Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 65 (Friday, May 16, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 65 (Friday, May 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2860-H2862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1469, 1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR
OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BOSNIA

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1469) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for overseas
peacekeeping efforts, including those in Bosnia, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, with a Senate
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.

{time} 1300

motion to instruct offered by ms. kaptur

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

Ms. Kaptur moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 1469, be instructed to insist on the House
position with respect to funding for the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC),
providing a funding level of $76,000,000, to ensure no
reduction in the number of participants being served by this
program.

[[Page H2861]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Hastings of Washington]. The gentlewoman
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In view of the time, I think it is our intention to be respectful to
the Members and their needs to catch their flights. Our motion
instructs conferees to simply insist that the funding level of $76
million provided in the House-passed bill for the WIC Program, which
was agreed to overwhelmingly by this body yesterday, prevailed in
conference with the Senate.
The Senate version of the bill includes only $58 million for the WIC
Program, and in its statement of administration policy on the Senate
version of the bill, the administration estimated that the number of
women, infants, and children served would be reduced by 75,000 to
100,000 participants if the $58 million number prevailed.
So we ask, Mr. Speaker, that we have this motion to instruct the
conferees, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it was my own position that this money was not needed,
that there was ample money in the pipeline for all of the deserving
recipients of WIC funds. However, my personal position was different
from the vote of the House yesterday which supported the position
stated by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. That vote was 338 to
89. So in view of that vote, I believe that we should indeed be
instructed and would intend to support the House position of $76
million versus the Senate position of $58 million.
Mr. Speaker, I would accept the amendment. However, before doing so,
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the ranking member and I could
have a slight dialog on this.
Last night we had discussed the possibility of an amendment or
warning to the bill to make sure that the money only goes to the
families and the children rather than to the bureaucracy to the extent
that it can, and my colleague had raised some concerns about the
administrative costs being high.
There is about, as my colleague knows, $15 million in the $76 million
that will go straight to administration. I think it is the desire of
many people to say that if we are increasing the money, let us not feed
the bureaucrat, the bureaucracy; let us feed the children.
And so my question to my colleague, not amending the bill, but would
the minority side work in the spirit of the intention of the amendment
to say that as much money as possible goes to children and women and
not to the bureaucracy?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, we absolutely want to keep with the purposes
of the program.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I think we need to
understand, if I can get the attention of the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Kingston], using the term ``administrative uses'' is a very tricky
way to go about this. We do not want in any way under the guise of
preventing this money from going to bureaucratic convenience, we do not
want in any way, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House
will not want in any way, to have a proposition which expresses concern
that we do not want money to go to administrative costs to mean that
that will get in the way of implementing cost containment to recover $1
billion from infant formula rebates.
We do not regard the administrative expenses as items such as blood
tests to determine whether a woman is anemic, or we do not believe that
it is administrative funding to provide counseling for pregnant women
on the dangers of alcohol and drugs to their unborn children. We do not
think that it is administrative expenses to promote breast-feeding on
the part of new mothers. We certainly do not want to interfere with the
printing of vouchers.
And the problem is that the way ``administrative expenses'' are
defined could very well preclude all of those activities, which would
absolutely gut the purposes expressed yesterday. And so we will be very
willing to look at the legitimate efforts to see that this goes only to
provide needed services or evaluation or needed outreach for and to the
populations who were meant to be served. But we do not want a
definition of ``administrative services'' that, under the guise of
limiting administrative services, actually cuts out needed services to
people.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and I talked with
my colleague and friend from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] on this question of
the administrative costs, and I do think that he agrees with us.
There are questions of bureaucracy here, but the wording
``administrative'' should in no way be used to dilute these essential
services which, by anybody's definition, are really delivery of
services to these women and children that are in great need.
But I support this motion to instruct, and I am sure that in the
conference the language can be looked at, and how one defines that
bureaucracy is one thing, but if it is left open ended and it actually
is a dilution of services, then of course we would all have to oppose
that.
Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say
that when we are offering this motion to instruct, it is simply on the
language that was adopted here yesterday. We appreciate the gentleman's
concerns, and in view of the time, I think the membership would like a
vote on this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me, in response to the ranking
members's comments on the complete agreement, that which is
legitimately needed to make the program work; I agree that it is not
administrative costs. The intention with the amendment was to have it
broad enough so that the USDA could define those essential services. We
are in agreement on that. I just want to make sure that as much money
as possible goes to the end user and as little as necessary goes to
bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough discussion on this.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
House Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think this is an issue that
should have been addressed in conference. It is fundamentally the
purpose of a conference committee between the House and the Senate, but
now the gentlewoman and the distinguished ranking member of the
committee have offered this motion to instruct, I intend to support it.
As I said yesterday, I am accepting the administration's assertion on
good faith that we need a minimum of $76 million to ensure full
enrollment, full participation, in the program this year.
However, to address the concerns, the very legitimate concerns, of
the appropriators regarding the status and the future of this program,
we are going to be looking at this fall in the context of
reauthorization all the issues that have been identified in the letter
to the GAO, to the Comptroller General of the United States, requesting
a management audit of this particular program. Those issues include
determining the reasons why some States are not spending all of their
Federal program funding; ascertaining the number of women, infants, and
children who are eligible to participate in the program and the extent
to which they actually participate in the program; assessing the extent
to which ineligible persons

[[Page H2862]]

are receiving program benefits as a result of inadequate income
documentation and verification; identifying those State practices that
significantly enhance or diminish the effective and efficient operation
of the program; assessing the extent to which program benefits are
accessible to eligible working women and their children; assessing the
effect of competitive bidding contracts for infant formula on non-WIC
consumers of infant formula and the percentage market share of
commodities to determine other possible products where cost savings
could be realized through competitive bidding without cost shifting
effect on non-WIC customers; and, last, assessing the effect of this
requirement that WIC products be purchased in individual serving
quantities on cost savings and program integrity.
The time to address these issues is when the GAO has had a chance to
report back to Congress, will be looking at their findings and
recommendations in the context of the reauthorization debate this fall.
Mr. Speaker, I support again full funding for the current year and,
therefore, intend to support the motion to instruct.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just wanted to thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] from the authorizing committee and say we will welcome the work
of his committee later this fall.
In addition to that, I think WIC is one of the most audited and
studied programs in the entire Government of the United States. There
are currently four studies ongoing on the program which I know will
enlighten the gentleman's work, including one that the Committee on the
Budget is doing in conjunction with the GAO.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take 30 seconds to
reiterate, this motion to instruct is a motion to instruct on the
amendment as it passed the House last night, period, with no games
played on the question of administrative costs which in any way could
undercut the delivery of services to one deserving or eligible human
being under the WIC Program.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any additional
speakers?
Ms. KAPTUR. I have no additional speakers.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Then, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana
yields himself such time as he may consume to simply point out that all
of the speakers have made their points. It would be the position of
this gentleman to press the case advanced by the gentleman from
Georgia, but in view of all of the statements here and the vote last
night of, again, 338 to 89, we have no objection, the majority has no
objection, to the motion to instruct advanced by the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for his
consideration. We very much want the House to instruct the conferees to
be very vigilant in maintaining the language as passed here yesterday,
and I would ask the membership to support the full funding level for
all participants in WIC.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, even though many Republicans finally
realized the error of their ways and joined the Democrats to restore
$76 million for basic nutrition for America's poorest babies--we can't
claim victory yet. The Senate has only set aside $58 million for WIC.
Right now, the fate of 85,000 women and children will be decided by a
Republican-dominated conference.
When negotiation on the lives of infants and mothers begins next
week, I would urge the conferees to maintain the full $76 million for
WIC. America will be watching. If you try to use smoke and mirrors to
deny these children food, we will know.
My colleagues, the supplemental already hurts American families by
freezing funding for education. After weeks of fighting, we have to
stick to our guns. We must give all 180,000 women, children and infants
the proper nutrition they need.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
Messrs. Livingston, McDade, Young of Florida, Regula, Lewis of
California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, Wolf, Kolbe, Packard, Callahan,
Walsh, Taylor of North Carolina, Obey, Yates, Stokes, Murtha, Sabo,
Fazio of California, Hoyer, Mollohan, Ms. Kaptur, and Ms. Pelosi.
There was no objection.

____________________