[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 102 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7327-H7374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). Pursuant to House Resolution
472 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 3755.
{time} 1851
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration the bill
(H.R. 3755) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with Mr. Walker
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
bill had been read through page 69, line 25. Pursuant to the order of
the House of today, further consideration of H.R. 3755 for amendment in
the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 472 will
conclude at 11 o'clock this evening and the bill will be considered as
having been read.
The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:
TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES
Armed Forces Retirement Home
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home, to be paid
from funds available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home
Trust Fund, $53,184,000, of which $432,000 shall remain
available until expended for construction and renovation of
the physical plants at the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the United States Naval Home: Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be available for the
payment of hospitalization of members of the Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home in United States Army hospitals at rates in
excess of those prescribed by the Secretary of the Army upon
recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and the Surgeon
General of the Army.
Corporation for National and Community Service
domestic volunteer service programs, operating expenses
For expenses necessary for the Corporation for National and
Community Service to carry out the provisions of the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended, $202,046,000.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
For payment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, an amount which
shall be available within limitations specified by that Act,
for the fiscal year 1999, $250,000,000: Provided, That no
funds made available to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by this Act shall be used to pay for receptions,
parties, or similar forms of entertainment for Government
officials or employees: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this paragraph shall be available or used
to aid or support any program or activity from which any
person is excluded, or is denied benefits, or is
discriminated against, on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, or sex.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to carry out
[[Page H7328]]
the functions vested in it by the Labor Management Relations
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 171-180, 182-183), including hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and for expenses necessary for the
Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a);
and for expenses necessary for the Service to carry out the
functions vested in it by the Civil Service Reform Act,
Public Law 95-454 (5 U.S.C. chapter 71), $32,579,000
including $1,500,000, to remain available through September
30, 1998, for activities authorized by the Labor-Management
Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a): Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, fees charged, up to full-cost
recovery, for special training activities and for arbitration
services shall be credited to and merged with this account,
and shall remain available until expended: Provided further,
That fees for arbitration services shall be available only
for education, training, and professional development of the
agency workforce: Provided further, That the Director of the
Service is authorized to accept on behalf of the United
States gifts of services and real, personal, or
other property in the aid of any projects or functions
within the Director's jurisdiction.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Review Commission (30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), $6,060,000.
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the National Commission on
Libraries and Information Science, established by the Act of
July 20, 1970 (Public Law 91-345, as amended by Public Law
102-95), $812,000.
National Council on Disability
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Council on
Disability as authorized by title IV of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, as amended, $1,757,000.
National Education Goals Panel
For expenses necessary for the National Education Goals
Panel, as authorized by title II, part A of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act, $974,000.
National Labor Relations Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the National Labor Relations
Board to carry out the functions vested in it by the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141-
167), and other laws, $144,692,000: Provided, That no part of
this appropriation shall be available to organize or assist
in organizing agricultural laborers or used in connection
with investigations, hearings, directives, or orders
concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers
as referred to in section 2(3) of the Act of July 5, 1935 (29
U.S.C. 152), and as amended by the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947, as amended, and as defined in section 3(f) of the
Act of June 25, 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203), and including in said
definition employees engaged in the maintenance and operation
of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained
or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 per
centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for
farming purposes: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available by this Act shall be used in any way to
promulgate a final rule (altering 29 CFR part 103) regarding
single location bargaining units in representation cases.
National Mediation Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 151-188), including
emergency boards appointed by the President, $7,656,000.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission (29 U.S.C. 661), $7,753,000.
Physician Payment Review Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1845(a) of the
Social Security Act, $2,920,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Fund.
Prospective Payment Assessment Commission
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary to carry out section 1886(e) of the
Social Security Act, $3,263,000, to be transferred to this
appropriation from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.
Social Security Administration
payments to social security trust funds
For payment to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
and the Federal Disability Insurance trust funds, as provided
under sections 201(m), 228(g), and 1131(b)(2) of the Social
Security Act, $20,923,000.
In addition, to reimburse these trust funds for
administrative expenses to carry out sections 9704 and 9706
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, $10,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
special benefits for disabled coal miners
For carrying out title IV of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, $460,070,000, to remain available until
expended.
For making, after July 31 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, for costs incurred in the
current fiscal year, such amounts as may be necessary.
For making benefit payments under title IV of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 for the first quarter of
fiscal year 1998, $160,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
supplemental security income program
For carrying out titles XI and XVI of the Social Security
Act, section 401 of Public Law 92-603, section 212 of Public
Law 93-66, as amended, and section 405 of Public Law 95-216,
including payment to the Social Security trust funds for
administrative expenses incurred pursuant to section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act, $19,422,115,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That any portion
of the funds provided to a State in the current fiscal year
and not obligated by the State during that year shall be
returned to the Treasury.
In addition, $25,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 1998, for continuing disability reviews
as authorized by section 103 of Public Law 104-121. The
term ``continuing disability reviews'' has the meaning
given such term by section 201(g)(1)(A) of the Social
Security Act.
For making, after June 15 of the current fiscal year,
benefit payments to individuals under title XVI of the Social
Security Act, for unanticipated costs incurred for the
current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary.
For carrying out title XVI of the Social Security Act for
the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, $9,690,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
limitation on administrative expenses
For necessary expenses, including the hire of two passenger
motor vehicles, and not to exceed $10,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, not more than
$5,899,797,000 may be expended, as authorized by section
201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act or as necessary to carry
out sections 9704 and 9706 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 from any one or all of the trust funds referred to
therein: Provided, That reimbursement to the trust funds
under this heading for administrative expenses to carry out
sections 9704 and 9706 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall be made, with interest, not later than September 30,
1998: Provided further, That not less than $1,500,000 shall
be for the Social Security Advisory Board.
From funds provided under the previous paragraph, not less
than $200,000,000 shall be available for conducting
continuing disability reviews.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$160,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1998,
for continuing disability reviews as authorized by section
103 of Public Law 104-121. The term ``continuing disability
reviews'' has the meaning given such term by section
201(g)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act.
In addition to funding already available under this
heading, and subject to the same terms and conditions,
$250,073,000, which shall remain available until expended, to
invest in a state-of-the-art computing network, including
related equipment and administrative expenses associated
solely with this network, for the Social Security
Administration and the State Disability Determination
Services, may be expended from any or all of the trust funds
as authorized by section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security
Act.
office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $6,335,000, together with not to exceed
$21,089,000, to be transferred and expended as authorized by
section 201(g)(1) of the Social Security Act from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
Railroad Retirement Board
dual benefits payments account
For payment to the Dual Benefits Payments Account,
authorized under section 15(d) of the Railroad Retirement Act
of 1974, $223,000,000, which shall include amounts becoming
available in fiscal year 1997 pursuant to section
224(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 98-76; and in addition, an amount,
not to exceed 2 percent of the amount provided herein, shall
be available proportional to the amount by which the product
of recipients and the average benefit received exceeds
$223,000,000: Provided, That the total amount provided herein
shall be credited in 12 approximately equal amounts on the
first day of each month in the fiscal year.
federal payments to the railroad retirement accounts
For payment to the accounts established in the Treasury for
the payment of benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act for
interest earned on unnegotiated checks, $300,000, to remain
available through September 30, 1998, which shall be the
maximum amount available for payment pursuant to section 417
of Public Law 98-76.
[[Page H7329]]
limitation on administration
For necessary expenses for the Railroad Retirement Board
for administration of the Railroad Retirement Act and the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, $87,898,000, to be
derived in such amounts as determined by the Board from the
railroad retirement accounts and from moneys credited to the
railroad unemployment insurance administration fund.
limitation on the office of inspector general
For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General
for audit, investigatory and review activities, as authorized
by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, not more
than $5,268,000, to be derived from the railroad retirement
accounts and railroad unemployment insurance account:
Provided, That none of the funds made available in this Act
may be transferred to the Office from the Department of
Health and Human Services, or used to carry out any such
transfer: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available in this paragraph may be used for any audit,
investigation, or review of the Medicare program.
United States Institute of Peace
operating expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of
Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace
Act, $11,160,000.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. The Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education are authorized to transfer unexpended
balances of prior appropriations to accounts corresponding to
current appropriations provided in this Act: Provided, That
such transferred balances are used for the same purpose, and
for the same periods of time, for which they were originally
appropriated.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. (a) No part of any appropriation contained in
this Act shall be used, other than for normal and recognized
executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or
propaganda purposes, for the preparation, distribution, or
use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio,
television, or video presentation designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in
presentation to the Congress itself.
(b) No part of any appropriation contained in this Act
shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant or
contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient,
related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before the Congress.
Sec. 504. The Secretaries of Labor and Education are each
authorized to make available not to exceed $15,000 from funds
available for salaries and expenses under titles I and III,
respectively, for official reception and representation
expenses; the Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service is authorized to make available
for official reception and representation expenses not to
exceed $2,500 from the funds available for ``Salaries and
expenses, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service'';
and the Chairman of the National Mediation Board is
authorized to make available for official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $2,500 from funds
available for ``Salaries and expenses, National Mediation
Board''.
Sec. 505. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry
out any program of distributing sterile needles for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug unless the Secretary
of Health and Human Services determines that such programs
are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not
encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Sec. 506. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
Sec. 507. When issuing statements, press releases, requests
for proposals, bid solicitations and other documents
describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part
with Federal money, all grantees receiving Federal funds,
including but not limited to State and local governments and
recipients of Federal research grants, shall clearly state
(1) the percentage of the total costs of the program or
project which will be financed with Federal money, (2) the
dollar amount of Federal funds for the project or program,
and (3) percentage and dollar amount of the total costs of
the project or program that will be financed by
nongovernmental sources.
Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made
known to the Federal entity or official to which funds are
appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary
to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the
result of an act of rape or incest.
Sec. 509. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) no amount may be transferred from an appropriation
account for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education except as authorized in this or any
subsequent appropriation act, or in the Act establishing the
program or activity for which funds are contained in this
Act;
(2) no department, agency, or other entity, other than the
one responsible for administering the program or activity for
which an appropriation is made in this Act, may exercise
authority for the timing of the obligation and expenditure of
such appropriation, or for the purposes for which it is
obligated and expended, except to the extent and in the
manner otherwise provided in sections 1512 and 1513 of title
31, United States Code; and
(3) no funds provided under this Act shall be available for
the salary (or any part thereof) of an employee who is
reassigned on a temporary detail basis to another position in
the employing agency or department or in any other agency or
department, unless the detail is independently approved by
the head of the employing department or agency.
Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the expenses of an electronic benefit transfer
(EBT) task force.
Sec. 511. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce the requirements of section
428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 with
respect to any lender when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that the lender has a loan portfolio under part B of title IV
of such Act that is equal to or less than $5,000,000.
Sec. 512. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research
purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are
destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death greater than that allowed for research on
fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and section 498(b)
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``human embryo
or embryos'' include any organism, not protected as a human
subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of
this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis,
cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the National Labor Relations Board to assert
jurisdiction over any labor dispute when it is made known to
the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend
such funds that--
(1) the labor dispute does not involve any class or
category of employer over which the Board would assert
jurisdiction under the standards prevailing on August 1,
1959, with each financial threshold amount adjusted for
inflation by--
(A) using changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban
consumers published by the Department of Labor;
(B) using as the base period the later of (i) the most
recent calendar quarter ending before the financial threshold
amount was established; or (ii) the calendar quarter ending
June 30, 1959; and
(C) rounding the adjusted financial threshold amount to the
nearest $10,000; and
(2) the effect of the labor dispute on interstate commerce
is not otherwise sufficiently substantial to warrant the
exercise of the Board's jurisdiction.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide any direct benefit or assistance to any
individual in the United States when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expend such
funds that--
(1) the individual is not lawfully within the United
States; and
(2) the benefit or assistance to be provided is other than
emergency medical assistance or a benefit mandated by the
federal courts to be provided by the State.
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except for the following
amendments which shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment, except as specified, or to a demand for a division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall be
debatable for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and a Member opposed:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hefley for 5 minutes; amendment No. 5 by Mrs.
Lowey for 30 minutes; amendment No. 23 by Mr. Gutknecht for 10 minutes;
unnumbered amendment by Mr. Campbell for 10 minutes; unnumbered
amendment by either Mr. Thomas or Mr. Bunning, and a substitute if
offered by Mr. Hoyer, for 20 minutes; amendment No. 1 by Mr. Istook,
and a substitute if offered by Mr. Obey, for 30 minutes; either
amendment No. 12 or 13 by Mr. Sanders for 10 minutes; amendment No. 14
by Mr. Sanders for 10 minutes; amendment No. 15 by Mr. Solomon for 5
minutes; amendment No. 16 by Mr. Solomon for 5 minutes; amendment No.
18 by Mr. Campbell for 20 minutes; unnumbered amendment by
[[Page H7330]]
Mr. Roemer for 10 minutes; unnumbered amendment by Mr. Traficant for 5
minutes; amendment No. 28 by Mr. McIntosh for 10 minutes; and either
amendment No. 7 or 29 by Mr. Mica for 5 minutes.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], as chairman of the committee I wanted to ask you
a few questions, if I can, regarding a subject very close to both of
us, and that is the domestic violence programs under the Violence
Against Woman Act. I understand that the current bill now calls for
$63.4 million in the new bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, yes, that is
correct.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this
represents a 15 percent increase in the programs in a bipartisan bill,
including the Chrysler amendment for $2.4 million.
Mr. PORTER. Again, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I further understand that this
legislation is forward thinking and consistent with all the goals of
this Congress in helping women avoiding domestic violence problems to
children and families and includes also additional funding for battered
women shelters.
Mr. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. And the rape prevention and services and the
domestic violence hotline; is that correct?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, it is.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman,
thanks to him and the rest of the committee, and especially for his
leadership as being someone who in a bipartisan way helped us forge, I
think for the next generation of families, decrease in domestic
violence and increase in family unity because of his leadership in
these programs. And I thank him for his efforts in this regard.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]; and
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
amendment offered by mr. obey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 227, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 303]
AYES--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--227
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Dunn
Gibbons
Hayes
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Schumer
Young (FL)
{time} 1912
Mrs. KENNELLY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mrs. lowey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Lowey]
on which further proceedings were
[[Page H7331]]
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 294,
noes 129, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 304]
AYES--294
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zimmer
NOES--129
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bliley
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Everett
Fields (TX)
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kim
King
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Myers
Nethercutt
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Vucanovich
Walker
Watts (OK)
White
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--10
Boehner
Dunn
Edwards
Gibbons
Hayes
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Schumer
Young (FL)
{time} 1021
Mrs. ROUKEMA changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: Page 83, after line 8,
insert the following:
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed will each
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. Anyone who would
place a fraudulent ``Made in America'' label on an import would be
ineligible to compete on any contract or subcontract under this bill,
and be subject to debarment and suspension under laws already
established.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say on this side we have no
objection to the amendment, and accept it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin for all the help over the years on appropriation bills with
these measures.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the
amendment on this side, and we accept it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hefley: Page 71, line 6,
after the dollar amount, insert the following ``(reduced by
$1,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and a Member opposed will each
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I many consume.
Mr. Chairman, both sides have agreed to the amendment. This is the
amendment to strike $1 million from the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, the $1 million that goes to the Pacifica
[[Page H7332]]
Radio Network. For several years we have offered this amendment. We
have passed it in the House. This year we hope it would get through the
entire process.
Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have offered amendments to the Labor/
HHS/Education appropriations bills to decrease Federal funding for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1 million. I now ask again for
a $1 million reduction in CPB appropriations because this is roughly
the amount of money that the Pacifica Radio Network receives each year
from the CPB.
Based in Berkeley, CA, Pacifica is a network of 5 radio stations with
at least 57 affiliates that carry its news service and talk shows. I
believe the Federal Government should stop pumping dollars into
Pacifica--via the CPB--and stop footing the bill for the outrageous
hate programming Pacifica has distributed.
Let me list a few examples of the racist, anti-Semitic programming
that has spewed out of Pacifica's networks for at least 30 years.
In 1969 Pacifica's New York station broadcast an anti-Semitic poem
written by a young black girl with lines like, ``Hey, Jew Boy with the
yarmulke on your head/You pale-faced Jew Boy, I wish you were dead.''
In 1983 Pacifica's Washington, DC station permitted its announcer to
``tell potential presidential assassins to use more powerful guns than
John Hinckley used'' when he tried to kill President Reagan.
During Pacifica's ``Afrikan Mental Liberation Weekend'' in 1993, the
network allowed its guest, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, to
state that Jews are a ``pale horse with death as its rider and hell
close behind.'' A caller to the show then suggested, ``The Jews haven't
seen anything yet * * *. What is going to happen to them is going to
make what Hitler did seem like a party.''
And just this year, the Pacifica network in Berkeley aired a show in
which a guest claimed that ``the U.S. Congress and the White House are
Israel occupied territory.''
Now I don't have anything against free speech--nor do I want to
monitor Pacifica's programming schedule. However, I do not want to
force the American taxpayer to subsidize this kind of programming at
Pacifica. Let the network produce such shows on their own dollar--that
is what they claim to be doing anyway! Pacifica states that it is the
``nation's first listener-supported, community-based radio network.''
And private donations to this network have increased over the years. So
I would think that Pacifica could get along fine without Federal
funding to support their broadcasts.
The government should not be in the business of promoting radio shows
that fan the flames of racism and hatred. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I
submit my amendment to reduce the funding for the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting by $1 million. Let's put a halt to the Federal
funds flowing into the Pacifica Radio Network.
Mr. Chairman, if I am correct that both sides have agreed to accept
it, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my vigorous support
for continued Federal funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and my opposition to the Hefley amendment. The CPB
provides countless hours of joy, education and entertainment to over
one hundred million Americans each week. Through stations and projects
that range from public television, to radio programming, to the World
Wide Web, the CPB reaches virtually every household in America with a
television, radio, or computer.
The average American child will watch more than 4,000 hours of
television by kindergarten. The CPB helps parents to use the television
as an educational tool. Few American children have not explored the
depth of their imagination as they watched the Land of Make Believe
with Mr. Rogers. And as Americans continue the life-long learning
process, the CPB provides such classics as Masterpiece Theater, Great
Performances and a plethora of documentaries exploring diverse subjects
in a depth rarely found elsewhere. In short, CPB programs have become
an integral part of American life.
CPB programs extend to the Internet as well. In 15 projects across
the country, students consult experts online, publishing their writings
and receiving educational assistance on the World Wide Web.
In areas of our Nation where the local newspaper is published just
once a week, public radio is one of the few sources of daily local news
and live events, functioning as a lifeline for many. In addition, CPB
radio service provides radio reading service for the blind.
For a mere one dollar and nine cents per American, we can offer
Americans a chance to learn, explore and expose themselves to ideas
they would not otherwise have free access to. Federal funding of CPB
must be kept at the highest level possible.
At a time when many in Congress are concerned about the violent and
offensive content on commercial television, it is especially surprising
to find so much hostility directed at the CPB which produces some of
the best educational and family entertainment available.
All of the programs and services I have just mentioned would be put
at risk by the Hefley amendment. This amendment seeks to stop Federal
funding for Pacifica-Radio because of what Mr. Hefley claims to be
antisemitic and racist programming. I have been informed by the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting that the comments Mr. Hefley is
concerned with were made by callers to shows, not by the hosts of the
program. In fact, it is included in Pacifica-Radio's own charter that
antisemitic or bigoted remarks about any group are grounds for a
programs removal from the air.
In addition, this amendment would not accomplish its purported goal.
Congress set up specific guidelines as to how CPB awards its radio
grants. CPB does not have the discretion to deny a grant because they
do not like a program and/or its content. If a grant applicant meets
the criteria set forth by Congress, CPB is obligated to award the
grant. Cutting an arbitrary $1 million will not end broadcasts by
Pacifica, but it will hinder all the worthwhile work done by the CPB.
We may well strongly disagree with or dislike comments made in many
broadcast arenas. When such comments are made, it is our responsibility
to condemn those comments, not to make an across-the-board cut from the
budget which funds the very worthwhile programming provided by the CPB.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hefley amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley]
will be postponed.
amendment offered by mr. roemer
Mr. ROEMER. 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. Roemer: Page 87, after line 14,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. The amount provided in this Act for ``DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION--Student financial assistance'' is increased;
and each of the amounts provided in this Act for ``DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration--
Salaries and expenses'', ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Employment
Standards Administration--Salaries and expenses'',
``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Occupational Safety and Health
Administration--Salaries and expenses'', ``DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR--Mine Safety and Health Administration--Salaries and
expenses'', ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Bureau of Labor
Statistics--Salaries and expenses'', ``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--
Departmental Management--Salaries and expenses'',
``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--National
Institutes of Health--Office of the director'', ``DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--National Institutes of Health--
Buildings and facilities'', ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--
Departmental Management--Program administration'', ``Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service--Salaries and expenses'',
``Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission--Salaries
and expenses'', ``National Council on Disability--Salaries
and expenses'', ``National Labor Relations Board--Salaries
and expenses'', ``National Mediation Board--Salaries and
expenses'', ``Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission--Salaries and expenses'', ``Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission--Salaries and expenses'', and ``United
States Institute of Peace--Operating expenses'', are reduced;
by $340,000,000 and 15 percent, respectively.
Mr. ROEMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is recognized
for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
{time} 1930
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on the front page of the USA Today, the article right
here
[[Page H7333]]
says, ``College Dropout Rate Hits All-time High.'' College dropout rate
hits all-time high.
One of the reasons that the college dropout rate is hitting an all-
time high, according to this article and according to a score of
students that I have talked to in the third district of Indiana, is
because the cost of college continues to escalate higher and higher and
we are unable to provide enough sufficient aid through Pell grants and
Stafford loans and student assistance programs to adequately keep many
of these students, especially moderate and low-income students, in the
school.
Let me give further evidence, Mr. Chairman. The AP story again,
leading off the wire today, quote, ``A combination of rising tuitions,
increased job opportunity, a growing economy and concerns about student
aid can lead to more students not returning to school,'' unquote.
I give a certain amount of credit to the Republican Party for
increasing the Pell grant this year by $25. $25, Mr. Chairman, maybe
will buy a textbook for the student to go to Indiana University.
If we were keeping up with inflation-adjusted Pell grants to make
sure that we make the best investment possible for our students, Pell
grant maximums would be at $4,300 today. In this bill today they are at
$2,500. My amendment would simply take the $2,500 level up to $2,600
and have an offset to pay for it by taking it out of salaries and
expenses in the Department of Labor and the Department of Education. So
there are offsets for this. It is revenue neutral.
Let me further say, Mr. Chairman, that when the Pell grant was in
effect several years ago, it covered about 50 percent of the costs of
college. So if your tuition at Indiana University was $3,000, it would
roughly cover about $1,500 of that. Today the Pell grant barely covers
20 percent of the cost of students going to college.
Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons that we need to do something
about bringing this Pell grant up.
I intended to offer this amendment today before having discussions
with the Secretary of Education today and members of the Republican
party, both on the House side and the Senate side, and I understand
that Senator Hatfield and others are going to try to increase the
602(b) allocations and put about $1.3 billion more into the education
account.
In a conversation today with Secretary Riley, he said that he would
be willing to work with Members of Congress to see that a great deal of
this $1.3 billion be put into the Pell grant program so that we can
make this the best investment possible, and, that is, making sure that
our students are able to go to college.
We have a larger and larger gap, Mr. Chairman, between the haves and
the have-nots in our society. The haves generally have a college
education or generally have the ability to get to a two-year college.
The have-nots are increasingly cut out of education opportunities and
their future. My amendment puts a great deal of emphasis on what has
been the foundation, the cornerstone of helping our young people get to
college and that is the Pell grant.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer] has 1 minute remaining, and a Member opposed would have 5
minutes. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the
gentleman is going to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. That was my intention. I was hopeful that the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] would be on the floor, and I had hoped that
he might say a couple of things about how important the Pell grant is
in terms of helping us get our young people in college. But he
obviously is not on the floor at this time.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] is
recognized in opposition for 5 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply suggest, I know the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] is probably trying to get a bite to eat just like I am
going to be trying to get a bite to eat. I am sure that both of us
would like to see additional funding for Pell grants. I think we have
considerable concern about making the kind of reductions we would have
to make in some of the worker protection agencies, for instance, in
order to fund this.
Let me simply say it is my hope that the Senate is going to be adding
some money to Pell grants, and if they do, I certainly will want to see
funding added in conference. I thank the gentleman for raising the
issue and thank him for being willing to withdraw the amendment and
work with us to try to produce a better number in conference.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire who has the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
has the time at the moment in opposition to the amendment, and the
gentleman from Indiana has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to respond to the gentleman and say that
we have put Pell grants at a very high priority. We raised them to the
highest level in history with the largest increase in history last year
and are raising them again this year. I very much share the gentleman's
concern about Pell grants, and we will work with him to see what we can
work out in the final conference report and negotiations with the White
House.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I certainly
applaud President Clinton and Secretary Riley for what they are tying
to do for higher education and higher education costs. I thank the
gentleman from Illinois for his comments and certainly the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his work on this amendment.
College tuition costs, Mr. Chairman, have doubled in the last 10
years. So we need to do more than increase this to $2,500, even though
it is the highest level ever. It should be at $4,300, not $2,500. So I
would encourage the members of this Committee on Appropriations in the
conference committee to put as much of that $1.3 billion as possible
back into the Pell grant program so that we do not see the dropout rate
that we are seeing noted in the AP stories and on the front page of the
USA Today.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is bipartisan agreement that Pell grants
do need help, and I would hope that we would work together with the
Secretary of Education, Mr. Riley, and Republicans and Democrats
together to see this increased in the conference committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 87, after
line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances. None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used for any activity when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the activity promotes the
legalization of any drug or other substance included in
schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances
established by section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that there is
significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to
the use of such drug or other substance.
amendment as modified offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute a
[[Page H7334]]
modified amendment which has been approved by the manager of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Solomon:
Page 87, after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Promotion of
Legalization of Controlled Substances.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used for any activity when
it is made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the activity promotes the
legalization of any drug or other substance included in
schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances
established by section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 812).
(b) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that there is
significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to
the use of such drug or other substance or that Federally-
sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine
therapeutic advantage.
Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] and a Member opposed, each will control 2\1/2\
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, what my amendment would do would be to say that none of
the funds available under this bill could be used to promote the
legalization of currently listed illegal drugs in this country.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health and Human Services recently
reported that since 1992, marijuana use among young people has
increased an average of 50 percent per year. Even more disturbing,
since 1992, marijuana use jumped 137 percent among 12- and 13-year-
olds, and even worse, 200 percent among 14- and 15-year-olds. Nearly
1.3 million more young people are smoking marijuana today than in 1992.
Without laws that make drug use illegal, experts estimate that three
times as many Americans will use illegal drugs, and we know that an
increase in drug abuse leads to an increase in violence and domestic
abuse.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my amendment would be accepted. It is
terribly important for the young people of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, President Clinton recently asserted that drug use has
dropped over the past 3 years. This is simply not true.
The truth is that during the Reagan-Bush years, drug use dropped from
24 million in 1979 to 11 million in 1992. Unfortunately, those hard
fought gains have been wasted. Under president Clinton's watch this
trend has been reversed and drug use is again on the rise.
I think Americans need to ask themselves during this Presidential
election year, ``Is my child better off today than he was 4 years
ago?''
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health and Human Services
recently reported that since 1992, marijuana use among young people has
increased an average of 50 percent per year. Even more disturbing,
since 1992 marijuana use jumped 137 percent among 12-13 year olds and
200 percent among 14-15 year olds. Nearly 1.3 million more young people
are smoking marijuana today than in 1992.
Without laws that make drug use illegal, experts estimate that three
times as many Americans will use illicit drugs. And we know that an
increase in drug abuse leads to an increase in violence and domestic
abuse.
It is for these troubling reasons that I am offering this amendment
today. My amendment is simple--none of the funds available under this
bill can be used to promote the legalization of drugs.
However, my amendment would still allow the study and research of
substances in Schedule I for medical purposes. If it was discovered
that there was significant medical evidence that the drug is an
effective and safe medical treatment then nothing in this amendment
would preclude anyone from bringing the drug to market.
In a speech last year entitled ``Why the U.S. Will Never Legalize
Drugs,'' our Nation's drug czar, Lee Brown called drug legalization the
moral equivalent of genocide.
Legalizing addictive, mind altering drugs is an invitation to
disaster for communities that are already under siege. Making drugs
more readily available would only propel more individuals into a life
of crime and violence.
In fact, current statistics show that nearly half of all men arrested
for homicide and assault test positive for illegal drugs at the time of
arrest.
According to the Partnership for a Drug Free America, 1 out of every
10 babies in the United States is born addicted to drugs. Infants and
children living with drug-addicted parents are at the highest risk of
abandonment or abuse. A study in Boston found that substance abuse was
a factor in 89 percent of all abuse cases involving infants.
Listen to the words of Joseph Califano, former Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare and the current president of the National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. ``Drugs are
not dangerous because they are illegal; they are illegal because they
are dangerous. Not all children who use illegal drugs will become
addicts, but all children, particularly the poorest, are vulnerable to
abuse and addiction. Russian roulette is not a game anyone should play.
Legalizing drugs is not only playing Russian roulette with our
children. It's slipping a couple of extra bullets in the chamber.''
This amendment simply reaffirms our government's policy that Schedule
I drugs should not be legalized.
Those members who support the legalization of drugs should not
support this amendment. But those members that want to show the people
of this country that we are committed to providing a better future for
our children and grandchildren--please vote ``yes.''
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we think it is a good amendment and accept
it.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 2\1/2\ minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I take the time to simply make the statement that I do
not intend to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I am still
concerned. I do not want to put any impediment in the way of persons
who are dying of painful diseases and who can find some relief from
pain from the use of marijuana in a medically prescribed way.
I reserve the right in conference to make certain that we are not,
from the floor of the House where everybody is healthy and comfortable,
causing problems for people who are sick or are in pain.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that I have
done extensive research on this matter. The American Medical
Association supports this amendment because they feel it in no way
would hinder the treatment of patients with cancer, which I have had a
lot of that in my own personal life and family. So I assure the
gentleman we do not intend to do that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I withdraw my
objection and would accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 87, after
line 14, insert the following new sections:
Sec. 515. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to
Campus.--None of the funds made available in this Act may be
provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds
to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher
education when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
institution (or any subelement thereof) has a policy or
practice.
[[Page H7335]]
(regardless of when implemented) that prohibits, or in effect
prevents--
(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a unit
of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance
with section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and other
applicable Federal laws) at the institution or subelement);
or
(2) a student at the institution (or subelement) from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps at another institution of higher education.
(b) Exception.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 516. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing Federal
Military Recruiting on Campus.--None of the funds made
available in this Act may be provided by contract or grant
(including a grant of funds to be available for student aid)
to any institution of higher education when it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that the institution (or any subelement
thereof) has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that prohibits, or in effect prevents--
(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17
years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of Federal
military recruiting; or
(2) access to the following information pertaining to
students (who are 17 years of age or older) for purposes of
Federal military recruiting: student names, addresses,
telephone listings, dates and places of birth, levels of
education, degrees received, prior military experience; and
the most recent previous educational institutions enrolled in
by the students
(b) Exception.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 517. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
today, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and a Member opposed
each will control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo] has passed the House several times, most
recently on the VA-HUD appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, in many places across the country, military recruiters
are being denied access to educational facilities, preventing
recruiters from explaining the benefits of an honorable career in our
Armed Forces to our young people. Likewise, ROTC units have been kicked
off several campuses around the country.
What my amendment would intend to do would be to prohibit any of
these funds from going to contractors or colleges or universities that
do not allow military recruiters on campus to offer these honorable
careers in our military or where they have a policy of banning Reserve
Officer Training Corps organizations on their campus I would hope that
the Members would once again unanimously approve this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment today would simply prevent any funds
appropriated in this act from going to institutions of higher learning
which prevent military recruiting on their campus or have an anti-ROTC
policy.
Mr. Chairman, institutions that are receiving Federal taxpayer money
just cannot be able to then turn their back on the young people who
defend this country.
It is really a matter of simple fairness, and that is why this
amendment has always received such strong bipartisan support and become
law for Defense Department funds.
Mr. Chairman, recruiting is the key to our all-volunteer military
forces, which have been such a spectacular success.
Recruiters have been able to enlist such promising volunteers for our
Armed Forces by going into high schools and colleges and informing
young people of the increased opportunities that a military tour or
career can provide.
That is why we need this amendment.
A third part of the amendment would also deny contracts or grants to
institutions that are not in compliance with the law that they submit
an annual report on veterans hiring practices to the Department of
Labor.
In the same vein, this is simple common sense and fairness to the
people who defend our country, Mr. Chairman.
All we are doing here is asking for compliance with existing law.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we believe this is also a good amendment
and would accept it.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1945
Amendment Offered by Mr. SANDERS
Mr. SANDERS. 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. Sanders: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for Agreements for
Department of Drugs.--None of the funds made available in
this Act may be used by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to enter into--
(1) an agreement on the conveyance or licensing of a patent
for a drug, or another exclusive right to a drug;
(2) an agreement on the use of information derived from
animal tests or human clinical trials conducted by the
Department of Health and Human Services on a drug, including
an agreement under which such information is provided by the
Department of Health and Human Services to another on an
exclusive basis; or
(3) a cooperative research and development agreement under
section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a) pertaining to a drug.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend the funds involved that--
(1) the sale of the drug involved is subject to a
reasonable price agreement; or
(2) a reasonable price agreement regarding the sale of such
drug is not required by the public interest.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as many Members know, the U.S. taxpayer is the single
largest supporter of biomedical research in the world, spending $33
billion in 1994 alone for biomedical and related health research.
Unfortunately, our taxpayers are unwittingly being forced to pay twice
for drugs because this Congress is deeply beholden to the very
profitable giant drug companies.
Members heard it right, our constituents are not getting a fair
return on the investment of their hard-earned money, paying twice for
pharmaceutical breakthroughs, first as taxpayers and second as
consumers. This harms consumers, and it is a form of corporate welfare
to many of the world's largest corporations.
The bottom line of this amendment is that when taxpayers spend
billions and billions of dollars in developing a new drug, the taxpayer
as a consumer should get a break and we should not be giving all of
this research over to the private industry who then sells the product
to our consumers at outrageous profits.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say on this side of the aisle I
will be willing to accept the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a
good public interest amendment.
[[Page H7336]]
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is repeating his amendment that was
defeated last year on a 141-284 vote. It relates to the reasonable
pricing clause that was in effect for NIH cooperative research and
development agreements, CRADA's, and license agreements until April
1995.
This provision was originally put in place in response to public
concern about the pricing of the AIDS drug AZT, even though AZT had not
been developed through a CRADA or exclusive license. It was
controversial from the start, and NIH decided to conduct an extensive
review of the policy. They held public hearings, consulted with
scientists, patient and consumer advocates, and representatives of
academia and industry.
The director of NIH, Dr. Varmus, concluded after this review that,
and I quote. ``The pricing clause has driven industry away from
potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with Public Health
Service scientists without providing an offsetting benefit to the
public.''
The review also indicated that NIH research was adversely affected by
an inability of NIH scientists to obtain compounds from industry for
basic research purposes. No other Federal agency has a reasonable
pricing clause. No law or regulation expressly requires or permits NIH
to enforce such a provision. No comparable provision exists for NIH
extramural grantees like universities to impose price controls on the
licensees of products they develop with NIH funds.
Contrary to the impression some may have, the principal function of
NIH research is not to develop drugs. NIH supports the basic research
that is the foundation for the applied research that the drug companies
do. NIH focuses on research that is critical for eventual application,
but which is not specific enough to meet the profitability test that
private industry requires.
The drug companies focus their research on bringing products to
market and their investment is considerable. In 1994, the industry
supported almost $14 billion in health research and development, which
is more than half the entire U.S. public and private investment.
While it is appealing to think that reimposing the reasonable pricing
clause may lower health care costs and benefits to consumers, we must
face the possibility that it will drive drug companies out of their
collaborative ventures with NIH and ultimately deny patients access to
important lifesaving drugs.
I doubt that anyone in this Chamber has a detailed understanding of
the impact of this complex issue. I would like to rely on Dr. Varmus'
judgment in this matter and the decision of the Clinton administration.
I might add, I would hope that Congress does not try to intervene, and
for these reasons I must strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders
amendment. Consider the case of levamisole. Eleven million dollars in
N.I.H. research lead to the discovery that this drug to prevent worms
in sheep could also prevent some 7,000 cancer deaths each year. No
pharmaceutical company paid for this research, the American taxpayer
did. But, what happened when a pharmaceutical company entered the
picture? A drug that costs 6 cents a dose for sheep skyrocketed to $6 a
dose for colon cancer patients.
A few years ago, the television program ``Primetime Live''
highlighted the problem of levamisole costs in the State of Florida. In
Florida, some people were so desperate for levamisole they turned to
the black market, where sheep pills are ground up into human-sized
doses.
Asked about that price differential between the sheep and human
products, the pharmaceutical executives simply said, ``A sheep farmer
probably would not pay $6 a pill,'' but, ``someone dying of cancer that
pays $1,200 for a treatment regimen, whose life is saved, is getting
one of the most cost-effective treatments they can ever get.''
Well, I resent paying for the development of a drug and then paying
100 times what a sheep farmer pays for it.
This is an outrageous abuse of public funds. Let's make sure we get
our money's worth on our investment. Support the Sanders amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTER. I have the right to close, am I correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Sanders amendment to restore a reasonable pricing clause for drugs that
are developed at taxpayer expense. Let me make it clear, this affects,
this amendment only affects those drugs that are developed at
taxpayers' expense. It does not affect any drugs that are developed
solely by the private sector and by the pharmaceutical companies
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of taxpayer accountability.
Taxpayers who fund this biomedical research to the tune of billions of
dollars should not be forced to pay excessive prices for the drugs that
they themselves have helped develop, but that is exactly what is
happening.
Mr. Chairman, the drug companies are now free, after getting
taxpayers' money to develop their product, to gouge those very same
people 10, 20 times the cost of their own product. They charge that to
the American people who are paying for their research. The American
people end up paying twice.
Now, is that not nice? This is a corporate form of welfare, and it
has got to stop. Drug companies are making fortunes off the backs of
working people. If they developed the product themselves at their own
expense, the Government should not step in. But we have continually
said in this Congress that we want to cut down the expenses of
Government, cut down welfare. This is welfare for the rich, for the
corporations. The American people should not be insulted by being
forced to pay for the research of a company who then turns around and
gouges them for the price of the product that has been developed.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Vermont for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about simply fairness. It says that
when taxpayers foot the bill for research, they should not have to pay
again for it at the drug counter. We invest millions of dollars in
pharmaceutical research. More than 40 percent of all U.S. health care
research and development comes from the U.S. taxpayer.
This amendment, the Sanders amendment, says that drugs developed with
taxpayer dollars cannot be sold back to the taxpayers at excessive
prices. Without a reasonable pricing clause, the taxpayers pay to
develop the drug, only to get their pockets picked when they go to the
pharmacy.
In the 1990's, the drug industry was the Nation's most profitable,
with an annual profit of 13.6 percent, more than triple the average of
the Fortune 500 companies. So while the argument goes that they invest
a great deal in R&D, there is plenty left over for them to give back to
the taxpayer, and that is what this amendment calls for.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to repeat that we have already
voted on this. It lost by a margin of better than two-to-one the last
time it was voted on.
There are times when we simply have to trust the officials that we
have chosen. The Clinton administration has chosen Dr. Varmus to head
the NIH. He
[[Page H7337]]
has looked into this extensively. He believes very strongly that this
amendment is ill-advised. He believes that it is counterproductive to
achieving the purpose for which it is intended, and I would simply urge
Members to listen to his professional and scientific judgment and to
reject the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell: Page 87, line 12, strike
``or'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 87, line 14, insert before the period the following:
; or public health assistance for immunizations with respect
to immunizable diseases, testing and treatment for
communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are
actually caused by a communicable disease
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that this will not be a controversial
amendment at all.
A bit of background. An amendment was added to the original bill by
my colleague and friend from California [Mr. Riggs] putting a
restriction on the funding of any benefits where the Federal official
in charge of distributing those benefits was aware that the recipient
was an illegal alien, not legally present in the United States. To his
own amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] added an
exception, the exception being where the kind of service was
appropriate to a medical emergency.
But this language was not parallel with the language that is
presently in conference in the immigration bill. That language covers
not only medical emergencies but communicable diseases. I, therefore,
went to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and asked whether he
would have any objection to making his language conform to the language
in the immigration bill by the addition of the language in my
amendment. He informed me it was agreeable, and it is my hope that the
minority will also find it agreeable, and at the appropriate time I
will yield to my colleague from Colorado who might have another request
on this point.
This amendment would add an additional exception, to guarantee that
medical service is provided for communicable diseases and those
symptoms of conditions that may reflect communicable diseases, even if
they do not actually reflect communicable diseases, because obviously
the sick person, the individual who is ill would not know if the
symptoms of which he or she complains were caused by a communicable
condition or not.
So the entirety of the amendment adds to the exceptions such public
health assistance for immunications with respect to immunizable
diseases, and treatment for symptoms of communicable disease, whether
or not such symptoms are actually caused by a communicable disease.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
{time} 2000
modification to amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's amendment
be modified by language that has been filed at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] yield
for the purpose of that request?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I was attempting to accommodate the
gentleman. If the Chair would instruct me as to the proper way to
proceed, I would do so.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is trying to ascertain whether or not the
gentleman has yielded to the gentleman from Colorado for the purpose of
allowing a modification.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I did indeed. That is a correct statement, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the modification.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
modification be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do so for
the simple reason that I have not had a chance to confer with the
gentleman from Colorado or see his language.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to explain it to the
gentleman. Through understandable and good faith inadvertence, this
particular item was not dealt with in the catalog of pending items. It
has, I think, agreement on the part of both sides, having to do with
really requiring a report on an MSHA matter. I do not believe there is
any controversy. I appreciate the gentleman's forbearance.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I am
reliably informed that the gentleman's unanimous-consent request is not
really germane to the issue which concerns me, which is the language
that I inserted in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] to dispense with the reading of the modification?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The modification is agreed to.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. SKAGGS; At the end
of the amendment, add the following:
Sec. . The Mine Safety and Health Administration shall
not close or relocate any safety and health technology center
until after submitting to the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives a detailed analysis of the cost
savings anticipated from such action and the effects of such
action on the provision of services, including timely on-site
assistance during mine emergencies.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the amendment offered by my
good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], is an
important amendment. It does have the effect of perfecting or refining
the language that I incorporated into the committee bill during the
full committee markup.
My amendment in the full committee was intended, as the gentleman
knows, to codify and strengthen current law by prohibiting the use of
any funds provided under this legislation to provide any illegal alien
with any direct benefit under the jurisdiction of the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, with the exception of
emergency medical services or those services and benefits mandated by
the Federal courts that the States provide to illegal aliens.
Mr. Chairman, I want to mention that my amendment was intended to
mirror language in California's Proposition 187, which was a statewide
ballot initiative, and it ultimately became a referendum in our State.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no time left to reserve; is that
correct?
[[Page H7338]]
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell] has expired.
Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Campbell amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the amendment offered by
my esteemed colleague from California.
While he is trying to temper the language Mr. Riggs included in the
bill to restrict Federal benefits to undocumented individuals, we need
more than tempering, we need to defer to the committees with
jurisdiction.
Let me reiterate what I said in committee--
We ought to let these difficult and complex issues be sorted out by
the committees in charge of immigration law, rather than as part of the
appropriations process.
The amendment offered by Mr. Campbell provides an exception for only
one of many programs that are provided under this bill. It does not
provide for an exception for compensatory education for the
disadvantaged, special education, worker safety programs, substance
abuse and mental health services, child welfare services, family
support and preservation programs and many others.
In committee, I tried to strike the restrictive language that Mr.
Riggs offered in subcommittee--in this effort I was seeking to permit
the authorizers to do their work. To my dismay, my amendment lost by a
close vote, 23 to 24.
Mr. Chairman, we have an immigration bill awaiting conference that
addresses these very concerns. Both the House and Senate bills would
eliminate the eligibility of unlawful immigrants to all Federal
programs funded in whole or in part by Federal, State, or local
government funds, with certain exceptions.
I am extremely wary of the application of the language in section
514. It is not known how it would affect the expenditure of funds by
State and local entities nor how it would affect the ability of non-
profits and churches to use their own funds to assist ineligible
immigrants in affected programs.
I am also wary of the likely increase in discrimination against
Hispanics and Asians. The unfortunate result may be that some
eligibility workers act out their prejudices by denying services to
those they think are here unlawfully, because of appearance, accent or
other characteristics.
By applying willy-nilly the restriction of Federal funds to children,
to the elderly and to the poor, the results are much more complex than
saving a few dollars.
Let me tell you why:
No. 1, in most cases it is already illegal to provide Federal
benefits to undocumented individuals.
No. 2, in the case where the courts mandate the provision of Federal
benefits, will we restrict benefits that may be associated with that
program? Take the case of education, will this bill restrict the
provision of Head Start or assistance in raising math and science
education levels or vocational education?
The bill, in effect, would permit these children to go to school, but
not enjoy any of the tools to get an education.
Let me conclude my remarks regarding this provision by reading from a
letter sent to members of the Appropriations Committee from Education
Secretary Riley:
I am writing you concerning Section 514 of the 1997 Labor-
HHS-Education Appropriations bill. This provision, which was
added during subcommittee consideration, is extremely vague
and its intent and likely impact are both highly unclear. As
you know, the Administration is strongly opposed to any
provision that might be read to jeopardize any child's right
to full participation in public elementary and secondary
education, including preschool programs.
I ask my colleagues to remember that we have a bill that addresses
this very issue. Ultimately, the Riggs language is pure political
folly--for the purpose of playing to the chorus of immigrant bashers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues take into consideration the
underlying intent of this Riggs language which Mr. Campbell has tried
to modify, when they vote on the Campbell amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TORRES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I believe that the amendment that I offered to the language of the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] improves the bill language and
that I am expanding the exceptions.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, number 14.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: At the end of the bill,
insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to make any payment to any health plan when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that such health plan prevents
or limits a health care provider's communications (other than
trade secrets or knowing misrepresentations) to--
(1) a current, former, or prospective patient, or a
guardian or legal representative of such patient;
(2) any employee or representative of any Federal or State
authority with responsibility for regulating the health plan;
or
(3) any employee or representative of the insurer offering
the health plan.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment, and I believe I
will be entering into a colloquy with the majority leader in a moment,
but before I do that I want to talk about what this amendment is about
and why we offered it.
This amendment touches on an issue that is of growing consequence to
tens of millions of Americans as this country moves from traditional
health care to HMO's and to managed care. What this amendment deals
with is the need to break the gag rules that are being imposed by
insurance companies and HMO's on our physicians and how they relate to
their patients.
It seems to me pretty clear that if a doctor-patient relationship
means anything, that when we walk into the doctor's office we want to
know that our physician is being honest with us, is telling us all of
the options that are available to us. We do not want to see that our
physicians cannot tell us an option because an HMO or an insurance
company might think that that option is too expensive and that that
insurance company has told the doctor not to convey that option to us.
That is not what the doctor-patient relationship is supposed to be
about.
That is what my amendment deals with, specifically with Medicare and
Medicaid. The fact of the matter is there is a bill moving past the
House, gaining widespread support, offered by the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Ganske] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], which
addresses this issue and makes it broader. It goes beyond Medicare and
Medicaid, dealing with all health care providers, and I strongly
support that bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that
would free Medicaid and Medicare patients from the gag rules imposed on
many health care professionals and their patients.
As a cosponsor of the Ganske-Markey-Nadler legislation and the author
of the Health Care Consumer Protection Act that would place many more
restrictions on HMO's, I am keenly aware of the dangerous effect that
can result from efforts to cut costs by HMO's at the expense of patient
care.
In many cases health care professionals are told they may not give
patients a full assessment of their health
[[Page H7339]]
care needs; they may not tell the patient the full truth about
available treatment options because it could cut the profit margin for
the HMO if the patient actually gets the treatment he or she needs.
Under these gag rules doctors are often compelled to lie to their
patients. Patients are prevented from receiving a true assessment of
their medical needs. This is nothing short of immoral.
Health care providers should not be barred from providing health
care. Patients seeking medical treatment have a right to an honest
assessment of their needs and of available treatment options. Patients
seeking medical treatment have a right to an honest assessment of their
needs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment that would lift the gag rule at least for Medicare and
Medicaid recipients.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]
intends to withdraw the amendment after he and I discuss a few points.
I wonder if I might, Mr. Chairman, address the gentleman by pointing
out that a majority leader will seek to bring a similar bill, H.R.
2976, before the House under suspension of the rules pending minority
approval.
{time} 2015
I understand the gentleman's concern that the bill be moved quickly
enough to allow action by both Houses before the end of the session,
and the majority leader will seek to accomplish that.
Let me just add, I know we have talked about this statement before,
but if the gentleman would bear with me, let me just add, as we have
discussed, of course, the majority leader will act in all good faith
and intention to accomplish precisely what I have said. But as the
gentleman understands, that will be done in full consideration of the
rights of any committee of jurisdiction to which jurisdiction has been
assigned. And I pledge to the gentleman my cooperation and my support
and my encouragement in this effort at each juncture along the line.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader very much for
his comments, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Vermont?
There was no objection.
amendment no. 5 offered by mrs. lowey
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mrs. Lowey: Page 85, line 14,
strike ``(a)''.
Page 85, line 15, strike the dash and all that follows
through ``(1)'' on line 16.
Page 85, line 17, strike ``; or'' and all that follows
through page 86, line 4, and insert a period.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and a Member opposed will each
be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment with the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] to strike the ban on early-stage embryo
research contained in this bill. The ban will bar the Federal
Government from pursuing lifesaving research.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the Lowey amendment to lift the current ban on Federal
funding for human embryo research. Lifting this ban would not allow the
creation of human embryos solely for research purposes. Embryos would
be donated by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment, who
would offer them after their treatment was successful.
These are pre-implantation embryos. We must keep in mind that this
kind of research does not involve human embryos or fetuses developed in
utero or aborted human fetal tissue.
Much like our current organ donor efforts, the donation of embryos
can improve the health and well-being of millions of Americans--and
even save lives. Human embryo research can enable hospitals to create
tissue banks which would store tissue that could be used for bone
marrow transplants, spinal cord injuries, and skin replacement for burn
victims.
Medical research on human embryos also shows promise for the
treatment and prevention of some forms of infertility, cancers, and
genetic disorders. This research may also lead to a reduction in
miscarriages and better contraceptive methods.
The National Institutes of Health and their human embryo research
panel has recommended how to address the important moral and ethical
issues raised by the use of human embryos in research. The panel
developed guidelines to govern this kind of federally funded research.
Their strict standards ensure that the promise of human benefit from
embryo research in compelling enough to justify the research project.
Most importantly, whether or not we allow Federal funding and
regulation of pre-implantation embryo research, this research will
continue to be done in the private sector, but without the consistent
ethical and scientific scrutiny that the Federal Government and NIH can
provide.
I know that our differences on this issue come from deeply held
religious and philosophical views. And those views, everyone's views,
need to be respected. But the potential therapeutic and scientific
benefit this research holds must be taken into account and the value of
Federal protocols governing this research is also important as we move
forward. Please support the Lowey amendment to allow this vital
research to continue.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who claims the time in opposition?
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Dickey] for 15 minutes.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a bill about research or science; it is an
attack on the sanctity of life. It is an attack on the moral conscience
of our Nation. The current law, as signed by the President, passed in
this House and the Senate, provides that there shall be no Federal
money given for the creation or the experimentation of a human embryo.
That law has been the law since President Carter signed an executive
order when he was President, and every President has done that since
then.
This is distinguished from fetal tissues, which is a legitimate,
though I have objections to it, a legitimate scientific effort. In that
particular matter, fetal tissue research comes after an abortion, and
we were told at that time that Parkinson's disease and diabetes was in
the scope of what we were trying to do. Here we have no direct promise,
no testimony, no science at all telling us that we might have anything
to come from this.
Mr. Chairman, this is what Nazi Germany did during that time. No
results. After 17 years of private research, there have been no
results. There is still no prohibition against the private research,
and it can still go on.
We might hear in this discussion that there is a spare-embryo
circumstance. There are no spare embryos when these are lives. We
cannot allow Federal funds to be used to terminate lives, for the
creation or the experimentation which is a lethal experimentation
because it is eliminating lives is not acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, just to respond to my dear friend, the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], I find it very offensive to compare this debate
to the activity in Nazi Germany. In fact, perhaps the gentleman
compares all the research that is being done at the National Institutes
of Health to Nazi Germany.
[[Page H7340]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very sensitive subject
obviously; one that NIH has looked into very, very extensively.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the testimony of Dr. Eric Wieschaus, who
won the Nobel Prize last fall for his work with embryo development, and
he testified in response to my question that he felt NIH should support
human embryo research.
Dr. Varmus, the head of NIH, has made compelling arguments to support
this research because of the potential advances it could generate in
knowledge about fertility, miscarriage, and contraception. It could
also lead to breakthroughs in the use of embryonic stem cells, which
have great promise in transplantation for treatment of diseases such as
leukemia, spinal cord injury, immune deficiencies, and blood disorders.
Mr. Chairman, the creation of spare embryos is a necessary and
inevitable part of in vitro fertilization and it seems to me, at the
very bottom line, that given the potentials for addressing and
overcoming and preventing human disease, their use in research gives
meaning to their existence which would otherwise simply not exist. They
would be discarded in the normal course of events.
Mr. Chairman, this would give meaning to their existence; would help
in biomedical breakthroughs; and I think the amendment of the
gentlewoman from New York for that reason deserves support, and I urge
Members to support it.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], cosponsor of this bill.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for
yielding time, and I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment and in
support of the language adopted by the Committee on Appropriations and
reported to this floor by a bipartisan vote.
The language that is in the legislation right now, Mr. Chairman, is
current law. It was adopted last year by the House of Representatives.
It was passed by the Senate. It was signed by President Clinton. We
have no threat of a veto if we keep this current language in the bill.
Let me try to frame this issue further by saying what this issue is
not about. This issue has nothing to do with the so-called woman's
right to choose. It has nothing to do with that aspect of the abortion
debate. It has nothing to do with fetal tissue research. That is a
separate issue entirely.
This issue also has nothing to do with making anything illegal. The
language that is in the committee bill would not make anything illegal.
It would permit private research which is ongoing to continue. Private
embryo research is legal now, and it would continue to be legal.
Further, the language that is in the bill now would not do anything
to the present status of in vitro fertilization or the private research
that is going on in that regard.
What the Lowey amendment would do, however, is cause our Government
to embark into an area of research which we have never, never before
been willing to do as a government. As the chairman of the subcommittee
stated, this is a very sensitive issue. It is also a very important
issue for millions of Americans. As a matter of fact, 76 percent of
Americans oppose funding for the type of research that the Lowey
amendment would sanction. This goes to the very profound questions of
human life and to very sensitive questions of bioethics.
Proponents of the Lowey amendment say there is a distinction between
spare embryos and embryos created for research purposes. But the
leading experts say there is no distinction. Let me quote Dr. Robert
Jansen of the National Health and Medical Research Council. He says,
It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and
specially created embryos in terms of embryo research. The
reason I say this is that any intelligent administrator of an
in vitro program can, by minor changes in his ordinary
clinical way of doing things, change the number of embryos
that are fertilized.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would begin this Government down a very
slippery slope. The Federal Government has never funded this research.
Let us leave it to the private sector, and let us respond to the 76
percent of Americans who say do not use tax dollars to fund embryo
research.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
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 support of the Lowey amendment
which would strike the bans on this research that could lead to
lifesaving results. Early-stage embryo research is vital as it has the
potential to address treatment and prevention of infertility, people
who want children, want to bring in life into this world.
It could lead to cures for childhood cancer and genetic disorders
such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, mental retardation and
Tay-Sachs. It could lead to the reduction, if not the elimination, of
miscarriages.
Why should the Government not conduct this research? The reason the
Government should conduct the research is that they have these embryos
that are otherwise going to be discarded.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to understand this is very
important research. The National Institutes of Health, through the
universities and other research centers throughout the country, is the
leading premier research activity in this Nation. We should not stop
the research that could lead to these important breakthroughs.
What this amendment does not involve: It does not involve genetic
engineering. It does not involve the sale or creation of embryos.
{time} 2030
It does not involve the examination or use of human embryos
developing inside the woman. Rather, the embryos to be used in this
research are to be donated by couples who have undergone various
medical treatments, including in vitro fertilization that helped them
conceive.
After the medical procedures are complete, these embryos are
otherwise just going to be discarded. In other words, the embryos used
in this type of research would be less than 14 days old. The amendment
would not permit the creation of embryos solely for research purposes.
I support the amendment.
I rise today in support of Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, which
would strike the ban on early-stage-embryo research. Essentially, this
amendment would permit life saving research on embryos, which would
otherwise be discarded.
Early-stage-embryo research is vital, as it has the potential to
address the treatment and prevention of infertility, childhood cancer,
and genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy,
mental retardation, and Tay-Sachs disease. It may help lead to the
reduction and prevention of miscarriages. Furthermore, early-stage-
embryo research could help us learn more about what causes birth
defects and ultimately teach us how to prevent them. And, it could also
improve the success of bone marrow transplants, repair spinal cord
injuries, and help develop improved methods of contraception.
However, also important, is what this amendment does not involve. It
does not involve genetic engineering; it does not involve the sale or
creation of embryos; and it does not involve the examination or use of
human embryos developing inside the woman.
Rather, the embryos to be used in this research would be donated by
couples, who have undergone various medical treatments, including in
vitro fertilization, that help them conceive. After the medical
procedures are complete, these embryos are usually discarded.
In other words, the embryos used in this type of research would be
less than fourteen days old. They would consist only of a few cells
with no developed organs and no sense of feeling. This amendment would
not permit the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of medical
research. Instead, it would allow this crucial research to be performed
on already existing embryos that would ultimately be discarded.
For all of these reasons, prohibiting early-stage embryo research
will hold the health of millions of Americans hostage to anti-choice
politics, and as a result would severely restrict the quality of our
scientific and medical research. This amendment would greatly benefit
people with cancer and leukemia, people who
[[Page H7341]]
are unable to have children, children with birth defects, people who
suffer from or carry genetic diseases, and people with spinal cord
injuries and nervous system disorders, and I urge my colleagues to vote
in support of it.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 second to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Lowey amendment which would appropriate taxpayer funds for harmful
experimentation on and then the destruction of so-called test tube
babies. The Lowey amendment reverses current law and guts the pro-life
Dickey-Wicker amendment which the Committee on Appropriations wisely
adopted and seeks to extend into fiscal year 1997.
I believe the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey] and the gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] deserve high praise for their deep
reverence for and sensitivity to human life. Their amendment to the
Labor-HHS bill last year has prevented Federal funds from being used to
turn test tube babies into human guinea pigs who are wanted and desired
only for their research utility.
The Lowey amendment is yet another manifestation of an extremist pro-
abortion mindset that regards human life at its most vulnerable stages
as innately worthless, expendable and cheap. The Lowey amendment
dehumanizes and trivializes the miracle of human life.
Mr. Chairman, like so many other ethical problems that Congress has
been called upon to unravel in the last few years, this issue gained
currency with the Clinton administration. The problem was this: There
is no question that interesting information could be obtained by
cutting up living human embryos to see what makes them tick. This is
also true of unborn children at all stages of gestation, newborn
babies, 3-year-olds and adults. Many things can also be learned from
experiments on cadavers or on animals, but for some purposes there is
just no substitute for cutting up living human beings.
If researchers could only be allowed to set aside certain individuals
for these purposes, the rest of us might deserve some benefit, or so
the argument goes. Yet somehow deep down all of us know that this is
wrong. Even some supporters of abortion on demand generally recognize
that an unborn child still has some value, some real value and this
dehumanizes those children.
The illogic of the Lowey amendment is its tacit admission on the one
hand that it is unethical and immoral to federally fund the creation of
human embryos in a petri dish for the purposes of scientific
experiments while at the same time declaring it ethical and worthy of
Federal outlays to perform harmful experiments on and again then to
destroy what is euphemistically called spare embryos.
If the private sector makes them, the Feds will take them, keep them
alive. Let them develop, perform all kinds of harmful experiments on
them and then destroy them. If federally funded researchers need more
embryos on whom to perform ghastly experiments, no problem. The network
of IVF clinics will produce them, and this commodity of human life will
then be poured down the drain.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote against the Lowey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in a few hours, we will be asked to vote
on a bill which increases funding for the National Institutes of Health
by 6.9 percent. That funding increase is certainly a step in the right
direction.
But at the same time that this Congress is increasing funding of
medical research, we are trying the hands of medical researchers.
Early stage human embryo research, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most
promising methods of medical research currently at our disposal. It is
ridiculous that Members of Congress, most of whom are not scientists, I
might add, want to tie the hands of researchers at the National
Institutes of Health. Who knows how best to do this job? They do. This
is like telling the people at NASA, Mr. Chairman, to build the space
station but forget about using computer technology in doing so.
The Lowey amendment simply will reverse the ban on human embryo
research.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Lowey amendment. I speak up not so much as a scientist who had done
basic science research or a physician who has actually studied
embryology but mainly as a concerned citizen. This is clearly a very
controversial issue.
I think it is inappropriate to use taxpayers funds for this kind of a
purpose, and it is a very dubious scientific benefit, contrary to some
of the claims that have been made by the gentleman from California as
well as others. I can even quote from people who were involved in
studying this issue. Dr. Brigid Hogan, a scientific expert on the NIH
Human Embryo Research Advisory Panel, said: ``We are not going to be
curing anybody of these tumors by doing research. On the other hand,
the basic biology is extremely interesting.''
That is what we are talking about funding here, a very controversial,
ghastly subject according to many Americans, including myself, and it
is just going to be very, very interesting. Furthermore, we have a
quote from Daniel Callahan, president of the Hastings Center, which is
an IVF institute. He said: The NIH advisory panel ``report notes that
four countries already allow embryo research and that it has been going
on for some years in private laboratories in this country. Yet not a
single actual benefit derived so far from that research is cited to
back the claims of great potential benefits from having even more of
it.''
We are not outlawing this research. We are saying we are not going to
use Federal dollars for that purpose.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a member of the committee.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the miracles of our generation is in
vitro fertilization. A husband and wife unable to have a child through
this discovery are able to join together the sperm and the egg in a
glass dish and create an embryo that is implanted in the would-be
mother that leads to a beautiful child. Can there be anything more
wondrous than this in the time that we live in?
What the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] is suggesting is that
during this process in this same dish more than one embryo is created.
There they are as small as a period, the little dot pinhead. What the
gentleman from Arkansas wants to do is to prohibit the doctors from
even looking at these embryos, these spare embryos created to see if
there is some problem that might lead to a miscarriage. For them, that
is an exploitation of life. For me, it is ridiculous to reach these
extremes. These are wanted children, husbands and wives trying their
best to bring loving children into this world. To prohibit all research
on this embryo is going way beyond what is necessary. I support the
Lowey amendment.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lowey
amendment, which would require taxpayers' money to be used for research
on live human embryos. I ask all Members to vote against it. This
language does not, the language in the bill does not stop research on
human life embryos. It does stop taxpayers' money from using it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], a member of the committee.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment to strike the Dickey-Wicker amendment from this bill.
It is clear that the Members who have offered it and have placed it
in the bill are not opposed to in vitro fertilization or at least that
has been their statement. They seem to be not opposed to research when
it is done at Sloan Kettering or private research facilities, only when
the National Institutes of Health, the primary research
[[Page H7342]]
institution in this country is involved. I find this very hard to
understand.
These embryos come from those who would want to have a child. It for
them is a pro-life effort. They want, through in vitro fertilization,
to create life. And as part of that process, they willingly volunteer
to allow embryos that would otherwise be discarded or deteriorate to be
used in research to help solve some of the most fundamental health care
crises that impact American lives, families, individuals, people we all
know and love.
These are people who simply want to be part of a solution to these
health care crises. We ought to allow them to be part of it. We ought
not to ban the NIH from involvement.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. The Lowey amendment would
strike the ban on early-stage embryo research that is currently in the
underlying bill.
If this ban remains in place, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill will
bar the Federal Government from pursuing life saving research.
The research currently banned by this bill could lead to important
medical advancements in the fight against miscarriages, birth defects,
infertility, cancer and genetic disease, leukemia, spinal cord
injuries, immune deficiencies, and blood disorders.
Such life-giving research is supported by the American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Association of Cancer Research, and the Association of American Medical
Colleges, to name but a few.
The Lowey amendment simply allows research on embryos that would
otherwise be discarded or allowed to naturally deteriorate. The embryos
used for research are originally created by couples attempting to have
a child through in vitro fertilization and other medical procedures.
These embryos are generally discarded once the procedures are
completed, however, the couple can give its permission for the embryos
to be used in research.
These embryos are less than 14 days old. They consist of just a few
cells, and have not yet developed internal organs or a spinal cord.
It should be also noted that early-stage embryo research does not
include cloning, genetic engineering, or the use of aborted fetal
tissue.
Earlier this year, the President announced that use of Federal funds
to create embryos solely for research purposes would be prohibited. In
light of this Executive order and stringent NIH guidelines, we can be
assured that this research will be conducted with appropriate
safeguards and the highest levels of integrity.
This ban shuts the door on important biomedical research which has
benefited millions of Americans who suffer from painful and costly
diseases.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to
the Lowey amendment. This amendment was rejected when it was offered in
the full Appropriations Committee and I want to urge my colleagues to
reject it today.
The supporters of this amendment claim that this funding will be used
only to do experiments on ``spare'' embryos that would be discarded
anyway.
We, as a Congress, have already addressed this question. In 1985,
Congress was made aware of abuses in some NIH research programs. These
programs were conducting risky experiments on unborn children who were
scheduled for abortions. At that time we wisely enacted a law insisting
that federally funded research should treat these children the same as
children intended for live birth. This law protects human embryos in
the womb at every stage and is still in effect today. There is no
reason that it should not be extended to protect human embryonic
children outside the womb.
Where will these spare embryos come from? The majority will come from
women involved in infertility programs.
What about the personal health risk for women who are involved in
fertility programs? Women are given drugs to help them superovulate.
This allows the doctors to harvest multiple eggs for fertilizing,
freezing, and then implantation in the woman.
The drugs used for this process have many serious side effects for a
woman, including a heightened risk of malignant ovarian cancer. How
would the government be able to know whether or not a clinic was
deliberately risking a womans health in order to produce additional
embryos for research?
Supporters of this amendment will also argue that we need this
research in order to find cures for cancer and other deadly diseases.
It is interesting to note that over 17 years of privately funded
research of this type have produced no significant results, only the
suggestion that if there were Government funds available could there
possibly be a breakthrough.
Even a member of NIH's Human Embryo Research Panel admitted that
``we're not going to be curing anybody of these tumors by doing
research. But on the other hand, the basic biology is extremely
interesting.'' I hardly think that Federal funds should be used for
highly controversial research just so that some scientist without a
conscience can be kept interested.
I was recently made aware of a letter from Dr. Robert White, who is a
professor and director of neurological surgery at Case Western Reserve
University which happens to be one of the premier medical schools in
this country. He was given the opportunity to appear before the Human
Embryo Research Panel that is responsible for making recommendations
about research in this area. Dr. White noted that all of the research
recommended by this panel could be just as easily conducted on embryos
of lower animal species such as monkeys and chimpanzees. Dr. White also
expressed his deep concern that there were only one or two individuals
with any real scientific training or experience in the area of human
embryo research on this panel. Only two people on a panel that is going
to decide the moral appropriateness of this research?
Research that will affect the lives of millions of Americans.
How do Americans feel about this type of research? A poll taken by
the Tarrance Group revealed that 74 percent of Americans were opposed
and that men and women were equally opposed to this type of research.
If we pass this amendment we will be saying as a Congress that we are
not interested in funding programs that help create, protect, or
enhance human life but we'll give you money to experiment on young life
and then destroy it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. It is the right and morally responsible vote.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to read the list
of groups that support this amendment: The American Medical
Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the American
Pediatric Society, the American Psychological Society, the American
Society of Human Genetics, the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine, the Association of Academic Level Centers, the Association of
American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities,
and on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
for yielding me time, and I proudly rise in support of her amendment.
Let us talk a little bit about this. When you do in vitro
fertilization, let us face it, you are not going to have any embryos
unless the people are willing to consent to give up the egg and the
sperm. There is no way a doctor can capture those from someone and
steal them from them and they walk down the street. So you have two
willing people involved here.
Second, you have a dish of embryos and you cannot implant all of them
in the uterus because the threat of multiple birth would crowd out each
other. So then what you have is some embryos that are going to be
discarded or might be used for research, if and only if the consenting
adults agree.
I cannot imagine what is controversial about that. I think that is
the most pro-life position of all, pro-quality of life. I think it is
very, very important we stand firm and not yield to the flat Earth
caucus on this issue.
{time} 2045
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
understand this is a complex issue, but after 17 years of research not
one person in this body can stand up and tell me one positive medical
outcome that has come from this research. There is none in the
scientific literature, there is none projected. We hear: could, might,
may. The fact is there is no proof, there is no scientific study at
this time of any quantifiable benefit.
[[Page H7343]]
It was mentioned earlier that some people just oppose the Government.
I oppose all people researching this effort. And I would take just a
moment for us to look at what happened on AIDS testing of newborn
babies and the very group of ethicists that our Government used to say
it is fine to test a newborn baby, identify that it has HIV, and then
never tell the mother or the child that it is infected. Those are the
kind of ethicists that are telling us that it is OK.
Mr. Chairman, this is not OK. This is destroying and disrupting
various great precious quality of life. I am opposed to it, the
Government being involved in it; I am opposed to it, private sector
being involved in it. We dare not tread. We have had 17 years to prove
that we have no benefit.
It is extremely interesting, I agree, Mr. Chairman, but it is also
extremely wrong.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time and again for her leadership in bringing this amendment to the
floor.
Please let us not have this body turn into the Flat Earth Society.
Just when science sees a new horizon in research, a new era of
discovery, this amendment wants us to stop and turn back.
Let me say that I agree with our colleagues who say that we should
not be involved in the creation of embryos for research. I completely
agree with my colleagues on that score. But when embryos are created
for in vitro fertilization and there is an opportunity to do research
on the excess created there for that purpose, to produce a child, then
we must, I think, take advantage of the opportunity presented to us.
Early-stage embryos research can lead to important medical advances
and prevention of loss of pregnancy, of infertility and diagnosis and
treatment of genetic disease and prevention of birth defects and in
treatment of childhood and other cancers as we study how cells
multiply.
I urge our colleagues to support the Lowey amendment and to support
the advances in science as we approach a new century.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is going to be for 30 seconds.
The names of the people who are in opposition to this amendment or
the names of the organizations:
The Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, the National
Right to Life, the Eagle Forum, the American Life League, the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops. Mrs. Lowey's amendment, if adopted,
would have taxpayers funding for legal experimentation, abortions and
bizarre experiments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 2
minutes and 55 seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, many of us have lost friends and family
members to breast cancer, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, and so many
other diseases. We have shared their pain, we have shared their
heartache.
I want to make it very clear: We are not talking about creating
embryos.
Many of us have friends and families who have been through a
procedure of in vitro fertilization with the hopes of having a
beautiful child. We are talking about embryos, cells, four live cells
no larger than a pin. These cells have been created as part of the
process of couples wanting to have a child. These couples then have to
make a decision as to whether they discard these embryos or whether
they want to give some other family the hope of life.
That is what this is all about, allowing these embryos, these cells
to be used to save another life.
I just received a call today from a family hoping that perhaps this
will be the answer. I heard from my colleagues, my distinguished
colleagues, that there has been no research that has been successful. I
have lost many family members to breast cancer. Mr. Chairman, we have
spent millions and billions on trying to solve that problem.
Do we say, well, we have not solved the problem, so we just give up?
Yes, we have made important advances, and I am hoping that perhaps
there will be a great breakthrough in other illness because of this
research.
When we look at the list, almost every medical association; I just
received a letter today from 15 medical and educational organizations
that support this amendment. I am not a physician. But when 15 medical
and educational organizations support this amendment, this Congress is
going to tell these physicians, the National Institutes of Health, that
they cannot use this procedure to perhaps bring life to people who have
no hope?
What this Lowey-Johnson amendment does is simply allow research on
embryos that would otherwise be discarded or allowed to naturally
deteriorate. And remember, the embryos used in this research are less
than 14 days old. Embryos at this stage consist of a few cells, have
not developed organs or a spinal cord. The cells are the size of a dot,
as I mentioned.
President Clinton again has made it very clear that early-stage
embryo research may be permitted but that the use of Federal funds to
create embryos solely for research purposes would be prohibited.
We can all be assured that the research at the National Institutes of
Health will be conducted with the highest level of integrity. No
embryos will be created for research purposes, and I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment to support life.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time
we have to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield that time to the most distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the most credible voice on this
subject that we have in the House of Representatives.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from Arkansas, Mr.
Dickey, for those extravagant words.
The gentlewoman, my good friend from California, Ms. Pelosi, talks
about the Flat Earth Society. That is interesting because the science
is on our side. As I recall, there are two medical doctors, M.D.'s, on
our side. I have not seen any M.D.'s or even Ph.D.'s, although there
may be a hidden Ph.D. over there in English literature or something,
but the science is from our side.
Now, we are not talking about creating the embryos. We understand
that. It is the using of the embryos. It is treating living human
entities as things. That is the big distinction. The abortion culture,
the in vitro experimentation culture, the embryo research, all of these
things have one thing in common, and, colleagues, strangely, and this
may sound wierd, in common with Marxism, and do my colleagues know what
it is? Denying instrinsic worth or value to a human being. That is the
common thread between the abortion culture which denies intrinsic value
to somebody, and they, because of the size, because it is tiny, it is
microscopic, it is created in a petri dish, it is therefore something
to be used for experimentation.
I mean I am not denying the good motives and the need to push back
the borders of research, although strangely enough in 20 years very
little has been accomplished in this sort of research. But the problem
is our colleagues are talking about living human beings, albeit tiny
and microscopic, but size surely does not make a difference, and
whether my colleagues respect the dignity in the innate, inherent,
intrinsic dignity or whether it is a thing to be used, that is what we
are talking about, and that is the common thread through all of this.
Mr. Chairman, we assert there is value, intrinsic value, in that tiny
little premicroscopic embryo that has been fertilized, and our
colleagues are saying, yes, but let us use it and experiment for a
greater cause.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be anxious to know if the
distinguished
[[Page H7344]]
gentleman does support in vitro fertilization.
Mr. HYDE. Not really, not really. No, I do not.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for an
additional 2 minutes?
The CHAIRMAN. The request would have to be even-handed on both sides
of the question.
Ms. PELOSI. It is so we could yield to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde].
The CHAIRMAN. The time has been established and equally divided by
the full House for these amendments, and while time can be extended by
unanimous consent, it has to be allocated to both sides of the
argument.
All time has expired, and the Chair is prepared to put the question.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bunning
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. 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. Bunning of Kentucky: Page 87,
after line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. (a) Limitation on Transfers From Medicare Trust
Funds.--None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``Title II--Department of Health and Human
Services--Health Care Financing Administration--Program
Management'' for transfer from the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Fund may be used for expenditures for official time for
employees of the Department of Health and Human Services
pursuant to section 7131 of title 5, United States Code, or
for facilities or support services for labor organizations
pursuant to policies, regulations, or procedures referred to
in section 7135(b) of such title.
(b) Limitation on Transfers From OASDI Trust Funds.--None
of the funds made available in this Act under the heading
``Title IV--Related Agencies--Social Security
Administration--Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for
transfer from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund or the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund may
be used for expenditures for official time for employees of
the Social Security Administration pursuant to section 7131
of title 5, United States Code, or for facilities or support
services for labor organizations pursuant to policies,
regulations, or procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of
such title.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and a Member opposed will each
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It
restricts the use of Social Security and Medicare trust fund money to
pay for union activity at the Social Security Administration. I am
offering this amendment because I chair the Social Security
Subcommittee and I take my oversight duties of the Social Security
Administration and the trust funds very seriously.
Social Security affects almost every man, woman and child in this
country, and its integrity cannot be compromised. A year ago I
requested a GAO audit of the use of trust fund moneys for union
activity, and while we knew that the trust funds were helping pay for
these activities, the GAO audit revealed the extent to which the costs
were dramatically increasing. Currently about $8.1 million of trust
fund moneys are used to pay people who work at SSA, not serving the
taxpayer and beneficiaries, but doing full-time union work.
{time} 2100
That might not sound like a great deal of money to some, but
taxpayer-financed spending for union activity at SSA has doubled in the
last 3 years. Let me say that again. Trust fund spending on union
activity at SSA has jumped from $4 million in 1993 to $8 million in
1995, a 100 percent increase.
In addition to this huge jump in spending, the number of SSA
employees who work full time on union activities increased 83 percent
in 3 short years. In 1993, 80 SSA employees worked full time on union
activities. By 1995, this number had escalated to 146 SSA employees
working full time on union activities.
These employee salaries, health benefits, and pensions come from
money set aside for the Social Security benefits of our elderly and
disabled citizens. These 146 SSA employees devote 100 percent of their
time to union work. This means that Americans are paying their Social
Security taxes for meetings on such issues as office furniture, office
space allocation, and who gets a bonus at the end of the year. This is
not how Social Security trust funds should be used. I am certain
seniors and taxpayers around this country would agree.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and
assuring our citizens that the Social Security trust funds are used for
their intended purposes: the retirement and the well-being of our
disabled and senior citizens in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member who wishes to be recognized in
opposition to the amendment?
amendment offered by mr. hoyer as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. bunning of kentucky
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a
substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoyer as a substitute for the
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bunning of Kentucky: Page 87, after
line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. (a) Limitation on Transfers From Medicare Trust
Funds.--None of the funds made available in this Act under
the heading ``Title II--Department of Health and Human
Services--Health Care Financing Administration--Program
Management'' for transfer from the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance
Trust Fund may be used for expenditures for official time for
employees of the Department of Health and Human Services
pursuant to section 7131 of title 5, United States Code, or
for facilities or support services for labor organizations
pursuant to policies, regulations, or procedures referred to
in section 7135(b) of such title.
(b) Limitation on Transfers From OASDI Trust Funds.--None
of the funds made available in this Act under the heading
``Title IV--Related Agencies--Social Security
Administration--Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for
transfer from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund or the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund may
be used for expenditures for official time for employees of
the Social Security Administration pursuant to section 7131
of title 5, United States Code, or for facilities or support
services for labor organizations pursuant to policies,
regulations, or procedures referred to in section 7135(b) of
such title.
(c) Protection of Employee Representative.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to--
(1) deny the right of Federal employees to organize or be
fully represented by their unions, or
(2) prohibit the Commissioner of Social Security or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services from requesting
employees of the Social Security Administration or the
Department of Health and Human Services to represent other
employees on task forces to improve customer service, promote
health and safety of agency employees and customers, or
streamline or otherwise provide for the smooth functioning of
such Administration or Department.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is not separately debatable. The time to debate the substitute will
come out of the allocation of time on either side, so the gentleman may
discuss the substitute under his time in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, that means that we have 10
minutes on both the substitute and on the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer] has 10 minutes on both the Bunning amendment and the
amendment offered as a substitute, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Bunning] has 10 minutes remaining on both.
Mr. HOYER. He has such time remaining as he did not consume?
[[Page H7345]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for the clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this substitute. I want to say that
this substitute does not derogate the comments in any way that the
gentleman from Kentucky made. His point was that we ought not to be
spending trust fund money on organizing activities or representational
activities. In this substitute, we adopt the very same language offered
by the gentleman from Kentucky in our sections A and B.
When I say ``we,'' I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Jacobs, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social
Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from
Maryland, Mrs. Morella, and the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Moran, and
Mr. Davis.
In the third paragraph of our substitute, Mr. Chairman, all we do is
clarify that the preclusion of expending money for representational
purposes out of the trust fund does not mean that we are precluding
representation. That is the key of our substitute. I would hope there
would be no Member opposed, frankly, to our substitute, because the
purpose of the amendment is simply to say that Social Security trust
funds or Medicare trust funds will not be used.
We are adopting that premise, and we include the gentleman's
language.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Federal employees can be
granted official time to perform activities that are in the joint
interest of the union and the agency.
I ask my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the
aisle, to understand what I just said. The Federal law in 1978
provides, because, I would suggest, it is consistent with the
gentleman's premise under the TEAM Act passed by this House, passed by
the Senate, ready to go to the President, and therefore I think our
substitute does not undermine it, not only undermine it, does not touch
the intention of the gentleman from Kentucky to say no trust funds, but
also does not undermine the ability of employees to be represented and
to negotiate with their agencies.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, most Americans are familiar with May 7, tax liberation
day. We labor all the year up until May 7 to pay our income taxes. A
date they may not be familiar with is July 3, government freedom day.
We labor the rest of May and all of June to pay for Government
regulations and interest on the national debt, so it was just July 3
that Americans began working for themselves, instead of Government.
Last night on NBC News, most Americans, I am sure, were startled to
find out that those taxpayers' dollars were going to pay for people who
do no Government work whatsoever; that in fact, full-time, paid for by
taxpayers' dollars, they do union work and union organizing.
To add injury to insult, we found out on the program that they are
paid out of trust fund moneys, not just Social Security trust fund
money, but Medicare trust fund money, that same trust fund President
Clinton's trustees said is now going bankrupt in the year 2000 instead
of 2001. While Clinton's trustees were painting more red ink, out of
that trust fund were people being paid who did no work for the
taxpayers, full-time for the unions.
I would tell the gentleman that his amendment is still unacceptable
because, as I read his amendment, after it says that none of the funds
can be used, he says nothing in this section shall be construed to deny
the right or prohibit the commissioner from carrying out those self-
same activities. He believes he has found a safe harbor by saying the
trust fund money perhaps will not be touched. But it is the taxpayers'
money not being spent for its intended purposes that I think is the
fundamental problem.
Last night, Lisa Myers held up a fax that had been sent to one of
these union workers from the gentleman from Missouri, Dick Gephardt,
and the House Democratic leadership, and said, ``I thought you said
politics was supposed to stay out of this. Is this right?'' Ruth
Pierce, the Social Security Administrator, looked Lisa Myers in the eye
and said, ``I will yield to Congress what is a right law and what is a
wrong law, but it's the law.''
I will tell the Members, it is the wrong law. This is the chance to
change it. Reject the substitute, go with the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. No trust fund moneys, indeed no
taxpayer moneys, ought to go for this kind of private sector inurement
at the expense of that hardworking taxpayer who spends half the year
paying for a program and for a government, and he does not even get to
have any employees work for him at all.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Jacobs], ranking member of the subcommittee on Social
Security.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the comments of
the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. I direct his attention to
the exact language of the substitute. In my opinion, it does not say
anyplace that any taxpayers' money can be used, whether it is trust
fund money or whether it is general revenues, either. All it says is
that the Commissioner shall not be prohibited ``from requesting
employees of the Social Security Administration or the Department of
Health and Human Services to represent other employees on task forces
to improve customer service, promote health and safety of agency
employees and customers, or streamline or otherwise provide smooth
functioning of such Administration or Department.''
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, if we look at No. 1, it says ``deny the
right of Federal employees to organize or be fully represented * * *.''
Can the gentleman assure me that fully represented does not mean a
full-time person paid for by taxpayers?
Mr. JACOBS. I give the gentleman my solemn assurance it does not mean
that.
Mr. THOMAS. But in fact, it can be interpreted that way. I know and
understand and love the gentleman from Indiana, but his assurance does
not guarantee that it is not taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I think it does if we all agree in
legislative history. It does not say they can use any taxpayers' money.
It simply says that the gentleman from Kentucky is not proposing that
the unions be outlawed if they collect their own dues and pay for their
own representation. That is the only intent of it. That is what it
says.
Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, very briefly, it
is not the intent of this gentleman from California to deny legitimate
union activities. Our concern is, paid for by taxpayers's dollars.
These phrases do not preclude it. That is the problem.
Mr. JACOBS. That is my concern, too. If we want to do a little comity
here, if we want to do what all of us say we want to do, namely,
prohibit the use of public funds to pay the union people to do union
work, if that is our purpose, and that is my purpose, to prohibit the
use of any taxpayers' money, trust fund or otherwise, to pay union
representatives or union officials to do work on the taxpayers' money,
then that is what the substitute intends to do, accepts that fully. It
simply wants to clarify that nothing in this should be interpreted to
mean that the union itself must disband and not represent the people
with their own money.
Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, would the author
of the substitute agree with the gentleman that no taxpayer funds are
intended to be used for union activity on the job site?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACOBS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I would say in answer that I do not believe
that any money that is inconsistent with the law will be spent. I do
not know the answer that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] gave.
But he knows more about it than I do.
[[Page H7346]]
Mr. THOMAS. If the gentleman will yield further. The gentleman does
his profession well with that response, because I do not know what that
means. It means it may or may not.
Mr. JACOBS. Nothing shall deny the right of Federal employees to
organize or be fully represented by their unions, I repeat. That is
all. That is all it deals with here. It does not say they can get a
nickel from the taxpayers to do that. That is not the intent of it.
But on these task force things like the Japanese method, which Mr.
Demming gave to our people and our people turned down and he went over
and gave to them, where the workers come in and say they could probably
save a little money if you tilt those Venetian blinds and not blind the
people all afternoon, that kind of thing, that is the whole purpose of
this. We accept the proposal of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Bunning].
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget amendment
and in opposition to the substitute.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman
approves of the budget amendment, because that is what is good. When
the GAO discovered this breach of faith, I was outraged. It was my
understanding all trust fund monies were dedicated for seniors and
future recipients who worked their entire lives paying for the system.
It was President Clinton who, as a payoff to the unions for political
support, made union employees equal partners with association managers,
and stated that Social Security Administration managers could not
correct or question the actions of union employees.
What is worse is that while unions take money from the trust fund,
they also continue to collect $4.3 million for themselves in union
dues, and we have no idea where that money is spent. One more time. The
unions collect millions in dues, and still continue to take money away
from the trust fund to do work that has nothing to do with providing
benefits to our seniors.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment offered by
Chairman Bunning is nothing more than a classic example of traditional
Republican union bashing, and a backdoor assault on President Clinton's
executive order to improve labor/management relations through the use
of Partnerships.
Every Member of this Congress is concerned about preserving and
strengthening the Social Security Trust Fund. We all want to ensure
that monies in the Trust Fund are being used to provide benefits and
services to seniors in the most efficient and cost effective means
possible.
And efficiency and cost effectiveness is exactly what the ``union
activities'' at Social Security are set out to achieve.
Efficiency at the Social Security Administration goes to the heart of
the way in which individual cases are handled. As the Social Security
Administration is being downsized, and as systems are being redesigned,
the input of the Social Security employees--the caseworkers--is, and
should be, an invaluable contribution to management decision making.
Management alone can not be expected to know everything about how
work is done, or how it can best be done. Consultations with Social
Security workers are key to creating the best systems possible. And
these consultations are what we are talking about today when we discuss
union activities.
The union activities at the Social Security Administration are far
less mysterious than the Republicans want to make them appear. In fact,
union activities at Social Security are very similar to those at many
private companies, including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler--
companies where it is common practice for workers to be paid for
official union time.
As a former mayor, I've been involved in many negotiations with
unions over the years. I've learned that unions are rarely 100 percent
accurate in their positions, and management alone seldom has all of the
right answers.
The best solutions to common workplace problems are those that are
crafted with input from both labor and management.
Union activities at Social Security, which make up--mind you--only
three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total administrative costs for
the Social Security Administration, are geared at improving the way in
which benefits are delivered to senior citizens and the disabled.
In full compliance with the law, union activities at Social Security
are paid for by a combination of funds derived both by general revenue
funds and the trust funds.
Mr. Chairman, in a time when we are all trying to make government
smaller and more efficient--less bureaucratic and more like the private
sector--it seems to me that we should encourage government agencies to
use the same innovative management techniques and partnerships that
have been embraced by successful companies like Saturn, Corning Glass,
and Harley Davidson. It seems as if everyone except the Republicans in
this House knows that old fashioned top-down management is a thing of
the past.
We owe America's senior citizens the most efficient Social Security
Administration possible. This amendment is nothing more than a
politically motivated attempt to scare America's senior citizens, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
{time} 2115
In full compliance with the law, union activities at Social Security
are paid for by a combination of funds derived both by general revenue
and trust funds, and we are correcting that in our substitute.
I have been involved in union negotiations time and again, and unions
are never 100 percent correct. And, something else, management is never
100 percent correct.
Social Security is in the midst of downsizing. Their systems are
being redesigned. There is anxiety in the workplace. That is not unlike
what is happening across the rest of America tonight.
The result of a healthy workplace where people have high morale is
consultation. What we have here is a frontal assault on union
activities, which we attempt to address in a reasonable substitute.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
(Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman
from Massachusetts, my good friend and classmate, he misses the point.
This is not about union activity. This is about Social Security trust
fund money paid by hardworking men and women who have paid tax money on
their hardworking wages into the trust fund for their senior years.
As a member of the subcommittee, I sat through all the hearings, and
not one time did I hear justification for using Social Security trust
fund money for any of the activities that are being addressed here.
I sent out a letter last week informing my constituents that trust
fund money was being used for union activity. In 3 days, I have gotten
over 400 responses and not one response said, Gregg. I want you to keep
allowing the money to be used for union activity.
Every contact was angry. They said, ``I'm appalled, I'm shocked that
the money I paid into the trust fund is not going for my retirement or
for disability. I'm appalled that it is going to union activity.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the chairman's amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 2\1/4\
minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, my good friend the gentleman from Texas has
just spoken very actively, strongly. Our substitute does exactly what
he
[[Page H7347]]
wants done. It precludes, as does the gentleman's amendment from
Kentucky, the expenditure of any funds from either the Social Security
trust fund or the Medicare fund. What it does not do is say Employees,
tough luck, get out of town. We're not going to let you organize, we're
not going to let you follow the Federal law, which precludes, by the
way, any official time being used to conduct internal union matters,
organizing workers, soliciting members for conducting union elections
or for any partisan political activities. That is precluded by Federal
law right now.
What is not precluded is activity that is funded in the private
sector, as the gentleman from Massachusetts indicated, but allows
employees to represent their fellow employees and to work with
management on official time to make their jobs better, more efficient
and more productive.
The concern that has been raised, that is, of spending money out of
the trust fund, is agreed to on this side by our substitute. What is
not agreed to is the obvious underlying intent, and that is to
undermine the workers' ability to have effective representation,
period.
For that reason, I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle,
particularly those who voted for the TEAM Act on the theory that
management could include employees for the purpose of sitting down,
discussing and negotiating working conditions and objectives and ways
and means. That was the issue in the TEAM Act.
If you believed that, if it was not just a subterfuge to undermine
the ability of workers to organize, then you ought to support this
substitute, and I urge all the Members of the House to do so.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
(Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Chairman, American workers are mandated to pay into the Social
Security trust fund throughout their working lives. They do so with the
understanding the Federal Government will responsibly manage those
assets on providing Social Security benefits to retired and disabled
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, under the new authority given to government unions by
the current administration, the Social Security Administration spent
12.6 million taxpayer-dollars on union-related activities in 1995.
That's right Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration spent $12.6
million, on expenses that had absolutely nothing to do with ensuring
our Nation's retirees and disabled receive the benefits they have
earned.
In addition, $12.6 million in 1995 represents a 100 percent increase
over the $6 million the Social Security Administration spent on union
activities in 1993.
Recently, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
testified about the increases in trust fund assets that are spent on
union activities.
Commissioner Chater could not provide the members of the subcommittee
with any specifics about how the $12.6 million spent on union
activities improved the processing or administration of Social Security
benefit claims. Most alarmingly, she was unable to provide the
committee with any detailed assurances that union-related expenditures
will not continue to double in the next 2 years.
This amendment will bring a halt to the wasteful expenditure of
Social Security funds and ensure that we are managing these vital
assets responsibly.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
(Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hoyer
substitute and in strong support of the Bunning limitation amendment to
prohibit the Social Security Administration from using payroll taxes to
pay the salaries of full-time union representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I seek this time to bring to the attention of the
chairman I perceive to be a very serious problem in the Social Security
Administration. Reading the Washington Post the other day I happened
across an article by James Glassman.
I was shocked and dismayed to discover that the Social Security
Administration, responding to a 1993 Presidential Executive Order,
which has increased the number of union representatives that work in
Social Security offices around the country to 146. That is an increase
of 66 employees. Calculate the 66 full time salaries, benefits and
pensions, and you have a total extra cost of $12.6 million that
American taxpayers are going to have to shoulder.
This blatant waste of Social Security Funds in inexcusable, given
that the Social Security Trust Fund is approaching insolvency. It flies
in the face of all of our efforts to downsize and reinvent government.
Within the Social Security Administration, for example we have been
successful eliminating direct cash benefits for drug addicts and
alcoholics.
There is simply no excuse to significantly increase administrative
costs in this manner. In fact, I question the motives of an Executive
Order directing the additional employment of union representatives. It
has always been my understanding that it is the responsibility of the
unions themselves to ensure fair representation in the workplace. It is
not the responsibility of the federal government. In fact, given the
recent actions on the part of the unions, this smacks of campaign
politics.
We as Appropriators and Members of Congress have a obligation to
spend taxpayer dollars wisely and responsibly. I am very concerned that
this action by the Social Security Administration is not altogether
altruistic and completely contrary to our efforts to make our federal
government less wasteful and more responsive to average Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the news item, I mentioned.
[From the Washington Post, June 25, 1996]
What Can Government Do?
(By James K. Glassman)
In a modern republic such as ours, politics frequently
produces good policy--that is, it's a system that finds out
people's desires and acts on them. But politics rarely
produces good government--that is, it's a system that puts
policies into place in a messy, inefficient, often
counterproductive way.
``Look,'' says Peter Drucker, the great management guru, in
a recent interview with the editor of Inc. magazine, ``no
government in any major developed country really works
anymore. The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Japan--none has a government the citizens respect or
trust.''
The big problem, Drucker says, is that ``no one, as far as
I can see, is yet asking the right question: What can
government do?'' Not what should it do, but what can it do.
I've always been a ``should'' kind of guy--questioning
whether government has the right to involve itself in the
arts, agriculture, railroading, etc. But Drucker's ``can''
perspective is a brilliant way to look at the problem.
Consider Social Security. Yes, government should help poor
people retire with dignity. But can it run an efficient
retirement system for the entire nation? It's doubtful, given
political pressures--for example, the need to please labor
unions, which spend millions to help elect Democrats.
Here's a typical horror story: Using the payroll taxes of
Americans, the Social Security Administration is paying the
salaries of 146 full-time union representatives who work in
Social Security offices around the country. The average
annual salary of these taxpayer-paid union officials is
$41,970. Ninety-four of them make at least $40,000, and one
makes $81,000.
The General Accounting Office reported on this union
activity recently, at the request of Rep. Jim Bunning (R-
Ky.), a Ways and Means subcommittee chairman. Jane Ross of
GAO said her office ``found that over 1,800 designated union
representatives in SSA are authorized to spend time on union
activities.'' Total time: more than 400,000 hours. Total
costs to the taxpayers: $12.6 million.
What makes this episode so outrageous is that it's
perfectly legal. After an executive order by President
Clinton in 1993, full-time union reps at SSA jumped from 80
to 146, according to GAO. Total costs to the taxpayer
doubled. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is
approaching insolvency.
The truth is that effectively running a retirement scheme
for a nation of 260 million may not be something that a
government is able to do.
By contrast, the private sector has learned, through trial
and error and the pressures of the marketplace, to handle
complex financial transactions--and give good service. For
example, Fidelity Investments, with 20,000 employees, handles
20 million mutual-fund customers--marketing, buying and
selling stocks, sending out regular statements. Fidelity's
managers don't stand for election, so they don't have to
pander to labor, or any other interest group, for votes.
They're free, subject to market forces, to run their
business.
It's no accident, either, that costs of government-run
health care systems--Medicare and Medicaid--are rising so
fast. The federal government--under political pressure from
doctors, hospitals, seniors, governors and insurers--simply
can't cut expenses and deliver good service the way that
companies subject mainly to the pressures of the marketplace
can. (For an even more horrifying example, look at the
Veterans' Administration, with
[[Page H7348]]
its own 58-health-care institutions, providing jobs for
constituents of nearly every member of Congress.)
The point is that politics can, with validity, produce a
national health policy. But it should not be the force that
shapes the management of that policy.
One solution to the problems of both Social Security and
public health care is to get the government out of management
entirely. Let it issue vouchers with which Americans
themselves can purchase retirement plans or medical services
from private firms. There should be oversight, but not a
65,000-employee bureaucracy.
On management issues, the Clinton administration gets
credit for interest, but not for action. The president brags
about eliminating government jobs. Yes, but of the 192,000
cut, 145,000 were in the Defense Department--a ``peace
dividend'' brought about by the end of the Cold War. We can't
really cut government jobs unless we cut government
functions.
Drucker says that the United States doesn't have a
government that ``citizens respect or trust,'' But as we've
seen over the past year, citizens not only distrust
government, they distrust politicians who say they will
dismantle it. That's the paradox for Republicans.
But what citizens do know is that government today is out
of control. So here's my suggestion to Bob Dole (or Bill
Clinton): Announce right now that, if elected, you will
freeze government in place. No more new programs, no
additional spending on current programs, no increases in tax
revenues.
A hard freeze of this sort would leave the deficit at about
$140 billion, a safe number. Then, over the next four to
eight years, we can debate what government should--and, more
important, can--do.
For doubters, Dole can issue an ``Outrage of the Week''
report on excesses like the 146 union officials at Social
Security or the $5 billion in fraud, which, according to a
new study by Citizens Against Government Waste, afflicts the
Food Stamp program.
But we can't bring government back under control with a
single contract or a single election. As Drucker says,
``Government, rather than business . . . is going to be the
most important area of entrepreneurship and innovation for
the next 20 to 25 years.'' So let's freeze now, and get those
entrepreneurs to work on solutions.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Bunning amendment and ask Members to reject the Hoyer amendment.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the people in my district
who work for the Social Security Administration who brought this to
light, some very brave people who bucked the system, who bucked the
union to say that seniors' money, Social Security trust fund money,
should not pay for union representation on the job.
The fact is, union Members pay $4.3 million a year. Let us let the
union use that to pay for people to represent them in the workplace. It
is about balancing the budget, it is about being good stewards with our
seniors' money. It is about doing the right thing. Please support the
amendment. Please do not support the substitute.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 1\1/4\
minutes.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me assure my
good friend from Massachusetts and my good friend from Maryland that I
was a union negotiator for 12 years, so I know something about unions.
But they were in the private sector, and they were not supported with
Social Security and Medicare trust fund money.
We know what our amendment does. We know that it requires the Social
Security Administration to use Medicare and trust fund money only for
the purpose for which it was collected from hard-working, tax-paying
Americans. They pay FICA tax to the Treasury so it can be used for
retirement and disability payments under Social Security.
About the Hoyer amendment, we are not sure. But I will tell the
gentleman from Maryland, if he would like to sponsor appropriation bill
to use taxpayer funding from general revenues for union activities at
the Social Security Administration, an any other agency of the Federal
Government, because I believe employees are entitled to be represented,
I suggest that he do that as part of the appropriations process.
I urge support of the Bunning amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] as
a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Bunning] will be postponed.
amendment offered by mr. istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Istook: At the end of the
bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short
title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act, when it is made known to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that--
(1) any portion of such funds is knowingly being used by
such entity to provide services after March 31, 1997, to a
minor, other than a minor who--
(A) is emancipated under applicable State law;
(B) has the written consent of a custodial parent or legal
guardian to receive such services; or
(C) has an order of a court of competent jurisdiction to
receive such services, based on--
(i) the court's assumption of custody over the minor; or
(ii) actions of a custodial parent or legal guardian that
present a continuing threat to the health and safety of the
minor and precludes the obtaining of consent under
subparagraph (B); and
(2) The State in which such services are provided has not,
after the date of the enactment of this section, enacted a
statute that excludes the minor seeking a title X service
from the parental consent requirements as to that particular
service.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and a Member opposed will each
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns how we are spending $200
million a year of our Federal tax money, one-third of which goes to
provide contraceptives, condoms, birth control pills, and related
services to teenagers, to minors, with neither the knowledge nor the
consent of their parents.
As a parent of 5 children, 3 of them teenage girls, Mr. Chairman, and
public school students, I am well aware of the different times that
parental consent is necessary for so many things. For example, this is
a form from the Fairfax County, VA, public schools.
To go on a field trip, they have to have written consent from their
parents. To get authorization for medication, even aspirin, to be
administered to a minor in public school, in most cases you have to
have a signed permission slip from the parent or the guardian. This is
from the school that my children attend, again echoing that to have
medication, even something as simple as aspirin given to a student, you
cannot do it without the consent of their parents.
But, Mr. Chairman, under Federal law, it is something different.
Under Federal law, Mr. Chairman, and this is from the Federal
regulations, if they want to obtain services under the so-called title
X, Family Planning Services, then if they want to, and they do, all the
information is kept confidential only to that minor child. Their child
is sexually active, may have a sexually transmitted disease, is at risk
of pregnancy and all the complications that come from it with a child
involved in that activity, and 1.3 million of them a year in this
country are receiving federally funded assistance in bypassing their
parents, isolating them from the
[[Page H7349]]
love, the counsel, the nurture, and the moral guidance of their parents
under Federal law.
Mr. Chairman, I submit that is wrong. I submit that this country in
caring about its children says we want them to have the guidance of
their parents, and yet this is another part of the Federal law that
specifies that regardless of their family income, this is supposed to
be a low-income family program, if they want this confidentiality, then
you disregard what mom and dad and anyone else in the household is
making and so this child, by themselves, qualifies for this Federal
program.
One-third of its services, one-third of the $200 million a year, is
going to minors with neither the knowledge nor the consent of the
parents.
Mr. Chairman, since this program has been underway, since 1970 when
it began, we were told this is going to reduce teenage pregnancy, this
is going to reduce out-of-wedlock births with teenagers, and they still
try to manufacture some statistics trying to claim it. But, Mr.
Chairman, their projections do not hold up.
There is only one set of statistics that is really kept on this. It
is kept through the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Health and
Human Services Department, and is shown on this graph from it, since
this program went into effect. The number of out-of-wedlock births with
teenage mothers in the United States has doubled, the rate of teenage
out-of-wedlock births has doubled because the Federal Government is
inviting them to go around the moral guidance of their parents on these
most intimate and personal issues.
This amendment simply states we are not going to do it. We are going
to require parental consent if this is to go on. Normally it is a
matter of the States to decide. Fine. If the States decide otherwise,
they can do it in their State, but they would have the say-so. I ask
Members' support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] claim the
time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
amendment offered by mr. obey as a substitute for the amendment offered
by mr. istook
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Istook: In lieu of the matter
proposed to be inserted, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be made available to any entity under title X of the Public
Health Service Act unless it is made know to the Federal
official having authority to obligate or expend such funds
that the applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary
that it encourages family participation in the decision of
the minor to seek family planning services.''
{time} 2130
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 8 minutes of my
15 minutes be given to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] will
control 8 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will
control 7 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. The Istook amendment
would prohibit title X services to minors unless they have written
parental consent or a court order acting as parental consent. The Obey-
Greenwood-Lowey substitute would prohibit funds unless the entity
encourages consultation with family members.
Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. I do not believe teenagers
should engage in sex until they are married. That may make me old-
fashioned but that is what I happen to believe. But I also recognize
the world in which we all live. The United States has the highest rate
of teen pregnancy of any industrialized country in the world.
This committee had an opportunity to fund the President's teen
pregnancy prevention plan in this bill. It chose not to do so. Now,
unless we are careful, we will make what services there are remaining
to prevent teenage pregnancies even more difficult to obtain. When
minors delay diagnosis and treatment, especially in cases of sexually
transmitted diseases or HIV, their health, their future fertility and
life can be put at risk. Kids ought to be encouraged to talk with their
parents, but we also ought to be careful that, in the process of trying
to encourage that, we do not increase health risk to the general public
and that we do not in the process invite more abortions that are
performed because of careless pregnancies.
That is what this amendment tries to do. It tries to establish a
careful bipartisan balance between two justifiably strong moral
concerns in this society.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] only echoes existing law. It is
already in section 1001 of the Public Health Service Act that there is
supposed to be this very encouragement for family participation, which
is totally undercut by the existing Federal law saying it is not
required.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the substitute amendment. This amendment, title X, already requires
that providers encourage family participation in reproductive health
decisions, and this amendment strengthens that mandate.
I agree that parental involvement should be encouraged, encouraged,
not mandated. In fact, in order to encourage teens to seek necessary
reproductive health services, virtually every State in the country has
enacted legislation to permit minors to receive care for sexually
transmitted diseases without parental consent. Many States have already
put statutes on their books that allow minors to obtain birth control
information governed carefully by State law. We should not override
those statutes. States are closer to this problem than we are.
Teenagers denied contraceptive services do indulge less responsibly.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I only asked for 1 minute because I am
pleased there are so many Members on our side that want to speak out on
this.
I would like to begin the way the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook] did, talking proudly about his daughters. As a father and a
grandfather of eight young ladies, I take this parental rights thing
very seriously. But here is what we are neglecting on those who oppose
the Istook amendment. With parents' rights, as with most rights, there
are also responsibilities, and young people will sometimes follow peer
pressure and the lines of least resistance.
What they are doing by going against the Istook amendment is taking
away parental responsibilities, the responsibility of playing a role in
the counseling and guidance of young people. We are talking about one-
third of the people that have access to title X funds. That is about
1,300,000 teenagers that are covered here
States can opt out and keep in mind that the Istook amendment is
reinforcing standing Federal Law. Parents' rights and parents'
responsibilities, it is a winner with Americans across this country. Do
not take away those responsibilities.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, last year an attempt was made to zero out
the title X family planning program. That attempt failed here on the
floor of the House. This year the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]
is offering
[[Page H7350]]
an amendment to limit access to these important services. This is not
an issue of abortion. Let me emphasize that once again. And we are
talking here about services for poor, young women. We are talking about
a successful program that prevents 500,000 abortions from occurring in
our country every year.
A study published by the Journal of Pediatrics found that 85 percent
of teens would not seek care for sexually transmitted infections if
parental consent or notice were required. I have a letter from the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
opposing parental consent. They confirm that mandating parental consent
will prevent teens from seeking contraceptive services, placing them at
increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases and unintended
pregnancies. It is a very, very poorly advised amendment.
American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy
of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists,
June 11, 1996.
Hon. John Edward Porter,
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee, Labor, Health
and Human Services, House of Representatives, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Porter: As national organizations
representing over 170,000 physicians dedicated to improving
the health care of adolescents, we write to urge you to
oppose any amendment offered to the FY97 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act that would
require parental notification or parental consent for
services received by adolescents in clinics funded by Title
X, the national family planning program. As physicians who
care for adolescents, we always encourage family involvement
in their health care. Our organizations have adopted
principles stating that health professionals have an ethical
obligation to provide the best possible care and counseling
to respond to the needs of their adolescent patients. This
obligation includes every reasonable effort to encourage the
adolescent to involve parents, whose support can increase the
potential for dealing with the adolescent's problem on a
continual basis.
Most teens seeking services at Title X clinics are already
sexually active. Mandating parental consent may prevent these
teens from seeking contraceptive services, placing them at an
increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases and
unintended pregnancies. Studies indicate that one of the
major causes of delay by adolescents in seeking contraception
is fear of parental discovery. Parental consent or
notification provisions would be counterproductive to the
ongoing efforts of physicians and the Congress to prevent
such cases among the nation's young people.
Under our federal system, the states determine whether or
not parental consent is needed for the treatment of minors.
While states require consent before a minor receives medical
treatment, 23 states have recognized the special issues
surrounding family planning services and have instituted
exceptions explicitly allowing young women to obtain
contraceptive services without parental consent. Congress
should not override these states' authority in this area by
adopting an amendment to require parental notification or
consent in order for family planning clinics to receive Title
X funding.
While we applaud the efforts of the Committee to ensure
that parents are involved in minor's health care decisions,
we believe that such involvement is best achieved by the
efforts of physicians and their patients in a manner which
respects the adolescent's right to confidential health care.
Forced parental involvement, in our view, will have a
negative impact on the physician-patient relationship, as
well as have the unintended consequence of deterring
adolescents from seeking important health care services.
Accordingly, we urge you to oppose any amendments mandating
parental notification or consent for Title X services in the
FY97 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Evans, MD,
Chairman, Board of Directors, American Academy of Family
Physicians.
Maurice E. Keenan, MD,
President, American Academy of Pediatrics.
Ralph W. Hale, MD,
Executive Director, American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Istook amendment. As a grandmother of six young children, it amazes me
that, while parents are called to give permission for everything, they
could have their children go to school and come back with an
intrauterine device implanted that could cause sterilization, infection
and even in some cases loss of life.
The parent has been told when the child goes into emergency. The
basic question is whether or not parents should be informed about very
basic and fundamental questions concerning their son or daughter's
well-being. In an age when kids are bombarded with sex and stimuli from
the media and in the world that we would remove the parents from the
equation until the issue is a crisis is not acceptable. We need parents
to be parents, not government to be parents and until there is a
crisis.
I think my colleagues need to start thinking about the statistics
that we have faced. When we that were pro-abortion and pro-
contraceptive started in the early 1970's with the title X's to
decrease parental involvement and increase government involvement by
giving kids help outside of the family, we started a trend that now has
doubled out-of-wedlock births. It has not been successful. We know when
you remove parents, it does not work. So what do we risk on allowing
the States to put parents back into the equation? That is what we are
asking here today, States rights. Put the parents back into the
equation with the guidance of the States.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to one of the coauthors of
the amendment, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook
amendment that will require consent for minors receiving title X
services and in strong support to the Obey-Greenwood-Lowey amendment to
the amendment.
Let us make it very clear, when a teenager comes to a family planning
clinic, the family planning clinic is not making them sexually active.
I am the mother of three beautiful grown children, and I want to make
it very, very clear that the medical and public health community
overwhelmingly supports confidentiality for adolescents seeking family
planning services
Let us debunk the myth, these kids are not coming to that clinic and
suddenly becoming sexually active. In fact, what we are trying to do is
provide these services for these youngsters who come to the clinic so
that they can avoid spreading sexually transmitted diseases. I think it
is important to note that the bill as it is now encourages family
participation. That is exactly what we want to do, encourage family
participation, not mandate it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment that will
require parental consent for minors receiving title X services. In
addition, I am proud to join Mr. Obey and Mr. Greenwood as a sponsor of
the amendment to the amendment. The Istook amendment will just lead to
an increase in teen pregnancies and abortion, and in teens with STD's
and HIV.
Last year, as you all remember, opponents of family planning
attempted to eliminate the title X family planning program. Their
efforts, thankfully, were rejected by this House and by the American
public. However, they clearly did not learn anything from their defeat.
This amendment is just one of several assaults against the title X
program this year. Two earlier attempts to limit the program were
defeated in committee 2 weeks ago.
Why would anyone try to limit a program that successfully prevents
teen pregnancies and abortions? They do it because the Christian
Coalition tells them to. A recent Christian Coalition legislative alert
called this amendment one of ``the first steps to end the infamous
Title X program!''
The Istook amendment will place the health of young American women at
great risk. Approximately 1 million teens currently receive some
medical services from title X clinics. This requirement will create a
real barrier to these services for hundreds of thousands of teens.
Studies show that many teens--especially those who are abused or who
fear an extreme reaction from their parents--will stop seeking medical
services for STD's if forced to get their parent's consent. In
addition, most teens will continue to have sex but just forgo
contraceptives rather than seek parental consent. I do not believe that
any of us think that those are acceptable results.
The title X statute already requires providers to encourage family
participation in reproductive health services. The Obey amendment
reflects the spirit of the current statute. In fact, the majority of
young people already involve a
[[Page H7351]]
parent or other responsible adult when they seek family planning
services. The Istook amendment will ultimately only cause those teens
who do not want to tell their parents to forgo needed services.
I think that we need to debunk one myth right now. Parental consent
laws do not keep teens from having sex. I support abstinence-based
programs for teenagers, but the fact is that most teens are already
sexually active when they first come to a title X clinic seeking family
planning services. The Istook amendment will just keep those young
people from getting the family planning services they need.
In addition, I would like to note that the medical and public health
community overwhelmingly supports confidentiality for adolescents
seeking family planning services. The American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all oppose this amendment.
In conclusion, my colleagues, I urge you to defeat the Istook
amendment. Barring teens from family planning services will only lead
to horrible results--more teen pregnancy, more kids having kids, and
more abortions. This amendment will just create thousands of
unnecessary tragedies.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and colleague for
yielding me the time.
States' rights have been mentioned during this debate. I want to
point out back in 1982, early in the Reagan administration, the
Department of Health and Human Services proposed a regulation to
require parental notification, not consent, notification for
contraception and 39 States opposed that proposed regulation.
I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma and my other
colleagues who have spoken on this, but my concern is that the Istook
amendment would have a chilling effect, in fact, could be
counterproductive to our main goal here, which is to reduce the number
of unwanted abortions in American society by reducing the number of
unwanted pregnancies.
So I have to urge support of the Obey-Greenwood amendment and urge
the defeat of the Istook amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of the
Istook amendment to require that minors obtain parental consent from a
parent or legal guardian before they can receive services available
under title X of the Public Service Health Act.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this is a Federal program. We have
heard a lot about States' rights tonight from some pretty unique
sources with regard to States' rights. But the fact is, this is a
Federal program. There are Federal taxpayer dollars used in order that
teenagers can go around their parents and, under the cloak of secrecy,
not allow information to be passed to their parents. The fact is that
government should not be standing in the way of the parent-child
relationship. The parent is the one that the child should be going to
with regard to advice when it comes to these troubling times in their
life, and I ask for strong support of the Istook amendment so that we
can rebond the parent-child relationship.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook amendment to
require that minors obtain parental consent from a parent or legal
guardian before they can receive services available under title X of
the Public Health Service Act. I am appalled that a teenager girl can
walk into any clinic that receives funding under title X and receive
contraceptives, treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, or
counseling on how to avoid pregnancy without her parent's permission.
Teenagers are children themselves--and as a father of three young
children, with the fourth one on the way, I cannot begin to comprehend
how I would feel if one of my children were receiving such services
without my knowledge or consent.
By failing to require that parents give our consent to our children
when they receive sexual advice, we are doing a huge disservice to
parents and our children. Many people have voiced concern that if we
require parental consent, teenagers may not get the necessary services
to protect their health. Let me make this perfectly clear: this is not
about health care. If this were really a health care issue, parental
consent would be required before any of these services would be
rendered to a minor. A teenager cannot receive a aspirin at school,
have a physical exam, or even get their ears pierced without the
consent of a parent or legal guardian. Yet we are willing to ignore
these very appropriate requirements at the Federal level and write a
muiltimillion dollar check for birth control and sexual advice for
teenage boys and girls. This is simply and patently absurd. If we
believe that teenagers are more and more estranged from their parents,
this is clearly not the solution to bridging the generation gap. It is
inappropriate for the Federal Government to do anything to infringe
upon a parent's tie to their children. I urge you to support this
amendment. The relationship between a child and the Federal Government
should never take the place of a relationship between a parent and a
child.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if teenagers are denied confidential and
affordable access to family planning services, they will be at a
greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases, for unintended
pregnancies and more likely to get an abortion. Many teenagers are not
able to speak to their parents about these issues, and many parents do
not act responsibly and will not give their consent. These factors
should not be a barrier to an adolescent coming in and getting needed
counseling and contraceptive information and contraceptive services and
other health care services that are provided in these title X clinic.
I urge opposition to the Istook amendment.
{time} 2145
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook
amendment and in favor of the Obey substitute. This amendment would do
great harm to our efforts to reduce the incidence of sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, in our young people, and to
our efforts to lower the number of unintended pregnancies and
abortions.
On the face of it, it may seem reasonable to require parental consent
for family planning services. But, this amendment ignores the realities
of the young people who seek care at these clinics. The vast majority
of these teens are already sexually active and have been for almost a
year, on average. Most end up seeking services because they are afraid
that they may be pregnant or that they have a sexually transmitted
disease. Minors who go to clinics are strongly encouraged to involve
their parents, and many do bring a parent with them on subsequent
visits.
A recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics determined that 85
percent of adolescents would not seek treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, if parental consent and
notification requirements were imposed.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about consent and not notification.
Let us vote for the Obey substitute and protect teen health.
Delay will only endanger the health of these teens, not help them.
And, delay will only lead to unintended pregnancies and more abortions.
This amendment is also troubling because it undermines State laws.
Don't be misled by the State opt-out provision. Only State laws passed
after the date of enactment would be valid. Thus, the laws of 49 States
that already allow minors to receive STD services without parental
consent would be nullified. Each of the 49 States would then have to
pass new laws reinstituting their current laws. This is an affront to
States' rights, and should be rejected.
The medical community is also overwhelmingly opposed to parental
consent requirements for minors. The American Medical Association, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, all
agree that contraceptive services, prenatal care, and STD/HIV diagnosis
and treatment should be available to adolescents without their parents'
consent or knowledge.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote to uphold States' rights
and to protect teen health. Vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment.
[[Page H7352]]
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I believe many people are missing the point of this. In
the last 26 years we have found this program, using $200 million a year
of Federal taxpayers' money to help teenagers sneak around behind the
backs of their parents, does not work. It has doubled the out-of-
wedlock birthrate among teenagers. We need to get parental
responsibility back involved if we expect to improve the standards and
return accountability in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about whether to fund family
planning or title X. The only question is whether we believe that
parents should raise our children or whether we think that government
officials should raise our sons and daughters.
Parents must consent before their children attend field trips, if
their children are absent from school, for their children to receive
treatment for a twisted ankle, and parents must consent for their
children to participate in sports after school. Should this same parent
not also have to consent before their children receives contraceptives
or treatment for a sexually transmitted illness? That is the only issue
raised by the Istook amendment.
Without this amendment, when it comes to sexually transmitted
diseases, contraceptives and planning families, parents need not apply.
The Istook amendment puts parents first again. It says that what is
common sense for movies, fields trips and football should also apply to
serious medical treatment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each party has
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 3 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] has 4
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey substitute. My friend,
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], and I share parenthood. I
have four children. I understand the impulse to want to make sure that
parents are involved. Ideally we want our young people to abstain from
sexual behavior. We all want that, we all hope that, and we do our best
for that. And if they do become involved, if they make mistakes,
ideally they can come and talk to mom and dad. That is the ideal. That
is what we spend our whole lives as parents trying to achieve. But we
do not all succeed.
Some parents cannot talk about sex to their children, and some
children cannot talk sex to their parents. That is the real world. So
what happens? How do we strike a balance when we have a young lady who
is afraid that she is pregnant? Kids do not go to family planning
clinics because they are thinking about having sex; they go because
they have been having sex; they go because they are afraid that they
are pregnant; they go because they fear that they have a sexually
transmitted disease.
What happens to those kids who cannot get parental consent? They do
not get treated for disease. They do not get treated for sexually
transmitted diseases. We have more teenage pregnancies. We have more
teenage abortions.
The Obey amendment strikes the right balance. It requires these
agencies to encourage the involvement of their families, and that is
what we all should be about. A child untreated for HIV becomes a child,
a teenager, with AIDS. When kids cannot get the diagnosis or treatment
for that disease, they die. That is how important this is.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I stand here very strongly supporting
the Istook amendment for parental consent. I have to say there is life
after teenagehood. My two children are now in their 20's, but as a mom
and as a former teacher, I wholeheartedly support the idea and the main
issue of this amendment, which is to give back parental consent, that
moms and dads can have the right to talk with their children about this
and not feel that it has been handed over to the Federal Government.
I might say that I have spent a couple of times in my office as a
State legislator with moms crying in the office because they found out
that their children were able to go to a clinic and get much
information and the parents who really wanted to speak to their
children about this were left out of the loop.
Now, I want to remind people, yes, the State legislatures across
America, if they so choose, can waive the parental consent requirement,
and that is very important with me. But I wanted to point out that
since title X has been in existence, since 1970, we are talking about a
program that wanted very sincerely, when it started, to decrease out-
of-wedlock and teenage pregnancies, and there has been a lot of times
that it has been successful.
But, Mr. Chairman, we just have to look at our own local programs and
talk to families and know the statistics are saying that it is
skyrocketing. The teenage out-of-wedlock births are skyrocketing and
children need to have moms and dads involved in their life.
What we have done at the Federal level is just say sex is OK because
we help to avoid the consequences.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, in the ideal world, if there were an ideal
world, perhaps the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
would make sense. I am the father of a teenager. I wish we had that
ideal world where communication was as we wish it would be. In the real
world this proposal, sadly, is a dangerous one. It will inevitably mean
more unintended pregnancies, more abortions, more sexually transmitted
diseases.
That is why the Obey substitute is the sound way to go here. It has
nothing to do, as allegations have been raised, about Government
bureaucrats getting involved in sexual activities of our children. That
is a total red herring. What it does have to do with is recognizing the
realities of teenage sexual behavior in the last part of the 20th
century in this country, and how we are going to deal with that reality
not in a wishful way, not in a mythical Ozzie and Harriet way, but in a
way that works, making sure that our kids get the health services that
they need.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would make it more
difficult for young people to obtain family planning assistance.
This amendment would require, unemancipated, minors to get written
consent from a parent or to get a court order to be eligible for any
services through title X family planning programs unless the State
passes a new law excluding minors from the requirement. For the record,
Mr. Chairman, title X programs do not provide abortion services.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the desire of the gentleman from Oklahoma
to promote communication between teenagers and their parents--and in an
ideal world all young people would get their parents consent in all
important decisions. But, in the real world, many teenagers don't
always seek their parents' consent for the actions, including engaging
in sexual activity.
Many teenagers simply will not use contraceptives or get screening or
treatment for sexually transmitted diseases if they must first get a
parent's written consent--and surely not if they must get a court
order.
If this amendment becomes law, fewer teenagers will have access to
contraceptives and the other services offered by title X family
planning programs, including breast and cervical cancer screening,
routine gynecological exams, HIV screening and treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases. Again, for the record, title X programs do not
provide abortion services.
If this amendment becomes law there will be more teenage pregnancies.
If this amendment becomes law, more teenagers will fall victim to
sexually transmitted diseases. If this amendment becomes law, the
resulting increase in teenage pregnancies will lead to more abortions.
That's why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of
Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose this
amendment.
Teenage pregnancy is a national problem that exacts a high societal
and fiscal price. There are about 1 million teenage pregnancies each
year in this country. However, there has been progress in the fight to
reduce teenage pregnancies over the past 2 or 3 years and title X
programs play an important part in that
[[Page H7353]]
fight. According to Planned Parenthood, publicly funded family planning
services prevent 256,000 unintended teenage pregnancies each year, an
estimated 100,000 of which would have ended in abortion. In addition,
each dollar spent on family planning services saves over $4.00 in
medical, welfare, and other social services costs.
Mr. Chairman, title X programs serve lower income Americans. While
lower income teenagers and their families will suffer the most in the
form of unwanted pregnancies and health problems if this amendment
becomes law, the Nation as a whole will be the worse for the additional
unplanned pregnancies, abortions, and disrupted young lives.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. This is about Washington bureaucrats, it is about a faceless
Washington bureaucrat making decisions for the relationships between
parents and kids. Washington bureaucrats in their infinite wisdom have
decided that school officials cannot give their child as aspirin, but
can provide condoms without parental consent.
It assumes that a Washington bureaucrat is better able to teach your
child sex education than the child's parents. The myth is that
Washington cares more about the well-being of a child than his or his
parents. President Clinton actually said it best: Governments do not
raise children, but parents do.
Let us remove this faceless bureaucrat from being involved in these
types of decisions, let us not encourage bureaucrats to counsel
children to have a dialog with your parents, let us get the bureaucrat
out and recognize we need to be working on establishing relationships
between parents and children and it is best done there without a
Washington bureaucrat in the middle.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, what I want to do, very quickly, is to draw attention
to this painting again, this faceless bureaucrat, and put a name and a
face to it, and it would be me as a schoolteacher, Mr. Gilchrest, who
realizes that parents should be involved in every stage of their
children's lives, no matter what it is.
I encourage Members to vote for the Obey substitute because he
reemphasizes the fact that we should involve parents in the situation.
As a schoolteacher, I often talked to parents that were very concerned
about their children. I also talked to parents where the mother had a
live-in boyfriend and she did not care about anything that her child
did. I also talked to parents where the father was a drug addict and
the mother was an alcoholic and they did not care about their children.
I also talked to parents where the father sexually molested his
children and abused and beat their mother.
There are times, Mr. Chairman, when the school official, which was me
in many instances, for years came to the child's aid and counseled them
as a substitute parent. So we need all of this. We need parental
guidance, love, compassion, discipline, all of that. I encourage the
Obey amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, every year Planned Parenthood
counsels, refers or performs over 230,000 abortions, an absolutely
staggering number of children who die. Taxpayers subsidize the
counseling and the referring as part of title X.
Every year tens of thousands of teenage moms, many of them frightened
and extremely impressionable, walk into Planned Parenthood and other
title X clinics carrying perfectly healthy babies only to leave that
clinic having had their babies shredded and ripped apart by powerful
suction machines or killed by chemical poison. In many of these cases
the parents have no idea this is happening.
The bottom line in this legislation and the amendment, which is
really a sense of the Congress offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], is that our current policy trusts strangers more than they
do the parents. There is a bypass in the legislation offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], that if there is a dysfunctional
family, there is a way of getting around it. But I think we need to put
our trust, invest our hopes more into the parents and stop looking for
the government bureaucrats and so-called counselors, strangers, to take
care of our daughters.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think any Member of the Congress needs to sit
here and take lectures from any Member of Congress about how we deal
with our own children. I think every Member of this House trusts their
children before they trust another Member of Congress.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hobson].
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook
amendment, and I oppose the amendment because it will limit access to
family planning services. This changes the law in 23 States and the
District of Columbia. And I believe limited access to these services
will lead to more abortions.
Let's be clear on this amendment. This is not parental notification.
This is parental consent, and there's a big difference.
For the past 25 years, family planning services have been made
available to low-income women and men through the Title X Program. In
many cases, this program is their only source of health care. We're
talking about basic primary health services, not abortion services. By
law, title X funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. Through family
planning services, unintended pregnancies have been reduce. Low-cost
contraception can prevent the tragic personal and social impact of
unwanted pregnancies and can save our health care system up to $14,000
per woman, over 5 years of use, compared to the cost of childbirth or
pregnancy termination.
The bottom line is that this amendment will limit access to family
planning services. And I believe limiting access to these services will
lead to more abortions. This is a health care issue, not an abortion
issue.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
{time} 2200
I believe these services will actually lead to more abortions. Let us
be clear on this amendment. It is not parental notification. This is
parental consent, and there is a big difference. For the past 25 years,
family planning services has been made available to low-income women
throughout the title X program. In many cases this is the only health
care source that these people have. This is a basic health care issue;
it is not one of abortion because, by law, title X funds cannot be used
for that.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should oppose the Istook amendment
and pass the Obey substitute.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] has
30 seconds remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 1
minute and 50 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the
right to close.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this vote is going to show whether we believe in
families and family responsibility or in Government taking over the
major aspects of what we teach our children.
President Clinton says: Government does not raise children; families
do. I say to my colleagues, Then show you mean it. I know a friend who
came to me. He has a 16-year-old daughter. He found out that she had
been going to a title X clinic for a couple of years. He did not know
anything about it until she ended up pregnant and had had an abortion.
He said, ``Can the Government do this to our family? I could have
helped, but I could not because I did not know.''
As parents, my wife and I know our approval was necessary if our
girls wanted to get their ears pierced, when one of our five children
went on school field trips, if they simply needed aspirin at school, or
even to handle many medical emergencies. Yet Federal law say kid don't
need anyone's okay to get birth
[[Page H7354]]
control, family planning counseling, or even medical treatment, so long
as it relates to sex.
Title X--Title Ten--of the Federal Public Health Service Act provides
birth control, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and family-
planning counseling to adults and minors alike. Created in 1970, the
intent was to serve poor families, but that has changed. Federal
regulations now let a minor child, or a woman, be considered as a
family of their own, so they're eligible regardless of how high their
household's income may be. It all costs taxpayers almost $200 million a
year.
Today one-third of title X's clients are teenagers. This means 1.3
million youngsters each year get special support directly and fully
from Federal tax dollars, just for their sexual activity. Current law
not only lets teens escape parental consent; it also lets them prevent
even a simple notice to their parents of what is going on. Even for
those with no stable home life, the law likewise evades their guardians
and other family members. Supporters of title X claim it reduces out-
of-wedlock and teen pregnancies. But Federal statistics prove that the
out-of-wedlock birthrate for American teenagers has doubled since title
X began in 1970. Our Federal safety net has induced teens to believe
that premarital sex is safe and that its consequences are avoidable,
until they later learn otherwise.
But forget statistics. Is it right for Government to help teens evade
their parents regarding teenage sex and its consequences? This hits the
heart of America's values. This most intimate moral issue is the
crucial link leading to welfare dependency, single-parent homes, school
drop-outs, juvenile crime, and a vast array of social problems. Why has
our Government spent 26 years helping teens to avoid their most loving
and helpful counselors--their parents?
It's been far too many years since Congress has addressed this issue.
But I'm offering a crucial amendment to the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education and spending bill--under which title X is
funded--to reinstate the principle of parents' role and responsibility
regarding their children. The amendment simply requires minors to
obtain consent from a parent or legal guardian, as governed by each
State's own law on such issues, before they can receive federally
financed contraceptives, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, or
related counseling. Each State legislature can then define the scope of
when parental consent is needed or not--just as States do on other
parent-child issues.
President Clinton has said ``governments don't raise children, but
parents do.'' Yet he and too many others have not supported parental
consent regarding title X. If he and others really believe in and trust
families, it's time for Government to quite separating our children
from their parent's love and guidance, especially on key moral issues
such as teenage sex.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this vote will show whether this House
lives in a dream world or in the real world. In the real world, not
every child can talk to his parents or her parents. In the real world,
there are child abusers as parents; there are absentee parents; there
are ignorant parents; there are children who as teenagers who are
sexually active.
Mr. Chairman, the vote on this amendment will determine whether they
get contraception or AIDS; whether they get contraception or have an
abortion; whether they get contraception or the back of our hands.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma that would require teens to obtain written
parental consent before receiving any services at family planning
clinics that receive title X funding. These clinics serve as critical
entry points into the health care system for young people where they
can obtain the full range of services including general checkups,
routine gynecological exams, breast and cervical cancer screening,
screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, screening
for HIV, and family planning services. Adolescents already tend to
underutilize existing health care services. Setting up more barriers to
their access to services will only exacerbate this problem.
These clinics strongly encourage their patients to discuss their
concerns and cases with their parents. Most minors do bring a parent or
responsible elder with them when they seek these vital health care
services. Many adolescents feel comfortable and safe speaking with
their parents normally and will communicate with them in times of
crisis. However, due to a myriad of circumstances, there are many
teenagers who feel they cannot discuss such issues with their parents.
Eighty-six percent of the teenagers who used title X-funded services
for the first time were sexually active long before they entered
the clinic. I know there are some who believe that teenagers, faced
with reduced access to birth control, would reduce sexual activity.
Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Preventing them from
gaining access to vital resources for preventing unwanted pregnancies
and the spread of AIDS and other STDs will not change that. There will
be more cases of AIDS and more teen pregnancies.
One in every five American youngsters is infected with some form of
sexually transmitted disease before the age of 21. The fastest growing
population of Americans who have AIDS is among 18-24 years olds. This
amendment will increase the number of teenage pregnancies, abortions,
and of youth who contract diseases.
This amendment also seriously encroaches on States' rights. It will
nullify current laws that exist in 50 of the States that do not require
teens to have parental consent for screening and treatment of STD's. It
would also nullify laws in 28 States that permit minors to receive
pregnancy testing services without consent, and in 24 States that
explicitly allow teens to receive family planning services including
the distribution of contraceptives. The amendment includes a provision
that would allow States to enact new laws after passage of this bill,
which would override the Federal requirement. This process is a costly
waste of taxpayers' money and States' time when most of these services
are time sensitive. These States have already decided this issue yet
this amendment would nullify those laws. The majority has consistently
fought to minimize large government and return power to the States, yet
here it is attempting to overrule long standing State laws.
Enforced parental consent will also disproportionately impact low-
income teens who can not afford needed services in private medical
offices. The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education bill mandates
that priority for family planning services be given to individuals from
low-income families, as it should be. This amendment creates a double
standard in availability of these services to adolescents.
Confidentiality and access to vital services are already protected for
those who can afford private health care. However, this amendment would
restrict access to these services for those who can not afford private
health care.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Under the Istook amendment, teenagers who are too afraid to consult
their parents for advice will not get any advice at all. That could
cost them their health, their future fertility, even their lives. We
need a policy for the real world, not an ideal world.
Oppose the Istook amendment.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, imagine three children. The first child is the child we
would all like to raise. The child abstains from sexual behavior long
beyond their minority status. The second child makes a mistake and
becomes involved sexually and that child has a great relationship with
mom and dad, and the world works again as the gentleman from Oklahoma
would like it to.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is a third child in the world and that is a
lonely child with very poor parents, no communication skills, and the
terror of being pregnant or suffering from AIDS. That is the child we
need to think of in this vote.
Support the Obey amendment.
(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody here wants the same thing
for our children. The fact is that we do not know how well this system
that we have works. And for the young third child that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood] described, we have a problem, there
is no question. We have a problem today with the system that we have.
Mr. Chairman, there are some things that we do know about title X.
That where less money is spent, there is less pregnancy, there is less
sexual activity, there is less sexually transmitted
[[Page H7355]]
disease, there is less abortion. Where there is more money spent, there
is more of each of those.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what causes that. I do not know whether
the cart is before the horse or after the horse. I honestly do not
know. We do not know. We are all going based on what we think.
The one thing I do know as a practicing physician is that if a child
comes into my clinic, a parent has to sign this permission slip to get
a shot, to get a wound closed if the parent is not there, to get any
service from me as a physician. I have to have had the parent's
permission to do that, with the exception of giving that child sexual
activity protection.
Mr. Chairman, the point being we have to work through what the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] says. If we fail in our
responsibility as a parent, should the Government bypass that failure
or should we work to reemphasize and replace the responsibility, hard
as it may be, on that dysfunctional parent, on that failing family, on
that failing parent?
What I say, and what I believe, is that we should work hard to move
the responsibility back. Where we fail, let us correct where we are
failing. Let us work to solve those problems, but let us not disinvolve
the parent in this process.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot do both. Nobody questions the motivations of
my colleagues when they think we should do it the other way. I think
that they are just as well-intentioned as I am. I do not want the first
child to get pregnant out of wedlock.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California, [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a mother of four, including a young
adult daughter and a preteen daughter, I want my children to seek my
advice if not my approval on health-related matters, particularly those
related to reproductive issues. But their willingness to talk to me and
their father is based on trust and respect and cannot be mandated by
requiring parental consent.
The Istook amendment nullifies the statutes in the 49 States that
allow teens to consent for screening and treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases. It also nullifies the law in 23 States which
explicitly allows teens to consent for family planning services.
This amendment undercuts any pretense of this body in assuring the
primacy of States' rights. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment
jeopardizes health, does nothing to bring parent and child together,
and imposes Washington one-size-fits-all views on policies and
procedures already decided by a majority of the States.
This is a tough vote, but it is clear to this mother that the right
vote is in opposition to the Istook amendment and in support of the
Obey substitute, which goes farther in encouraging parental involvement
in important health and reproductive questions of our children.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook
amendment to the 1997 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act.
Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal which we are discussing right now
is one of the most cruel and irresponsible measures taken up by this
Congress.
That is saying a lot, since this Congress should get the Olympic gold
medal for cruel and irresponsible measures.
The Istook amendment will require teenagers to obtain parental
consent for any title 10 services, including treatment for sexually
transmitted diseases, pregnancy testing, or basic gynecological health
care.
At first glance, that may seem benign. I'm a parent, most of our
fellow colleagues are parents. Of course we want to be involved in our
adolescent children's lives. Let's just say we're all for family unity,
and get that argument over with now.
But the Istook amendment isn't benign, it is not about family unity.
Indeed, the Istook amendment is a killer.
If passed, this proposal would prevent many young adults from
receiving reproductive health care--care that could save their lives,
care that could prevent abortions, care that could stop the spread of
sexually transmitted diseases.
If passed, the Istook amendment would result in an enormous amount of
misery for young women and young men. Young people who are just
starting out and who may not have a sympathetic adult to turn to.
To me, that is unconscionable. But, I'm pleased to let you know that
I'm not alone in my sentiment. I'm in good company. Listen to what the
American Medical Association has to say about this proposal:
The A.M.A. opposes regulations that require parental
notification . . . since it would create a breach of
confidentiality in the physician-patient relationship.
And this is what the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists have to say about the Istook amendment:
Parental consent or notification provisions would be
counter productive to the ongoing efforts of physicians and
the Congress to prevent [unintended pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases] among the Nation's young people.
These are the experts, folks. These are doctors, and they know what
they are talking about.
I would also like to say, if one of your goals is to reduce the
number of abortions, and if one of your goals is to cut the welfare
rolls, you must vote against the Istook amendment.
Please remember, you will be asked to vote for a welfare bill in a
few weeks which would drastically cut benefits to welfare recipients
and their children.
Title 10 family planning programs prevent women from dropping out of
the work force due to unwanted pregnancies. Title 10 family planning
programs prevent welfare dependency.
I urge everyone in this Chamber to defeat the amendment. Prevent
unwanted pregnancies which cause welfare dependency.
Do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment. I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as
a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Istook] will be postponed.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that no vote is taken at this
time on the underlying amendment because first the substitute must be
disposed of then, after a recorded vote and after the disposition of
the substitute, there will be the disposition of the underlying
amendment on which we have been debating?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman states the situation correctly.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the Chairman.
amendment no. 28 offered by mr. mcintosh
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clark will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. McIntosh: Page 87, after
line 14, insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Labor may be used to enforce section
1926.28(a) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, with
respect to any operation, when it is made known to the
Federal official having authority to obligate or expand such
funds that such enforcement pertains to a requirement that
workers wear long pants and such requirement would cause the
workers to experience extreme discomfort due to excessively
high air temperatures.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] reserves a
point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, next to me here I have got a blowup of the weather map
for today. The yellow spots indicate the 70
[[Page H7356]]
degrees, the orange is the 80 degrees, and the red is the 90-degree
temperatures. This is a relatively mild day this summer, but as we can
see, much of our country is covered in 80- and 90-degree heat.
But I am not here to give a weather report, Mr. Chairman. I am here
to talk about an important issue that I would like to raise in this
bill which we have tried to resolve with OSHA, the Occupational Safety
and Health Agency, and it has to do with their requirement that
inadvertently, I believe, but nonetheless has the effect of requiring
our paving crews, men and women who are working to build roads
throughout America in this mid-summer heat, to wear long pants and long
shirts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to read a quote from one of those men who works
in a road project in my district, Roger Overby, who said, ``Personally,
I don't like the government telling me how to dress.''
Every day this summer he and the other members of his road crew have
been working hard on various projects in my district, and as it gets
hot they have been asking whether they could wear shorts to work when
they show up on these very hot days in the road crew. Unfortunately,
this OSHA regulation has been interpreted in an inflexible manner
rather than a commonsense manner to say that they must wear long pants
and long sleeve shirts. The bureaucrats back in Washington, where it is
air conditioned, may not worry about the effects of having to work
outside in 100-degree heat, but I think it is time we listened to the
workers who tell us they think they can handle this job safely in
shorts and short sleeved shirts.
It is the intent of my amendment to allow the workers to notify their
employers and OSHA of conditions where they feel the risk of heat
exhaustion is greater than any risk they may have from handling the
asphalt, and in that case the rules and regulations under OSHA's
current standards, section 1926.28, would not require them to wear
those long pants and those long-sleeved shirts.
Let me give a little background. Mr. Chairman. Last summer a company
in my district, E&B Paving, was fined for allowing their workers to
wear shorts on the job when temperatures exceeded 100 degrees. As a
result the company now has a rule that they must always wear long pants
and long-sleeved shirts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to read a couple of quotes from the workers.
``I've laid asphalt for 20 years and I can tell you this is common
sense. The temperatures are so hot, we would be able to decide for
ourselves what we want to wear. Personally, I don't like the government
telling me how to dress.'' Roger Overby.
``It is just overbearing. We need ventilation or we might have heat
stroke. All we're asking for is a choice.'' Dennis Benefiel, E&B Paving
Crew foreman.
``Sometimes the heat is well over 100 degrees and we actually had
guys so hot because they are wearing long pants, they had to stop
working and sit down in the shade in recover.'' That is from Ron
Richmond who is a grade foreman.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is one that is very simple. It simply
says that we are going to give the workers a choice that they can wear
shorts this summer and in the future when they are working in the 90-
and 100-degree heat to make our roads the best roads in the world.
The long and the short of it, Mr. Chairman, is let us give the road
workers a break.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McINTOSH. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] insist on
his point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order
and seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me simply say I am of a mixed mind on this amendment. The gentleman
and I had a conversation earlier today, as he knows, and I indicated at
that time that because he had described his amendment to me as being
one which made clear that this was a matter of choice for workers, I
told him I thought I would have no objection. The language is somewhat
different than I had expected. I would have no problem accepting the
amendment, provided that we understand that in conference I want to
make sure of two things.
No. 1, that the language is sufficiently clear so that we know that
it is a worker choice being exercised here. And second, I would simply
note that when asphalt is being used on road surfaces, I am told that
its temperature can exceed 300 degrees, and it can cause severe burns
when it sticks to skin. So I reserve the right in conference to make
certain that if workers are making a choice, it will be an informed
one.
But having said that, I would withdraw my objection and accept the
amendment.
{time} 2215
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to work with
the ranking member to address those concerns and conform the language
to reflect exactly those concerns, because I think they are exactly
what we are intending to do with this amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McIntosh amendment.
This is a classic case of regulations gone haywire. Since when does the
Federal Government get into the business of prescribing a dress code
for a private company? How can an agency enforce such a regulation with
a straight face.
We should give workers enough credit to let them decide what is
appropriate dress to conduct their jobs. Contrary to what some
bureaucrats may believe, the Federal Government does not always know
best. As Roger Overbey, an equipment operator for a paving company in
Indiana stated, ``They don't think we have common sense. Personally, I
don't like the government telling me how to dress.''
I don't like it either. Federal bureaucrats in Washington, sitting in
air conditioned rooms, should not be allowed to fine companies that try
to keep their employees from getting heat stroke by giving them
discretion to decide what they feel most safe and comfortable wearing
to do their jobs.
The Federal Government may be Uncle Sam, but in this case it is the
Wicked Stepmother. I urge a yes vote on the McIntosh amendment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the McIntosh amendment.
This amendment is a ridiculous exercise in micromanagement. The
amendment supposedly attempts to prevent a Federal agency, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, from enforcing a
requirement that doesn't really exist, all because a State agency, in
the sponsor's home State, levied a fine against a construction firm.
The paving contractor involved had allowed an employee to be exposed
to hot paving material with no protective equipment for the employee's
legs and feet. As a result, the contractor was fined by the State of
Indiana OSHA.
In response, this silly amendment tries to prevent Federal OSHA from
enforcing a regulation that supposedly requires workers to wear long
pants in very hot weather.
But let's look at the relevant OSHA regulation. It doesn't require
workers to wear long pants. Rather, all the regulation says is that the
``employer is responsible for requiring the wearing of appropriate
personal protective equipment in all operations where there is an
exposure to hazardous conditions or where * * * [there is] the need for
using such equipment to reduce the hazards to the employees.''
Obviously, there are times when long pants are appropriate for safety
purposes. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health says that, because of the large risk of severe burns,
workers who pour hot asphalt should wear long pants.
This amendment is a waste of the House's time. Since the State of
Indiana OSHA fined the paving contractor, the gentleman should propose
this amendment in the Indiana legislature, not here in the Congress.
This amendment should be defeated.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H7357]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell: At the end of the bill,
after the last section (preceding the short title), insert
the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to order, direct, enforce, or compel any employer to
pay backpay to any employee for any period when it is made
known to the Federal official to whom the funds are made
available that during such period the employee was not
lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United
States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and a Member opposed, will
each control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment that I propose at this point should not be necessary.
It deals with something that is so obviously commonsensical that it is
surprising that we need to address it but we do.
Here is the example. There are many others, but this is the
illustration I would like to use. Illegal aliens come to the United
States, violating our immigration laws, are hired by an employer. After
several months, some of those illegal alien employees who are here in
violation of our law engage in union activity. The employer fires them
because they were engaging in union activity. That employer violates
the National Labor Relations Act.
A few months pass, and the National Labor Relations Board holds that
it was indeed a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to fire
those employees whether they were legal or illegally in the United
States because they were engaged in union activity.
So far, the story is common and not particularly surprising. But now
it turns so. The National Labor Relations Board, as an example of what
is done in other agencies as well but in this particular example,
orders the employer to pay the salaries for these people who should not
have been here in the first place from the time that they were fired to
the time that they are ordered reinstated.
The Board has got a problem. It cannot order illegal aliens to be
reinstated because they are not legally here. Nevertheless, it orders
that a paycheck go from the employer to these employees who should not
have been here for the period of time they were not working from the
time they were fired to the time of the finding by the National Labor
Relations Board.
Can we imagine anything sending a more mixed signal about America's
immigration policy than a letter coming from a Federal Government
agency, enclosing a check from an employer to a citizen of another
country addressed to that citizen of that other country in that other
country with a paycheck for the time that they were not actually even
working in the United States when they should not even have been in the
United States?
That is the situation I am dealing with in this amendment. Let me be
clear what I am not dealing with. I am not dealing with an unscrupulous
employer although in this instance there are two kinds of being
unscrupulous, unscrupulous employer who did not pay at all for the
hours worked. That would be subject to State law, not subject to
Federal law.
What we are dealing with here is only when the employee is fired by
the employer for a reason that violates Federal law and the remedy
normally is reinstatement plus backpay during the period of time you
are out of work, but it simply should not include backpay when the
person had no right to be here in the first place. That is the
situation before us.
This issue came to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. Justice O'Connor
writing for the majority in the Sure-Tan opinion said as follows:
In computing backpay, the employees must be deemed
``unavailable'' for work, and the accrual of backpay
therefore tolled, during any period when they were not
lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United
States.
That is very clear statement of the law by the Supreme Court of the
United States. We would think that would have settled it. It did not.
Circuit courts have split in interpreting exactly that phrase, even
though to me it is really quite clear.
So today we must clarify what is the intent of Congress. Should an
employer who violates the labor law be cited by the National Labor
Relations Board? Yes, of course. Should that employer be subject to a
finding of illegality? The entry of an order and contempt citations for
violating that order? Yes, of course.
But should that employer be forced to give backpay, to give pay to
persons who did not work during the time calculated for this backpay
when they should not even have been in the United States? Well, some
say yes. What is their point of view. Why do they reach that
conclusion?
The answer is in order to vindicate the purposes of the Federal
statute, to punish the employer. I understand. But it seems to me that
you must balance the other interests, namely in the immigration laws of
the United States. Because to order an employer to pay somebody who is
not working but had been discharged from work at a time when that
person was not even legally in the country is to ask the employer to
violate the immigration laws of the United States, to pay them when
they should not have been here, when it would have been an illegal act
for that employer to have hired them.
It is an absurdity which should be corrected. So how do we punish the
employer? Well, other Federal statutes carry with them their own fines
and penalties. The reason why this became an issue is that the National
Labor Relations Act does not carry with it a fine unless an employer is
ordered not to engage in particular conduct and then violates that
order and then contempt citation is available. That still is a remedy
available under the act.
In giving weight only to the vindication of the Labor Act, the
decision in this particular case and others like it ignore the equally
important, and in this area obviously ignored position is of
immigration, that we are giving people an incentive, a welcome, a point
of view that is inconsistent with their being here illegally.
The other argument raised in favor of this policy is, well, employers
will be tempted to exploit illegal aliens. But let me go through
exactly how fallacious that argument is. Nothing in this amendment
takes away the obligation under State law for an employer to pay an
employee for the time that that employee works. That is settled. That
is not an issue in Federal law.
It is hard to believe that an illegal employee coming to the United
States is drawn to do so by the prospect of receiving backpay for a
period of time when they had been fired from their job in violation of
the Federal Labor Relations Act. Surely, no illegal immigrant to this
country is coming anticipating such backpay.
Is it a possibility that an employer will exploit an employee who is
here illegally? Yes, of course that is. So we need to sanction the
illegal employment of persons who have no right to be in this country.
We do that directly under IRCA and under Simpson-Mazzoli, and we do
that under other Federal statutes as well. That is the way to deter the
hiring of the illegal.
Think of the attraction given to an illegal immigrant to our country.
Think of the undermining of the policy of protecting our border by a
message from the Federal government including in it a paycheck received
during a time that employee had no right to be here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not want to see illegal aliens in this country. I want our laws
enforced. I do not want illegals to undercut the pay of U.S. workers.
There is enough of that going on already. But I frankly am not at all
sure that I like the idea of their getting backpay or any other pay.
But it would seem to me that unless a provision is created by this
amendment that would require such pay instead of going to illegal
aliens to go into the Treasury of the United States, then the amendment
is deficient and would create an incentive for employers to fire or
threaten to fire
[[Page H7358]]
immigrants and to encourage immigrants to illegally work lest they be
exposed by their employers.
It is bad enough for employers to hire workers who they know are
illegals. But for them to take advantage of illegal aliens, pay them
wages which are either substandard or denied at all in the end is to
turn substandard wage workers into slaves. That would be even worse.
So I would simply suggest that, while the amendment may have a good
intention, I do believe that it would have the effect of enabling some
unscrupulous importers of illegal aliens to be able to avoid their
legal responsibilities and to undercut American wages of American
workers in the process.
I suspect this amendment is going to be accepted by the committee on
the majority side, and there is not much I can do about that. But I
will certainly, I want the gentleman to know, work in conference to try
to correct the deficiencies that I see in this amendment because right
now I honestly do believe that, despite the gentleman's best
intentions, it does create loopholes for unscrupulous employers.
I do not believe by any means that scrupulous employers would take
advantage of that loophole. But laws are not made for people for whom
we have great expectation of compliance. Laws are made because we
recognize that there are persons who are always looking to avoid
compliance. So I express great caution to the House and reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague
from California for his very thoughtful approach to this. I must say
that I disagree with his interpretation of that Supreme Court decision
in the Sure-Tan case, which he cites, and say that the NLRB, the
National Labor Relations Board, in its decision, I believe, was
eminently correct in saying that backpay for anyone who is employed is
appropriate because in this particular instance what the NLRB was
trying to say is we must protect the provisions of the NLRA, National
Labor Relations Act, which are trying to preserve rights for employees.
I would say to my friend that what we are really talking about is the
fact that in this particular case at issue which caused the gentleman
some concern and the case of Sure-Tan, what we have is a case where
employees would have been paid for work which would have been performed
but for the illegal, the unlawful firing by the employers of these
particular individuals. That is why the NLRB decided that it was
absolutely appropriate for backpay to be issued because, but for the
unlawful activity of the employers, there would have been pay provided
to these employees.
Now, we get to the next issue of, well, these individuals as
employees were here without documentation and may not have been
authorized to work. What the court has said, and I believe if we look
to the case in the 9th circuit, I think it was the Filbro case, and I
will try to get the specific citation in a second. What the 9th circuit
said was that in fact the Supreme Court in the Sure-Tan case cited by
the gentleman from California, the Supreme Court did not say that you
should not award any type of backpay to someone who is undocumented.
{time} 2230
But what you should do is make sure it is based on the status of the
employee had it not been for the unlawful conduct of the employer. So
had that employee been working but for the unlawful firing by the
employer, then in that case if would be under the NLRA entitled to back
pay as that particular employee.
What my colleagues would have, if they allow the gentleman's
amendment to pass, is a case where they punish the employee for the
employer's unlawful firing, and they do nothing to the employer. They
let the employer escape all punishment for having committed an illegal
act.
Sure-Tan, I would submit, is prospective; it is not retrospective as
the gentleman from California, I would allege, is trying to make it.
And for those reasons I would urge people to vote against this
particular amendment.
Mr. OBEY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
I agree that we should not allow people who are here illegally, want
to be here illegally, and I voted for even tougher enforcement, but I
am concerned about unjust enrichment of unscrupulous employers, and it
does seem to have disincentive to have the incentive--many of these
people employing people are here illegally know that they were here
illegally, and they will have the incentive, it seems to me, to
disregard, when they knew they had some illegal employees, the Labor
Relations Act. And the problem is, the gentleman has made clear, the
gentleman from California, the Labor Relations Act was decided to be
one where the sanction included back pay. There is no fine in cases in
part because it is back pay.
Therefore, I would be opposed to removing the current sanction
without imposing another one. And I understand we have got some
legislative difficulties, but the gentleman's party controls the
agenda; why not bring a bill out that addresses this? Because what we
are doing here is, by penalizing the illegal alien, which ought to be
done, they are unjustly enriching an unscrupulous employer, indeed in
some cases a twice unscrupulous employer, because they are talking now
by definition about providing some monetary benefit to an employer who
has, one, employed people who are here illegally, maybe knowingly, and,
two, violated the labor laws.
So I would ask the gentleman, why not at the same time try to
substitute some alternative sanction?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's analysis and that
of our colleague from Wisconsin is correct. I think that the optimal
way to solve this problem is to have a fine upon the employer equal to
the amount of the back pay that would otherwise be due to the employees
but as to which the employees are not eligible because they have no
right to be in the country. That way we would achieve both the
deterrent effect regarding the employers' violation of law and yet not
give enrichment to the employee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I agree. Why do we not do that?
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman continues to yield, I cannot do that
under this appropriation bill. What I can do, what I am doing and what
I have offered publicly and repeat in a conversation I have had earlier
tonight----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has
expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman give us 30 more
seconds of his time to continue this?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Might I inquire how much time I have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining
and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 15
seconds to me?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we
can do a lot. I mean we could have gone to the Committee on Rules. I
have seen broader gaps created by the Committee on Rules to allow
legislation than this one.
So I know the gentleman is sincere, but I would hope, and my
colleague knows that the conference committees can do a lot, so I would
hope out of a sense of decency the gentleman would follow through and
that we would, in fact, substitute a sanction before this bill is
through.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that I do not close; the
other side closes?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has the right
to close.
[[Page H7359]]
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment with the
understanding that we would work this out in conference.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I think the correct answer is the one we have discussed tonight. I
would like to move toward that.
My guess is it ought to be done through authorizing legislation, but
by passing this appropriation provision I have the opportunity to
bargain for that correct outcome.
I conclude simply by reading first of all a word of compliment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Bargain collectively?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I believe in everyone's right to bargain collectively
and their right to choose not to be represented by a union as well. And
I would conclude with a word of compliment to my colleague from
California who has graduated from a superb law school and whose
excellence in legal training is demonstrated by his debating me
tonight. My colleague from Massachusetts regrettably did not attend as
well the law school. He attended the same law school I did, indeed 2
years behind me. But enough on that.
Let me close with a quotation with which I began. The Supreme Court
Justice O'Connor, I believe, stated it correctly when she said in
computing back pay the employees must be deemed unavailable for work
and the accrual of back pay therefore told during any period when they
were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United
States, end quote.
It seems to me so simple, so obvious, that to rule otherwise is to
send a very confused message and to undermine the Immigration and
Naturalization Act.
Mr. OBEY. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes remaining.
The Chair would hope that the gentleman uses his full 2 minutes because
the Chair has enjoyed this introduction to law school.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I am not a lawyer, and
that is the first time in the week I have had any applause from that
side of the aisle. Keep it coming.
I yield myself the balance of the time.
Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that I do believe that the way to
deal with this is in the authorization process. I think that if this
amendment were adopted into law in its present form, it would in fact
create perverse incentives which would have the effect of encouraging
illegal immigration, and that is why I do not personally want to accept
it at this moment.
However, I understand that the majority is going to accept it. I will
not press the point. I will simply say that we must work this out so
that we can avoid a situation in which employers will wind up
benefiting from their ability to break the law, and with that I would
yield back the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, having listened to the
debate, I wonder if the chairman would summarize the difference between
the Sure-Tan case and the Felbro case.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes the gentleman has not stated an
appropriate parliamentary inquiry.
The Chair will put the question, however, on the amendment from the
gentleman from California.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Campbell].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. mica
Mr. MICA. 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. Mica: Page 87, after line 15, insert the
following:
TITLE IV--HEAD START CHOICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
SEC. 601. SHORT TILE.
This title may be cited as the ``Head Start Choice
Demonstration Act of 1996''.
SEC. 602. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to determine the effects on
children of providing financial assistance to low-income
parents to enable such parents to select the preschool
program their children will attend.
SEC. 603. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve, and make
available to the Comptroller General of the United States, 5
percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year to
carry out this title, for evaluation in accordance with
section 608 of Head Start demonstration projects assisted
under this title.
(b) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The amount remaining after compliance with
subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary to make grants
to eligible entities to enable such entities to carry out at
least 10, but not more than 20, Head Start demonstration
projects under which low-income parents receive preschool
certificates for the costs of enrolling their eligible
children in a Head Start demonstration project.
(2) Continuing eligibility.--The Secretary shall continue a
Head Start demonstration project under this title by awarding
a grant under paragraph (1) to an eligible entity that
received such a grant for a fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which the determination is made, if the Secretary
determines that such eligible entity was in compliance with
this title for such preceding fiscal year.
(c) Use of grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (b)
shall be used to pay the costs of--
(1) providing preschool certificates to low-income parents
to enable such parents to pay the tuition, the fees, and the
allowable costs of transportation (if any) for their eligible
children to attend a Head Start Choice Preschool as a
participant in a Head Start demonstration project; and
(2) administration of the demonstration project, which
shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the
first fiscal year for which the eligible entity provides
preschool certificates under this title or 10 percent in any
subsequent fiscal year, including--
(A) seeking the involvement of preschools in the
demonstration project;
(B) providing information about the demonstration project
and Head Start Choice Preschools to parents of eligible
children;
(C) making determinations of eligibility for participation
in the demonstration project for eligible children;
(A) such children receiving preschool certificates under
this title: and
(B) such children not receiving preschool certificates
under this title.
SEC. 609. REPORTS.
(a) Report by Grant Recipient.--Each eligible entity
receiving a grant under section 603 shall submit to the
evaluating agency entering into the contract under section
608(a)(1) an annual report regarding the demonstration
project under this title. Each such report shall be submitted
at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information, as such evaluating agency may require.
(b) Reports by Comptroller General.--
(1) Annual reports.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall report annually to the Congress on the findings
of the annual evaluation under section 608(a)(2) of each
demonstration project under this title.
(A) the annual evaluation under section 608(a)(2) of each
demonstration project under this title; and
(B) each report received under subsection (a) for the
applicable year.
(2) Final report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a
final report to the Congress within 9 months after the
conclusion of the demonstration program under this title that
summarizes the findings of the annual evaluations conducted
pursuant to section 608(a)(2).
SEC. 610. NONDISCRIMINATION.
Section 654 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9849) shall
apply with respect to Head Start demonstration projects under
this title in the same manner as such section applies to Head
Start programs under such Act.
SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title--
(1) the term ``eligible child'' means a child who is
eligible under the Head Start Act to participate in a Head
Start program operating in the local geographical area
involved;
(2) the term ``eligible entity' means a State, a public
agency, institution, or organization (including a State or
local educational agency), a consortium of public agencies,
or a consortium of public and nonprofit private
organizations, that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Secretary, its ability to--
(A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
(B) comply with the requirements of this title;
(3) the term ``evaluating agency'' means any academic
institution, consortium of professionals, or private or
nonprofit organization, with demonstrated experience in
conducting evaluations, that is not an agency or
instrumentality of the Federal Government;
(4) the term ``Head Start Choice Preschool'' means any
public or private preschool, including a private sectarian
preschool, that is eligible and willing to carry out a Head
Start demonstration project;
[[Page H7360]]
(5) the term ``Head Start demonstration project'' means a
project that carries out a program of the kind described in
section 638 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9833);
(6) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same
meaning given such term in section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(7) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other
individual acting in loco parentis;
(8) the term ``preschool'' means an entity that--
(A) is designed for children who have not reached the age
of compulsory school attendance; and
(B) provides comprehensive educational, nutritional,
social, and other services to aid such children and their
families; and
(9) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
SEC. 612. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for
fiscal year 1997, and such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, to carry out this title.
SEC. 613. OFFSET.
The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for the
following account is hereby reduced by the following amount:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
General DepartmentAL Management
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for general
departmental management, including hire of six sedans, and
for carrying out titles III, XVII, and XX of the Public
Health Service Act, $15,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and a Member opposed will each
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, likewise I would also reserve a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It does, however, create
some problems because it creates a new title in the bill and actually
some new authorization and will be called out of order, but I think it
is important that we offer this amendment.
I am a strong supporter of Head Start, and Head Start should give our
least advantaged children a head start in their education. The way I
got involved in this is in a simple manner. One of the Head Start
programs in central Florida, one of the parents who was involved in it
came to me and said the Head Start program is not running well, it is
disorganized, and they are spending a lot of money.
So I started looking into it to answer some of the constituents'
complaints and concerns about how a child was faring in this program,
and I really was startled to find that in a Head Start program in
central Florida that serves two counties, that in fact we spend a total
of $7,325 per student; that is local cost, that when one thinks the
children had a head start with a certified teacher, that in fact there
are 25 teachers in the program and 25 aides, not one certified teacher,
and yet the program has almost 25 administrators for the program.
Now, the administrators in this program earn from about $20,000 to
$50,000. The uncertified teachers make from $12,000 to about $16,000.
And I thought it was time that we brought some of this administrative
overhead to a halt and started concentrating on the quality of
education in these programs so indeed we give our children a head
start.
So that is the purpose of my amendment. It would create a
demonstration program that would allow us to in fact have a Head Start
program without all of this overhead, without all of this
administrative cost, without all of this bureaucracy.
So it is a simple amendment. It takes Head Start. It allows Head
Start, on a demonstration project basis, to proceed without the high
administrative costs and overhead, and hopefully it can meet the intent
of Head Start, which is to give our children a quality education.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on his point of
order?
Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, I
would not insist on it, no.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the gentleman and thankful for
his cooperation earlier on another amendment, I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]
is withdrawn.
amendment offered by mr. gutknecht
Mr. GUTKNECHT. 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. Mica: Page 87, after line 14,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 515. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1.9 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] control the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the opposition time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will control 5
minutes in opposition.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
I would first of all like to thank the committee Chair and the
subcommittee chairman for their hard work to reduce spending. I do
appreciate the hard work that they have put into this. This is a
difficult challenge.
Just to restate what this is all about, this once again is the
amendment to take 1.9 percent across the board from all of the
discretionary spending in the remaining bills, and the reason of course
is when we passed our budget conference committee report a few weeks
ago, people on the other side of the aisle and frankly some of the
people on our side of the aisle criticized us because we were allowing
spending to go up. And in fact the deficit is going to go up this year
contrary to what we were told last year.
So some of us got together, some of us freshmen, and decided that we
were going to offer a 1.9 percent reduction on every bill that was
remaining in terms of the appropriation bills to recover the $4.1
billion.
This is about keeping the faith, this is about keeping our promises,
this is about restoring the American dream for our children, and if we
are not willing, Mr. Chairman, to reduce this small amount of
expenditure, this 1.9 percent, how is it that we can look at our
constituents and particularly the children in our districts and say
that we are going to be able to make $47 billion worth of cuts in just
a couple of years?
{time} 2245
I think a journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step.
This is a very small step. It is a very small price to pay, but I think
if we are willing to make these small sacrifices along the way, then
ultimately we can balance the budget, we can secure a good future for
our children. This is one small step.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, this 1.9 percent across-the-board
reduction will reduce only $1.2 billion of the $66 billion in
discretionary spending. This is only one-half of the increase over last
year.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment may sound reasonable. I have to say to
the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Oklahoma that I was
actively supporting such amendments when the now minority party was in
the majority. The difference, of course, was that their budgets were
always going up. Ours have been going down. This bill, last year, cut
$9 billion and
[[Page H7361]]
carried 40 percent of the discretionary spending cuts that were enacted
in the House.
And yes, the Senate and the President of the United States insisted
on putting about half of that back in, so the final cut was only about
$4.5 billion, but that is a very substantial contribution to deficit
reduction.
This year we cut the salary and expense account by 2% on virtually
every program and department and agency in the bill. The gentleman is
proposing to cut roughly the same amount. The Committee bill
essentially provides level funding. The gentleman's amendment would cut
some of the real priorities in this bill that our side very strongly
supports.
Job Corps, an excellent program; it would cut it by $21 million. The
total JTPA, it would be cut by $75 million; health centers, $15
million; health professions, about $7 million; Ryan White, $15 million;
the maternal and child health block grant, $12 million; Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, a very high priority, $41 million.
NIH would be cut by over $240 million. This institution is one of the
highest priorities for Federal spending. The gentleman's amendment
would cut cancer research in the National Cancer Institute $45 million;
refugee and entrance assistance, by about $8 million; the social
services block grant, that we just raised by $100 million, would be cut
by $47 million; education for the disadvantaged, (title I) $127
million; special education, that the chairman of our committee came and
said was such a high priority, and I agree with him, by almost $62
million.
I cannot accept the amendment because we have already made the cuts.
We have already done what the gentleman is attempting to achieve. Once
again, we would emphasize as appropriators, we cannot balance the
budget by cutting just discretionary spending. What we must aim at is
cutting the rate of increase in the entitlement programs, if we are
ever going to get this budget into balance.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, the message was clear when I ran for the House of
Representatives, the message was clear when we considered last year's
appropriations bills, the message was clear when we passed this year's
budget resolution, and the message is still clear as we consider the
amendment before us: Washington spends too much of someone else's
money.
Many of those someone elses are the hardworking men and women in
southwest Indiana who sent me here to stand up and say no. They sent me
here to say no to overtaxing families. They sent me here to say no to
burdensome regulations that extinguish any spark of entrepreneurial
spirit. They sent me here to say no to runaway government spending,
which is why I stand before this body today.
It is a simple fact of life that someone is going to have to pay for
our failure to act responsibly. Do not be misled. This 1.9 percent
solution is nowhere near the answer to our budget woes. This simply
will get us back to where we were a few short weeks ago. I ask for
support of the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not whether or not our appropriations
committees have done a good job. We think they have. The issue is that
the national debt is rising by $600 million every day. What this
amendment is talking about is saving two pennies, two pennies for our
children, two pennies for our grandchildren, three days' worth of the
rise in the debt. That is all we are talking about saving.
If we were going to go into a crisis situation where we were forced
economically to make the decisions that are necessary to put our budget
in balance, we would all agree that there would be efficiencies that
could be gleaned that we are not gleaning at this time. There would be
things we could accomplish that we are not.
The chairman of the committee said we essentially had a flat budget
for Labor-HHS. I would respectfully disagree. Mr. Chairman, the point I
would make is that a $2.5 billion increase in this appropriation bill
is not seen as a flat budget by most of the people in the United
States. What we are asking is that 1.9 percent, two pennies in savings,
be accomplished. We can accomplish it through efficiency. It can be
accomplished through flexibility and efficiency. The fact that we do
not attempt to do that speaks poorly of us as a body.
Mr. Chairman, I would say this bill appropriates $65.7 billion in
discretionary spending. The spending for the bill, including all the
entitlements, is $285 billion. That portion of entitlements this does
not affect. It does not change. I agree with the chairman that they
have done a good job and that we need to control entitlement spending.
The fact is this House, this body, this administration, has not
controlled entitlement spending. So what else are we to do to protect
our children, to preserve the opportunity for the future? Two percent,
2 pennies in efficiency, our children are worth that, our seniors are
worth that, the entire country is worth that. I would ask the body to
consider saving two pennies for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey.]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the subcommittee
chairman has already indicated why we should oppose this amendment. I
do not know many of my constituents who are asking that we cut this
bill, this bill's Cancer Institute funding, by $45 million; or that we
cut our efforts to combat heart disease by $27 million; or that we cut
our child care efforts by $18 million, especially in the midst of
efforts to provide welfare reform; or that we cut Head Start by $68
million; or that we cut vocational education by $20 million; or that we
cut the Federal work-study program, where students work for the
assistance they get to go to college, by $13 million.
The preventive health services block grant, there is not a politician
in this House who does not go home and repeat the mantra, ``We must
engage in preventative health care.'' This amendment would cut the
preventive health service block grant by $3 million. I think the
chairman has already adequately summarized why this amendment is ill-
advised. I do not think the country wants us to provide billions of
dollars in the purchase of new fighter aircraft that we do not need to
buy until 7 years from now at the same time that we are even further
reducing the efforts to help our children get a good education and our
workers get the best training in the world.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] will be postponed.
privileged motion offered by mr. smith of new jersey
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer a privileged motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey moves that the Committee do now rise with a
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken from the bill.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I take these 5 minutes to make
an inquiry of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking
member on the committee, to ask him a question, a very simple question.
In looking at the amendment that he offered, the substitute to the
Istook amendment, the Obey substitute, which in essence guts the
parental involvement and makes it essentially a sense of the Congress,
in looking at the language that has been given to us, at the top of it
it has, from Planned Parenthood, their ID number, and it is a faxed
copy of the language, apparently, and this is what I hope the gentleman
will clarify, right from Planned Parenthood.
[[Page H7362]]
In title V, section 503, the legislation reads: ``No part of any
appropriations contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or
expenses of any grant or contract recipient or agent acting for such
recipient related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before Congress.''
Mr. Chairman, this may be in error, but we have from the gentleman's
staff a copy of the language of the bill, and it has, from Planned
Parenthood, their ID number, which suggests to this Member, and I hope
the gentleman will clarify this, that this language was written and
then tendered and offered to this Congress, written by Planned
Parenthood. Is that the case?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I take these 5 minutes to make
an inquiry of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking
member on the committee.
I am holding in my hand the amendment that Mr. Obey offered, the
substitute to the Istook amendment, the Obey substitute, which in
essence guts the real and tangible parental involvement provisions of
Istook and makes it essentially a sense of the Congress. In looking at
the actual page of text that was given to staff the amendment offered
at the top of the page one immediately notices that it is a fax from
Planned Parenthood. The question arises as to what role Planned
Parenthood had in drafting the language. I hope the gentleman will shed
light on this. Again, the top of the page reads as follows: From
Planned Parenthood ID 202-293-4349. The Obey language then follows.
Title V, section 503 of the labor HHS bill: ``No part of any
appropriations contained in this act shall be used to pay the salary or
expenses of any grant or contract recipient or agent acting for such
recipient related to any activity designed to influence legislation or
appropriations pending before Congress.'' Mr. Chairman Planned
Parenthood gets tens of million of dollars from title X--so its a fair
question as to whether or not they are drafting amendments for
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, there may be a satisfactory explanation for this but we
have from the gentleman's staff a copy of the language of the bill, and
it has ``From Planned Parenthood,'' and their ID number, which suggests
to this Member, and I hope the gentleman will clarify whether or not
this language was written and offered to this Congress, by and for
Planned Parenthood. Is that the case?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolute, total nonsense and baloney.
I absolutely totally resent the implication. Anyone who knows me knows
I have been around here long enough to write my own amendments. I wrote
this amendment in the full committee. I discussed it then. If the
gentleman has a copy of something from Planned Parenthood, it is
because they got a copy of the amendment and faxed it to somebody else,
and the gentleman ought to know better than to even ask that question.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question, they
had no influence in writing this legislation?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman let the Record show that this
page of text with ``From Planned Parenthood'' came from your staff. It
is clearly a fair question as to who wrote this amendment? Did Planned
Parenthood influence the text?
Mr. OBEY. You are asking what?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I ask the gentleman, did they write the
amendment?
Mr. OBEY. I wrote the legislation, every word of that.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that clarification, Mr.
Chairman. We know they lobby and they do write legislation that ends up
on this floor.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that explanation, Mr. Obey.
It's still a mystery as to how the language disseminated by your staff
to ours ended up as a fax from Planned Parenthood.
Mr. OBEY. I do not write legislation for any lobbyist.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the motion?
Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find the comment ironic, because for the
last 2 weeks Planned Parenthood has been lobbying against my amendment,
and only after they reached the rational conclusion that they could not
win by following their own whim did they finally reluctantly come in
behind my amendment and support it.
I have spent many an hour trying to persuade people that my amendment
should be offered in order to demonstrate respect for the idea that we
ought to support consultation with parents any time you have teenagers
involved. The gentleman very well knows that for the first 10 days,
Planned Parenthood was opposing my amendment, and only in the last day
and a half did they agree to support it.
I would say that is about 10 days late, but I would rather have their
support late than not have it at all, because I deeply believe that
there is an obligation on the part of all of us, no matter what side of
the issue we stand on, to try to work together to find common ground,
rather than to always try to find ways to exploit differences. That is
why I offered the amendment in the first place. That is why we had
bipartisan support for it, because we were trying to demonstrate strong
and sincere respect for the idea that parents ought to be consulted
whenever possible.
I have worked with the gentleman time and time again trying to work
out language on these touchy amendments, and the gentleman knows better
than to even raise that kind of a question.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
The motion was rejected.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, proceedings will now
resume on these amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley]; amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders]; amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey]; the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]; the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]; the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]; the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]; and amendment No.
23 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
{time} 2300
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time from any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
amendment offered by mr. hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205,
noes 219, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 305]
AYES--205
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
[[Page H7363]]
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--219
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--9
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2322
Messrs. Miller of California, Gejdenson, Kennedy of Rhode Island,
Berman, and Kleczka changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. Everett, Thomas, Hoekstra, Callahan, and Hilleary changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment no. 12 offered by mr. sanders
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on
which further proceedings were postponed on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 242, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
AYES--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Chabot
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--242
Allard
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
[[Page H7364]]
Studds
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Gilman
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Petri
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2381
Mr. de la GARZA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Messrs. EHRLICH, MEEHAN, and PETE GEREN of Texas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. LOWEY
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offerd by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 256, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--167
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Porter
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Zimmer
NOES--256
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--10
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Petri
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2338
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 307 I was unavoidably
detained. had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I would have
voted ``aye'' on the Pelosi amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. HOYER as a Substitute for the Amendment
Offered by Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] as
a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Bunning] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 220, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
AYES--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
[[Page H7365]]
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--220
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--13
Bateman
Blute
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Torkildsen
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2346
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were 1 ayes 421,
noes 3, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--3
Beilenson
Houghton
Johnston
[[Page H7366]]
NOT VOTING--9
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2353
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. obey as a substitute for the amendment offered
by mr. istook
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as
a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Istook] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment offered as a substitute for the
amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 193, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 310]
AYES--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--193
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--9
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 0000
Mr. BONO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. The majority paging system is inoperative. Members
should not rely on them for announcing votes.
This is a 5-minute vote.
This vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 0, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
[[Page H7367]]
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Forbes
Souder
NOT VOTING--10
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Smith (NJ)
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 0007
Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment no. 23 offered by mr. gutknecht
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111,
noes 313, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--111
Allard
Archer
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Barr
Barton
Bilbray
Brownback
Bunning
Burton
Campbell
Chabot
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Funderburk
Geren
Goodlatte
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kingston
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manzullo
McInnis
McIntosh
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Parker
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Ramstad
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
NOES--313
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Armey
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 0014
Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H7368]]
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The measure would strike the provision
in the bill that prohibits the National Institutes of Health from
awarding grants under the Small Business Innovation Research Program
unless the median grant score of the pool of these grants is equal to
or better than that of investigator-initiated research project grants.
The provision as contained in the bill is unfair to small businesses.
The small business segment of the U.S. economy produces the largest
number of jobs and carries the country through good times and bad.
The variance in scores among these two very different types of grants
should be expected as they have a different type of focus and purpose.
Research project grants are intended to perform basic research in order
to expand, enhance, and gain new knowledge. Small business innovation
grants are for the purpose of developing products and for the
commercialization of these products.
These two types of grants are very different. We must realize that in
its current form the bill is mixing of apples and oranges. I understand
from the small business community who competes for these grants, that
at present, SBIR grant reviewers who are more experienced in basic
research than in product development. If this is the case, SBIR
grantees are being treated unfairly. To quote one of the small
businesses in my district, ``by requiring that the SBIR's have an
equivalent or better median score to RO1's is like failing all oranges
as fruit because they are not red enough or crispy enough for the apple
inspectors.''
Mr. Chairman, while the bill has brought critical attention to this
important situation, pointing to the need to fix the program, we do not
need to break it, to fix it as the bill would do in its current form. I
urge my colleagues to be fair to small businesses. Vote ``yes'' on the
Kennedy amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3755,
particularly the provision in title I, section 105 which requires that
no funds of the Department of Labor shall be disbursed ``without the
approval of the Department's Chief Financial Officer or his
delegatee.'' The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the Chief
Financial Officer has the authority necessary to oversee the finances
of the Department in order to ensure fiscal accountability.
The Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990 is one of the most important
pieces of legislation we have to ensure that the Federal Government
adheres to effective financial management practices. The CFO Act
demands that agencies get their financial affairs in order, that they
prepare financial statements that can be independently audited, and
that these financial statements receive a clean bill of health, that
is, an unqualified opinion, from the auditors.
The CFO Act has been instrumental in changing the ethos in agencies
from one of complete indifference about accountability to sober
realization that fiscal accountability matters. A success story that
appeared in the Washington Post on June 6, 1996, entitled ``Cleaner
Paper Trail Leads Out of the Woods,'' highlighted the National Park
Service, an entity within the Department of the Interior. Stung by
criticism in the House of error filled data and math errors that
resulted in a $150 vacuum cleaner to be listed as worth more than
$800.000 and a $350 dishwasher as a $700,000 asset, the Park Service
overhauled its accounting practices and changed from being an agency
with poor financial management to one that obtained a clean opinion on
its fiscal year 1995 financial statements. Without the CFO Act, the
poor state of financial management would have remained unrecognized
and, therefore, uncorrected.
Section 105 of H.R. 3755 will provide the Chief Financial Officer of
the Department of Labor with the authority he needs to ensure that
Labor sees similar improvement in financial management during the years
to come. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, which oversees the Chief Financial Officer Act, I commend
Chairman Porter and strongly support that effort.
[From the Washington Post, June 6, 1996]
Cleaner Paper Trail Leads Out of Woods
(By Stephen Barr)
The National Park Service has received, in the parlance of
the government's accountants, a clean opinion. Now the Park
Service can prove its numbers add up, that its annual
financial statements are accurate.
That did not seem to be the case last year. Bad data and
math errors had led the Park Service to list a $150 vacuum
cleaner as worth more than $800,000 and a $350 dishwasher as
a $700,000 asset, according to testimony at a House hearing.
The Park Service, stung by the portrayal and the criticism
by House Republicans, began an intensive effort to meet new
accounting standards and prove that it knew where and how
every dollar was being spent.
``We needed to restore that confidence,'' said Park Service
Comptroller C. Bruce Sheaffer. In less than a year, the
agency has overhauled its accounting practices and recently
produced financial statements for fiscal 1995 that met with
approval from the Interior Department's inspector general.
``The Park Service took aggressive action,'' Interior
Assistant Inspector General Judy R. Harrison wrote, noting
that the agency ``has made significant improvements in the
internal control structure.''
The Park Service turnabout is but one of several underway
in the executive branch. Until Congress wrote the Chief
Financial Officers (CFOs) Act of 1990, the government did not
have a comprehensive set of accounting standards. Since then,
agencies and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have been
working to improve federal financial management so that
essentially the same standards applied to corporate America
are applied to the government.
It has been a tough climb. Twenty-four departments and
agencies are covered by the CFO Act, but only four have
achieved across-the-board clean opinions: the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the General Services Administration,
NASA and the Social Security Administration.
But parts of Cabinet departments, like the Park Service,
are meeting the new standards. More than half of the
``entities'' audited were judged clean last year, up from 33
percent in 1990.
One of the biggest tests will come next March, when the law
will require the 24 agencies to submit audited financial
statements to OMB. The next major step comes in fiscal 1997,
when the law calls for a governmentwide financial statement
to be prepared and audited.
Members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--have
consistently pressured agencies to comply with the CFO Act.
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ted Stevens
(R-Alaska), for example, will look at the Internal Revenue
Service's financial management practices at a hearing
scheduled for today.
By most accounts, the move to clean financial statements
should give agencies a new way to demonstrate their integrity
and enhance their chances of preventing financial scandals.
Still, it has been a shock to several agencies that they are
being held to technical standards they never were subject to
before.
The Park Service, for example, was faulted by the Interior
Department inspector general's office because the agency
could not vouch for the accuracy of its debts or the money it
was owed. All those concerns can now be set aside, Sheaffer
said.
``We argued from the outset that nothing the IG found in
any way supported the notion that we were wasting money,'' he
said, ``We believed then and now that we can account for
every dollar spent . . . and now we've proved it.''
The Park Service financial statement for fiscal 1995
recounts that the agency received about $1.4 billion in
congressional appropriations and another $200 million from
other revenue sources, such as fees and trusts. The agency
employed about 19,000 full-time workers, but also relied on
more than 77,000 volunteers.
The financial statement also includes ``customer
satisfaction survey results'' for 1993-94. At 15 parks, for
instance, 68 percent of the 2,533 survey respondents rated
the quality of park personnel as ``very good,'' the top
category.
The statement shows the Park Service is cutting down on
delays in repaying travel advances and now pays its suppliers
and vendors more promptly. It also shows where the agency is
spending its money, such as $37.9 million last year for
``fire and emergency operations.''
There's also eight pages of tables summarizing acreage
within park boundaries. The grand total: 369 park areas
containing 83 million acres. The government can claim
``absolute ownership'' of about 77.6 million acres of that
land.
The cascade of numbers in the financial statement provides
only a one-time snapshot of Park Service operations. The
annual reports will assume more significance five and 10
years from now, Sheaffer said. ``The measure of change has
some importance to us, and over time, these numbers will take
new meaning as they show change,'' he said.
While trend analysis may prove useful in the next century,
Sheaffer noted there are some things financial statement can
never measure or answer, starting with the mountains, lakes
or historic buildings held in trust for the American people
by the park system.
``How do you set a value on these assets,'' he asked. ``How
could you put a value on the Washington Monument?''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to strike a rider in
the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 1997, that would prohibit the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration from
[[Page H7369]]
using funds in the bill to develop standards on ergonomic protection
for workers, or to record or report ergonomic-related injuries or
illnesses.
This language is another attempt by the majority to shred and halt
the progress of crucial worker health and safety protections. By
prohibiting key protections, this language will place thousands of
Americans, unnecessarily, at a great health and safety risk.
Ergonomic related injuries result from poorly designed work stations
and repetitious work. Workers develop such debilitating ailments as
carpal-tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, and back strain. These injuries
account for one-third of all lost-time work injuries in the United
States and represent the most significant safety and health problem
facing American workers today. These injuries can have such painful,
serious effects, that they are disabling and disruptive to the lives of
those who suffer from them. Furthermore, the continual growth of
ergonomic-workplace hazards places strain on the American economy, in
lost work days, and increased health care costs.
Ergonomic workplace injuries and illnesses in this nation have
skyrocketed in recent years. The reports of symptoms of carpal tunnel
syndrome have increased for many workers. For example, 81 percent of
telephone operators responding to a 1995 survey conducted by the
Communications Workers of America reported hand or wrist pain.
This country is in dire need of stronger health and safety
regulations. It is unacceptable that millions of Americans suffer from
disabling work-related injuries each year when these injuries could be
prevented by requiring OSHA to develop studies and standards that would
ensure healthier workplaces.
Worse still, the authors of this provision don't even want OSHA to
gather information on ergonomic injuries in the workplace. Apparently,
when it comes to protecting workers' health, the majority believes that
ignorance is bliss.
It is the role of this Government to work fervently, and responsibly
to ensure a safe and healthful workplace for American workers, and for
a productive economy.
I urge the Congress to support this amendment to strike the rider,
and to support workplace protections.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I rise in
strong support of the Lowey/Castle amendment to restore $2.4 billion in
funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at
the Centers for Disease Control.
The National Center for Injury Prevention is the only government
entity that addresses the issue of injury in a comprehensive manner and
encourages an interdisciplinary approach to decreasing the burden that
injuries place on society.
In the United States, 140,000 people die of injuries each year, and
many thousands more suffer permanently disabling injuries. These deaths
and disabilities lead to loss of productive years of life, as injuries
are primarily a disease of the young and the leading killer of persons
under age 44. Many injuries can be prevented, at a much lower cost than
treating them. In addition, the severity and long term effect of
injuries that do occur can be minimized through effective treatment and
early rehabilitation.
But don't take my word for it. Let me read a passage from a letter I
received from Dr. Linda Degutis, assistant professor at Yale School of
Medicine and the codirector of the New Haven Regional Injury Prevention
Program.
Dr. Degutis states:
I have seen the increasing level of gun violence in New
Haven and the surrounding areas. I have seen children die and
adolescents face permanent disability due to spinal cord
injuries and head injuries. Not all of these victims are
victims of interpersonal violence. Many have attempted
suicide. In the case of children, several have been
unintentionally shot by other children, or caught in the
cross fire between adults with guns. It is disturbing to see
this on a daily basis, but viewing the effects of violence
has served to strengthen my resolve to do something about it
on a personal and professional level.
Continued support for the Injury Prevention program would allow
scientists in the field of injury control, like Dr. Degutis in New
Haven, continue their work in preventing a disease that has its
greatest impact on young people. Projects funded through the Injury
Prevention Program have already had an impact in decreasing injury
morbidity and mortality from recreational activities, fires, bicycle
crashes, falls, domestic violence, and other injury events. Restoring
the funds for the center in New Haven will provide the opportunity for
areas of research that have been ignored and developing interventions
to decrease the toll that injury takes on our citizens.
What is tragic about the debate--and the attack on the Injury
Prevention Program this morning--is that it is not based on the merits
or quality of work of the projects funded by the Injury Prevention
Program. It is a sell out to the gun lobby because of research that the
Injury Prevention Program has compiled on firearm injury. These studies
have found that guns in the home are actually dangerous to their
owners.
Stripping the funds for the Injury Prevention Program will not make
the tragic facts about gun violence disappear. Nor will it squelch
public outrage and concern for our children that face the threats and
fears of guns in their homes, in their schools or their playgrounds.
The Gingrich Congress, by voting to repeal the assault weapons ban
showed its flagrant disregard for the will of the American people on
this issue--all for the campaign money and political paybacks that come
from the gun lobby.
I urge my colleagues to support dedicated doctors and scientists--
like Dr. Linda Degutis in New Haven--and vote to restore the $2.4
billion for the Injury Prevention Program. The safety of children in
this country should be the No. 1 priority of the people's House--not
political paybacks to the gun lobby. Vote for the Lowey/Castle
amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
bill. At a time when studies are showing an increase in drug abuse
among young people, we can ill afford to freeze funding for drug
prevention programs on the local level at an already grossly inadequate
level.
Unfortunately that is exactly what this bill does by maintaining
funding for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention at essentially
the FY 96 level.
The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention provides grants to local
community-based organizations to develop strategies to prevent drug and
substance abuse problems on the mainstreets of America. This agency is
the only one on the federal level whose sole purpose and mandate is
drug abuse prevention.
In 1996, the Center took a 62 percent cut in funding. This caused the
Center to provide only partial funding to many projects and send out
notices to 76 grant programs stating that funding was going to be cut
off at the end of fiscal year. This will result in the loss of many
vital ongoing projects covering pregnant women, children of alcoholics,
children of drug abusers, and children who live in areas of high
crime--totaling over 6 million people nationwide. Years of valuable
research will be lost and already expended federal resources will be
wasted.
By doing this, we will be undermining an important weapon to fight
drug abuse--community involvement. This is not only foolish, it's poor
policy.
By funding the Center at over $80 million below the Administration's
request, Congress will undermine the new anti-drug strategy developed
by General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's new Drug Czar, which focuses
not only on eliminating the supply of drugs at the source but on
reducing the demand for drugs at the local level.This too is unwise and
counterproductive to our nation's interests.
In the war to prevent drug abuse, talk is cheap and knowledge is
power. Sadly this bill has too little of the latter and too much of the
former.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill so that we can send it back
to Committee and get back one that helps local communities fight the
drug war where it matters most--in our schools, in our homes, at our
places of work, and on the mainstreams of America.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my colleague from New York.
Tragically, many of those who are exploited under sweatshop
conditions are children. And fortunately we have always made sure there
were adequate funds for enforcement of child labor laws. I would remind
my colleagues that this has historically received bipartisan support.
Let me remind you all that in 1990, then-Secretary of Labor Elizabeth
Dole testified about the Department's need to crack down on child labor
violators in the United States. The Secretary outlined a five point
strategy which involved, in brief, vigorous enforcement, increased
penalties, litigation, new steps to ensure safe and healthy jobs for
youth, and a new task force combining the resources of several offices
of the Labor Department.
The Department's enforcement effort, known as Operation Child Watch,
utilized nationwide sweeps to find violators and take remedial action.
That effort revealed violations in 2,800 instances.
As a result, Secretary Dole proposed legislation to significantly
increase monetary and criminal penalties. Why? Because without
vigilance and without sufficient funds for enforcement the situation
would get worse. Knowing that, Secretary Dole said, and I quote:
I am determined to fulfill another fundamental
responsibility of the Department of Labor: Upholding the laws
which protect children from exploitation and danger.
Mr. Chairman, both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to
protect our children. Together we must continue this commitment to our
Nation's youth by providing the resources
[[Page H7370]]
for the department to investigate and penalize those sweatshops that
exploit children.
If you don't believe there is a need, let me quote former Secretary
Dole one more time. You know, if one child dies or there's a very
severe injury, that's one too many. Right now, as you look at the
totals, we had 22,500 children illegally employed in fiscal year 1989.
For the first eight months of this fiscal year the number is 31,000. We
are projecting that it may be as high as 40,000 by the end of this
fiscal year.
That was six years ago, and unless we pass the Velazquez amendment
that will restore much-needed funding to the Wage and Hour Division and
the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the situation will get even
worse, both here and abroad.
I urge my colleagues to support the Velazquez amendment.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, after enduring a 35% cut last year, this
Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill slashes an additional $11
million from bilingual education. This cut is nothing but the latest in
a series of backhanded attempts to wipe out this proven educational
tool. It's a case of death by a thousand paper cuts. This bill also
attempts to eliminate the professional cadre of bilingual teachers and
support staff by killing professional development. This would be
tantamount to having an Army without a West Point.
Because bilingual education opponents can't prove it doesn't work, I
guess they figure they can ensure its failure by keeping our teachers
from receiving necessary training. Teacher training funds are not
specifically eliminated for any other education program. This bill
doesn't ask Head Start teachers or special education teachers to do
without additional training. Only bilingual education teachers are
singled out.
Some Members of this House consistently argue against bilingual
education because, as they say, ``we need to teach our children
English!'' This is typical of the inaccurate stereotype of bilingual
education as anti-English and is being anecdoted to death. I agree that
we must teach our children English and any local bilingual education
program that does not teach English is flawed. But a flawed program
doesn't mean we do away with the educational tool. We don't threaten to
take computers out of our Nation's classrooms when we hear about a poor
computer literacy course.
Bilingual education works! I know because before I came to Congress I
was a bilingual educator. I have seen first hand the positive impact of
teaching in a language students can understand. And that is all
bilingual education is--comprehensible instruction so that they don't
fall behind in math, science, and history while they are learning
English. It is not about ethnic politics its about educating our
children.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this bill, H.R. 3755, to make
appropriations for the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and
Education Departments and various independent agencies, is a clear
demonstration that the Gingrich Republicans care little about the
people, little about community-based programs for prevention and early
intervention, little about education, little about substance abuse
prevention and treatment, and they care little about the workers of
this country. Pure and simple.
The Gingrich Republicans have turned their cold shoulders to the
children and elderly of this country by freezing funding for valuable
Title I education programs for nearly 7 million disadvantaged children;
freezing funding for employment training, school-to-work and summer
jobs for youth; freezing resources for training and services for
education equity designed for minorities and women--funding which has
been the only source available to the local school corporations around
the country; and freezing funding for special and vocational education.
This Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill slashes funding for the
Healthy Start program that has proven to be successful in preventing
both high infant mortality and child abuse and neglect; it slashes
funding for substance abuse and mental health services; and, it slashes
funding for Education Goals 2000.
President Clinton has said he will veto this bill if it is sent to
him as it currently reads. The Republicans know this. So why continue
these games? I do not understand the sense of passing a bill we know
will only be successful in shutting down the government, only be
successful at hurting people, by denying education to those who need
it, and by withdrawing services to the elderly.
I have been appalled at the tactics used by the Gingrich Republican
majority in this 104th Congress to hold the Federal government and the
American people hostage with their extreme ideological agenda. This
bill continues that trend by using as weapons the programs of the
Labor, HHS, Education Departments. It is yet another measure of the
lack of respect shown by the Republican majority of this Congress for
the Constitutional rights to which every citizen is entitled.
At every opportunity in budget negotiations from FY 96 and now for FY
97, the Republican extremists have simply refused to carry out their
Constitutional responsibilities to govern. It is inconceivable that
they could find a way to go from bad to worse, but they have with this
bill. It is time for them to end the dangerous game of chicken that
they have been playing with the lives of American's children, seniors,
disabled, and poor.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my concern over the
dramatic cuts in education included in the FY97 Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education Appropriations bill. After $1.1 Billion in
education cuts already imposed by the 104th, this Congress continues to
wage war on our schools by proposing $400 million in additional cuts
for Fiscal Year 1997.
Under this bill my district of Guam would lose $1.7 million designed
to keep our school environments safe and drug free, $200,000 in school
improvement funds under Goals 2000, and $44,000 in Byrd Scholarships,
just to list a few. In addition, special education will only receive
level-funding which is totally inadequate given increases in enrollment
and inflation. We can argue about what is or isn't a true cut but less
money for more students at increased costs hurts any way you slice it.
If this bill passes, a host of worthwhile programs including Title 1
and bilingual education will become this Congress's latest road kill.
The elimination and reduction of these programs have real impact in the
lives of our students. The ability of the Guam Public School System to
meet the needs of our students would be seriously impaired by these
cuts. We all agree that schools need to prepare our children for the
21st century but we refuse to give schools the tools necessary to
fulfill their basic responsibilities. How can we continue to ask our
schools to do more with less?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Black Lung
Clinics Program and the Ney amendment to the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations for FY 1997.
This is not a program that receives much attention in the national
media. Most Americans may not know it even exists. But to many in my
part of the country, this is an essential program which provides relief
and comfort for those afflicted with a painful disease.
Upon realizing that specialized medical services were needed for
those working in our nation's coalmines, Congress in 1969 passed the
Black Lung Benefits Act.
The main goal of the Black Lung Clinics is to keep respiratory
patients out of the hospital by using preventative medicine and
improving the quality of life of the men and women afflicted with lung
disease.
The physicians and other health care professionals in a clinic in my
district have developed health management techniques for patients with
chronic lung disease, improving those patients' quality of life while
reducing annual hospitalizations among the affected patient group by
70%.
The amendment from the gentleman from Ohio would restore $2 million
for the program in FY 1997. It would enable the dedicated professionals
to continue their work with their patients. The figures below indicate
the Black Lung Clinics Program funding:
FY 1995: $4,142,000
FY 1996: $3,811,000
House FY 1997: $1,900,000
With Ney Amendment: $3,900,000
The Ney amendment would raise the funding level in FY 1997 by only
slightly more than 2% above the FY 1996 level.
Many of us can never fully understand the sacrifices of the men and
women who every day toiled in the depths of the earth. They are among
the oft unappreciated laborers who provided this nation with the
resources necessary to fuel our nation's industrial engine.
As we once needed them, they now need us. I hope my colleagues will
join me in continued support for the Black Lung Clinics program. Please
support the Ney amendment.
Ms. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to stand in
support of H.R. 3755, appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS,
and Education, and I am particularly pleased with the strong support
this appropriations gives to education, especially Impact Aid
assistance and student financial assistance.
Impact Aid is a necessary and justified program of federal financial
assistance for school districts that are affected by a federal
presence. I have been privileged to work closely with my colleagues to
encourage full funding for Impact Aid. This legislation appropriates
$728 million which is an 18% increase over the President's proposal and
a clear demonstration of our commitment to these schools and their
students.
Student financial aid also receives strong support in this
legislation. The maximum Pell Grant award has been significantly
increased, as has funding for the Federal Work-Study program. Federal
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants have been maintained at $583
million, and the TRIO program has been increased to $500 million.
[[Page H7371]]
I congratulate the Chairman and the Committee on bringing us a strong
bill for education and I am proud to cast my vote in strong support of
this legislation.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the
Appropriations Committee on its fair FY97 Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill. Crafting an appropriations bill while balancing
the priorities of 435 Members of Congress is no easy task, and I
recognize the constraints the Appropriations Committee faces. I believe
that the Committee made a good faith effort to address labor,
education, and health needs of our nation.
For example, in the area of higher education, the bill increases the
maximum Pell Grant award to $2,500. For our elementary and secondary
schools, it continues funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools and Title
1, and increases funding for Head Start and Impact Aid. In the area of
health and human services, the bill increases funding for medical
research and preventive services, as well as the Violence Against Women
Act. The bill also continues funding for Title X and the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance program.
Let me reiterate that the bill does not reflect all of my priorities
as strongly as I would like, and I will support improvements in the
level of education funding as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
Last year, I opposed this Appropriations bill because I felt that the
cuts in education were too severe, and I worked to increase funding for
education programs. This year, the Committee has made a sincere effort
to provide adequate funding for important programs that benefit our
young people, the elderly, and those with limited incomes. This was
accomplished within the limits necessary to continue on the course to a
Balanced Budget which is critical to our children's future and the
economic health of our nation.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the drastic cuts to
education contained in this year's Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations
bill, and I urge a no vote on the bill.
The 104th Congress has already slashed education funding by over $1
billion. This bill would continue the dangerous trend toward
disinvestment in education by cutting an additional $400 million.
We must reverse this dangerous course. A good education is no
luxury--it is a necessity. Our economic growth and quality of life in
the 21st Century depend on providing the best possible education for
all of America's children.
Right now, teachers and schools are facing enormous challenges.
Enrollments are increasing. Next year, we will have more students in
school than at any time in history--51.7 million students--breaking the
record set in 1971 when the baby boomers came of age. America's
teachers also have to deal with larger numbers of students with
inadequate English language skills, developmental problems, and
disabilities.
This bill does not adequately address the challenges facing our
schools.
The bill would stall the progress we have made in improving schools
and teacher skills. It kills the Goals 2000 initiative, the Eisenhower
Professional Development program, Star Schools, and Migrant Education.
Together with the Title I Disadvantaged Education program, these
programs constitute the core federal initiative to help schools and
school districts assure that all students, particularly the most
economically and educationally disadvantaged, have the opportunity to
achieve their highest potential.
The bill also makes cuts in higher education. By eliminating new
capital contributions to Perkins loans, the bill would deprive about
96,000 students of access to these loans. About half of these students
come from families with incomes of less than $30,000, and they have no
other resource to make up the difference.
Cuts to financial assistance for college students are particularly
short-sighted. My sister and I were the first members of my family to
finish college. Both of us relied on financial assistance. The authors
of this bill evidently do not understand just how expensive a college
education is. Or, they don't fully appreciate the central role that the
federal government plays in helping students get through college or
vocational courses.
A better future for the nation and for our families is inextricably
linked to the investment we make in education. A highly-educated
citizenry and workforce are crucial to keeping the democracy strong and
to competing in a changing global economy.
I urge my colleagues to reject further education cuts and to vote
against passage of this bill.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to extreme
Republican anti-labor riders in this legislation.
I had thought the radical House Republicans had learned their lesson
last year, when the legislative riders that they added to
appropriations bills led to two government shutdowns. Here they go
again, with two special interest provisions designed to weaken an
agency that protects both working Americans and, ironically, many
employees.
To start with, this bill already imposes a draconian cut in the
budget of the National Labor Relations Board--a fifteen percent cut
from the current level, and a twenty percent cut from the President's
request. Cuts of these magnitude will only result in increasingly
growing backlogs--backlogs that are in the interest of neither
employees nor employers. But the special interests served by this bill
don't care.
The first rider would prohibit the issuance of a final single
location bargaining unit rule by the NLRB. But if Republicans were true
to their principles, they would be supporting, not opposing, the
issuance of a final rule.
Indeed, such a rule, by minimizing the need for case-by-case
adjudication, would reduce expensive litigation and resultant delay.
This would promote certainty, for the benefit for both labor and
management. In addition, a rule would promote the more efficient use of
Board resources, a crucial consideration in light of the drastic cuts
in the Board's budget proposed in this bill. By opposing such a rule,
the Republican are showing their hypocrisy.
The second rider would effectively force the NLRB to raise its
business volume threshold for exercising jurisdiction over labor
disputes. This is a major policy change that should not be adopted in
haste on an appropriations bill.
Ironically, this change would not necessarily reduce the NLRB's
workload, since jurisdiction would become an issue in many more cases.
Indeed, this rider shows how blind the sponsors are to the role and
function of the Labor Board. The NLRB is a referee that maintains the
rules of the game for both labor and management. It protects both
employees and employers. The supporters of this amendment want to take
away the NLRB's jurisdiction over smaller employers and restore the law
of the jungle.
Is this really what the supporters of this rider want to see--the law
of the jungle? Do the supporters of this rider really want to decrease
protections for small employers? That's what this rider would do.
Perhaps that's why both labor and management experts oppose this rider.
These riders are just another example of the extreme anti-labor
animus of the House Republican leadership. They don't care about the
facts, they don't care about the law, they don't care about the
procedure, they just know they hate labor.
Let's strike these extreme riders from this bill. Let's help prevent
another government shutdown.
Ms. ESHOO, Mr. Chairman, the shortsightedness of this bill should be
obvious to us all. Inadequate funding for education compromises our
children's future and the future of our nation.
Listen carefully to what's not being funded:
Compensatory Education--$475 million less.
Safe & Drug Free Schools--$99 million less.
Special Education--$306 million less.
Bilingual Education--$94 million less.
Goals 2000--eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, one cannot cut these programs without serious
ramifications. Funding for education is an investment that we can and
must make a priority.
I return to my district every weekend and one of the issues I
consistently hear from my constituents about is the importance of
education. Education is the very foundation upon which our nation is
built and it is what will determine the very future of our citizenry
and our country.
I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to oppose this
shortsighted bill.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill under consideration
today.
Many of us in Congress have been critical of OSHA. We've claimed that
the agency has been overreaching and lacking in common sense in its
regulations. We've claimed that it is adversarial and punitive in its
enforcement, and noted that it has not been cost effective in promoting
worker safety and health.
The Clinton Administration has agreed with many of our criticisms of
OSHA. For example, just one year ago, President Clinton, speaking at a
small business in Washington, D.C., called for creation of ``a new
OSHA,'' an OSHA that puts emphasis on ``prevention, not punishment''
and uses ``commonsense and market incentives to save lives.'' Vice
President Gore was even more direct when he spoke to the White House
Conference on Small Business last year. He said:
I know that OSHA has been the subject of more small
business complaints than any other agency. And I know that it
is not because you don't care about keeping your workers
safe. It is because the rules are too rigid and the
inspections are often adversarial.
In criticizing OSHA, we've said nothing more than OSHA's record
surely shows. Despite spending over $5 billion in taxpayer funds over
[[Page H7372]]
the past 25 years, there is little evidence that OSHA has made a
significant difference in the safety and health of workers.
Other examples and studies show that OSHA's focus on finding
violations, no matter how minor and insignificant, has made OSHA
ineffective in improving safety and health in the workplace. Why? One
reason is that when the focus is on issuing penalties rather than
fixing problems, there is much less attention paid to fixing problems.
One study showed that the time required of OSHA to document citations
increased an average inspection by at least 30 hours, thus greatly
decreasing the number of workplaces OSHA could inspect. Penalties are
sometimes necessary to compel irresponsible employers to address health
and safety for their workers. But, as the Clinton Administration has
said, inspections and penalties have not produced safety. It is time to
find new ways of operating.
Just recently the Assistant Secretary of OSHA criticized this bill
for cutting OSHA too much. But, in fact, these modest ``reforms'' do
not undercut safety and health. This bill attempts to reorient OSHA by
targeting more funds toward compliance assistance which helps employers
and employees in creating a safe workplace. Putting greater focus on
compliance assistance is precisely what the Assistant Secretary has
asked for. The bill does make modest cuts in the agency's budget, but,
simply adding resources without real reform is not going to make the
agency more effective--and adding more resources is not likely to
happen without reform.
In addition, the bill retains language prohibiting the agency from
issuing a mandatory standard related to ergonomics. Last year, OSHA
issued a draft proposal on ergonomics that was too broad, too vague,
and failed to recognize that the science of ergonomics is a complex
field of study, still in its infancy. In the scientific community,
there is little consensus on ergonomics or how best to treat and
prevent these problems. Yet, OSHA came up with a one-size-fits-all
standard that fails to acknowledge the difference between businesses. A
chicken plant operates differently from the textile industry. Each has
unique distinctions that make a one-size-fits-all government mandate
impossible to ``fit'' these different situations.
As a small businessman myself, I can tell you that I believe
ergonomics and understanding its impact on the workplace should be an
important part of any business' occupational safety and health
approach. It is important for each ergonomics program to address the
individual needs of the workplace. We need a responsible proposal,
based on sound scientific evidence and cost-benefit analysis. OSHA's
one-size-fits-all ergonomics policy doesn't address these concerns.
Last year, and it still applies, it was noted that the draft
ergonomics standard could bankrupt small businesses with little
corresponding improvement in worker safety and health. For instance, in
order with OSHA's proposal many small firms would need to hire an
ergonomics expert--an expense that small companies could not absorb,
especially on top of the new wage increase that will likely become law
soon.
Consider also, that in Australia, when an ergonomic standard was
adopted in the 1980's, injury rates increased. Workers' compensation
costs increased as much as 40 percent in some industries, and a single
company lost more than $15 million in 5 years due to increased
production costs.
The prohibition on OSHA's one-size-fits-all policy ergonomics policy
should continue until we have a better understanding of the specific
factors that cause the injuries and assurances that it will be based on
sound scientific analysis.
In my view, OSHA would be more effective by working with employers
rather than creating a confrontational sitting. OSHA's emphasis on
issuing penalties, even for relatively minor problems and violations,
not only a matter of great annoyance and sometimes financial burden to
business, but tremendously inefficient from the standpoint of using
OSHA's limited resources to effectively promote safety. Each year, OSHA
spends about \1/2\ million additional man hours citing and documenting
penalties on paperwork violations, even where the employer makes the
changes. In other words, this is time spent just for the purpose of
issuing penalties for violations in which there is no direct threat to
an employee's safety or health. A couple of journalists reported
recently that another 100,000 hours are spent by OSHA each year
responding to unfounded complaints. No private employer in our country
could waste resources on unproductive activities the way OSHA has and
stay in business.
Second, OSHA should be viewed as more of a catalyst for improving and
promoting safety and health, rather than simply an enforcer of
government rules. Thus, employers with good safety records, or those
who have retained the services of someone who is knowledgeable about
safety and health in their workplace, should be encouraged to do so.
Changes are long overdue to make OSHA less adversarial, more
cooperative, and more focused on real health and safety. It is not a
matter of reducing our commitment to workplace safety and health. It is
an opportunity to work more effectively to encourage productive,
competitive, and safer workplaces. I will continue to push for these
types of changes, and the appropriation bill before us today takes a
few modest steps toward that goal.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from New York [Ms.Velazquez].
Only 2\1/2\ weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article
documenting the extent to which the minimum wage and overtime law is
routinely violated in this country. That article cited estimates by the
employment policy foundation, an employer-funded think tank, that
workers lose 19 billion dollars a year in unpaid overtime. The
employment policy foundation estimates that one out of ten workers is
regularly cheated out of overtime. Most other observers believe that is
a conservative estimate. More than 60 percent of those workers who are
not being paid the wages they have earned are earning ten dollars an
hour or less.
In Specific industries, such as the garment industry, minimum wage
and overtime violations have reached epidemic proportions. In 1994, a
random check of 69 garment manufacturers in southern California by the
Department of Labor found that 73 percent were not maintaining payroll
records, 68 percent were not paying overtime, and 51 percent were not
even paying minimum wages. The problem has become so serious that
legitimate employers who seek to comply with our labor laws are being
driven out of business.
At a time when corporate profits are skyrocketing, working families
are seeing their income stagnate and decline. Between 1973 and 1994,
the number of families with two working parents increased by 56%. Yet,
despite this increase median family income was virtually unchanged.
Since 1989, average family income has declined by more than $2,000.
No one claims that improving enforcement of the labor law will
reverse the decline in average family income by itself. We do claim,
however, that the failure to address the problem can only accelerate
the trend.
Nineteen billion dollars in unpaid overtime amounts to a gigantic
income transfer program. But it is Robin Hood in reverse. We are taking
money from the poor and giving it to the rich. And we are allowing it
to be done in violation of the law.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York is a very
modest effort to attempt to restore some assurance to American workers
that their government will act to enforce the labor law. We are seeing
in this country a re-emergence of the kinds of sweatshop and slave
labor situations that should have been eradicated for all time more
than 50 years ago. Continuing to allow these kinds of abuses to fester
and grow undermines the standard of living of workers and of the
economy as a whole. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1997
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
(H.R. 3755). The Republicans call this year's funding levels in the
bill a ``freeze'' of last year's levels, with some programs receiving
small increases, and others receiving slightly reduced amounts. But
this so-called ``freeze'' in funding leaves many Americans out in the
cold by failing to maintain vital services.
In the Department of Labor, funding for summer jobs is frozen at the
1996 level of $625 million, which will support 79,000 fewer jobs than
this year. At a time when so many of our nation's youth grow up in
deteriorating neighborhoods with few employment opportunities, it is
essential that we continue to provide these young people with the
opportunity to acquire valuable work experience.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which
enforces America's workplace safety laws, is funded at $297.7 million.
This $6 million cuts from last year may not appear to be huge in these
austere times, but it is substantially below the $340 million level
which the Administration believes is necessary for workplace safety.
OSHA has worked to create a safe environment by reducing workplace
fatalities by more than 50 percent and injuries and illnesses by 22
percent over the past 25 years. Why jeopardize the progress we have
made?
The measure short changes American children through its education
funding levels. The bill eliminates funding for Goals 2000, which means
that federal efforts already underway to raise academic standards and
to encourage students to work hard to meet those standards would be
terminated. Nearly six million children in 12,000 schools would be
affected. Title I Compensatory Education grants to local education
agencies are frozen at the 1996 level of $6.7 billion; given inflation,
fewer funds will be available to provide students the assistance they
need in basic reading and math.
[[Page H7373]]
While we decry the condition of our nation's schools and the
inability of American students to compete successfully against their
European and Asian counterparts, we continue to deny our children
adequate funding for programs which will improve their education.
Finally, let me highlight my particular concern about the level of
funding in this bill for substance abuse prevention. The Committee has
recommended $94 million for the substance abuse prevention program.
While this is a $4 million increase above the 1996 level, the 1996
appropriation of $90 million was a devastating $148 million decrease
from the 1995 amount. As a result of the huge 1996 cut, nearly five
million youth will be denied access to services which are crucial to
helping them avoid the problems associated with substance abuse.
The Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment,
located in my district, is one of a number of groups across the nation
which work diligently to eradicate drug abuse in our communities and
which will now be denied funding. As we consider the impact of these
cuts on groups like the Community Coalition, we would do well to
remember the adage, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure;'' perhaps nowhere is this adage more fitting than in the field of
drug abuse prevention.
Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the freeze on employment for youth,
worker safety, substance abuse prevention, and the ability of the next
generation of Americans to compete in the global marketplace. We cannot
afford to turn our backs on the need for investment in the human
capital of this nation. H.R. 3755 is ill-advised and should be
defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 3755), making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 472, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3755, to the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take time to debate the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a straight motion to recommit. I will
not push it to a rollcall vote. I would urge a ``no'' vote on final
passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 209, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
YEAS--216
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NAYS--209
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--9
Collins (IL)
Dunn
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 0035
Mr. LARGENT and Mr. SANFORD changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. JACOBS and Mr. FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page H7374]]
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________