[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.

                          ____________________