of these women are 
well below the Federal poverty level. They have no health insurance--
public or private.
  The number of middle-aged women using family planning facilities is 
growing because these women are in desperate need of cancer screening, 
and they can't afford to pay a doctor for preventative care. The block 
grant approach proposed in this bill simply won't meet these needs 
because it is impossible to replace the nationwide network of 4,200 
family planning facilities already in place. Community health centers 
simply don't exist in many parts of this country.
  Even more onerous is the fact that these block grants provide no 
language explicitly directing States to use the funding for family 
planning services. Transferring funds to the Maternal Child Health 
Block Grant will mean an over 80-percent cut for family planning. This 
bill is a black hole for women searching for effective family planning 
and accessible, affordable care.
  Eliminating title 10 is not the message this Congress and this 
majority should be sending to American women or American men. Family 
planning is clearly an integral part of healthy, successful families. 
Moreover, it allows poor women to take responsible control over their 
lives.
  My colleagues, it is here that we must draw the line. It is here that 
we must rise above the rancorous political debate surrounding abortion, 
because this is not abortion. Let's not lose sight of the fact that 
title 10 is originally Republican legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
remember the tradition of a young Congressman from Texas named George 
Bush, who helped to pass the founding legislation, and the Republican 
President, Richard Nixon, who signed it into law.
  Vote for responsible, healthy families. Support title 10. Vote for 
the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the title X family planning program is a 
national priority. We have done a disservice by transferring these 
monies to other areas with no guarantee that these vital services will 
continue.
  Title X provides basic health care services for millions of low-
income women.
  Without title X, my state of New Jersey will lose $5.3 million in 
designated family planning funding and over 106,000 New Jersey women 
will lose access to contraception, pre-natal care, and other basic 
health services like cervical and breast cancer screenings.
  This debate is about whether or not we believe it is a national 
priority to provide low-income women with family planning information, 
education and services.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that it is a national priority.
  The most recent data estimates each year in the United States, there 
are 3.1 million unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million abortions, and 1 
million teenage pregnancies.
  This is a national crisis.
  Congressman Greenwood's amendment simply restores direct funding for 
title X family planning programs and I urge its passage.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment, salute the distinguished record of Planned Parenthood in 
preventing unwanted pregnancies.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of restoring funds to the 
title X Family Planning Program. I commend my colleague Mr. Greenwood 
for offering this important amendment, and am pleased that this 
amendment has bipartisan support.
  The Title X Family Planning Program has a history of bipartisan 
support. It was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1970, enjoying 
support from cosponsor former President George Bush. President Richard 
Nixon signed it into law. It has been reauthorized six times since 
1970, always receiving bipartisan congressional support.
  Unfortunately, choice opponents who don't understand the important 
role that title X serves seek to eliminate title X. Instead, they have 
launched an ideological war against Planned Parenthood and in their 
zeal they may succeed in ending an invaluable program. In fact, title X 
does something that many on both sides of the choice debate would agree 
is an important goal: it reduces unwanted pregnancy and makes abortion 
rare.
  Like so many other provisions that we have seen during this year's 
appropriations process, this provision to eliminate title X is part of 
an anti-choice agenda designed to roll back a woman's right to choose. 
But this vote isn't even about choice--it's about ensuring quality 
health care for women.
  No title X funds go toward abortion; clinics have always been 
prohibited from using title X funds for abortions. What title X does do 
is provide quality health care for low-income women, many of whom would 
not receive health care otherwise. In addition to providing a full 
range of reproductive health services for low income women, title X 
clinics screen women for breast an cervical cancer, sexually 
transmitted infections and hypertension. Title X's family planning 
services have reduced unwanted pregnancies by an estimated 1.2 million.
  It is terribly ironic that anti-choice Members seek to eliminate a 
program that provides quality health care and is a proven success at 
preventing abortion. Support this bipartisan effort to restore funding 
to title X, a critically important program to American women that 
encourages responsible family planning choices.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment to restore funding for the title X program and in opposition 
to the Smith amendment to restore the bill's language which would block 
grant these funds.
  It is unfortunate that some Members of Congress insist on continuing 
their assault on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and her 
right to comprehensive family planning services at the same time. 
Certainly these two agendas seem at odds with one another.
  While I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, like 
many of my colleagues, I am very troubled by the number of abortions 
taking place in our country. I feel it is important to concentrate more 
resources toward educating our young people about the 

[[Page H8259]]
consequences of sexual activity. I have consistently supported the 
reauthorization of the title X program, which funds family planning 
clinics, because I feel it offers women necessary family planning 
information, including methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancy.
  I believe withholding or reducing funding for title X programs denies 
poor women in particular information about the full range of available 
medical options. This could cause them to make uninformed decisions and 
deprive them of needed medical services.
  Current provisions in the bill that would block grant title X funds 
with other health programs will, in fact, reduce the amount of money 
that will be devoted to the vital purpose of family planning.
  Our party talks about the need for encouraging responsibility and 
taking control of one's life and that is exactly what this program aims 
to teach young women. We cannot abandon these women by eliminating this 
program at a time when this Congress has repeatedly sent the message 
that abortion is not an available option.
  If we are truly serious about eliminating the need for abortion in 
our country, as well as many of the related social problems caused by 
unintended pregnancy, we must reaffirm our commitment to the title X 
program and support the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  (Mr. WYDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the authors of this appropriations bill 
should call their legislation the Barefoot and Pregnant Act of 1995. I 
must say that I find this appropriations bill particularly odd because 
so many of our colleagues have talked about citizen empowerment 
throughout this Congress. Well, cutting family planning takes power 
from women because it strips them of their most personal choice, the 
right to plan their own family.
  Cut family planning and it will be harder to achieve our national 
goals of reducing the number of abortions and encouraging more personal 
responsibility. Cut family planning, and our Nation takes another step 
towards two-tiered medicine, where the wealthy can get access to the 
services they need and the poor go without.
  Support the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], a member 
of the committee, will have the right to close.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood 
amendment, offering great support for not going back but going forward 
with family planning.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, George Orwell is alive and well in the 
Halls of Congress. This may be 1995, but it sure feels like 1984, when 
big brother can dictate what health services women have access to and 
then use double-speak to hide the impact of what is being done.
  The termination of title X family planning programs is just plain 
wrong. We must fix this wrong by approving the Greenwood amendment. 
This amendment would provide $193 million for title X programs to 
ensure that women have access to health care services, including 
reproductive health care. Women should have the ability, no matter what 
their income is, to receive appropriate health care services.
  Family planning works and should be continued. In Houston, many women 
regularly visit title X clinics to see doctors. This may be the only 
place that low-income women get health care. For many women, health 
care is not affordable and not a priority when they are struggling to 
pay for food and shelter. Title X is the safety net for these low-
income women and should not be eliminated.
  Family planning is not about abortion. This debate is about giving 
women access to health care services. The Republicans want to eliminate 
these services in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Family 
planning is cost-effective and necessary. We must not permit the 
Republican majority to eliminate these vital reproductive health 
services.
   The women of America should have access to family planning services 
so that they, not the Government, can make the decisions about their 
health care. The Greenwood amendment ensures that low-income women have 
the same access as other women, which is fair and responsible. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the Greenwood amendment and 
oppose the Smith amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, for the last 10 years, I have had the 
privilege of administering many Federal programs for and to the people, 
2\1/2\ million, in San Diego County. I am sure my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are sick and tired of hearing me point out all 
the terrible bad regulations that do not work. I will continue to do 
so. They will continue to be sick of it. But I think there is a 
responsibility here to point out the ones that do work.
  I have to regretfully oppose the amendment of my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Louisiana, because if there is any program that I really 
believe did work, especially as somebody who desperately wanted to see 
abortions become a thing of the past, title X was the one thing as a 
local administrator that I was able to do, to avoid something that I 
felt very strongly about and that is trying to keep abortion out of the 
formula, as options for birth control.
  I have to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] 
and support him because a dose of reality that I came here to try to 
bring to the Democratic Party also must be brought to both sides.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Livingston-Smith amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill's provision to 
transfer funds from title X to State health programs, and in support of 
the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  We have heard some Members argue that we need to fund title X to 
ensure that money is available for family planning. Mr. Chairman this 
simply is not the case.
  As we all know, the title X funds are being redirected to the 
maternal and child health block grant and community and migrant health 
centers. The fact is, these State health programs have always been able 
to use money for family planning, and will still be able to do so.
  Under this bill, family planning will simply have to compete with 
other health needs when States set their funding priorities. 
Competition on a fair basis is a very reasonable approach. Funds can be 
used for the most serious health needs in each State, and family 
planning can be a part of that.
   Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important to point out that this 
bill ensures that money for health needs will go to those who are truly 
poor. Instead of going to affluent or middle-class teens as it does in 
title X, the funds in the State programs will be used for the poor, and 
that group is the one that we are really trying to help here.
  And let's talk a little bit about what title X was intended to do 
when it was brought about, as opposed to what it has actually 
accomplished. Since we introduced title X in 1970:
  The teenage out-of-wedlock birth rate has doubled.
  Sexually transmitted diseases among teens is at an all-time high.
  The teen-age abortion rate has more than doubled.
  These figures indicate many things, but success is not one of them.
   Mr. Chairman, let's be honest with ourselves. Title X has not 
achieved its goals. The States are in a better position to understand 
the particular needs of their areas, so let us give them the 
opportunity and the money to do so.
  The maternal and child health block grant and community and migrant 
health centers are a proven success--let these organizations determine 
the greatest health needs within their State.

[[Page H8260]]

  Mr. Chairman, this Congress has demonstrated a remarkable commitment 
to put an end to failed or low priority Government programs. TItle X is 
one of these failed programs, which is why I strongly urge my fellow 
members to vote for the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], one of our most stalwart Members, a 
pregnant lady with shoes on.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, this pregnant Member's shoes are firmly 
on. While my shoes are firmly on, I am proud to rise in strong support 
of the Livingston amendment and oppose the Greenwood amendment.
  I was reluctant to come and speak on this issue because I have been 
careful not to politicize my pregnancy. But I came to share with you a 
phone call from a mother in my home district of Salt Lake City 
yesterday who wanted me to tell the story of her 16-year-old daughter 
who went to Planned Parenthood when she suspected she was pregnant and 
when the clinic personnel told her she was pregnant, the only option 
this 16 year old was offered was an abortion. Four times this young 
girl said no, that is not what I want to do. She finally left the 
clinic with no more help than when she had entered it, to go home and 
talk to her mother.

                              {time}  2115

  Her mother called me yesterday and said please, support the Smith 
amendment, let us get this money into a block grant where our States 
and communities can have a hand in helping with family planning. I do 
not want any more 16 year olds to go through what my 16 year old did.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking Members to listen to that mother from Salt 
Lake City and support the Smith amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, this proud father of two fine young men 
and two beautiful little girls yields 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Lowey 
amendment to restore funds to title X. I rise in support of this 
amendment because I want Members to understand most of us, all of us, 
want to prevent pregnancies. We do not like the fact that younger and 
younger people are bringing babies into the world and we want to do 
something about it. Some people like to throw these statistics at us 
day in and day out and say, ``Why don't you stop it?'' If we had a 
magic wand, perhaps we could wave it and stop it.
  Mr. Chairman, these young people are sexually active. They are not 
just kids from one community. All communities. Your children. Children 
from the Christian Coalition, children all over America. We have to do 
something about preventing pregnancies.
  You cannot wipe out title X. You go too far. This is extreme. I want 
Members to know, most of their constituents do not support wiping out 
family planning. If we are ever to get a handle on this, Government 
must be involved.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Greenwood 
amendment and in support of the Livingston/Smith substitute.
  Supporters of the Greenwood amendment would like for everyone to 
believe that by transferring funds from the Family Planning Program to 
the maternal and child health block and the community health centers we 
are eliminating family planning services for poor women. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. Both of these programs, in addition to the 
Medicaid program provide family planning services to women. But what 
these programs provide that family planning does not is comprehensive 
health care services.
  I am convinced that transferring these funds will result in better 
health care for women.
  The maternal and child health block is provided to States to improve 
the health status of mothers and children. States are required to use 
at least 30 percent for preventive and primary care services for 
children, 30 percent for services for children with special needs and 
40 percent for other appropriate maternal and child health services. 
These services include prenatal care, well-child care, dental care, 
immunization, family planning, and vision and hearing screening 
services.
  Community health centers are located throughout the country in areas 
where there are significant barriers to primary health care. In 
addition to providing primary care, health centers also link with 
services such as WIC, welfare, Medicaid eligibility, substance abuse, 
and other social services.
  The health centers program provides comprehensive, perinatal care for 
women and their infants. The program also has provided perinatal care 
services to pregnant adolescents who comprise
 approximately 21 percent of pregnant women served in the program. 
According to the administration's own statistics the program in fiscal 
year 1993: provided perinatal care to 185,530 women; arranged or 
provided for the delivery of 104,344 babies to women receiving these 
services; enrolled 79,572 women in prenatal care in the first trimester 
of pregnancy; and served 38,898 pregnant teens.

  The Family Planning Program on the other hand only provides family 
planning services including contraception, infertility services, basic 
gynecological care, and referral for other services. In fact, in March 
1992 the administration released a guidance on a title 10 regulation. 
The guidance clarified that the purpose of the title 10 program is to 
provide prepregnancy family planning services, not services to pregnant 
women.
  We can only guess how many women, especially adolescents never make 
it to a health care center for prenatal care after being told by the 
family planning clinic that they are pregnant.
  In terms of health care for both mother and child, it makes more 
sense for a woman to go to one location for all her health care 
services, both family planning and prenatal care. Such an arrangement 
would be much more likely if these funds are transferred to the MCH 
block and the CHC program.
  Do not be misled by the rhetoric my fellow colleagues. Family 
planning services will remain available to women with the Livingston-
Smith amendment. In fact, better health care will be available to 
women. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Greenwood 
amendment and in strong support of the Livingston-Smith amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, woefully, only $34 million of the $116 
million will ever find its way to family planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood 
amendment and opposition to the Smith substitute. The Greenwood 
amendment would protect access to safe and affordable health care for 
women by restoring vital family planning funding.
  Low-income and uninsured working women of all ages depend on the 
basic health care and family planning services provided by community 
clinics. These clinics rely on Federal funds. Without community 
clinics, millions of women would be denied access to potentially life-
saving services such as screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, 
hypertension, pap smears, and routine clinical exams. For many women, 
especially young women, community clinics are their only source for 
basic health care.
  This debate is not about choice. Current law clearly states that no 
title X funds may be used for abortions. It is about women's health.
  Combat the Republican attack on women's health; support the Greenwood 
amendment to help women in need.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
doctor from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Greenwood amendment. I 
think what we need to ask ourselves is, everybody has made a lot of 
claims about what title X has and has not done. There is not a 
scientific study that will evaluate it. But there is a retrospective 
study based on economics.
  Mr. Chairman, what we do know is since 1970, we have had a rise in 
teenage pregnancies, a rise in abortion. We now have a sexually 
transmitted disease epidemic that is out of control and unheard of 
anywhere in the western world. What we also are told is that there has 
not been a study of effectiveness.
  We have one study that we can look at that will tell us what is going 
on, and it is a study that will be published 

[[Page H8261]]
next month out of the University of California by a Ph.D. economist. It 
says the following things: That those States which spend less money on 
family planning have less of those three things. They have less teenage 
pregnancy, less abortion, less sexually transmitted disease. It also 
says that the States with the highest amount of money will have the 
most abortion, will have the most teenage pregnancy, and the most 
sexually transmitted disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members' support for the Livingston-Smith 
amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing that title X has caused 
pregnancies.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment to 
restore funding for title X Family Planning, a program that last year 
served more than 4 million women in 4,000 clinics.
  Let me make clear that title X does not fund abortions; the law will 
not allow it. What title X does fund, in addition to family planning 
services, is gynecological exams and Pap smear tests; mammograms, 
clinical breast exams and education in breast self-exam; screening for 
high blood pressure; and screening for sexually transmitted diseases, 
as well as education and counseling on how to avoid and prevent such 
diseases.
  Title X clinics provide critical health and family planning services 
for millions of women who can't afford private insurance, but don't 
qualify for Medicaid. These are women working in low-paying service-
sector jobs that don't provide health coverage. What does eliminating 
title X say to these working women? It says, ``Too bad if you can't 
afford a mammogram or pelvic exam. We hope you don't get breast or 
cervical cancer, but we're not going to do anything to help you detect 
or prevent it.'' I cannot conceive of a crueler message that this 
Congress could send to American women.
  With an allocation that works out to just 75 cents per person each 
year, title X is one of the best bargains around. I urge colleagues to 
vote in support of protecting this critical program.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to put this in 
perspective. What we are arguing here is not ending family planning, it 
is saying who is going to run it, the Federal Government or the State 
government, and who has done a good job.
  Let us look at the Federal plan. 1970 when title X began, teen 
pregnancy rate, 22 percent. 1992, up to 44 percent. Teenage births out 
of marriage, 1970, 30 percent. In 1991, 70 percent. The abortion rate 
in 1970, 19 percent; in 1990, 40 percent. Sexually transmitted disease. 
Now it is up to one out of four sexually active teenagers. Three 
million teenagers a year get sexually transmitted disease.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not working on the Federal level. Let us let the 
locals take over. If this group was in charge of gun control, they 
would give all the 15-year olds in America loaded pistols and say, only 
shoot to graze. Let us be honest. It is not working. Support the 
Livingston-Smith alternative; let the local people run the family 
planning.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate about Elizabeth. 
Elizabeth, a young woman in Austin, TX, who makes use of the services 
of Planned Parenthood of Austin. It is a debate about Elizabeth and 
about thousands of other women across this country who should have the 
right to turn to agencies like Planned Parenthood. What type of birth 
control they use or whether they choose to use any birth control at all 
is none of my business, and it is none of the business of this 
Committee on Appropriations. She ought to be able to make the decision 
for herself.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is all about is the agenda of an extremist 
coalition that thinks they can put an end to planned parenthood and to 
deny choice to people like Elizabeth to choose the type of family 
planning that they think they ought to have.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to preserve her choice. I want to preserve her 
choice not to have an abortion because she has effective family 
planning through an agency that is providing quality health care 
services. This is a chance to speak up for Elizabeth and for women 
across this Nation to have the choice of effective family planning that 
they choose, and not this Congress.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, title X and family planning works. In 1995, over 5 
million low-income and uninsured women were served in clinics. In 
addition to family planning services, they provided screening for 
breast and cervical cancer. Where are these women going to go? It 
works. Eighty-three percent of women receiving Federal family planning 
services rely on clinics funded by title X. And where are these women 
now going to go? Every public dollar spent on family planning saves 
$4.40 that would otherwise be spent on medical and welfare costs, 
saving taxpayers $2 billion annually. Family planning works to save 
lives and to save money.
  Let us be honest. If we are against abortion, if we are against 
escalating welfare costs, we must be a society that stands for family 
planning. We must give women a place to go.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Greenwood amendment and in strong opposition to the Smith 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, do not be deceived. The Smith amendment is not an 
innocent block grant proposal. It cuts Federal support for women's 
health services and pregnancy prevention by two-thirds. In just the 
maternal and child health block grant section, it cuts funding from 
$116 million to $34 million as a result of the mandatory set-asides in 
that program.
  The Smith amendment cuts the money and cuts access to health care 
services for uninsured low-income women. It eliminates services in 25 
counties nationwide.
  In my district I have not one community health center and all that 
maternal child health money goes to the five big cities. In Connecticut 
30 percent of all women now receiving pap smears, routine health 
services, and yes, pregnancy prevention services, will no longer have 
access to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Smith amendment and support 
for the Greenwood amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the House, those who agree with me, 
those who oppose us, for what I think has been a high-toned, important 
debate for this country. Let me close with this, Mr. Chairman. This is 
not now, never has been, never will be, a debate about abortion. It is 
a debate about family planning. It is a debate about public health. It 
is a debate about the right of women in this country, poor women, to 
plan their families, and we should all stand up for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am filling in for the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], who was supposed to close, but he is tied up 
somewhere, so here I am.

[[Page H8262]]

  This debate is not about family planning. This debate is about who 
will deliver the family planning.
  On welfare, on grants to fight crime, the Republicans have taken the 
position that Washington can not do it as well as the localities can, 
that States ought not to be administrative districts of the Federal 
Government, and so we have sought to return to local government, to 
local agencies, the funds that heretofore have been disbursed by the 
all powerful Washington bureaucracy.
  Now I tell my colleagues what this debate is about. It is about a $33 
million Federal earmark to the largest purveyor of abortions in the 
world, Planned Parenthood, and they are fighting because that is big 
money, but under our proposal they can still line up with other 
agencies out in the States and compete for those dollars. After all, 
Medicare today spends well over one-half billion dollars on family 
planning.
  Who is sounding the death knell of family planning? Community health 
centers, social services block grants, maternal and child health block 
grants, and Medicare. They serve 13 million women, and children, and 
adolescents who need medical care, as well.
  Mr. Chairman, let me in the time left simply say family planning is a 
good thing. I am for family planning, always have been. I am against a 
big Federal earmark. I am for letting the States handle it as we are 
doing in welfare reform and in crime grants.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, if 1992 was the year of the woman, then 1995 
must be the year of the assault on women.
  A good example of the continuing offensive against women in this 
country is the elimination of title X family planning money in this 
bill.
  Title X was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 1970. This 
program provides critical services to low-income women and uninsured 
working women. In addition to family planning services, title X clinics 
provide screening for breast and cervical cancer, sexually transmitted 
diseases, and hypertension. For many women, it provides the only basic 
health care they receive.
  While some in this body are pro-choice and others are anti-choice, 
none of us are pro-abortion. Yet this bill eliminates the one program 
which effectively prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
  In fact, for less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the entire Federal 
budget, this program averts 1.2 million unintended pregnancies, 516,000 
abortions and 344,000 out-of-wedlock births each year.
  I find it interesting that this prevention program has come under 
attack only after its termination was urged by the Christian coalition 
in its ``Contract with the American Family.''
  Mr. Chairman, we can't allow special interests to run this Congress. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited attack on 
American women. We have come too far to let demagogic extremists 
reverse our gains.
  Mr. FAZIO of Califorina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood]. 
This amendment would restore separate, discrete funding for the Federal 
family planning--or ``Title X''--program.
  What many of Title X's opponents fail--or refuse--to recognize is 
that the scope of this program goes far beyond family planning. The 
Title X program also provides other preventive health care services to 
approximately 4 million low-income women and teenagers at 4,000 clinics 
across America. It provides infertility services, as well as 
counseling, screening, and referral for basic gynecologic care, breast 
and cervical cancer, hypertension, diabetes, anemia, kidney 
dysfunction, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV. Without Title X, 
millions of American women would have no other accessible, affordable 
source for quality, comprehensive health care services. It is the only 
source of health care for 83 percent of its clients and for many of 
them it is the single entry point into the entire health care system.
  California has received Title X funds since the Public Health 
Services Act was passed in 1970. Last year, more than 350,000 low-
income women received health care services at California's Title X 
clinics. Yet, because of inadequate funding, the program serves fewer 
than half of those currently eligible for services. Although funding 
for Title X has declined by over 70 percent since 1980, health care 
costs have soared, and the number of women of reproductive age who are 
in need of these services has increased.
  Title X services prevent 1.2 million pregnancies in the United States 
each year. When we support contraceptive services--Both care and 
supplies--we thwart unwanted pregnancies and, ultimately, the need for 
abortion. By reducing unintended births, we also decrease welfare 
dependency. Each public dollar spent to provide family planning 
services saves more than four dollars that would otherwise be spent on 
medical care, welfare benefits and other social services.
  Mr. Greenwood's amendment restores accessible, high-quality, 
affordable health care to women who could not otherwise afford to have 
it. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
passage of this pro-life, pro-health amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 36 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; amendments Nos. 60, 
61, and 62 en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi]; amendment No. 2-3 offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. 
Crapo]; substitute amendment No. 2-2 offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]; and then possibly on the underlying 
amendment No. 2-1 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Greenwood].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 270, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               AYES--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott

[[Page H8263]]

     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--270

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Chrysler
     Gekas
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Solomon
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2153

  Messrs. BARCIA, HOEKSTRA, KILDEE, RAHALL, and LaFALCE changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MFUME changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the Chair 
announces he will reduce to a minimum of five minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                amendments en bloc offered by ms. pelosi

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendments en bloc.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 229, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               AYES--197

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

                               NOES--229

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)

[[Page H8264]]

     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Chrysler
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Solomon
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2203

  So the amendments en bloc were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. crapo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate this amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 373, 
noes 52, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               AYES--373

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     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
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     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
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--52

     Abercrombie
     Baker (CA)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Evans
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Martinez
     McDade
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Myers
     Nadler
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rahall
     Rogers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Stark
     Studds
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Chrysler
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2210

  Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
 amendment offered by mr. livingston as a substitute for the amendment 
                        offered by Mr. greenwood

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], on which further proceedings were 
postponed and which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 221, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 614]

                               AYES--207

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen

[[Page H8265]]

     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Chrysler
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2217

  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 204, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 615]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--204

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Chrysler
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2224

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
           TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration

                     health resources and services

       For carrying out titles II, III, VII, VIII, XIX, and XXVI 
     of the Public Health Service Act, title V of the Social 
     Security Act, and 

[[Page H8266]]
     the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, as amended, 
     $2,927,122,000, of which $411,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for interest subsidies on loan guarantees made 
     prior to fiscal year 1981 under part B of title VII of the 
     Public Health Service Act: Provided, That the Division of 
     Federal Occupational Health may utilize personal services 
     contracting to employ professional management/administrative, 
     and occupational health professionals: Provided further, That 
     of the funds made available under this heading, $933,000 
     shall be available until expended for facilities renovations 
     at the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center: Provided 
     further, That in addition to fees authorized by section 
     427(b) of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 
     fees shall be collected for the full disclosure of 
     information under the Act sufficient to recover the full 
     costs of operating the National Practitioner Data Bank, and 
     shall remain available until expended to carry out that Act.

               medical facilities guarantee and loan fund


           federal interest subsidies for medical facilities

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1602 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, $8,000,000, together with any 
     amounts received by the Secretary in connection with loans 
     and loan guarantees under title VI of the Public Health 
     Service Act, to be available without fiscal year limitation 
     for the payment of interest subsidies. During the fiscal 
     year, no commitments for direct loans or loan guarantees 
     shall be made.

               health education assistance loans program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by title VII of the Public Health Service Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the total loan principal any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed at not to exceed $210,000,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $2,703,000.

             vaccine injury compensation program trust fund

       For payments from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 
     Trust Fund, such sums as may be necessary for claims 
     associated with vaccine-related injury or death with respect 
     to vaccines administered after September 30, 1988, pursuant 
     to subtitle 2 of title XXI of the Public Health Service Act, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses, not to exceed $3,000,000 
     shall be available from the Trust Fund to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.

                      vaccine injury compensation

       For payment of claims resolved by the United States Court 
     of Federal Claims related to the administration of vaccines 
     before October 1, 1988, $110,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

               Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

                disease control, research, and training

       To carry out titles II, III, VII, XI, XV, XVII, and XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act, sections 101, 102, 103, 201, 
     202, and 203 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 
     1977, and sections 20 and 22 of the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Act of 1970; including insurance of official motor 
     vehicles in foreign countries; and hire, maintenance, and 
     operation of aircraft, $2,085,831,000, of which $4,353,000 
     shall remain available until expended for equipment and 
     construction and renovation of facilities, and in addition, 
     such sums as may be derived from authorized user fees, which 
     shall be credited to this account: Provided, That in addition 
     to amounts provided herein, up to $27,862,000 shall be 
     available from amounts available under section 241 of the 
     Public Health Service Act, to carry out the National Center 
     for Health Statistics surveys.
       In addition, $39,100,000, to be derived from the Violent 
     Crime Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40151, 
     40261, and 40293 of Public Law 103-322.

                     National Institutes of Health

                       national cancer institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cancer, $2,251,084,000.

               national heart, lung, and blood institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to cardiovascular, lung, and 
     blood diseases, and blood and blood products, $1,355,866,000.

                 national institute of dental research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to dental disease, 
     $183,196,000.

    national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to diabetes and digestive and 
     kidney diseases, $771,252,000.

        national institute of neurological disorders and stroke

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to neurological disorders and 
     stroke, $681,534,000.

         national institute of allergy and infectious diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to allergy and infectious 
     diseases, $1,169,628,000.

             national institute of general medical sciences

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to general medical sciences, 
     $946,971,000.

        national institute of child health and human development

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to child health and human 
     development, $595,162,000.

                         national eye institute

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to eye diseases and visual 
     disorders, $314,185,000.

          national institute of environmental health sciences

       For carrying out sections 301 and 311 and title IV of the 
     Public Health Service Act with respect to environmental 
     health sciences, $288,898,000.

                      national institute on aging

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to aging, $453,917,000.

 national institute of arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to arthritis, and 
     musculoskeletal and skin diseases, $241,828,000.

    national institute on deafness and other communication disorders

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to deafness and other 
     communication disorders, $176,502,000.

                 national institute of nursing research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to nursing research, 
     $55,831,000.

           national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to alcohol abuse and 
     alcoholism, $198,607,000.

                    national institute on drug abuse

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to drug abuse, $458,441,000.

                  national institute of mental health

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to mental health, 
     $661,328,000.

                 national center for research resources

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to research resources and 
     general research support grants, $390,339,000: Provided, That 
     none of these funds shall be used to pay recipients of the 
     general research support grants program any amount for 
     indirect expenses in connection with such grants.

               national center for human genome research

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to human genome research, 
     $170,041,000.

                  john e. fogarty international center

       For carrying out the activities at the John E. Fogarty 
     International Center, $25,313,000.

                      national library of medicine

       For carrying out section 301 and title IV of the Public 
     Health Service Act with respect to health information 
     communications, $141,439,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended for improvement of information 
     systems: Provided, That in fiscal year 1996, the Library may 
     enter into personal services contracts for the provision of 
     services in facilities owned, operated, or constructed under 
     the jurisdiction of the National Institutes of Health.

                         office of the director


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the responsibilities of the Office of the 
     Director, National Institutes of Health, $261,488,000: 
     Provided, That funding shall be available for the purchase of 
     not to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only: Provided further, That the Director may direct up to 1 
     percent of the total amount made available in this Act to all 
     National Institutes of Health appropriations to activities 
     the Director may so designate: Provided further, That no such 
     appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 1 
     percent by any such transfers and that the Congress is 
     promptly notified of the transfer.

                        buildings and facilities

       For the study of, construction of, and acquisition of 
     equipment for, facilities of or used by the National 
     Institutes of Health, including the acquisition of real 
     property, $146,151,000, to remain available until expended.

       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

               substance abuse and mental health services

       For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to substance abuse and mental health 
     services, the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill 
     Individuals Act of 1986, and section 301 of the Public Health 
     Service Act with respect to program management, 
     $1,788,946,000.
     
[[Page H8267]]


     retirement pay and medical benefits for commissioned officers

       For retirement pay and medical benefits of Public Health 
     Service Commissioned Officers as authorized by law, and for 
     payments under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection 
     Plan and Survivor Benefit Plan and for medical care of 
     dependents and retired personnel under the Dependents' 
     Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), and for payments 
     pursuant to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), such amounts as may be required during the 
     current fiscal year.

               Agency for Health Care Policy and Research

                    health care policy and research

       For carrying out titles III and IX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, and part A of title XI of the Social Security 
     Act, $85,423,000, together with not to exceed $5,796,000 to 
     be transferred from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     authorized by sections 1142 and 201(g) of the Social Security 
     Act; in addition, amounts received from Freedom of 
     Information Act fees, reimbursable and interagency 
     agreements, and the sale of data tapes shall be credited to 
     this appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount made available pursuant to section 
     926(b) of the Public Health Service Act shall not exceed 
     $34,284,000.

                  Health Care Financing Administration

                     grants to states for medicaid

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act, $55,094,355,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       For making, after May 31, 1996, payments to States under 
     title XIX of the Social Security Act for the last quarter of 
     fiscal year 1996 for unanticipated costs, incurred for the 
     current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act for the first quarter of fiscal year 1997, 
     $26,155,350,000, to remain available until expended.
       Payment under title XIX may be made for any quarter with 
     respect to a State plan or plan amendment in effect during 
     such quarter, if submitted in or prior to such quarter and 
     approved in that or any subsequent quarter.

                  payments to health care trust funds

       For payment to the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, as 
     provided under sections 217(g) and 1844 of the Social 
     Security Act, sections 103(c) and 111(d) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1965, section 278(d) of Public Law 97-
     248, and for administrative expenses incurred pursuant to 
     section 201(g) of the Social Security Act, $63,313,000,000.

                           program management

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, titles XI, 
     XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act, and title XIII of 
     the Public Health Service Act, the Clinical Laboratory 
     Improvement Amendments of 1988, and section 4005(e) of Public 
     Law 100-203, not to exceed $2,136,824,000, together with all 
     funds collected in accordance with section 353 of the Public 
     Health Service Act, the latter funds to remain available 
     until expended; the $2,136,824,000, to be transferred to this 
     appropriation as authorized by section 201(g) of the Social 
     Security Act, from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the 
     Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds: 
     Provided, That all funds derived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
     9701 from organizations established under title XIII of the 
     Public Health Service Act are to be credited to this 
     appropriation.

      health maintenance organization loan and loan guarantee fund

       For carrying out subsections (d) and (e) of section 1308 of 
     the Public Health Service Act, any amounts received by the 
     Secretary in connection with loans and loan guarantees under 
     title XIII of the Public Health Service Act, to be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for the payment of outstanding 
     obligations. During fiscal year 1996, no commitments for 
     direct loans or loan guarantees shall be made.

                Administration for Children and Families

                   family support payments to states

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, except as otherwise provided, under titles I, IV-A 
     (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of 
     the Social Security Act, and the Act of July 5, 1960 (24 
     U.S.C. ch. 9), $13,614,307,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, 
     payments to States or other non-Federal entities under titles 
     I, IV-A and D, X, XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security 
     Act, for the last three months of the current year for 
     unanticipated costs, incurred for the current fiscal year, 
     such sums as may be necessary.
       For making payments to States or other non-Federal entities 
     under titles I, IV-A (other than section 402(g)(6)) and D, X, 
     XI, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act and the Act of 
     July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9) for the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 1997, $4,800,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   job opportunities and basic skills

       For carrying out aid to families with dependent children 
     work programs, as authorized by part F of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, $1,000,000,000.

                   low income home energy assistance


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available beginning on October 1, 1995 
     under this heading in Public Law 103-333, $1,000,000,000 are 
     hereby rescinded.

                     refugee and entrant assistance

       For making payments for refugee and entrant assistance 
     activities authorized by title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act and section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), $411,781,000: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated pursuant to section 414(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act under Public Law 103-
     112 for fiscal year 1994 shall be available for the costs of 
     assistance provided and other activities conducted in such 
     year and in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

                 child care and development block grant

       For carrying out sections 658A through 658R of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990), $934,642,000, which 
     shall be available for obligation under the same statutory 
     terms and conditions applicable in the prior fiscal year.
                      social services block grant

       For making grants to States pursuant to section 2002 of the 
     Social Security Act, $2,800,000,000.

                children and families services programs

       For carrying out, except as otherwise provided, the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act, the Developmental Disabilities 
     Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, the Head Start Act, the 
     Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Family Violence 
     Prevention and Services Act, the Native American Programs Act 
     of 1974, title II of Public Law 95-266 (adoption 
     opportunities), the Temporary Child Care for Children with 
     Disabilities and Crisis Nurseries Act of 1986, the Abandoned 
     Infants Assistance Act of 1988, and part B(1) of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act; for making payments under the 
     Community Services Block Grant Act; and for necessary 
     administrative expenses to carry out said Acts and titles I, 
     IV, X, XI, XIV, XVI, and XX of the Social Security Act, the 
     Act of July 5, 1960 (24 U.S.C. ch. 9), the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981, title IV of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act, section 501 of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, and section 126 and titles IV and V 
     of Public Law 100-485, $4,543,343,000.
       In addition, $800,000, to be derived from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund, for carrying out sections 40211 and 
     40251 of Public Law 103-322.

                    family preservation and support

       For carrying out section 430 of the Social Security Act, 
     $225,000,000.

       payments to states for foster care and adoption assistance

       For making payments to States or other non-Federal 
     entities, under title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 
     $4,307,842,000.

                        Administration on Aging

                        aging services programs

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, the 
     Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $778,246,000.

                        Office of the Secretary

                    general departmental management

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general 
     departmental management, including hire of six medium sedans, 
     and for carrying out titles III and XX of the Public Health 
     Service Act, $116,826,000, together with $6,813,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

                      office of inspector general

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $56,333,000, together with not to exceed 
     $17,623,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by 
     section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplemental Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund.

                        office for civil rights

       For expenses necessary for the Office for Civil Rights, 
     $10,249,000, together with not to exceed $3,251,000, to be 
     transferred and expended as authorized by section 201(g)(1) 
     of the Social Security Act from the Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

                            policy research

       For carrying out, to the extent not otherwise provided, 
     research studies under section 1110 of the Social Security 
     Act, $9,000,000.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. Funds appropriated in this title shall be 
     available for not to exceed $37,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses when specifically approved by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary shall make available through 
     assignment not more than 60 employees of the Public Health 
     Service to assist in child survival activities and to work in 
     AIDS programs through and with funds provided by the Agency 
     for International Development, the United Nations 
     International Children's Emergency Fund or the World Health 
     Organization.

[[Page H8268]]

       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to implement section 399L(b) of the Public Health 
     Service Act or section 1503 of the National Institutes of 
     Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43.
       Sec. 204. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to withhold payment to any State under the Child 
     Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act by reason of a 
     determination that the State is not in compliance with 
     section 1340.2(d)(2)(ii) of title 45 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations. This provision expires upon the date of 
     enactment of the reauthorization of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act or upon September 30, 1996, 
     whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 205. None of the funds appropriated in this title for 
     the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration shall be used to pay 
     the salary of an individual, through a grant or other 
     extramural mechanism, at a rate in excess of $125,000 per 
     year.
       Sec. 206. Taps and other assessments made by any office 
     located in the Department of Health and Human Services shall 
     be treated as a reprogramming of funds except that this 
     provision shall not apply to assessments required by 
     authorizing legislation, or related to working capital funds 
     or other fee-for-service activities.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 207. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     General Departmental Management, for fiscal year 1996, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall transfer to the 
     Office of the Inspector General such sums as may be necessary 
     for any expenses with respect to the provision of security 
     protection for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       Sec. 208. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the Federal Council on Aging under 
     the Older Americans Act or the Advisory Board on Child Abuse 
     and Neglect under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
     Act.
       Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended for the position of 
     Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Health and 
     Human Services Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Emerson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, 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. 2127) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________