[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.
____________________