[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8371-H8386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1732
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized in 
favor of his amendment. Does any Member rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey], and that she be permitted to yield time from that 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of this motion to strike the language 
which is section 509 in the Labor-HHS-Education bill which allows 
States to deny Medical funding for abortions for rape and incest. This 
was language that was added during the full committee consideration of 
the bill, and it was tagged as a States rights issue.
  I had an amendment that was not made in order which would have 
reinstated the current requirement that makes medicaid abortions 
available in circumstances involving life of the mother, rape, or 
incest, but relieves the States of any financial participation in cases 
of rape or incest if they choose not to fund them.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said, last year there were all of two Medicaid-
funded abortions in the entire country in cases of rape or incest. The 
amendment that I offered in the committee I think was a fair compromise 
for Members who do 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, as we have just heard, with it being stricken here, 
Members of this body will not have the chance to vote on what was to 
have been the Kolbe-Pryce-Fowler amendment. Therefore, I am 
cosponsoring with the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], this motion, so we can return 
to the original Hyde language. And I want to make that clear. We are 
talking about going back to the Hyde language, which requires States to 
fund abortion under Medicaid in the cases of life of the mother, rape, 
and incest.
  Mr. Chairman, the 103d Congress passed the Hyde amendment by a large 
margin, 256 to 171. A majority of the Congress, many of whom are pro-
life, agreed that these three exceptions are reasonable and clearly not 
abortion on demand as now argued by some on the other side. So unless 
this amendment to strike passes, we will be taking a giant step 
backward away from the Hyde language.
  It is a sad day to see this body divided over an issue as important 
as providing a legal abortion for a poor woman who is a victim of rape 
or incest. If any of us in this body had a daughter or sister who 
became pregnant as a result of one of these heinous crimes, they would 
certainly want to have the option of being able to seek an abortion. 
But that would not occur for poor people in our country, at least not 
if our amendment fails.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Kolbe-
Lowey-Morella motion to strike.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Twice this year, 
Mr. 

[[Page H 8372]]
Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has seen fit to include the 
language which is currently in the bill which the gentleman from 
Arizona seeks to strike.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about access to abortion. This is about 
under what circumstances will the taxpayers of the United States and of 
the individual States be compelled to pay for individual's abortions.
  Under the language previously of this Congress, until the Clinton 
administration, States had the option, but were not compelled, to 
provide public funding for rape and incest abortions. However, a 
directive issued by the Clinton administration in December 1993 told 
the States that they must ignore their own laws and must provide State 
funds for those abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, this directive of the Clinton administration over 
turned the laws of 36 States. I rise in support of 36 of the United 
States of America, Mr. Chairman, who have seen fit to have a standard 
different than what the gentleman from Arizona seeks to impose.
  The language that is currently in the bill makes it clear that the 
ability of States to combine state money with Federal money to pay for 
abortions in case of rape and incest is an option. They may choose to 
exercise it, but they are not compelled to do it. The gentleman from 
Arizona would wish to have the states compelled, as the Clinton 
administration desires.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to sponsor this amendment with my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. This amendment strikes the language in 
the bill that would allow States to eliminate funding of abortions in 
the case of rape and incest. This provision callously victimizes 
victims, it is draconian, it is extreme, it is cruel, and it is unfair.
  As the bill is now written, States are given the green light to 
eliminate Medicaid funding of abortions for the most vulnerable Members 
of our society, impoverished victims of rape and incest. This bill 
subjects women who have been raped or subjected to incest to further 
indignity. This bill sends rape victims a very clear message: You must 
have your rapist's baby. It tells victims of incest, you must have your 
father's child. Mr. Istook's own State of Oklahoma sent that message 
last year to a 20 year old poverty stricken woman impregnated by her 
own father. This woman could not obtain an abortion because Oklahoma 
refused to comply with Federal law.
  Make no mistakes, my colleague: If this amendment is adopted, States 
like Oklahoma will stop providing abortion coverage for victims of rape 
and incest. In fact, we can be fairly certain that 27 States will stop 
providing this coverage.
  Let us be very clear however: This provision has nothing to do with 
States rights. The Medicaid statute does not give States the right to 
pick and choose which procedures they will cover and which they will 
not. A State's participation in Medicaid is voluntary. However, once 
the State chooses to participate, it must comply with Federal statutory 
and regulatory requirements. States rights, Mr. Chairman, is just a 
smoke screen designed to hide the fact that this amendment would deny 
poor victims of rape and incest the means to exercise their 
reproductive rights.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is not merely a clarification of the 
Hyde amendment. Since the 1993 statute change, three Federal appellate 
courts and Federal district courts in 11 States have rejected 
challenges by States that did not want to comply with the rape and 
incest language. There is not a single case, Mr. Chairman, in which a 
court has sided with States that did not want to comply.
  The law is very clear: States must fund Medicaid abortions in the 
case of rape, incest, and life of the pregnant woman. So we are clear, 
this is not just the way the Clinton administration has interpreted the 
law, it is the law as it has been interpreted by the courts. In fact, 
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, an abortion opponent, refused to stay an 
order to a State to pay for abortion services for victims of rape and 
incest. The reason for his refusal was that the law is clear, States 
are obligated to pay. The provision added by the full committee does 
not clarify existing law; it changes it.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let us not be fooled. This provision is 
about denying poor victims of rape and incest the right to have an 
abortion. It is extreme, it is out of the mainstream. It is very clear 
that Americans do not believe that victims of rape and incest should be 
forced to carry their pregnancies to term.
  I know my colleagues, regardless of your views on choice, many of my 
colleagues would support this amendment. Let us not victimize the 
victims again. Please support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Lowey-Morella-Kolbe amendment to strike the language that would make 
Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women who are the victims of 
rape or incest a state option.
  The Hyde amendment supported women who are victims of rape and 
incest. Rape and incest are not about abortion. They are about 
violence. They are about brutality. They leave life-long scars--fear, 
anger, inability to love and trust.
  In the Crime Bill, Republicans sponsored and protected funds and 
programming to prevent and punish violence against women. How can we 
now lay aside compassion?
  Think. Rape is someone grabbing you, assaulting you, overwhelming you 
with fear for your life and then violating you in the most deeply 
personal and destructive way. Please, leave to the victim the decision 
as to whether to carry or not to carry any possible product of such 
violent, vicious and terrible act as that of rape.
  Trust America's women. They will choose wisely and in harmony with 
their consciences. What more could we ask in a society that prizes 
personal freedom and responsibility?
  The American people are not divided on this issue. They agree that 
women who are victims of rape and incest should have choice. That is 
all, choice. I am proud to represent the voice of victimized women, in 
their search for their rights, your respect, and the compassion of a 
society unable to defend them.
  Please support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, as the lady from New York noted, 11 States have already 
taken the administration to court because their laws are being 
threatened. In addition, the Clinton administration has sent notices 
threatening to cut off funds to another seven States. This decision 
properly should be made by the States, not by Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying Istook 
language that was approved by the full Committee on Appropriations and 
in opposition to the Kolbe strike. The current language, which this 
amendment would delete, is a noble attempt to protect the powers of the 
States and the rights of taxpayers who do not wish to pay for 
abortions.
  The current language also protects the constitutional prerogative of 
Congress as the only branch of the Federal Government with the 
authority to make laws. It does this by repealing the Clinton 
administration's strained and unfaithful interpretation of the Hyde 
amendment. The Istook language guarantees that in cases where the 
demand for an abortion rises from rape or incest, States may resolve 
this very difficult dilemma in the manner most consistent with values 
of their own citizens expressed through their State representatives. 
The amendment before us would strike the Istook language. It would 
thereby save the Clinton rules and force all States to fund abortion in 
these situations.
  Supporters of the Kolbe strike claim that they are preserving the 
Hyde amendment. In fact, the Clinton rules 

[[Page H 8373]]
which they are seeking to reinforce effectively undermine the Hyde 
amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  The Kolbe amendments, under the pretext of preserving it, would 
defeat it. On the Hyde amendment language, let me remind Members when 
it was offered by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, was 
permissive, not mandatory. It allows States, it allows them, does not 
force them to add Medicaid funds for abortions resulting from rape or 
incest, but it respects the State law when that State law is more 
protective of those children in that very difficult situation. It took 
the Clinton administration to urge that the Kolbe strike amendment be 
defeated.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
   Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe-Lowey 
amendment. In response to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], the 
reason the 11 States lose is that the Federal law is very clear that 
States do not have an option.
  I strongly support this amendment; the right to choose is meaningless 
without the means to choose. Without Medicaid funding, a poor woman who 
has been the victim of a crime will not be able to obtain a legal 
abortion. She will be forced to spend 9 months reliving the crime. I 
cannot believe that anyone in this room would want to compel a woman to 
carry a child that is conceived as the result of rape or incest. 
Support the Lowey-Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Kolbe 
amendment, and I am in strong support of the Istook language in this 
bill.
  Notwithstanding the rhetoric of the other side, this is really an 
issue of States rights. Do the States have the right to enforce their 
own laws or not?
  It has been a central goal of this reform-minded 104th Congress to 
return power to the States. A good argument can be made that the 10th 
amendment to the Constitution has enjoyed something of a rebirth in 
this Congress. However, the Clinton administration continues to buck 
this trend because they believe Washington, DC should impose its will 
on all 50 States.
  In 1993, the Clinton administration directly contradicted the intent 
of the Hyde amendment when they forced States to fund abortions in the 
circumstances of rape and incest--even though it was expressly against 
State law to do so. States had no choice but to comply with the Clinton 
directive because the Federal Department of Health and Human Services 
threatened to cut off Medicaid funding altogether.
  By requiring States to spend Medicaid dollars on these abortions, 
Clinton invalidated laws in almost three-fourths of the States--
including his own State of Arkansas. In fact, the States of Nebraska, 
North Dakota and Arkansas were forced by the courts to pay for abortion 
on demand--regardless of the circumstances--for all women who qualified 
for Medicaid dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, what the Istook language does is simply return 
decisionmaking power to the States where it should be. States across 
America do not need the Federal Government imposing its will upon them. 
I ask for a no vote.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time 
remaining on all sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 15 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  In Arkansas, my home State, we have an unborn child amendment that 
was adopted by a vote of the people of Arkansas. It is in our State 
constitution. It prohibits the spending of public money for any 
abortion unless the procedure is needed to save a woman's life, a 
decision by the voters of the people of Arkansas. Regardless of how you 
feel about that decision, it was the people's decision.
  The issue in the debate this evening is not abortion, it is not 
abortion funding, it is not rape and incest, and everybody would like 
to cloud the issue. The issue is, do the people of a sovereign State in 
this country have the right to rule and to pass their own laws and to 
make their own constitution? For over a year and a half now my State 
has been in litigation over this. The effect of that litigation is that 
the courts have taken the ruling of bureaucrats in Washington in HCFA, 
and they have allowed those regulations passed by HCFA to overrule the 
constitution of the State of Arkansas, an amendment adopted by the 
people of Arkansas.
  What we are doing in the Istook amendment is absolutely in accord 
with the whole sentiment of this Congress. We have said the States 
ought to have more authority in welfare. We have said the States ought 
to have more authority in crime. We have said the States ought to have 
more authority and control in the area of education.
  Why in the world would we reverse that and say in this particular 
area that we in Washington have more moral authority than the people of 
my home State? Why should we say that we have a right to overrule what 
they, not by a poll, not by the State legislature but by a vote of the 
people.
  I urge Members to support the Istook amendment and to defeat the 
Kolbe motion to strike.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], cosponsor of this amendment.
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, please, my colleagues, do not be confused 
and misled. We are simply following the Hyde amendment as passed in 
1993 to require States to provide Medicaid abortion coverage in cases 
of rape or incest.
  What we do is strike the bill language that would allow States to 
prohibit rape and incest coverage. Since Hyde added rape and incest in 
1993, I want to point out three Federal appellate courts and Federal 
district courts in 13 States have agreed that States participating in 
Medicaid must comply with the Hyde amendment and provide rape and 
incest coverage. That is, each and every Federal court that has 
considered the issue has said that, no diversions.
  State participation in Medicaid is voluntary, but once the State 
participates in Medicaid, they must follow the Federal Medicaid 
requirements.
  Abortions as a result of rape and incest are rare. As was mentioned, 
they represent a very small percentage of abortion. In 1994, Federal 
funding covered only two abortions. These circumstances are very tragic 
and rare. But they are the result of violent, brutal crimes against 
women.
  The Istook language in the bill is extreme, and the States rights 
planning is a facade; make no mistake about it. This amendment could 
result in at least 27 States refusing to pay for abortion for rape and 
incest victims. We cannot all call for an end to violence against women 
in one breath and then in the next breath vote to prevent victims of 
rape and incest, brutally violent crimes, to lose their rights to end 
such pregnancies.
  I urge my colleagues, my friends, to vote for the Kolbe-Lowey-Morella 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Kolbe-Lowey 
amendment and for the fact that States do not own women.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Lowey-Kolbe amendment to strike section 509 of this bill. I 

[[Page H 8374]]
had drafted my own amendment to strike this section, but given the 
leadership that Representatives Lowey and Kolbe have shown on this 
issue, I will not offer my own amendment and I will support their 
efforts.
  It has been my understanding, since I was afforded the opportunity to 
join this August body, that authorizing language is attached to 
authorizing bills, and funding decisions are made in appropriations 
bills. Since section 509 is certainly authorizing language, and H.R. 
2127 is an appropriations bill, I question the constitutionality of 
this section.
  But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, I am disgusted by the intent of 
this language. It is sickening that those persons who do not believe in 
a women's right to choose are using every legislative vehicle possible 
to chip away at the Supreme Courts' ruling in Roe versus Wade. They are 
using every opportunity, from denying Federal employees access to 
abortions, to this pathetic attempt to deny abortion services to women 
who are victims of rape or incest.
  This is not about transferring decisionmaking authority to the 
States. This is not about less Federal intervention. This is about 
finding ways to end the legal practice of abortion. This is about 
making it more difficult and more complicated for women to access any 
abortion services.
  It is outrageous that we will allow States to not provide abortions 
to women who have been raped! What if these women cannot pay for their 
own abortions? Should they be forced to bear the child of a rapist? 
This is a dangerous, sinister attempt to erode the civil liberties of 
women. Do not stand for it! Support the Lowey-Kolbe amendment!
                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all visitors in the gallery that 
they are here as guests of the House and that any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules 
of the House.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment. 
Rape is a crime. Let us not punish the victims of the crime.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Kolbe-Lowey-
Morella amendment, which deletes the provision in the bill permitting 
States to decide whether to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions in 
the case of rape or incest.
  This language in the bill is discriminatory and unfair. If the 
availability of abortion services under Medicaid is not uniform across 
State lines, we are clearly discriminating against poor victims of rape 
and incest who do not have the means to travel to obtain these 
services.
  This language blames the victims of violent, horrible, unthinkable 
crime. How dare we give the States the option to decide whether victims 
of rape and incest should be responsible for the consequences of crimes 
perpetrated against them.
  This language is not at all about States' rights, as some of our 
colleagues would have us believe. States have the choice whether or not 
to participate in the Medicaid program--they do not and should not have 
a right to pick and choose which procedures they will cover.
  The Kolbe-Lowey-Morella amendment would delete this language and 
continue current policy, which is fair and correct in mandating that 
Medicaid funds pay for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or life 
endangerment of the mother.
  This is not an issue of States rights, it is about individual rights, 
and it is an issue of fairness. I urge my colleagues to protect the 
rights of vulnerable victims and support the Kolbe-Lowey-Morella 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. 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 be just perhaps a calming voice on 
this. I heard my good colleague the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. 
Morella], talk about the Hyde amendment in 1993. Most of us voted for 
the Hyde amendment and we did that because we did not have the majority 
at that time and we felt the Hyde amendment was something that was 
better than what the loyal opposition would offer. So we voted on that 
with the understanding that if we ever had the opportunity we would try 
and develop a provision that would permit the States to decide whether 
to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortion in the case of rape or 
incest.
  So I am really trying to say to my colleagues that it is not a 
question of the Hyde amendment being the law of the land and perhaps we 
should continue that. What we all believe is that we should move it 
back to the States and let the States decide, because in each State's 
particular circumstances, they will have a better understanding of how 
to prohibit abortions, how to help women. And certainly it is nothing 
to do with brutal crimes against women. It is all talking about a 
procedural context, and we should remember that. And in the end, I want 
Members to support the Istook language.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the other side would have us believe 
this is really a debate about the fairness of who can get the abortions 
and under what circumstances. I do not think it is appropriate to even 
get into that.
  The fact of the matter is, the Hyde amendment, the existing law, 
allowed States to use their money to provide abortions in the case of 
rape or incest. It did not require it. But our liberals here want to 
require it, because they believe in the result.
  We are a Federal system of laws with 50 sovereign States. This 
amendment, resisting this amendment will preserve what the existing law 
is. Supporting the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] will in fact 
recognize the sovereignty of the States. Those States' citizens, many 
of them have determined under what conditions their tax money is to be 
used to provide abortions. It is not right that we should sit here in 
Washington with a command and control directive from the top telling 
them what they should do.
  This amendment of Mr. Istook makes clear that States can fund these 
programs according to their laws. That is the position that we as a 
body should uphold.
  I would ask for Members support for the gentleman from Oklahoma, [Mr. 
Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook 
language and for the preciousness of all life.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLAY].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty unfortunate that we 
have to come down to the well on this issue. I think if we just took 
abortions out of this debate, we would have an automatic unanimous vote 
against this amendment.
                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty unfortunate that we 
have to come down to the well on this issue, because this is a States' 
rights issue. The Clinton administration decided upon its own 
initiative that it would impose the will of the Federal Government on 
States. That is what this is all about.
  This is a States' rights provision that, frankly, I think corrects an 
injustice and reaffirms the principle that States should decide whether 
or not or how they spend their funds.
  The gentleman just before me said, and I want to reemphasize this, 
the Hyde amendment did not impose paying Medicaid funds for rape and 
incest. What it said was those States that use Medicaid funds for rape 
and incest can continue to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that some of the Members have come 
down here and said, We are going to make them pay, whether they like it 
or not. They ought to be making those same speeches in the legislative 
bodies of the States.

[[Page H 8375]]

  If my colleagues do not like the position that the States have taken 
on rape and incest and how Medicaid funds would be used to pay for 
abortions for rape and incest, then go change the laws of the States.
  But to have the Federal Government support the Clinton 
administration's total philosophy that ``big brother'' Washington, DC 
knows more what is good for you than you do is total repudiation of the 
last election.
  If there was one message coming from the last election, it is that 
the American people are fed up with Washington dictating to them how 
they are going to live, how they are going to spend their State funds, 
and how they are going to do business in their own States.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are saying with the Istook amendment is let the 
States decide how to spend their own funds.
  I ask a ``no'' vote on the Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the last two speakers, including the gentleman from 
California, made the point that this is a States' rights issue and that 
the other side is trying to force these abortion services. Let me make 
it clear, that that was the gentleman who moved to strike my amendment 
which would have allowed the States to have that option.
  Mr. Chairman, that could have been there if we had made that 
amendment in order and they allowed the Committee on Rules to do so. So 
let us make no mistake about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Kolbe] for his motion to strike. I would have gladly supported his 
previous amendment, if it had allowed to be debated.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Hyde amendment in the 103d Congress and 
I continue to support that by voting for the Kolbe-Lowey-Morella motion 
to strike.
  When a State chooses to participate in Medicaid, it must comply with 
Federal standards and standards require funding for abortion in the 
case of protecting the life of the mother, rape and incest.
  Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with this 
standard. This is not an issue of State's rights. This is an issue of 
common sense.
  Preserving the human dignity of all Americans, particularly victims 
of these vicious crimes, must remain our priority. I stand by the 1993 
Hyde amendment and urge all my colleagues to do the same by voting for 
the motion to strike.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, despite what some people may claim, the law of 36 
States are in jeopardy if we do not defeat the Kolbe motion, including 
the laws of the gentleman's own State.
  Mr. Chairman, these are the States whose laws are being overturned by 
the Clinton administration directive: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 
Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to uphold the laws of those States against the 
people who are trying to say that Washington will overrule them and 
Washington will control all the important issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Mrs. Smith].
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to start 
with is talking about the States' rights movement in the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Nation is saying more and more that big government, 
big brother should not be making decisions, and a lot of the women's 
movement is saying the same thing.
  Mr. Chairman, where we seem to be differing here, although probably 
if you polled the women of America they would agree with States' 
rights, but where we seem to be differing here, for some reason on this 
one it is OK for us to override 30-some State legislatures who made 
decisions, tell those people who were elected they are wrong, and 
change their law to mandate that their tax dollars from their citizens 
who elected them should be used for abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the word no one wants to talk about it. They 
always call it choice. That is what we are talking about and the 
American people know it. Let us talk about it. Abortion means 
terminating the life of a baby before it is born and not letting it be 
born.
  That is the unspoken word we need to say: ``Abortions.'' Let us go to 
what the American people say again. They say that our tax dollars 
should not be funding this procedure. Even people that believe in some 
cases that abortion is OK, they do not believe, in any poll out there, 
that their money should be funding, taxpayer money should be funding 
this, because of the issue of the conscience of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yesterday listened to people plead passionately for 
choice, but they did not plead passionately for what we are talking 
about.
  I encourage my colleagues to stand up for States' rights.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the right to choose is a constitutionally 
protected right, not a right subject to each State's prerogative. It is 
a right guaranteed to every woman, not to every State. But with every 
appropriation's anti-choice rider that passes, the Congress votes to 
deny more women the constitutional right to an abortion, leaving Roe 
versus Wade a shell of the protections envisioned by the Supreme Court.
  This provision is perhaps the cruelest of all. It victimizes women 
who have already been victims of horrible crimes and who have endured 
tremendous suffering. Let the record be clear, women are not using the 
rape and incest exception to the Hyde amendment as a loophole to obtain 
abortion services.
  In fact, this provision is not even about saving taxpayer dollars. It 
is about furthering an extreme anti-choice agenda with the ultimate end 
of criminalizing all abortions. Vote to strike.
  Mr. KOLBE. 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 support of women who 
have already been victimized once and in strong support of the Kolbe-
Lowey amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. 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 Kolbe-
Lowey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which does 
nothing more than return this bill to the terms of current law. Current 
law is hardly radical. It says that, throughout the Nation, Medicaid 
must fund abortions in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's 
life.
  Medicaid is a national program, a federal program. It ought to offer 
the same minimal, basic coverage nationwide. And that's what this is--
minimal, basic coverage.
  We're not talking about funding abortions that are sought as a form 
of birth control or out of convenience or out of concern about the 
ability to responsibly parent a child. We're talking about federal 
funding for women who are the victims of rape and incest. These are not 
people who chose to get pregnant who could be accused of acting 
irresponsibly in any conceivable way. These women are victims of 
vicious, inhumane crimes. We ought to be seeking to help them.
  Forty-six years ago, during the early debates over civil rights, 
Hubert Humphrey challenged the Democratic party to walk out of the 
shadows of states' rights and into the bright warm sunshine of human 
rights. Voting for this 

[[Page H 8376]]
amendment is our chance to place human rights above states' rights.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and not to add to the 
misery of women who have suffered the pain and indignity of rape and 
incest.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment as a Republican, as a woman, as a mother of 3, and as a 
grandmother.
  This is a defining moment. This is a bottom-line issue on which we 
have to stand up and be counted. It is our obligation to make that very 
clear. Those who want Roe v. Wade overturned have won many of the votes 
recently and have forced the issue, but it seems to be that they are 
doing everyone a disservice. It has gotten to an extreme when they're 
talking about denying choice to a woman who is a victim of rape or 
incest. They are denying the rights under the Hyde amendment for women 
who are victims of rape and incest, the rights that other Americans are 
entitled to.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is saying, who cares if you have 
experienced rape or incest, deal with it. Find another way to pay for 
it. Part of life is dealing with hardship so it does not matter how 
much more physical and mental abuse you have to endure by carrying a 
forced pregnancy. And, while I would prefer to not have to speak about 
this issue in such terms, it is the only way to discuss in real terms 
the effect of the language contained in the bill.
  We should not even be debating this issue. This is a constitutionally 
protected right. This is a legal medical procedure. This decision 
should be left to the woman involved after consultation with her 
family, her physician and her religious counselor. This profound moral 
decision should be protected by all 50 States, This should continue to 
be a right for all Americans, not only those who can afford it. No 
Second-Class citizens
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the motion to allow 
Medicaid abortions in cases of rape and incest.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Slaughter].
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect that 
according to a Time-CNN poll, by an overwhelming majority of 84 
percent, the public supports government funding for abortion in cases 
of rape.
  When this Medicaid statute was written, it was clear that Congress 
intended the program to cover all medically necessary devices and 
services. It did not say a State could pick and choose. Is it possible 
to imagine a service more important than the option to have an abortion 
if you are a poor woman, or a girl, who has been raped or is an incest 
survivor? These women are already victimized; and this House, by this 
hard-hearted, discriminatory language does even more to discriminate 
against them all over again.
  Mr. Chairman, the right to choose an abortion in these circumstances 
should not just be the right of wealthy women; it is blatantly unfair. 
Nor should abortion opponents be allowed to argue that this service has 
been overused.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
  I would like to put it into the Record that: by an overwhelming 
margin of 84%, the public supports government funding for abortion in 
cases of rape, according to a Time/CNN poll.
  This bill also nullifies the requirement that medical residency 
programs must provide training in abortion techniques unless the 
individual or institution has a moral objection to it. And, it bans 
Federal funds from being used for embryo research which leading 
scientists and endocrinologists tell us may hold the key to curing such 
diseases as diabetes and Alzheimers.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress is out of step on issues of women's 
reproductive health care. I urge my colleagues to stand up for women 
and vote against this very bad bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know much about politics, but I do 
know what I saw when Arkansas people got together and filed an 
amendment that said, ``We want to vote on whether or not to have 
publicly funding abortions.'' We passed that Arkansas constitutional 
amendment, and it became the public policy of our State.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard today things like ``States rights issue 
as a facade,'' ``States do not have an option,'' and ``If it is a 
States' rights reason, it should be discarded.'' I do not think that is 
correct.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with Bill Clinton, who was the Governor at the 
time of this particular amendment, when he said, ``We should not spend 
State funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is 
wrong.'' I do support the concept of the proposed Arkansas 
constitutional amendment, No. 66, and agree with its stated purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, we are asking that the States be allowed to decide this 
issue. That is the reason we are asking our colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the Kolbe amendment and ``yes'' on the Istook amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the motion of 
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. Chairman, today, we must ask ourselves whether or not we will 
respect the rights and needs of victims of rape and incest. The victims 
of these horrendous crimes are unfairly caught in the cross fire of a 
debate that fails to recognize their rights.
  In past weeks, we spoke loudly in defense of the rights of women and 
children in Bosnia who have been victims of rapes. Should we speak any 
less of the rights of rape victims here at home? I think not.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON. of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while it is true that in 
polling data we can generate polls that show that most Americans 
support legalized abortions in the setting of rape and incest, and 
there may be some polls by some publications that claim that the voters 
actually want to fund it, the truth is that 36 States, through the hard 
work of their State representatives, their State senators and their 
Governors have chosen. They do not want to fund this thing.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the first things Bill Clinton did when he was 
elected is, he said, ``You have got to fund it.'' Yes, there are lots 
of courts that have gone along with that.
  What the gentleman from Oklahoma, [Mr. Istook] is saying is that if 
the States choose that they do not want to fund it, their laws that 
were duly enacted by their State legislators and their Governors should 
be respected. I think the language of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] is very reasonable language, and I totally support the 
language.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Kolbe 
amendment.

                             {time}   1815

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Kolbe amendment. A far right, anti-women minority in this chamber has 
inserted a repulsive provision into this bill. The radical minority 
plans to prohibit the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for 
women who are raped or victims of incest. This bill serves to penalize 
poor women for their economic status.
  If we discriminate against women who are least likely to be able to 
afford to pay for an abortion during the traumatic and physically 
devastating circumstances of rape or incest, then many poor woman who 
can not afford to pay for the procedure will be forced to carry their 
pregnancy to term.
  This provision is just another step backward to a time when the 
Government made decisions about womens reproductive health and back 
alley abortions were common.

[[Page H 8377]]

  Rich women can afford abortion services in cases of rape or incest, 
however this bill serves to penalize poor women for their economic 
status.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and the majority of the American 
people in preserving every woman's right to control her own body. 
Support the Lowey-Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, this whole conflict is not about States 
rights--if it were, we would be considering the Kolbe-Pryce-Fowler 
amendment which would have protected States' rights.
  What is really at issue here is whether poor women should be able to 
get an abortion if they are victims of rape or incest. I want to ask my 
colleagues--if you were poor and your mother, your sister, or your 
daughter found herself pregnant as the result of rape or incest, how 
would you feel?
  If you vote for the motion to strike, you will be preserving the 1993 
Hyde language--which was overwhelmingly supported by pro-life members. 
If you vote ``no'', you will be denying assistance to women who are in 
a desperate situation as the result of a criminal act. Vote to strike 
this provision.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], who has been the sponsor of that, and we have 
heard about the language of the amendment, to explain the true 
situation.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly against violence against 
women. I am also against violence against innocent, unborn children.
  You can punish the rapist. I do not know what crime the unborn child 
has committed.
  The Supreme Court, when it found a statute imposing capital 
punishment on a rapist unconstitutional, said, ``The punishment is 
grossly disproportionate to the crime.'' What crime has the unborn 
child committed? Unless, of course, you want to put more value on a 
spotted owl or a snail darter than an innocent, unborn child.
  Now, I am the author of the Hyde amendment. Does legislative intent 
mean anything? I did not intend that to be mandatory, but to be 
permissive. I do not support abortions as a result of rape or incest, 
because I view the child in the womb as a human life.
  Abortion is a terrible thing. Rape is a horrible thing. The only 
thing worse than rape is abortion. That is killing. That is killing.
  Violence in the womb against an innocent human being is, it seems to 
me, the ultimate crime.
  I do not say that a woman who has been raped has anything less than a 
horrible situation. But there is adoption. There is private funding. 
But do not tell the States who do not want to fund with tax dollars 
abortions, do not lack the moral imagination to understand, there are 
two people involved, not just the woman, tragic as that is. That is a 
call on our love, on our concern, on our help. But why compound the 
wrong by executing an innocent human life?
  If you believe the unborn is a bunch of cells, a tumor, an appendix 
that could be taken out, then go ahead and dispose of her. But its a 
tiny human life--and deserves a chance to live.
  Vote for Istook.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago, military women, who are 
stationed overseas lost their right to use their own money to find a 
safe and legal abortion in a military hospital.
  Then, Federal employees were denied their right to receive safe and 
legal abortions through their own insurance plans. Now, rape and incest 
victims, will be victimized again by this appropriations bill. Today, 
Medicaid recipients are losing their right to make decisions about 
their own reproductive health care, unless my colleagues stand up now, 
before it is too late, before the right to choose rings hollow for most 
American women.
  Support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe amendment, support a woman's right to 
choose.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 1 minute, 
to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, proponents of the bill's current language 
claim to protect State's rights, but in the process they are punishing 
victims of tragic, violent crimes, and they forget that no State is 
forced to take Medicaid funds, but if they do, human decency dictates 
that we cover women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies as a result 
of such heinous, violent crimes. We are talking about poor women who 
have, by no fault of their own, been brutally victimized.
  Last Congress, we determined that rape and incest are legitimate 
exceptions. This is the correct standard and one which should be 
applied consistently, one that does not further victimize the victims 
of sexual abuse, and one that innocent victims of our society's most 
horrible, most terrible, and most degrading of acts should not have to 
follow.
  Vote to strike the Istook language.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, this really boils down to one most basic 
question that I would like to ask all my male colleagues to ask of 
themselves: If your daughter, your sister, your mother, were raped and 
became pregnant as a result of that rape, do you really want us men in 
this body or the men that comprise the majority of every other State 
legislature around the country making that most personal decision for 
her?
  I know in your hearts the answer is ``no,'' and that is why you must 
support this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds, the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everyone again, this 
amendment is very clear. If Members vote against this amendment, they 
are sending a message to the women of America that the victims of rape 
must carry that rapist's child, that the victims of incest must carry 
their father's child.
  The law is very clear. States' rights is always the last resort of 
scoundrels.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, many horrible things happen in life. We try to remedy 
them. Not all of them can be remedied from Washington, DC.
  We have a system of government with 50 States that have obligations 
to their people.
  Mr. Chairman, we are covering victims of rape and incest under the 
amendment that is now in the bill. Everyone lives in a State that is 
eligible for Federal funds to pay for an abortion procedure for a 
victim of rape and incest under Medicaid funding, every single State in 
the country.
  It is then the choice of the State whether to do so. Thirty-six 
States, far and away the majority of the States in this country, have 
declared through their people the public policy that says, ``We are not 
going to use our funds to do that.''
  If these people have a complaint, let them take it to their home 
States. They uphold, I am sure, their State governments and their State 
legislatures. If they have a gripe with them, take it to them. They do 
not want to do that. Our constitutional system says they should, but 
they do not wish to follow it.
  They intend for Washington to be in charge of everything, and as 
difficult as it may be sometimes, we must let the States make tough 
choices, not say that they are all the responsibility to be made in 
Washington.
  When he was Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton wrote, ``I am opposed 
to abortion and to government funding of abortions.'' That was in 1986. 
He said he opposed what these people now proposes, and then in 1993, as 
President, he had a directive issued telling States they must do so.
  Just because he flip-flopped does not mean we should.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Kolbe amendment and ask the vote 
accordingly.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H 8378]]

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Kolbe] will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ganske

  Mr. GANSKE. 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. Ganske: strike line 7 and all that 
     follows through page 72, line 15 (relating to certain medical 
     training programs).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] and a Member in opposition each will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] wish to be recognized in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. DeLAY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered with the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is simple. It allows professionally 
licensed organizations to continue to set their own standards for the 
education and accreditation of their members.
  The bill, as it stands, replaces decisionmaking by the Accreditation 
Council on Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] with that of politicians. 
My amendment strikes that language.
  This debate may produce the spectacle of the four physicians of this 
body debating on the floor of this institution residency requirements 
for graduate medical education. That is a sad way to do professional 
accreditation.
  The language in this bill was adopted in response to the ACGME 
attempting to put into language longstanding practices for ob/gyn 
residents. These guidelines were unanimously approved and recognize the 
importance of ensuring that residents are fully trained.
  However, any person or program with a religious or moral objection to 
abortion does not have to perform abortions. The bill, however, would 
deny funds to those health care entities that follow these nationally 
recognized standards because it mentions the word ``abortion.''
  Let me be clear. This is the language we are debating. The language 
and the accreditation says,

       No program or resident with a religious or moral objection 
     will be required to provide training in or to perform induced 
     abortions. Otherwise, access to experience with induced 
     abortion must be part of residency education.

  This is a reasonable standard. It recognizes the importance of 
exempting abortion training for any person or program who objects. The 
standard merely states that other residents should have access to 
experience with induced abortion. Induced abortions include medically 
indicated abortions such as those that protect the life of the mother. 
The ACGME standard strikes a reasonable balance that does not need to 
be legislated by Congress.
                              {time}  1830

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon], who is an internist and a trained physician.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the ACGME is the Accreditation Council for Graduate 
Medical Education. It is the body that makes the determination whether 
or not a residency program, be it in internal medicine or obstetrics 
and gynecology, is accredited. It has a tremendous amount of delegated 
power and authority because the Government of the United States has 
decided that it will not reimburse hospitals with tax dollars under the 
Medicare and Medicaid programs unless the residents serving those 
patients in that hospital are in an ACGME accredited program.
  Now, the abortion industry is facing a tremendous problem nationwide. 
It is called the graying of the industry. The abortion providers are 
all getting old. They have a serious problem with the shortage of 
providers. In steps the ACGME, and I will read to you the beginning 
part of what my colleague from Iowa left out. It says, ``Experience 
with induced abortions must be part of the residency.''
  Yes, there is a conscience clause, but what will happen? The same 
thing that happened to me when I was a medical student.
  In the middle of the night, I did not know any better, so I went in 
the room and I saw it. I saw a 15-year-old girl be dragged in by her 
mother. She was in the late half of her second trimester. She was 
showing. She did not want the abortion, and her mother made her do it, 
a saline-induced abortion. And that is why I am pro-life. It was brutal 
and it was wrong and it should be illegal. And now we have got the 
ACGME stepping in here.
  Let me tell you what the Alan Guttmacher Institute says about this 
issue. Requiring residency programs to provide abortion training would 
convey the message that abortion is a core service within the ob-gyn 
specialty. Nobody wants to do it.
  I learned communism was wrong when I was a little kid because I saw 
on the TV that people were climbing over the walls in Berlin to get 
out, and I knew they were dying to get into the United States. They 
were voting with their feet.
  The doctors in this country have voted with their feet. They do not 
want to do this procedure and now we have the ACGME with the power of 
the Federal Government behind it stepping in and saying, you have got 
to train them. You have got to do it. Oppose the Ganske amendment. 
Support the language in the bill the way it is.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa, Dr. Greg Ganske.
  Mr. Chairman, let me speak from a layperson's perspective. My primary 
concern is that we want those who practice obstetrics and gynecology, 
or any other kind of medicine, to be trained in every legal medical 
procedure. I certainly would want to know that those treating my loved 
ones, families or friends, would have the best or most complete 
training in order to safeguard their lives in either emergency or 
nonemergency situations.
  Quite frankly, and to close, Congress simply has no business 
legislating on this issue. Let us keep the heavy hand of government out 
of graduate medical education.
  I am including for the Record a letter from the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

                                           The American College of


                              Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1995.
     Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
     514 Cannon House Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen: On behalf of the American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), an 
     organization representing physicians dedicated to improving 
     women's health care, I am writing to urge you to support a 
     motion that will be offered by Representatives Greg Ganske 
     and Nancy Johnson to strike Section 512 of HR 2127, the 
     Labor, Health and Human Services Education and Related 
     Institutions FY96 Appropriations Act. This section would 
     prohibit the government from recognizing the Accreditation 
     Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as the 
     accrediting body for residency programs in Obstetrics-
     Gynecology if the current ACGME standards regarding abortion 
     training are not reversed.
       Section 512 was added to HR 2127 during the Appropriations 
     Committee markup by Representative Tom DeLay and is designed 
     to override new ob-gyn residency training requirements 
     adopted by the ACGME. The ACGME is a private medical 
     accreditation body composed of the American Medical 
     Association, the American Hospital Association, the American 
     Association of Medical Colleges, the American Board of 
     Medical Specialties, and the Council of Medical Specialty 
     Societies that is responsible for establishing medical 
     standards for more than 7,400 residency programs. Earlier 
     this year, the ACGME adopted modifications of the 
     requirements that Obstetrics and Gynecology residency 
     programs must meet to be accredited. These modifications 
     include the following:
       Experience with induced abortion must be a part of 
     residency education, except for programs and residents with 
     moral or religious objections. This education can be provided 
     outside the institution. Experience with management of 
     complications of abortion 

[[Page H 8379]]
     must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a 
     religious, moral or legal restriction which prohibits the 
     residents from performing abortions within the institution, 
     the program must ensure that the residents receive a 
     satisfactory education and experience managing the 
     complications of abortion. Furthermore, such residency 
     programs (1) must not impede residents in their program who 
     do not have a religious or moral objection from receiving 
     education and experience in performing abortions at another 
     institution; and, (2) must publicize such policy to all 
     applicants to that residency.
       During the Congressional debate on this issue, 
     misconceptions about the ACGME language have arisen that I 
     wish to clarify. First and foremost, under the ACGME 
     requirements, no institution or individual can be required to 
     participate in the training of induced abortion. Thus, 
     Section 512 seeking to override the ACGME language in order 
     to protect institutions and individuals opposed to abortion 
     is unnecessary given that the requirements already guarantee 
     that any program or resident with moral or religious 
     objections are exempted from the training. ACGME has 
     demonstrated its fairness and its commitment to this 
     principle by altering its language when it was argued that 
     the requirement forced more involvement than those opposed to 
     abortion were comfortable with. Now all that is required of a 
     program that chooses not to provide abortion training for 
     moral or religious reasons is that they notify residents that 
     the program does not offer the training and that they not 
     impede residents from getting the training elsewhere. In 
     addition, training in elective abortions is not specified. 
     Rather, the language requires that training in induced 
     abortions take place.
       Congressional override of the ACGME training requirements 
     sets a very dangerous precedent. Never before has Congress 
     sought to override educational standards, let alone standards 
     for training in medicine. ACOG is forced to oppose any new 
     involvement of the government in the education of physicians.
       Although Section 512 is intended to address the ACGME 
     abortion training requirements, it actually goes much farther 
     by prohibiting federal and state programs that receive 
     federal funds from relying on ACGME accreditation for Ob-Gyn 
     residency programs. This could create havoc in the medical 
     education field.
       For example, to assure that federal funds are being 
     provided for quality medical education, the Medicare program 
     requires that to be eligible for federal funds a residency 
     program must be accredited by ACGME. Section 512 states that 
     the Medicare program cannot rely on ACGME accreditation, but 
     fails to provide any indication of what standards should be 
     used as a substitute. If Section 512 becomes law, the 
     Medicare program would be faced with four choices in order to 
     comply: (1) to establish a separate federal accreditation 
     standard and compliance process for Ob-Gyn residencies; (2) 
     to require the states to establish such a standard; (3) to 
     encourage the formation of an alternative private 
     accreditation standard; or (4) to have no standard and allow 
     residence programs to receive federal funding with no quality 
     demonstration.
       In ACOG's view, none of these alternatives are desirable 
     and several would create major problems for Ob-Gyn residency 
     programs. The first two options involve government in a field 
     that has traditionally been left to the private sector. No 
     doubt establishing new government standards would be time 
     consuming and duplicative of the work ACGME has done for 
     years. Even if this is accepted as an appropriate role, the 
     fate of Ob-Gyn residencies and those that are enrolled in 
     such programs would be in doubt until such new standards 
     could be put in place. The third option, while not involving 
     the government, would cause the same disruptions and 
     uncertainty, as current laws require that one must have 
     completed an ACGME accredited program in order to become 
     board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology. If the 
     government chooses any of the above options, programs would 
     have to be accredited twice if they desire to receive federal 
     funds and to have their residents eligible for board 
     certification. It is unlikely that a program that does not 
     have federal funds or whose residents are not eligible for 
     board certification could survive. The final option removes 
     all protections of quality, which clearly is not the desire 
     of physicians and their patients, nor should it be the intent 
     of the Congress.
       Clearly, Section 512 could have many unintended 
     consequences for the federal government, states, the medical 
     education field, physicians, and their patients. Although 
     ACOG is opposed to any federal intervention in the ACGME 
     accreditation process, we recognize that there are those who 
     believe Congress should intervene in this process. For those 
     individuals, ACOG must point out that Section 512 is more 
     far-reaching than necessary, is vague, and non-specific and 
     should be opposed. ACOG urges you to support the Ganske-
     Johnson motion to strike this provision when the full House 
     considers the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill later this week.
           Sincerely,
                                                Ralph W. Hale, MD,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about what is going on 
here. We are moving from the status quo. Ob-gyns were never required to 
perform abortions. This is pro-life. Do we not think there are enough 
abortions already? Here is why we are doing it.
  The ACLU says, abortion mandatory training would be a major step so 
that we can substantially have a greater number of programs teaching 
abortions.
  The New England Journal of Medicine talks about this conscience 
clause. Residents who wish to opt out of abortion training should be 
required to explain why in a way that satisfies stringent and explicit 
criteria. This is not an easy way to opt out.
  The Guttmacher Institute says, yes, let us move this, and with 
mandatory training, we can make this a core service around the country 
in every hospital.
  Mr. Chairman, is that what we want? The Catholic Health Association 
says, and I agree, these program requirements are unacceptable. The 
intent is to expand access to induced abortion.
  We had hearings on this in my subcommittee. Not once did the ACGME 
bring up women's health. Not once were they talking about providing 
women's health care. They are talking about expanding the access to 
abortion.
  All I can say is it is ironic that at this point, people that are 
pro-choice now are saying to residents, you must, you must perform one 
of the most reprehensible and revolting medical procedures in this 
country today.
  Mr. Chairman, what a point that we are moving to. I strongly urge 
opposition to the Ganske amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, two points. First, the ACGME was not invited to the 
hearing. Second, the ACGME has never said that residents would be 
stigmatized. That was an individual editorial printed not by the 
residency requirement committee.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] to respond.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, later on today I would like to give my 
colleague from Iowa transcripts of the hearing. ACGME was there. They 
testified. We were glad to have them there.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the ACGME was only invited by the minority.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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 thank the gentleman from Iowa for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on 
this amendment. This amendment is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue. 
It is an issue of Congress overriding medical accredication standards 
designed to provide a comprehensive medical education for thousands of 
physicians.
  The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] is a 
private medical accreditation body responsible for establishing medical 
standards for more than 7,400 residency programs in this Nation.
  This amendment would remove a provision in the bill which allows 
institutions to bypass the accreditation process if the standards 
include training in abortion procedures.
  Under ACGME requirements, no institution or individual is required to 
participate in abortion training. Any program or resident with a moral 
or religious objection is exempted.
  Congress has never before sought to override private education 
standards, let alone standards for training in medicine. In a time when 
Congress is reducing the size and influence of government, this 
amendment hardly makes sense.
  It is clear that some in this Congress want to take away the right to 
choose for all women. This stealth campaign against a woman's right to 
an abortion--a right guaranteed by law--but now they are going after 
the medical schools and the doctors, and that is just plain wrong.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. 

[[Page H 8380]]

  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ganske-
Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, all that this amendment does is strike the prohibitive 
language presently contained in the bill thereby maintaining Federal 
requirements concerning the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical 
Education's evaluation of residency programs in obstetrics and 
gynecology.
  Mr. Chairman, this past June, the Accreditation Council proposed 
important reforms that would respect and protect the rights of those 
programs and residents with moral or religious objections to abortions. 
And, let me make clear to my colleagues just what these reforms said.
  These reforms state that those residents who want to receive abortion 
education outside of the institution they are attending cannot be 
impeded from doing so. And, at those institutions that do not train 
residents in performing abortions, they must provide residents with 
satisfactory experience and education in managing the complications of 
abortion.
  And, this experience and education is well described in a Dear 
Colleague circulated in opposition to the Ganske-Johnson amendment. And 
I quote:

       Ob/Gyn residents already learn the techniques to handle 
     pregnancy, miscarriages and complications from abortions and, 
     in learning these, learn the medical techniques to handle 
     those extremely rare situations in which an abortion is 
     actually performed in response to a women's health emergency.

  Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear from both the stated reforms and 
comments of my colleagues opposed to the current standards that no 
resident or institution opposed to abortion is required to practice 
such a procedure. But, this simple truth does not matter to some 
abortion opponents.
  Under the language in H.R. 2127, not only would Federal and State 
accreditation requirements be nullified if abortion training is a 
criterion, but the Accreditation Council could not even license or 
provide financial assistance to any institution that provides training 
in induced abortions or assists a resident in receiving training 
outside of that institution.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just plain absurd. Lets get the facts straight. 
Once again, abortion opponents are taking the issue too far. Nothing 
under current regulations forces abortion training for residents and 
conditions licensure and
 financial assistance on institutions opposed to abortion.
  Let's recognize this for what it is--
  Totalitarian un-American-like interference in Medical education 
curricula--Is the Federal Government really going to dictate to 
professionals how their educations should be structured and their 
academic freedoms curtailed? And if you think I distort or exaggerate 
turn the issue around--suppose the pro-choice advocates required all 
academic centers, even religious institutions to teach abortion medical 
techniques and to perform abortions against their convictions. That 
would be a violation of their own convictions just as this provision is 
a violation of professional and academic freedoms. We are talking about 
a medical procedure that is legal under the laws of our country and 
confirmed by the Supreme Court. A medical procedure that should be 
taught to medical profession as long as their own moral convictions 
aren't violated.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Smith]
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me say very closely that 
the DeLay amendment does not force the accreditation council to change 
its accreditation standards, but it does say that in determining who 
can receive Federal benefits, the Federal Government will not be guided 
by an organization that discriminates against institutions which do not 
offer, quote, experience with induced abortion as a standard part of 
their medical training.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would deny doctors the right to choose 
not to do abortions. This is a very heavy-handed push by the abortion 
industry because fewer and fewer residents and members of the medical 
profession are going into the abortion industry. This is a heavy-handed 
effort to use the power of the Federal purse to coercion, to force, to 
pressure.
  Yes, there is some opt out language, but this would mainstream the 
killing of unborn children on demand for any reason whatsoever, and to 
coerce these individual residents and their residency programs to be a 
part of that. This is a part of the abortion industry's push. I hope 
that this amendment gets rejected.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, every day I hear my Republican colleagues 
say we should keep the Government out of business, we should keep the 
Government out of education, we should keep the Government out of the 
environment. Yet, here we are debating whether our not the Government 
should interfere with the decision-making process of a private 
organization.
  Mr. Chairman, we are debating whether the lawyers and the business 
people who sit in Congress should be deciding the curriculum for 
graduate medical education. So much for small government.
  The medical experts at ACGME understand that basic women's health 
includes the full range of reproductive services, including abortion. 
They understand that women's lives will be put at risk if OB-GYNs are 
not trained to serve all of their health needs.
  Mr. Chairman, who are we in this body to impose our medical expertise 
on the doctors and patients of America?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and it should reject 
the hypocrisy of so-called proponents of small government.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1 minute, I might say, if the moral language brought 
out by the gentleman from Iowa provided any comfort to these teaching 
institutions, why are they against his amendment and for my amendment 
in this bill?
  We must act on this because Medicare and other Federal benefits and 
the heal programs that loans to these doctor students are based upon 
accreditation. Simply put, the accreditation council has issued 
guidelines which require medical students to be trained in performing 
abortions, and the language in this bill ensures that Federal programs 
and States receiving funds under the bill do not penalize doctors and 
hospitals that refuse to perform abortions when they give accreditation 
and receive Federal dollars to practice medicine. We are getting the 
Government out of these private institutions.
  What has happened is this ACGME has decided to get involved in 
abortion politics and to force abortion training on people that do not 
want it. Vote no on the Ganske amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is about who controls medical 
education, the Government or the medical profession.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have made a 
determination that while abortion is a legal procedure, medical schools 
should ensure that students know what is safe, ethical, and legal and 
what is malpractice.

                              {time}  1845

  I strongly support the Ganske amendment. Government should not be 
telling schools what they can and cannot teach.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. This 
bill is not the place to debate the standards, and the time and the 
fashion of accrediting health professional schools. We should not be 
using this bill to get crosswise with the legitimate programs of 
accreditation which rest with the standards of practice of medical 
professional societies.
  Since this House convened for the first time this year, I have been 
hearing from this side of the aisle my colleagues saying it is time for 
government to get out of decisions which are made by citizens on 
matters which affect them. I see no reason why we 

[[Page H 8381]]
should not apply that very sensible rule here at this time. 
Accreditation is something which relates to professional competence, 
and professional competence requires that people who engage in 
professional activities should know all about all parts of their 
business.
  I happen to personally oppose abortion, but I recognize the need to 
have a properly trained medical profession in this country.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let us look at the language in the requirements. The 
language says no program or resident with a religious or moral 
objection will be required to provide training in or to perform induced 
abortions. This is reasonable. This amendment is about government 
involvement in professional accreditation.
  Whatever my colleagues' position on abortion, I urge them to support 
this amendment and resist the effort to overturn who controls 
professional standards.
  I am antiabortion, as is the cosponsor, but we agree that Congress 
should not set a precedent which would place us in the position of 
being Big Brother to every licensed professional in America. Who would 
be next? Teachers? Nurses? Architects? Engineers? Accountants? Or 
lawyers?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill sets a very worrisome precedent. Will the 
ACGME's moral and religious exemption be eliminated by a future 
Congress less concerned about the rights of individuals or hospitals to 
not perform abortions?
  Support the Ganske-Johnson amendment and limit the intrusion of the 
Federal Government into private accreditation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my 
colleague from Iowa in support of the Ganske-Johnson amendment. This 
amendment preserves the traditional process of allowing private 
accrediting boards to set their standards free from Congressional 
interference.
  Let us understand clearly the implications of the underlying bill. It 
sets the precedent for congressional meddling in accrediting standards 
for the training of doctors now, but potentially lawyers, teachers, 
accountants, or any other privately accredited profession in the 
future. It is ludicrous to presume that Congress is capable of judging 
and amending the standards set by bodies such as the Accreditation 
Council for Graduate Medical Education, (a professional accrediting 
board comprised of the American Medical Association, American 
Association of Medical Colleges, and several others). This body has 
traditionally determined the standards to which physicians and medical 
schools must adhere. They revise their accrediting standards on a 
regular basis, in order to take into account changes in the world 
around them, and their decisions have been universally respected. Never 
has Congress sought to intervene!
  Let me be clear. This amendment is about standard-setting and who 
should establish professional standards. Are we prepared to judge that 
inducing an abortion is not medically different from managing a 
spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage) in which some dilation 
has naturally occurred, and some contraction of the uterus has 
thickened its walls? Do we want to rule here today that there is no 
greater danger of perforating a uterus when no contractions have 
occurred than when contractions have occurred? Do you want a physician 
who lacks the knowledge of what to expect, and therefore how to react? 
As a woman, I don't want you judging this. I want the experts setting 
these standards. The fact that the physicians in this House disagree on 
the ACGME policy underscores the importance of keeping this issue out 
of the political arena.
  I urge my colleagues to keep government where it belongs, outside the 
process by which America has always set high standards for its medical 
training institutions. Vote ``yes'' on the Ganske-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], who is trained as an ob/gyn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn] for 3 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would make a correction. I am trained as 
a family practice resident and obstetrician.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am an actively practicing 
obstetrician, and this past weekend I spent a great deal of time and 
had great pleasure delivering a number of newborn Oklahoma babies. 
Therefore, the subject I am going to talk about is based upon profound, 
prolonged, and years of experience. I cared for over 5,000 women, 
delivered in excess of 3,000 babies, and, yes, have had the unfortunate 
circumstances of having had to perform abortions to save the life of 
women. But I think it is interesting that we should talk about what the 
issues really are.
  Many people have said that the Government should not be involved in 
this issue. The fact that we are involved in this issue is because a 
government-ordained accrediting agency has stepped outside the bounds 
of medicine and into the bounds of political expediency and political 
correctness. That is why it is being addressed in this legislation. The 
action of the Congress in this bill is appropriate to see that the 
organizations stay within the bounds of their charter, and that is our 
oversight responsibility.
  Now the other issue: The ACGME argument is a fallacious argument. Any 
doctor trained to handle the first or second trimester of pregnancy is 
already trained to do a induced abortion. The argument is specious. 
They already have all the skills that are necessary to perform an 
induced abortion. So, if the basis of this argument from ACGME is not 
based on medical need, what could it possibly be based on? For such an 
accrediting body to act in such an irresponsible fashion the reason is 
very simple. It is very sly, but it is very simple. It is based on 
desensitization and coercion in order to obtain a certain desired 
political result.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a shortage of abortionists in this country, 
not because they lack training, but because most physicians abhor the 
procedure of abortion and refuse to do that procedure. The way they 
would have us fix this is to coerce training for every resident 
physician. Those who object? Yes, they can opt out, but the real fact 
of being in a residency program is, if someone tries to opt out, they 
are going to be coerced in a number of ways that will make it very 
difficult for them to be in that residency. So, the real result of the 
policy is to coerce a certain action.
  This is an accreditation for quality medical care. This is about 
increasing the supply of abortionists, and this is an area of active 
responsibility by this Congress to confront those who have shirked 
their delegated responsibility and have abused it for political 
purposes. Let us call it what it is. It is social and political 
engineering. It has nothing to do with quality medical care or quality 
medical training, and it has nothing to do with quality resident 
training.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about who controls 
medical education--the Government or the medical profession.
  Medical schools and professional societies have directed their own 
curriculum standards since the beginning of organized medical training.
  The Federal Government has never interfered in that effort, even 
after years of proposals about things that various politicians have 
thought would be a good idea.
  The political manipulation of curriculum and licensure is wrong. 
Congress should leave medical education to educators and should leave 
professional licensure to professionals.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have made a 
determination that while abortion is a legal procedure, medical schools 
should ensure that students know what is safe, ethical and legal and 
what is malpractice.
  If you want to limit abortion, you should vote to limit abortion--and 
there are plenty of chances in this bill to do that. But you should not 
vote to get the Federal Government involved in classrooms, curriculum, 
and school accreditation.

[[Page H 8382]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, August 
2, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title V?
                     amendment offered by mr. blute

  Mr. BLUTE. 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. Blute: Page 75, after line 24, 
     insert the following section:
       Sec. 514. Of the total amount made available in titles I 
     through IV of this Act, there is hereby made available for 
     carrying out title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1981 an amount that is equal to 2 percent of such 
     total amount (exclusive of funds that are by law required to 
     be made available) and that is derived by hereby reducing 
     each account in such titles (exclusive of such funds) on a 
     pro rata basis to provide such 2 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will be recognized for 10 
minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. The 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] was not funded in 
the appropriations process this year. I think that was a mistake. 
Through this amendment I seek to correct that situation by reducing the 
overall funds available in the bill by 2 percent and applying that 
money to LIHEAP. This would provide--according to CBO--$500 million in 
funding for this authorized program, less than the program received 
last year but maintaining an important effort to help real people with 
real problems.
  LIHEAP provides much-needed energy assistance services for thousands 
of poor and elderly Americans in my State of Massachusetts as well as 
in other cold weather States who otherwise could not afford to heat 
their homes during the cold winter months. It is estimated that nearly 
6.1 million households nationwide received heating assistance during 
fiscal year 1994 and about half of those households contained an 
elderly or disabled person. Furthermore, in areas of the country where 
the economy is experiencing only a very modest recovery, the impact of 
cutting fuel assistance will be especially detrimental.
  LIHEAP-eligible Americans don't have the resources necessary to take 
care of the heating bill for a variety of reasons, and this money is 
needed to help them pay the utility bill. Low income households spend 
more of their total income for heating than the rest of us. That leaves 
precious little left for other necessities.
  Without LIHEAP funding, the choice for these people is between eating 
a meal or heating their homes during the harsh winter months. In my 
opinion, that is no choice at all. Make no mistake about this program. 
It deals with a basic human need: adequate shelter during extreme 
weather conditions.
  It should also be pointed out, that if LIHEAP funding is eliminated, 
the private sector may not necessarily be able to absorb fuel 
assistance costs. In New England, the primary fuel consumed during the 
winter is heating oil. While large electric or gas utilities may be 
able to absorb the costs for needy customers who cannot afford to pay 
their bills, small independent heating oil companies cannot afford to 
lose that revenue. In fact, home heating oil companies already sell the 
fuel at substantially reduced prices to their LIHEAP customers. Placing 
an additional financial burden on these small businesses is not a smart 
thing to do, and it will not work.
  LIHEAP opponents will tell you that the program was created to 
provide temporary relief during the energy crisis when fuel prices were 
high. The fact of the matter is, even though fuel costs have 
stabilized, income levels have not kept pace and many people still find 
themselves unable to afford adequate heat in their homes. The number of 
senior citizens on fixed incomes has increased, continuing the 
substantial need for this program.
  But, Mr. Chairman, LIHEAP doesn't only help those enduring extreme 
cold. We all are well aware of the recent tragedy and loss of life 
across the country due to the massive heat wave. In an effort to help 
those who cannot even afford a simple fan to help deal with the 
scorching heat, last week the President released $100 million in 
emergency LIHEAP funds to assist 19 States hit in the heat wave. With 
no relief in sight from this heat, more LIHEAP funding may be necessary 
to help defray the cost of the cooling bill.
  The elimination of LIHEAP funding makes a bad situation even worse. 
If the Labor-HHS bill passes without restoring LIHEAP funds, the next 
time the temperature climbs into triple digits, there won't be any 
money to help people cope and the toll on our citizens could be 
devastating.
  The best part about LIHEAP is that it is a block grant program. It 
provides specific funds to the states to disburse them in the best 
manner for each particular State and caps administrative expenses at 10 
percent. LIHEAP is not another bureaucratic welfare program long on 
good intentions but sadly short on outcome. I strongly believe that 
reducing the deficit should be a top priority, and that is why my 
amendment cuts funding in other areas of the bill to pay for the 
restoration of LIHEAP. A program as important as LIHEAP is to the well-
being of Americans living in areas of the country that experience 
temperature extremes should not be compromised.
  LIHEAP is not a welfare program. It is a subsidy that helps 
economically disadvantaged hard working families and older Americans 
make ends meet. For this reason, I hope that you will join me in 
preserving funding for LIHEAP, vote for the Blute amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most spectacular cover-up amendments 
that I have seen offered in a long time. I am the sponsor, the original 
sponsor, of the low income heating assistance program. Silvio Conte and 
I and Ed Muskie started that program a long time ago. We did it because 
we were tired of seeing senior citizens have to choose between paying 
their prescription drug bills and heating their homes.
  God knows, there has been no one in this House through the years who 
has been a bigger defender of the low income heating assistance program 
than I have. I think it is absolutely crucial, but I want to tell you 
that this amendment is a last-minute operation which effectively simply 
covers political tracks for past actions taken in this House. That is 
the effect of it.
  If you wanted to keep funding for LIHEAP in the budget, the time to 
do that is when you voted for the budget resolution that guaranteed 
that seniors would get clobbered in this bill. If you wanted to save 
LIHEAP, the time to do that was when we had a fight in the Committee on 
Appropriations over the 602(b) allocation made by the chairman which 
decided how much money would be available to this subcommittee and how 
much money would be available to Defense.
  At that time, I offered an alternative which every single Republican 
opposed in that committee, every single one, which would have added $3 
billion to this bill and then some and made it possible for us to save 
LIHEAP. The only real way, the only real way that you can save LIHEAP 
is to defeat this entire bill so that you can send it back to the 
committee, send the Defense bill back to the committee, and redo the 
602 allocations so you have got some real room to fix LIHEAP.
  If you do not do that, you are pretending that you are going to 
finance LIHEAP and you say: ``Oh, it is only going to be a 2 percent 
cut in other 

[[Page H 8383]]

programs.'' Baloney. Head Start has already been cut by a huge amount. 
Education has already been cut by $2.5 billion. Older workers have 
already lost 14,000 jobs, and you are going to cut them again. Drug-
free schools have already been cut by 50 percent.
  You are going to wind up, if you pass this amendment, cutting cancer 
research, cutting heart disease research, cutting Alzheimer's research, 
cutting virtually every medical research operation out at NIH.
  There is nothing wrong with half of the gentleman's amendment, the 
half that tries to save the LIHEAP program. But the place that he gets 
the money from ought to be totally unacceptable to anybody who cares 
about education, about job training, about health care or senior 
nutrition or senior jobs.
  I do not know of many senior citizens who appreciate being put in the 
position where they have to choose between having a tough time paying 
their home heating bills and dying because cancer research is not going 
to be strengthened. I do not think that is a choice we ought to be 
putting most seniors in. I certainly do not think that that is the kind 
of choice that many Members of this House tonight are going to find 
very useful.
  So I would simply say I very much want half of the gentleman's 
amendment, but I am not going to stand here and pretend that this is 
the way to fix it. The only way that you can really preserve the 
ability to protect LIHEAP without cutting cancer research, without 
cutting NIH, without cutting senior nutrition is to beat this bill, 
send it back to committee, get a new 602 allocation so that you do not 
have to decide which senior citizen is going to take it in the chops.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to refute the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in one respect, and that is he talks about we are 
taking money away from Head Start; $161 million was proposed to be 
given to Head Start in our subcommittee meeting. You could have voted 
for that twice. Twice you said no. Twice you said Head Start was not a 
priority. You said twice that it was not a priority.
  You considered other things more important than Head Start, one of 
which was to keep 628 lawyers well financed, well paid in the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  You betcha I voted against your amendment because of where you took 
the money. You had a personal axe to grind with Overnite Truck, with 
the NLRB because you did not like what they had done in the Overnite 
Truck situation.
  So what did you do? After you sent a letter to the NLRB telling them 
you wanted them to rule a certain way and they did not rule that way, 
you offered an amendment to cut the guts out of their budget, and then 
you put it in Head Start.
  And you want us to give you gold stars? Baloney. I think that is 
crossing the line. I am not only proud that I voted against your 
amendment, I think you should have been ashamed for offering it.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Buffalo, NY [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about priorities today in this discussion, and 
I rise today as I have in the past to speak on the merits of the LIHEAP 
program. This important program, of course, provides cash supplements 
to assist low income households to pay winter heating bills. It is 
disturbing to many of us today that we have this bill before us that 
has no funding in the Federal year of 1996, and these serve probably 
the poorest households in the country and across all of our districts.
  Many of our low-income citizens must pay a high percentage of their 
incomes already and quite simply cannot meet to pay their own energy 
needs. These LIHEAP recipients have an average income during the course 
of a year of only a little bit over $8,000 a year. Without some kind of 
assistance for their heating needs, these people could be absolutely 
put in dire straits.
  The effects of being without heat are obvious to those of us who come 
from the Northeast and understand these kind of temperatures that we 
are looking at, not only the summer problems, of course, but those in 
the winter.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer my support for the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, the $1.2 billion that Mr. Blute would add 
in his amendment would require a $63 million reduction in job training, 
a $17 million additional reduction in community health centers, a $13 
million reduction in AIDS treatment services, the same amount that was 
added in the full committee by Mr. Riggs, a $41 million reduction in 
the CDC, $1 million in the program of violence against women, reduce 
cancer research by $45 million, including breast cancer and cervical 
cancer, would cut heart disease research by $27 million.
  It would cut drug abuse prevention and treatment programs by $36 
million, Head Start by $68 million. Title I education for disadvantaged 
children, already reduced by $1.2 billion, would be cut another $120 
million. Pell grants would be cut $114 million. Social Security would 
be cut $118 million.
  I believe that we are at a point of decision as to whether a program 
that no longer has any Federal rationale for its existence here and 
that ought to be handled by the States and now amounts to simply a 
subsidy of the utilities who ought to handle this problem for all of 
their customers, whether this program continues or not I think it is 
time say it has got to be terminated. We do not have the money when we 
are running huge deficits to keep alive programs which have long since 
lost any reason to exist at the Federal level.
  I would urge the vote, the Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district, in districts across the country, this 
is a very important program. Indeed the programs that the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has mentioned are all important programs, no 
doubt, but I do not think they have the direct implication of the well-
being and indeed the very health of senior citizens and others as this 
important program does. This literally is the difference between a 
winter of health problems or not. I think it is very important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blute amendment. I believe 
strongly in cutting spending and balancing the budget. And I know that 
in order to do that, we are going to have to make some tough decisions.
  But getting rid of the LIHEAP program is a mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, many areas throughout the Nation have been experiencing 
a brutal heat wave--a heat wave that has claimed the lives of people in 
their homes and apartments. And it is tragic.
  But the flip side of this happens in my home State in the winter. 
Where senior citizens and the poor literally freeze to death in their 
homes.
  This amendment will help countless of poor people in my district to 
pay their energy bills and for many of them, it is a matter of life and 
death.
  I know opponents will say that LIHEAP is a relic of the energy 
crisis, that energy prices have dropped since then and therefore we no 
longer need the program.
  But every winter I get calls from constituents and they have to 
decide whether or not to pay their utility bill or buy food because 
they don't have enough money to do both. When that happens, Mr. 
Chairman, it means little to the people who cannot afford it that 
energy prices have gone down.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a Member of Congress who has been defending 
the status quo or advocating more spending. I believe in balancing the 
budget and I have come to this floor time and again to support spending 
cuts below the levels produced by the Appropriations Committee.
  I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his amendment and ask 

[[Page H 8384]]
  for a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear Mr. Blute and my 
Republican colleagues speak so glowingly about LIHEAP. I know how 
important this program is in New York and the Northeast and other areas 
of this country, and I support those words.
  However, the only way we can fix it, and let us face it, let us talk 
about the facts, is to defeat this bill and send it straight back to 
the committee.
  Because I want it made very clear to the American people what this 
amendment does. It will cut breast cancer screening $3 million; Healthy 
Start, $1 million; Head Start, $68 million; mental health services, $7 
million; drug treatment, $24 million; student aid, $140 million; 
maternal and child health, $14 million; and on and on and on.
  This bill is broken. It is making severe cuts not only in vital 
programs like LIHEAP but in all the programs I talked about. Let us 
defeat this bill. Let us send it back to the committee and let us hope 
we can do it right the next time.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we also face a tremendous financial crisis in our 
country. We need to have a balanced budget. I think that is of prime 
importance to the future of our country for all Americans. So just as 
they do in State legislatures, we are going to be forced to make tough 
choices, to make tough tradeoffs, some of which we do not like.
  The fact is that the ultimate good of balancing the budget is 
essential. In this case, we are showing where the money is coming from, 
from more than a budget.
  Some of those things that are in there are important, but I would 
submit to the Members of this Congress and the people of this country 
that this program is an essential program, is an important program, and 
it has direct effect on real people and their relative health and well-
being during the extreme weather conditions that we find across our 
country.
  It is a national program. All States are eligible for this 
assistance. The President just released $100 million to 19 States as a 
result of the recent heat wave.
  It is a State-controlled program. It limits administrative expenses 
to 10 percent. It helped more than 6.1 million households last year.
  Cuts in LIHEAP would disproportionately hurt those most vulnerable, 
the disabled, elderly, and young children. Fifty percent of LIHEAP-
eligible households have an elderly or handicapped person residing in 
them. I happen to think this is an important program. I am willing to 
see other programs lose revenue to fund this important program.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Our job is not to defend programs. It is to defend people. I would 
say to the gentleman, the real level of your dedication to LIHEAP will 
be seen by how he votes on final passage on this turkey of a bill.
  I am the original author of the LIHEAP program, but I am not cynical 
enough to suggest that it be financed by cutting Social Security, 
cutting cancer research, cutting breast cancer research, cutting drug 
treatment, cutting student aid, cutting senior citizen nutrition.
  I would suggest instead of cutting these programs, why not bring an 
amendment up here to cut the B-2, to cut the F-22? Why not take the 
money out of there? The gentleman voted for a budget which allowed the 
Pentagon to get an increase to $7 billion, while he took $9 billion out 
of this bill. Now he is suffering the consequences and he is wimping 
out. That is what is behind this amendment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. STOKES, Mr. Chairman, the actions taken by the majority on the 
committee devastate the quality of life for two of what should be the 
most cherished segments of our society--our children and our elderly. 
This bill is bad for children and bad for the elderly.
  The $24 million cut in meals for the elderly means that 12 million 
meals would no longer be available. Tens of thousands of elderly would 
be forced to go hungry. In my State of Ohio, the elderly would lose 
over 400,000 meals. Those in California would lose over 1 million 
meals, Louisiana over 240,000, Texas over 750,000, Mississippi over 
100,000, Arkansas over 190,000, Oklahoma over 200,000, New York over 1 
million, Michigan over 500,000, Illinois over 400,000, the list goes on 
and on.
  While we are asking the elderly to go hungry, we are also asking them 
to ignore their need for heating in winter and cooling in summer. H.R. 
2127 eliminates funding for LIHEAP. One would think that the 700 tragic 
and needless deaths from the recent heat wave would be enough to make 
us realize what is wrong with this bill. Without LIHEAP, over 6 million 
people will no longer have the energy assistance they need, and would 
be forced to make life threatening choices.
  With respect to our children, while they are the weakest and most 
vulnerable in our society. They are among the hardest hit by this bill. 
The $55 million, or over 50 percent, cut in the Healthy Start Program 
means that over 1 million women would be denied the comprehensive 
prenatal and other health care, social and support services they need. 
The Nation's effort to combat infant mortality at a time when progress 
is just beginning to be made in addressing this national health problem 
would be devastated. With respect to Head Start, the $137 million cut 
means that nearly 50,000 fewer children will be served.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague to show some mercy on our children 
and our elderly, reject H.R. 2127
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill makes many 
painful and unnecessary cuts. But nowhere is this bill more damaging 
than in its refusal to help millions of elderly and low-income people 
pay their energy bills.
  Eighteen months ago, we went through a brutal winter with 
temperatures plunging below zero for weeks on end. LIHEAP was there to 
shield millions of seniors and children from the cold.
  This month, the temperature climbed into the hundreds, causing 
hardship for many families in my district and in districts across the 
country. Again, LIHEAP was there to protect them from the heat--and the 
President's emergency release of $100 million LIHEAP funds was quite 
literally a life-saver for millions of people.
  In the coming years, we will face extreme cold and unbearable heat 
again. And once again, our constituents will look to LIHEAP for 
assistance. But if we pass this bill as is, LIHEAP won't be there for 
them.
  Opponents of LIHEAP admit that program works, but they think that 
cutting it is a smart way to reduce the deficit. I can tell you that 
when the country calls for fiscal responsibility, it is not suggesting 
that we leave seniors and children to suffer in severe weather.
  Cutting an effective program like LIHEAP is a penny-wise, pound-
foolish proposal that will endanger our society's most vulnerable 
members.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman 
Porter for completing the fiscal year 1996 Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill under circumstances that 
can be described only as Herculean. I am a strong supporter of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] and this is where I 
respectfully differ from my colleague from Illinois.
  To put it quite simply, this program insures many families in my 
district that they do not have to choose between eating or heating. I 
have heard the argument that this program is no longer needed, that 
this program was crafted only a vehicle to get our Nation's poorest out 
of the energy crisis of the 1970's. But, I believe that is incorrect. 
LIHEAP is still necessary; unaffordable utility costs continue to be a 
crisis for low-income households.
  The facts speak for themselves. LIHEAP brings potentially life-saving 
heat to nearly 6 million poor families, or roughly 12 million 
individuals with an average income of $8,000; of these individuals 
about 30 percent are elderly, and 20 percent are disabled. These 
families spend three times as much of their income on energy as does 
the average American household and the average program benefit is only 
$200.
  We need to assure our constituents of our ongoing efforts to reform 
Federal social service programs, and to allow greater local 
flexibility. Because of its 10 percent cap on administrative expenses, 
LIHEAP delivers maximum benefits to those in need without any fraud or 
abuse. Eliminating an effective program like LIHEAP sends a confusing 
and inconsistent message to the states. In closing, I understand the 
budgetary reality in which we legislate, but I cannot stand silent as 
this Appropriations Subcommittee attempts to eliminate this effective 
Federal program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].

[[Page H 8385]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:
                      TITLE VI--POLITICAL ADVOCACY


     prohibition on the use of federal funds for political advocacy

       Sec. 601. (a) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the following limitations apply to any 
     grant which is made from funds appropriated under this or any 
     other Act or controlled under any congressional authorization 
     until Congress provides specific exceptions in subsequent 
     Acts:
       (1) No grantee may use funds from any grant to engage in 
     political advocacy.
       (2) No grant applicant may receive any grant if its 
     expenditures for political advocacy for any one of the 
     previous five Federal fiscal years exceeded its prohibited 
     political advocacy threshold (but no Federal fiscal year 
     before 1996 shall be considered). For purposes of this title, 
     the prohibited political advocacy threshold for a given 
     Federal fiscal year is to be determined by the following 
     formula:
       (A) calculate the difference between the grant applicant's 
     total expenditures made in a given Federal fiscal year and 
     the total grants it received in that Federal fiscal year;
       (B) for the first $20,000,000 of the difference calculated 
     in (A), multiply by .05;
       (C) for the remainder of the difference calculated in (A), 
     multiply by .01;
       (D) the sum of the products described in (B) and (C) equals 
     the prohibited political advocacy threshold.
       (3) During any one Federal fiscal year in which a grantee 
     has possession, custody or control of grant funds, the 
     grantee shall not use any funds (whether derived from grants 
     or otherwise) to engage in political advocacy in excess of 
     its prohibited political advocacy threshold for the prior 
     Federal fiscal year.
       (4) No grantee may use funds from any grant to purchase or 
     secure any goods or services (including dues and membership 
     fees) from any other individual, entity, or organization 
     whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous 
     Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total 
     expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
       (5) No grantee may use funds from any grant for any purpose 
     (including but not limited to extending subsequent grants to 
     any other individual, entity, or organization) other than to 
     purchase or secure goods or services, except as specifically 
     permitted by Congress in the law authorizing the grant.
       (6) Any individual, entity, or organization that awards or 
     administers a grant shall take reasonable steps to ensure 
     that the grantee complies with the requirements of this 
     title. Reasonable steps to ensure compliance shall include 
     written notice to a grantee that it is receiving a grant, and 
     that the provisions of this title apply to the grantee.
       (b) Enforcement.--The following enforcement provisions 
     apply with respect to the limitations imposed under 
     subsection (a):
       (1) Each grantee shall be subject to audit from time to 
     time as follows:
       (A) Audits may be requested and conducted by the General 
     Accounting Office or other
      auditing entity authorized by Congress, including the 
     inspector general of the Federal entity awarding or 
     administering the grant.
       (B) Grantees shall follow generally accepted accounting 
     principles in keeping books and records relating to each 
     grant and no Federal entity may impose more burdensome 
     accounting requirements for purposes of enforcing this title.
       (C) A grantee that engages in political advocacy shall have 
     the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that 
     it is in compliance with the limitations of this section.
       (2) Violations by a grantee of the limitations contained in 
     subsection (a) may be enforced and the grant may be recovered 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as a false or 
     fraudulent claim for payment or approval made to the Federal 
     Government pursuant to sections 3729 through 3812 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (3) Any officer or employee of the Federal Government who 
     awards or administers funds from any grant to a grantee who 
     is not in compliance with this section shall--
       (A) for knowing or negligent noncompliance with this 
     section, be subjected to appropriate administrative 
     discipline, including, when circumstances warrant, suspension 
     from duty without pay or removal from office; and
       (B) for knowing noncompliance with this section, pay a 
     civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each improper 
     disbursement of funds.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this title:
       (1) Political advocacy.--The term ``political advocacy'' 
     includes--
       (A) carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to 
     influence legislation or agency action, including, but not 
     limited to monetary or in-kind contributions, endorsements, 
     publicity, or similar activity;
       (B) participating or intervening in (including the 
     publishing or distributing of statements) any political 
     campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for 
     public office, including but not limited to monetary or in-
     kind contributions, endorsements, publicity, or similar 
     activity;
       (C) participating in any judicial litigation or agency 
     proceeding (including as an amicus curiae) in which agents or 
     instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local governments are 
     parties, other than litigation in which the grantee or grant 
     applicant: is a defendant appearing in its own behalf; is 
     defending its tax-exempt status; or is challenging a 
     government decision or action directed specifically at the 
     powers, rights, or duties of that grantee or grant applicant; 
     and
       (D) allocating, disbursing, or contributing any funds or 
     in-kind support to any individual, entity or organization 
     whose expenditures for political advocacy for the previous 
     Federal fiscal year exceeded 15 percent of its total 
     expenditures for that Federal fiscal year.
       (2) Influence legislation or agency action.--
       (A) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the term ``influence legislation or agency 
     action'' includes--
       (i) any attempt to influence any legislation or agency 
     action through an attempt to affect the opinions of the 
     general public or any segment thereof, and
       (ii) any attempt to influence any legislation or agency 
     action through communication with any member or employee of a 
     legislative body or agency, or with any government official 
     or employee who may participate in the formulation of the 
     legislation or agency action.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``influence legislation or agency 
     action'' does not include--
       (i) making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, 
     study, research, or debate;
       (ii) providing technical advice or assistance (where such 
     advice would otherwise constitute the influencing of 
     legislation or agency action) to a governmental body or to a 
     committee or other subdivision thereof in response to a 
     written request by such body or subdivision, as the case may 
     be;
       (iii) communications between the grantee and its bona fide 
     members with respect to legislation, proposed legislation, 
     agency action, or proposed agency action of direct interest 
     to the grantee and such members, other than communications 
     described in subparagraph (C);
       (iv) any communication with a governmental official or 
     employee; other than--

       (I) a communication with a member or employee of a 
     legislative body or agency (where such communication would 
     otherwise constitute the influencing of legislation or agency 
     action); or
       (II) a communication the principal purpose of which is to 
     influence legislation or agency action; and

       (v) official communications by employees of State or local 
     governments, or by organizations whose membership consists 
     exclusively of State or local governments.
       (C) Communications with members.--
       (i) A communication between a grantee and any bona fide 
     member of such organization to directly encourage such
      member to communicate as provided in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) 
     shall be treated as a (2)(A)(ii) communication by the 
     grantee itself.
       (ii) A communication between a grantee and any bona fide 
     member of such organization to directly encourage such member 
     to urge persons other than members to communicate as provided 
     in either clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (2)(A) shall be 
     treated as a communication described in paragraph (2)(A)(i).
       (3) The term ``legislation'' includes the introduction, 
     amendment, enactment, passage, defeat, ratification, or 
     repeal of Acts, bills, resolutions, treaties, declarations, 
     confirmations, articles of impeachment, or similar items by 
     the Congress, any State legislature, any local council or 
     similar governing body, or by the public in a referendum, 
     initiative, constitutional amendment, recall, confirmation, 
     or similar procedure.
       (4) The term ``grant'' includes the provision of any 
     Federal funds, appropriated under this or any other Act, or 
     other thing of value to carry out a public purpose of the 
     United States, except: the provision of funds for acquisition 
     (by purchase, lease or barter) of property or services for 
     the direct benefit or use of the United States, or the 
     payments of loans, debts, or entitlements; or the provision 
     of funds to an Article I or III court.
       (5) The term ``grantee'' includes any recipient of any 
     grant. The term shall not include any state or local 
     government, but shall include any recipient receiving a grant 
     (as defined by subsection c(4)) from a state or local 
     government.
       (6) The term ``agency action'' includes the definition 
     contained in section 551 of Title 5, United States Code, and 
     includes action by state or local government agencies.
       (7) The term ``agency proceeding'' includes the definition 
     contained in section 551 of Title 5, United States Code, and 
     includes proceedings by state or local government agencies.


                        disclosure requirements

       Sec. 602. (a) Not later than December 31 of each year, a 
     grantee shall provide (via either electronic or paper medium) 
     to each Federal entity that awarded or administered its grant 
     an annual report for the prior Federal fiscal year, certified 
     by the grantee's chief executive officer or equivalent person 
     of authority, and setting forth: the grantee's 

[[Page H 8386]]
     name, the grantee's identification number, and--
       (1) a statement that the grantee did not engage in 
     political advocacy; or,
       (2) a statement that the grantee did engage in political 
     advocacy, and setting forth for each grant--
       (A) the grant identification number;
       (B) the amount or value of the grant (including all 
     administrative and overhead costs awarded);
       (C) a brief description of the purpose or purposes for 
     which the grant was awarded;
       (D) the identity of each Federal, state and local 
     government entity awarding or administering the grant, and 
     program thereunder;
       (E) the name and grantee identification number
      of each individual, entity, or organization to whom the 
     grantee made a grant;
       (F) a brief description of the grantee's political 
     advocacy, and a good faith estimate of the grantee's 
     expenditures on political advocacy;
       (G) a good faith estimate of the grantee's prohibited 
     political advocacy threshold.
       (b) OMB Coordination.--The Office of Management and Budget 
     shall develop by regulation one standardized form for the 
     annual report that shall be accepted by every Federal entity, 
     and a uniform procedure by which each grantee is assigned one 
     permanent and unique grantee identification number.


                         FEDERAL ENTITY REPORT

       Sec. 603. Not later than May 1 of each calendar year, each 
     Federal entity awarding or administering a grant shall submit 
     to the Bureau of the Census a report (standardized by the 
     Office of Management and Budget) setting forth the 
     information provided to such Federal entity by each grantee 
     during the preceding Federal fiscal year, and the name and 
     grantee identification number of each grantee to whom it 
     provided written notice under section 1(a)(6). The Bureau of 
     the Census shall make this database available to the public 
     through the Internet.


                         PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

       Sec. 604. (a) Any Federal entity awarding a grant shall 
     make publicly available any grant application, audit of a 
     grantee, list of grantees to whom notice was provided under 
     section 1(a)(6), annual report of a grantee, and that Federal 
     entity's annual report to the Bureau of the Census.
       (b) The public's access to the documents identified in 
     section 4(a) shall be facilitated by placement of such 
     documents in the Federal entity's public document reading 
     room and also by expediting any requests under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the Freedom of Information Act 
     as amended, ahead of any requests for other information 
     pending at such Federal entity.
       (c) Records described in section (a) shall not be subject 
     to withholding except under exemption (b)(7)(A) of section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (d) No fees for searching for or copying such documents 
     shall be charged to the public.


                              Severability

       Sec. 605. If any provision of this title or the application 
     thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the 
     remainder of this title and the application of such provision 
     to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected 
     thereby.


                    FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS PRESERVED

       Sec. 606. Nothing in this title shall be deemed to abridge 
     any rights guaranteed under the first amendment of the United 
     States Constitution, including freedom of speech, or of the 
     press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and 
     to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     

                          ____________________