[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10182-H10189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 3666, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
      AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3666) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, 
and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, 
and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                      motion to instruct conferees

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Stokes moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     be instructed to agree

[[Page H10183]]

     to the amendments of the Senate numbered 95, 117, and 118.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my motion to instruct House conferees 
on the 1997 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I will be 
the first to admit that this instruction is not quite the norm, but I 
strongly believe that circumstances and timing dictate this course of 
action.
  The first part of my motion deals with benefits for Vietnam Veterans' 
children suffering from spina bifida if their parents were exposed to 
agent orange. It directs the House conferees to agree to the Agent 
Orange Benefits Act added by the Senate (amendment number 95). The 
Senate provision is supported by the administration and is the result 
of research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in response 
to congressional direction in 1991. A report issued by the National 
Academy this past March updated an earlier study presented in 1993. 
This year's report indicated limited suggestive evidence of an 
association between exposure to agent orange and incidence of spina 
bifida in offspring. Based on this new study, the VA has recommended 
that spina bifida in veterans' offspring be considered service-
connected. Without this important provision, the VA lacks the authority 
to extend benefits to the children of veterans.
  Although caring for the spina bifida children will have a cost, the 
amendment more than compensates for those expenses. By overturning the 
Gardner decision, the amendment fully pays for the cost of treatment 
and benefits and even returns several million dollars to the U.S. 
Treasury for deficit reduction. Under the Gardner decision will still 
allow veterans to receive compensation for additional disability or 
death caused by the VA only if there is evidence the VA was at fault. 
It is noteworthy that provisions overturning the Gardner decision have 
been included in several recent reconciliation bills. Since it appears 
highly unlikely that a separate reconciliation bill will be enacted 
this Congress, it makes sense to capture these savings now.
  The second part of my motion deals with parity for mental health 
coverage under group health plans. It directs the House conferees to 
agree to the Senate amendment, No. 118, that would require health plans 
that have benefit limits on medical and surgical condition is to have 
the same limits on mental conditions. This provision is supported by 
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health 
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American 
Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association, among 
others.
  Certain opponents of this measure may argue that small businesses can 
not absorb the cost of this provision. I strenuously disagree with that 
assessment. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that private 
insurance premiums will increase by only 0.4 percent under the terms of 
this provision, of which employers would pay only .16 percent. In 
addition, small businesses with 25 or fewer employees are exempt from 
the provision. Also, the provision ceases to have effect if it would 
result in a 1 percent or greater increase in the cost of a group health 
plan's premiums. I am convinced these modifications adequately address 
the concerns of small businesses.
  The final part of my motion directs the House conferees to agree to 
the Senate amendment, No. 117, requiring health plan coverage for a 
minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for newborns and mothers following 
childbirth. This provision was agreed to by a unanimous vote in the 
other body. Similar legislation in the House has the bipartisan support 
of more than 150 cosponsors. The provision makes common sense, and it 
often makes economic sense. Too many times when newborn children and 
their mothers are discharged from hospitals just hours after birth, 
complications such as jaundice or more serious conditions require 
rehospitalization usually at greater cost. Mr. Speaker, the CBO 
estimates the only cost of this provision in 1997 is $1 million for the 
establishment of an advisory commission. Over the period 1997-2002, it 
is anticipated asset sales will more than offset any impact on the 
Federal deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I realize this approach is 
somewhat usual in that these provisions more properly lie within the 
jurisdiction of the legislative committees. Were it not for the looming 
adjournment date and the shortness of time remaining in which to do our 
business as well as the broad-based support for these provisions, I 
would not be urging this course. Also, since it appears likely the VA-
HUD appropriations conference report may not offer an opportunity for 
separate votes on these important matters, this may be House Members' 
only chance to indicate their position on these issues.
  For all these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support my 
motion to instruct the VA-HUD conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond or react to my colleague's 
comments regarding these very, very important matters that now, by way 
of a motion to instruct, will be directed toward the conference on that 
bill that has to do with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing, 
NASA, EPA, not health care. The gentleman has indicated that this may 
very well be one of the few trains to leave town and, therefore, these 
items of great importance ought to be attached to this package just 
because there will be no other chance.
  I wanted to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time, 
that the chairman of the subcommittee has had a chance to even take a 
look at these items. They address subject areas that are very, very 
important, but they are subject areas that are not germane to our bill. 
They are subject areas that, indeed, deserve the light of day that 
normally would involve our legislative hearing process. They are very 
important items to the consumers who might be impacted by these items 
if they should eventually become a permanent part of this bill and have 
it be signed into law.
  Just to make a specific point regarding the three items, if one would 
just address oneself to the 48-hour notice regarding that which should 
be required of health insurance that is available to people in the 
consuming public. Essentially this instruction would tell the conferees 
by way of the House that we should include a requirement of a 48-hour 
notice within our bill as it goes to the President's desk.
  Frankly, there are lots of pros and cons to that issue. But indeed I 
am not sure the American public is ready to receive this issue in this 
form. Average families out there, after the fact, are going to realize 
that suddenly there is a new premium added to their insurance contracts 
because of some action arbitrarily taken by the House, taken by the 
House without any notice to them, taken by the House without any 
indication as to how that will impact their future health care 
circumstances.
  Indeed, just before we broke for the recess, we had a health care 
package move forward from the House to the President. That package did 
not include this 48-hour notice item. Indeed it was much too 
controversial for the authorizing committees to deal with at the time. 
So as of this moment, we are about to put them into this train that is 
leaving town without our knowing whether the arguments in favor weigh 
on that side or the arguments against weigh on the other side. It is 
exactly how we should not be handling appropriations bills.
  I must say that I am tempted to talk with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my dear friend from Ohio, and ask him in great 
detail about spina bifida and about mental health parity, but frankly 
he and I, even in our own subcommittee discussions where we talk off 
the record, have not had a chance to discuss these matters.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, I presume he like myself, even though I spent a lot of 
years in the health insurance business, does not presume expertise in 
these technical policy areas.
  This is absolutely the wrong way to legislate, at the wrong time, in 
an environment that will create problems

[[Page H10184]]

that we are going to have to live with ourselves in the months and 
years ahead, and the public at the other end will be scratching their 
heads and saying is this what we sent them up there to do?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman on 
his statement. As I understand it, none of these three issues 
constitute subject matter that would be ordinarily entertained by this 
particular bill. Traditionally the VA-HUD appropriations bill deals 
with the funding of the Veterans' Administration, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and a lot of independent agencies, but 
this bill is not a general health bill; is it?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is correct; is it not.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield further, it just strikes 
me as a very, very unusual procedure for us to find that these totally 
extraneous issues, no matter how meritorious they may be, and in fact 
are worthy, because our hearts go out to anybody with a child with 
spina bifida or to a mother who has left the hospital early, but still 
there are extraneous issues to this bill. And to be dropped on the 
gentleman at the last minute and be told, ``Well, you've got to 
consider these without regard to the traditional authorization 
process,'' is, in fact, not the way that legislation ought to be 
conducted.
  I know it is the position of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
that the membership should vote to instruct the conferees on this 
particular issue and to go and accept what the Senate has done, but it 
does seem to me to risk a great danger that we in the haste of trying 
to do good things in advance of an election all of a sudden adopt 
things, measures, in such a legislative domain which later on prove to 
be ill advised or unwarranted or beyond capability to afford or within, 
say, a trend of increasing government direction that, frankly, the 
American people tend to resent these days.
  The whole procedure is highly subject to question, so I just want to 
commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for raising this 
issue; I agree with him. I do not know if this matter were brought to a 
vote how it would turn out. I suspect that most Members would be 
inclined to sympathize with the subject matter. But I have to stress it 
is my own feeling that this is just not the way to conduct the 
legislative business of the United States of America.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments, and they are very helpful comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend my good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and his ranking member for the 
great job they do on this very difficult appropriations subcommittee 
dealing with so many agencies and departments, and I know it is a very 
difficult job.
  Having said that, I would just have to say that there is no need for 
a motion to instruct on the provision regarding the Newborns and 
Mothers Health Protection Act because the Republican leadership has 
already agreed to accept that provision, and we will be fighting for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision is critical because the well-being of 
newborn babies and new mothers is at stake all across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be ashamed to let political maneuvering getting 
in the way of passing this vital piece of legislation that is attached 
to the VA-HUD appropriation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have recently heard from a gentleman in my district 
whose 19-year-old daughter is a victim of this terrible trend of drive-
through deliveries. She delivered a baby this past April, and she was 
released from the hospital less than 24 hours later, kicked out of the 
hospital, even though the baby had a severe blood disorder, and, my 
colleagues, 4 days later this young 19-year-old mother had her lung 
explode, and she has since had three strokes. Tragically, she is still 
in the hospital and will never again lead a normal life. She is a 19-
year-old who cannot even take care of her newborn baby. That is so, so 
pathetic.
  It is these examples, and there are many more, that drove me to 
introduce this legislation which was subsequently taken up over in the 
Senate the other day, sponsored by Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Frist, and Mr. 
Bradley on a bipartisan basis, and it is badly, badly needed. So I 
would just hope that my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] and the ranking member would support that legislation when it is 
taken up in the conference.
  Regardless of the outcome of this vote, we must continue to fight for 
the well-being of the most cherished population, these young newborns.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself whatever 
additional time I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think most Members who are focusing at all upon this 
discussion know full well that these riders that are being proposed by 
way of this motion to instruct are items that on the surface look very, 
very appealing. There is little doubt that it would be foolish of any 
of us to suggest that Members ought to walk in here and vote knee-jerk, 
or otherwise, against this proposal.
  Having said that, I think the public would be misinformed if they 
thought this appropriations committee of our authorizing committees of 
jurisdiction had reviewed these issues, held hearings effectively on 
these issues and really provided the kind of input that the legislative 
process ought to included.
  One more time we are asked to support riders at the last moment, and 
I want the Speaker and my colleagues to know that as I go to conference 
I will weigh very carefully the amount of input that we have received 
from those Members who have responsibilities of jurisdiction. By no 
way, shape or form does this reflect what I consider to be an 
obligation on my part to respond positively to these last-minute 
considerations, which fall well outside my jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Stokes], for presenting this motion here today, and I rise in 
strong support of the motion. I want to stress again that these issues 
that we are dealing with today have bipartisan support both in this 
House as well as in the other body, and I want to also say that on the 
subject of the early, discharge or the so called drive-by delivery, I 
really appreciate what our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon], has said here today, and I want to endorse it. But I want to 
stress to all our people here that there is urgent need for medical 
care for these mothers that are postpartum and these newborn babies.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not keep mothers and babies in hospitals to give 
them hotel service. They are there for medical reasons, whether it is 
jaundice and mental retardation or hemorrhaging, and that has already 
been said very well today by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  But I want to go on to the second issue, and that is the question of 
mental health and the parity question under mental health. Again, I 
want to stress that this is a bipartisan issue. One of the most 
prominent Republican leaders in the other body is the author of this 
proposal. Senator Domenici put this in the Senate bill, and it is that 
provision that we want protected in this motion to instruct. This 
discrimination against mental health medical treatment must end, and it 
must end now. It is the product of gross ignorance and apathy, and this 
Congress should go on record today against it.
  Members realize, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], has 
outlined, that it is different from the original parity issue. It 
releases the cap on lifetime payments, and the Senate adopted it with 
full support, full bipartisan support.
  But again I want to say that this should not be viewed here today as 
a

[[Page H10185]]

partisan issue, and I believe, and here I believe strongly and 
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], that the campaign 
rhetoric must stop and we must do something here and now for the 
American people, hardworking families, on issues that count, and this 
definitely is it. The fictions and the ignorance about mental health 
treatment, the actual return of payment, return of payment to the 
employers, and to the work and productivity is very apparent, everyone 
knows it, and we must stop the fiction surrounding this and tell those 
people that have projected huge costs that they are unrealistic and 
they really do not know what they are talking about. With that, I thank 
my colleague from Ohio for having yielded this time to me.
  In my State of New Jersey, our Governor, Christine Todd Whitman, has 
already signed a 48-hour minimum hospitalization proposal into law, and 
it has been very well received by the public.
  I want my colleagues to realize that the latest version of mental 
health parity is a very modest requirement that health insurance 
companies provide equal coverage for physical and mental illness in 
their annual caps and lifetime caps--that's all. Nothing more, nothing 
less.
  In other words, insurance carriers can no longer impose dramatically 
lower annual or lifetime limits for mental illness coverage than those 
which they offer for physical ailments.
  Today, I will be introducing the House companion bill to the 
Domenici-Wellstone bill with a bipartisan coalition of Members who 
share my view that the flagrant discrimination health insurance 
companies engage in with respect to treating mental illness must come 
to an end. Retaining this modest proposal begins that process.
  Both the Bradley-Frist and Domenici-Wellstone amendments were 
overwhelmingly approved by the Senate, and I believe that these 
amendments would enjoy similar levels of support in the House provided 
that they are retained in the final conference committee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], 
my good friends, for their really outstanding work on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion which includes 3 
provisions that are critically needed by American families. One of the 
provisions included in this motion will provide health care, vocational 
rehabilitation and compensation to Vietnam veterans and their families 
who are dealing with the effects of exposure to agent orange. A recent 
report by the National Academy of Sciences showed a link between 
Vietnam veterans' exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina 
bifida in their children. This provision will give the families of our 
proud veterans the support they need to care for their children 
suffering from spina bifida as a result of their military service.
  This motion also includes a provision that will insure that mothers 
and newborns receive adequate hospital coverage during the critical 
time following a delivery. We have all read the tragic stories of women 
and babies forced from the hospital before they were ready to go 
because of the increasing number of health insurers limiting hospital 
coverage to 24 hours or less. I know as a mother of three grown 
children how very important this time is to a new mother. The Bradley 
amendment mandates minimum hospital coverage of 48 hours for a normal 
delivery and 96 hours for cesarean section. The standards are set by 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists and the 
American Academy of Pediatrics. This provision does not mandate how 
long any single patient should remain in the hospital but assures that 
the decision about what is best for each mother and baby's health is 
made by the patient and her doctor and not by an inflexible insurance 
policy.
  Finally this motion takes us another step toward improving the health 
security of hard-working Americans and their families. Sadly the health 
insurance reform bill passed earlier this summer did not include a 
simple provision to insure that mental health benefits are treated like 
other health benefits. Not long before the Senate unanimously approved 
mental health parity, and nearly 100 of my colleagues in the House 
signed a letter to the Speaker in support of it. Yet when the final 
bill reached the floor it was gone; shame on this House.
  With this motion to recommit we have a second chance to end 
discrimination against mental illness and help remove its stigma. Mr. 
Speaker, we must not let this opportunity to do what is right slip away 
yet again. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, but I will yield myself 2 minutes by way of closing to make a 
minor point.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the House should know that this motion to 
instruct does involve a number of very important policy areas, 
instructing the House to take action as conferees dealing with the 
other body. In the area of mental parity, for example, there are some 
very real costs that are involved. While in the 1997 year those costs 
are difficult to measure over a period of 5 years, there will be an 
absolute cost of somewhere near 550 millions of dollars.

                              {time}  1300

  That would be a cost obligation extended forward without any 
discussions at the authorizing committee level, and without any real 
debate or light of day in terms of the pros and cons related to that 
very important subject area.
  As we deal with questions that relate to the newborn, a similar 
problem. These are issues that through the appropriate authorizing 
committees could very well have been discussed thoroughly. But suddenly 
in this motion to instruct we have a package here that, over time, is 
going to cost a minimum of $110 million. We have identified ways to pay 
for it without any kind of thorough review.
  One of the suggestions, as indicated by the other body, is that we 
might sell Governor's Island, a little spot in New York that is of 
interest to some of my colleagues. I am not sure if the Members who 
have had the Governor's Island near their territory have been consulted 
at all. I think probably not. My colleague, the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Molinari], indicated to me that there had been very little 
consultation as far as she personally is concerned. I understand 
Governor's Island may be in another Member's district. If I asked him, 
I am sure he was not consulted about that transfer.
  Further, there is another little item that makes up a big part of 
that package. We are going to sell the airspace rights above Union 
Station as a mechanism for providing funding for this new solution that 
the House must face as we try to conclude this bill that is the only 
train leaving town. It is not the way to carry forward our business, 
Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I do not feel obligated to follow the letter of 
this procedural motion, as this chairman goes forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the time being 
allocated to me by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the fact 
that he has sponsored what I consider to be a very important motion to 
instruct the conferees on the bill.
  I have always respected the work he has done, and I do want this body 
to know of my great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis], who chairs the subcommittee and who has done such an exemplary 
job and is so humane.
  This particular motion would include three critical and humane 
provisions that have been incorporated by our colleagues in the other 
body. I think they do have bipartisan support. There is no doubt about 
it.
  First, it would incorporate the mental health parity compromise that 
was accepted by the Senate. This compromise is a critical step towards 
finally treating mental illness like the disease it is. I heard from 
the President of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Eist, who 
testified before the Civil Service Subcommittee last week on mental 
health parity. He emphasized what we already know: Mental illness is 
treatable, and treating mental illness saves money and increases 
productivity.
  Mr. Speaker, this compromise is really quite modest. It provides 
parity for annual and lifetime caps. It includes a

[[Page H10186]]

provision included by Senator Graham to ensure that it will not cause 
premiums to rise by more than 1 percent. In light of the last CBO 
report that estimated that premiums will rise less than one-sixth that 
amount, I think it is highly unlikely we would ever reach that ceiling.
  Second, the motion incorporates the 48-hour postpartum care provision 
that has been discussed. I am a cosponsor on the House side of the 
Solomon version of that very important bill. I would like very much to 
see it in the VA-HUD bill. As managed care becomes increasingly 
prevalent, we are seeing mothers and their newborns in and out of the 
hospital in as short a time as 12 hours.
  Many illnesses in newborns are not detectable until the first 48 
hours. Those first 2 days are absolutely critical. Guidelines of the 
American Pediatric Association and ACOG specify that mothers should 
stay in the hospital for 48 hours for normal delivery and 96 for 
cesarean delivery. This provision would ensure that this happens.
  My State of Maryland has enacted similar legislation. Although many 
insurers are finding loopholes to get around it, it is having a very 
positive effect on those who are now able to stay the full 48 hours, 
and federally this would enhance what the State has done.
  Third, this motion to instruct would include the agent orange spina 
bifida provision. Surely our Government should be responsible for the 
health care of children with spina bifida if one of their parents was 
exposed to agent orange during the Vietnam war. It is the only 
responsible and humane thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the motion.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
for yielding time to me.
  I rise in favor of this motion to instruct on all three provisions, 
which I think are vital; but, if I could speak to the one dealing with 
mental health parity, I think this is crucial legislation. Let me give 
the Members some examples why.
  Currently many insurance policies have lifetime caps of $1 million 
for various diseases: cancer, heart, et cetera. However, the lifetime 
limits for mental illness are often set at $50,000 or less; $1 million 
here, $50,000 here. Additionally, insurance plans impose annual caps of 
sometimes $10,000 or less on treatments of mental illness, but these 
caps are usually not imposed on other medical conditions.
  What happens then is that these limits on mental illness cause 
individuals not to seek the treatment or to pay out of pocket. They 
must rely on public mental health facilities, or if they can afford it, 
to pay themselves. This is important language because, while we were 
not able to get parity in the health reform legislation that passed 
this year, we do have a chance at limited parity this year. I would 
urge my colleagues to support that.
  Mr. Speaker, are there good reasons why? Let me give the Members some 
statistics why this is so important. Mental illnesses and disorders 
cost our society over $270 billion annually each year in lost 
productivity and treatment costs. Roughly almost 20 percent of our 
adults in this country suffer from mental or addictive disorders in any 
6-month period, but only 20 percent of the 20 percent, one out of five, 
will get any kind of treatment.
  Seven and one-half million American children are plagued by mental 
disorders, such as depression, autism, and learning disabilities. In 
1985 and only 30 cents was spent on research for every $100 of costs 
imposed by mental disorders. Let me repeat that; 30 cents was spent on 
research for every $1,300 of costs imposed by mental disorders. In 
comparison, 73 cents and $1.63 respectively were spent on research for 
every $100 of costs in heart disease and cancer.
  Insurance programs, including Medicare, continue to discriminate 
against individuals with mental illness by requiring a higher copayment 
than other services. In my own State of West Virginia, we found that 
almost 42,000 West Virginians receive some type of mental health 
treatment. There are 1.8 million people in West Virginia. In other 
words, only 2.3 percent are getting any kind of treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, this is crucial legislation. It is not enough. I am very 
grateful for the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Marge Roukema, chair 
of the mental health working group, who with the gentleman from Oregon, 
Mr. Peter DeFazio and myself, have cochaired that organization, a 
bipartisan organization. I am thinking back to Syl Conte, who for so 
many years fought for the decade of the brain, and all the gains that 
has brought those suffering from mental disabilities and mental 
afflictions.
  The fact of the matter is that this is money well spent, and this is 
important legislation. I urge Members to support the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am leased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in favor of this motion to 
instruct. I agree, of course, with all three provisions that are being 
specified here. But I particularly want to make reference in support of 
the newborn and mother's health, with a 48-hour minimum hospital stay, 
addressing the so-called drive-through delivery problem that 
increasingly we see around the country with various insurance 
companies.
  My own State of New Jersey requires a minimum stay of 48 hours for 
normal delivery and 4 days for a C-section. But I have to say that, 
even though there are a number of States like New Jersey increasingly 
that are passing State laws for minimum hospital stays for newborns, 
there are also a lot of loopholes.
  For example, in New Jersey, where a lot of people work in New York 
City or work in Philadelphia, many times the insurance coverage is 
excepted from the State law because the person, mother or father in 
this case, works out of State.
  In addition, some of the insurance companies that are based out of 
New Jersey have claimed that they do not have to abide by New Jersey's 
law with regard to minimum hospital stay. We do need Federal 
legislation. Let no one suggest this can be handled strictly by the 
States. It cannot. We do need Federal legislation to guarantee minimum 
stays for mothers with newborn children.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to relate my own experience with this 
situation. Both of my children were born by C-section. When my 
daughter, who just turned 3 years old, was born, our insurance company, 
our policy, allowed for 4 days for a C-section. But when my son was 
born, he is now 18 months, the policy had changed. The insurance 
company only allowed 2 days for a C-section.
  Some people say it is up to the doctor, the doctor can always make an 
exception. But what happens in these cases is that the doctors are 
basically told by the insurance companies that, if they make an 
exception and let the child or mother stay an extra day or two, then 
they are basically penalized. They are told, if this continues, they 
may lose their hospital privileges or they may not be covered anymore.
  We were basically told we only had the 2 days for my son. What 
happened is just before he was to be released from the hospital they 
found that he had jaundice, so they let him stay. They let my wife and 
him stay another day, for the third day. But that is an excellent 
example of the type of disorders that can be found, or that are not 
found unless a child stays the extra day. Jaundice is something that is 
not discovered very quickly, and many times children and mothers who 
are released from the hospitals go home and they found that they have 
jaundice, and they have to come back into the hospital again.
  I am very supportive of this legislation and this motion to instruct. 
There is no question in my mind that mothers should have at least 48 
hours for a normal delivery and they should have the 4 days for a C-
section. It is the only right thing to do. The choice should be with 
the mother and the doctor, not with the insurance company. I fully 
support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a highly respected and 
hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

[[Page H10187]]

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Mr. Stokes for presenting this motion 
to instruct conferees on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. As Members 
know, and others have attested to, the motion instructs the conferees 
to agree to three meritorious Senate provisions. The first is the 
Daschle amendment, which would authorize the VA to provide benefits to 
children born with spina bifida if one of the parents was exposed to 
agent orange during the Vietnam war.
  Spina bifida is a debilitating birth defect resulting when the 
fetus's spine fails to form properly. Fortunately, we can help improve 
the lives of the children involved, with the benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important provision.
  The second provision is the Domenici-Wellstone amendment to begin the 
important process of increasing coverage for treatment of mental 
illnesses. This limited provision simply requires any group health 
insurance that covers mental illness to provide the same amounts on 
annual and lifetime coverage that the plan provides for physical 
illness.
  Much more needs to be done to ensure equity for coverage for mental 
illness, but this is a good beginning. Anyone who has had mental 
illness in their families can attest to the importance of moving toward 
a more equitable insurance coverage. The pain caused by mental illness 
is immense. The loss to productivity is staggering. We need to do more, 
and we need to do it now.
  Next, I come to the third area, where Congress by this motion to 
instruct has the opportunity to end the shameful practice of drive-
through deliveries. I feel most comfortable talking about this issue, I 
say proudly to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis], as the mother of five children, and soon 
to be grandmother. I see the difference in how mothers were treated 
when they went to the hospital to have babies when I had my children, 
and what my daughter faces now, and many other young women face now.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen that we are privileged to serve 
with in this body should all listen to the women on this issue. When it 
comes to delivering babies, we know of what we speak. We have been 
there. We have done that. Twenty-four hours simply may not be enough in 
many cases.
  I have received a great deal of mail from my constituents on this 
subject, so I do not speak only from personal experience, but from the 
pleas of new mothers for more coverage. The Bradley amendment would 
require insurance companies to cover at least 48 hours of 
hospitalization for a conventional delivery and at least 96 hours for a 
cesarean section.

                              {time}  1315

  In California 1 out of every 6 births are covered by insurers 
limiting coverage to 24 hours. This attempt to limit coverage is 
associated with increased complications requiring women to have to 
return to the hospital, so they are not saving any money. I will submit 
for the record an example which I have received from my constituent, as 
I urge my colleagues to give our babies a healthy start and our mothers 
a good start, too, on that wonderful adventure of motherhood and 
support the Stokes motion to instruct.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman], the distinguished ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me some time so I could speak in favor of the motion to instruct the 
conferees.
   Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to remedy a serious mistake this 
House made when we failed to act to assure parity of treatment for 
mental health care benefits in earlier legislation. There is simply no 
excuse for the continued discrimination against people with mental 
health problems.
  The Republican majority refused to allow the inclusion of the 
Domenici-Wellstone compromise in the conference agreement on the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance portability bill. It was wrong then, 
and it would be compounding the error to refuse it again.
  The losers because of our failure to act are the American people. It 
is every person and every family who has known the tragedy of 
struggling with mental illness and having no adequate insurance 
coverage for the services needed to treat it.
  The proposal before us is a modified one that only assures parity for 
mental health benefits in terms of annual and lifetime limits on 
benefits. It is affordable, it is necessary, it is right. We cannot say 
no again to taking this vital, important step.
  Let us send a clear and strong message to our conferees to adopt this 
provision and bring some fairness and sense to our treatment of mental 
health benefits. I hope that all Members will instruct the conferees to 
go along with this provision, and that the conferees come back with a 
recommendation to use this opportunity to put in these provisions, to 
move down the track to assuring what ought to be complete parity 
between mental and physical health insurance coverage.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The gentleman from Ohio is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct, although offered by 
our side of the House, is certainly offered in a bipartisan manner. I 
think it is evident that it has strong bipartisan support by virtue of 
the fact that I have yielded both to Members on this side and the other 
side of the aisle.
  That is as it should be, because that is also in keeping with the 
manner in which I try to work on the subcommittee with the chairman of 
this particular subcommittee, a man for whom I have the highest regard 
and whom I deem to be a good friend and with whom I have enjoyed 
working. It is in that vein that I am working with him and look forward 
to working with him in conference to bring back to the House a bill 
that both he and I will continue to support, as I supported the bill 
which he brought to the floor a month or so ago. Working with Jerry 
Lewis is one of the finest experiences I have had in the House, and I 
want to continue and will continue working with him on that bipartisan 
type of basis.
  I said originally that the procedure here does deviate somewhat from 
the norm. I wish that we had had more time for he and I to sit down and 
discuss this, but in working with the leadership on this side, I gave 
him notices as quickly as I could do so. I apologize to him personally 
for any inconvenience that caused him in any respect.
  I hope that the Members of the House will vote on these three very 
important issues. This is the only opportunity that our body has had to 
endorse these very important issues. I think it is important that we go 
to conference having been instructed by the House on the importance of 
these three issues on a bipartisan basis to all of the American people. 
I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct the conferees.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in making an effort to conclude this discussion, I just 
wanted to mention for the record that the motion to instruct is quite 
unusual. It involves three areas that are really new to this 
subcommittee, areas that really do not involve our field of 
jurisdiction. They were included because it is an election year and 
these items are of concern to many groups out there, and it does sound 
like good policy.
  The public should know that if these provisions become law, there are 
very significant implications in terms of the premiums that consumers 
and businesses would have to pay across the country to meet this new 
mandate from the Federal Government. Uncle Sam is not giving us 
anything for free in this process.
  Having said that, I do know a little bit about some of this subject 
area because of my own professional background in the life and health 
insurance business. I am very disconcerted that we would even be 
considering these measures in this form without giving them the kind of 
serious hearings by committees of jurisdictions that they truly 
deserve.
  My colleague from California who spoke earlier, Henry Waxman, and I 
have worked together for many, many a year. He is a very talented 
Member,

[[Page H10188]]

without a doubt. Yet over the years when he was the chairman of the 
subcommittee that did have responsibility in these areas, I did not see 
measures coming forth from that subcommittee reflecting those 
expressions that we heard today on the floor.
  Indeed, it is very close to election, only 8 weeks away. At this 
point in time, I believe, as the House votes on this, all the Members 
will understand that we will go to conference on these issues that are 
not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on H.R. 3666, and that I may include tabular and 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, today Congress has the opportunity to put 
an end to the insidious practice of insurance companies sending moms 
and babes home before they are ready to go.
  Hurried discharges after childbirth fly in the face of established 
medical practice, insult the precious institution of motherhood, and 
greatly increase the likelihood that newborn babies could suffer 
irreversible brain damage or require emergency medical care for 
illnesses within hours or days after discharge. These abbreviated stays 
also put mothers at risk.
  Mothers and doctors are not seeking cadillac health care coverage, 
they are merely demanding similar coverage to that received by mothers 
and infants in every other industrialized nation on Earth.
  Efforts by insurers to arbitrarily limit maternity stays for mothers 
and newborns should be of concern to all of us. Decisions on how long 
mothers and newborns should stay in the hospital should be made by 
doctors and patients together based upon medical and health care needs 
and not primarily by the short-term business predictions of 
shortsighted health insurance providers.
  Mr. Speaker, the former CEO of U.S. Healthcare, Leonard Abramson, 
earned $20 million in a single year. Following the recent acquisition 
of U.S. Healthcare by Aetna, Mr. Abramson made a personal profit of 
approximately $1 billion. With an additional night in the hospital for 
a mother and her child costing between $700 to $1100, Mr. Abramson's 
take home pay and bonus could provide as many as 1,020,000 babies and 
their mothers an extra night in the hospital. To put it another way, 
one man's salary and bonus is enough to provide one-quarter of all the 
babies born in America and their moms an extra night in the hospital.
  In August of 1995, the House of Representatives passed a resolution 
that I introduced which called upon the insurance industry as a whole 
to abide by the established discharge guidelines of the American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists an the American Academy of 
Pediatrics until there is clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate 
a need for a change in these guidelines. Unfortunately, the insurance 
industry has done nothing in response to congressional resolve on this 
matter, except organize opposition to such coverage.
  Today Congress has the chance to require insurance companies to pay 
for appropriate maternity stays for mothers and their newborns by 
supporting the motion to instruct on the VA-HUD bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to support the motion to instruct and stand with American 
families.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the motion offered by Mr. Stokes, particularly with regard to two 
important provisions that will have great benefits for American 
families--the provisions to protect new mothers and their infants by 
ensuring minimum maternity benefits; and provisions that begin to 
address the very serious problem of health insurance discrimination 
against persons with mental illness.
  I was the first Member of Congress to introduce legislation to stop 
drive-through deliveries when it became apparent in my home State of 
California, where managed care is widely used, that short hospital 
stays for maternity was a good way to save insurers money. Such short 
stays were having serious consequences for the health and well-being of 
new mothers and their babies, and it was clear that legislation was 
needed to prescribe a minimum period for insurance coverage to stop 
insurers from dictating what should be a medical decision. At least 29 
States have agreed and adopted such laws or regulations.
  We must guarantee that this minimum standard be applied nationally, 
and include so-called ERISA plans, and the only way we can do this is 
through the amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill that was 
adopted unanimously by the Senate under the able leadership of Senator 
Bradley. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and I join in a 
bipartisan effort to promote the Bradley/Kassebaum/Frist babies 
legislation that was moving in the Senate and in the House by jointly 
sponsoring H.R. 3226. At last count, 111 of you have signed on to this 
bill, and the President has repeatedly urged its adoption.
  As far as the mental health parity provisions are concerned, they are 
an important first step to equalize health insurance plan coverage for 
the treatment of mental illnesses and other medical conditions. The 
evidence is clear: severe mental illness is every bit as debilitating 
and treatable as physical illnesses. When is this country going to stop 
the unfounded prejudice against the mentally ill? When are insurers 
going to stop perpetuating this myth that coverage for mental illness 
will somehow break the bank and that this somehow justifies insurance 
discrimination against millions of citizens? The Senate has seen the 
light on this issue and has voted three times this Congress for mental 
health parity. While the provisions most recently adopted in H.R. 3666 
do not go as far as I would have preferred, I do believe they establish 
a critical new protection for individuals who suffer from mental 
illness who need catastrophic insurance coverage, and for their 
families.
  I am happy that the gentleman from Ohio has brought the attention of 
the House to these important provisions that were added to H.R. 3666 by 
the other body, and urge my colleagues to support his effort.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 392, 
nays 17, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               YEAS--392

     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
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     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
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim

[[Page H10189]]


     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     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
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--17

     Campbell
     Cooley
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Geren
     Hancock
     Herger
     Johnson (CT)
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Rohrabacher
     Scarborough
     Shadegg
     Stump
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bilirakis
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Ganske
     Graham
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Istook
     Johnston
     McCarthy
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Norwood
     Pastor
     Portman
     Riggs
     Scott
     Solomon
     Torkildsen
     Wilson
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1345

  Messrs. KNOLLENBERG, THOMAS, and LEWIS of California changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CRAPO, CHRYSLER, and SMITH of Michigan changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 407, the motion 
to instruct conferees on H.R. 3666, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that 
my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote 
No. 407.

                              {time}  1345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. DeLay, 
Mrs. Vucanovich, and Messrs. Walsh, Hobson, Knollenberg, Frelinghuysen, 
Neumann, Livingston, Stokes, Mollohan, Chapman, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. 
Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________